|
On November 30 2010 10:37 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:33 Half wrote:
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing.
If we accept morality is relative, and accept religion as culture, both standard nonreligious secular intellectual viewpoints, then it certainly tells us a lot about morality. And if we don't accept morality as relative, well...then it tell us even more lol.
i discussed the ethics of homosexuality in only one sentence. ill sum it up; religion is anti homosexual because it defies the law of a species survival. take it how u will, but thats bio 101
This thread is specifically not stated by the OP not to discuss that, but instead to focus on the scientific element ~_~. Also, that isn't why (christian) Religion is against Homosexuality, it's against homosexuality because God/Moses/Bible said so. The reason you gave is why a misguided Darwinist Cultist who is terribly misinformed would be against Homosexuality. and what benefit does homosexuality contribute to a species?
Jolly good fun?
|
^no really im just curious now, what benefit does homosexuality contribute to a species
|
On November 30 2010 10:25 whiteguycash wrote:
Okay, so I'm at a loss here. If we accept Darwin's theory of Evolution as truth, and assume that there are evolutionary drives for homosexuality, wouldn't homosexuality have died out long ago, seeing as sexual intercourse between two members of the same sex does not yield offspring.
Because of this conundrum, Genetics in an Evolutionary sense CANNOT be the answer. Therefore, either Evolution cannot be accepted as fact, or homosexuality as an evolved trait cannot be accepted as fact.
False dichotomy. Many has already pointed out in this thread how it can be hereditary and still remain in the population. Problem with your argument is that you actually don't know what theory of evolution actually says. Also even if it was not hereditary at all (and it seems to be partially hereditary and partially caused by early life environment in a womb mostly) it does not follow that you are not born gay, there can be other biological influences that cause it before you are born.
|
On November 30 2010 10:25 whiteguycash wrote:
Okay, so I'm at a loss here. If we accept Darwin's theory of Evolution as truth, and assume that there are evolutionary drives for homosexuality, wouldn't homosexuality have died out long ago, seeing as sexual intercourse between two members of the same sex does not yield offspring.
Because of this conundrum, Genetics in an Evolutionary sense CANNOT be the answer. Therefore, either Evolution cannot be accepted as fact, or homosexuality as an evolved trait cannot be accepted as fact.
Not true. The "gay uncle" hypothesis is basically that having a few homosexuals in a society may help that society function better than another without them. If the first society are gene-carriers homosexuality can then be selected for.
Also it excludes the fact that if a society required more children I'm sure the homosexuals of the day would have done their bit to make sure they don't die out - whilst reducing competition for women when more children are not required.
|
On November 30 2010 10:36 Masamune wrote:
I'd rather use philosophy and ethics as a guide for morality than religion.
Certain philosophy is completely with religious thought. And philosophy and ethics can be just as contradictory to science as theology.
Food for thought.
|
On November 30 2010 10:23 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
How do we come, by my logic, to the above conclusion?. The external influence you're defining is some influence that is free outside the environment; whereas mine is within the mother's womb, carefully orchestrated in an intricate system of genetic interaction.
Because you keep on parroting this, I'm assuming that I didn't express it properly, as opposed to the alternative, you can't read properly. I hope thats the case. The Hormonal balance in a mothers womb is far from free from outside influences. Her stress levels, diet, and environmental exposure all effect this balance. Amounting to an environmental influence on whether or not the properly hormonal conditions that produce homosexuality is reached. kk?
And I state over and over again, there is no such documented common denominator in the studies that were done. I admitted the need for more research, but saying it's completely due to external factors is baffling. 'Eating bananas, sleeping less, listening to ABBA, excessive salt exposure, minimal exercise causes a child to be gay'.
It has to be understood especially utero-ovarian hormones are strictly and stringently regulated via several mechanisms I explained before. It's also important to realize that almost ALL species across the world has this behavior. Therefore it is more logical to look at genomic causal relationships than purely external and the current evidence points to that direction.
Are there external influences? There certainly may be, but it's clear that if they are what causes this variation, then they certainly act on a number of genes which, in turn, through their affect or lack thereof lead to a homosexual sexual orientation. Identifying these genes, understanding their working mechanisms and importance in feotal development will then allow us to control this phenomenon. It may also be the case that, a malfunction in these genes or specific transcription sites may be the cause of it all.
Whether it's a variation causing a genetic problem or external influence (all around the world, affecting all kinds of species, highly unlikely) causing a genetic problem; it's genetic.
Note how unlikely it is that each homosexual behavior exhibiting animal in the world are affect by the same external influence.
|
Ok I read through the first page and I am very impressed. This is the first rational discussion of this topic on a serious note I have witnessed.
For my 2 cents I strongly agree with the train of thought that it's primarily a social tool for most animals. Some primate species other than ourselves such as the Bonobo exhibit a great deal of sexual behavior that is not directly related to reproduction.
The idea that ANY for of sexual contact is strictly for reproduction I believe to be deeply seeded in religious backgrounds and due to our heavy reliance on religion as a species it's part of culture. Culture is truly a powerful force.
|
On November 30 2010 10:25 Masamune wrote:
I'll answer this in a nutshell.
Homosexuality is most likely a form of kin selection. Your inclusive fitness still remains becuse your indirect fitness prospers at the expense of your direct fitness.
The definition of kin selection (from wiki): Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring.
So just like a worker bee will halt it's reproduction to help its closely related kin produce offspring that share a large amount of genes, homosexuality (at least in men; female homosexuality is a little more complicated and unclear) in humans means that a male will be gay in order to help raise his sister's and/or brothers kid's who share a large amount of genes with him as well.
There have been studies showing that the female relatives of homosexual men happen to be more fecund so it's most likely that whatever makes a man gay, makes his female relatives (specifically his sisters and mother, from an altruistic perspective) produce more offspring.
This leads to the "gay uncle" theory, whereby if you have a sister who is pumping out a bunch of kids, then you can still successively pass on your genes by helping to ensure these kids reach adulthood and propagate their genes.
Eusociality in insects has most likely evolved many times, so it's not hard to believe that homosexuality is an alternate mechanism by evolution to pass one's gene's in humans.
And there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it's just not pinpointed just like there is no pinpoint gene for the variation of intelligence in humans. It's most likely complex and has many factors occurring, including such things as epigenetics, that make it hard to really assess. However, studies have demonstrated that monozygotic twins have a higher concordance for homosexuality than do dizygotic twins, so this is pretty solid evidence for there being a genetic basis to it and not a "choice".
|
On November 30 2010 10:32 jmillz wrote:
i discussed the ethics of homosexuality in only one sentence. ill sum it up; religion is anti homosexual because it defies the law of a species survival. take it how u will, but thats bio 101
no it does not defy
|
On November 30 2010 10:39 jmillz wrote:
^no really im just curious now, what benefit does homosexuality contribute to a species
Maybe it doesn't contribute any benefit.
But how many of our behaviors do contribute?(very few)
The point is evolution isn't perfect and doesn't and can't create a "perfect" species, with every flaw taken out.
|
On November 30 2010 10:42 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:25 Masamune wrote:
I'll answer this in a nutshell.
Homosexuality is most likely a form of kin selection. Your inclusive fitness still remains becuse your indirect fitness prospers at the expense of your direct fitness.
The definition of kin selection (from wiki): Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring.
So just like a worker bee will halt it's reproduction to help its closely related kin produce offspring that share a large amount of genes, homosexuality (at least in men; female homosexuality is a little more complicated and unclear) in humans means that a male will be gay in order to help raise his sister's and/or brothers kid's who share a large amount of genes with him as well.
There have been studies showing that the female relatives of homosexual men happen to be more fecund so it's most likely that whatever makes a man gay, makes his female relatives (specifically his sisters and mother, from an altruistic perspective) produce more offspring.
This leads to the "gay uncle" theory, whereby if you have a sister who is pumping out a bunch of kids, then you can still successively pass on your genes by helping to ensure these kids reach adulthood and propagate their genes.
Eusociality in insects has most likely evolved many times, so it's not hard to believe that homosexuality is an alternate mechanism by evolution to pass one's gene's in humans.
And there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it's just not pinpointed just like there is no pinpoint gene for the variation of intelligence in humans. It's most likely complex and has many factors occurring, including such things as epigenetics, that make it hard to really assess. However, studies have demonstrated that monozygotic twins have a higher concordance for homosexuality than do dizygotic twins, so this is pretty solid evidence for there being a genetic basis to it and not a "choice".
Yes most intelligent people in this thread are already aware of the gay uncle theory.
Any kind of "hard science" proof besides your intuition based on your cultural perception of gay people?
|
Ok, so let me preface this by saying that I am not a science student and I don't know that much about genetics. But I remember reading about this theory in a book, and it made sense to me so I'll write it out here for discussion. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can shed some light on why it may be true, or why it is complete bullshit and I shouldn't be posting in this thread =/
Also, I know this SOUNDS like a horrible example, but it's only being used to explain the principle, rather than say there is anything wrong or problematic with being homosexual. It's just a way to explain the fact that homosexuality persists despite the fact that from an evolutionary perspective it is actually counter-productive to the survival of the species.
Okay, so the basic theory is that homosexuality is an offshoot of some trait which is incredibly beneficial to the human race. For example, let's say that there is a gene which only 2% of men have. This gene gives them "super sperm" so that any time they get a woman pregnant, she will have twins, and barring all other factors, both babies will be really strong and intelligent. This gene is clearly beneficial to the human race, and processes of natural selection will ensure that it gets passed down.
However, this gene also has a side effect. Of the 2% of men who have this gene, 1 out of every 100 will spontaneously combust upon reaching the age of 15. This effect cannot be stopped. But natural selection looks at the benefit to the entire race rather than to any single individual. So although 1 out of every 100 individuals gets "sacrificed", the gene still brings a net benefit to the human race, so it will continue to be passed on and never die out. Obviously the gene brings negative consequences for the individuals who spontaneously combust, but it persists because of the underlying overall benefit. But the only thing we see is "what's up with all these kids exploding, it makes no genetic sense" because we can't see the full picture.
So the argument is that homosexuality is the side effect of some other, unknown genetic trait which is really beneficial to human survival. Let me reiterate the fact that this is by NO MEANS an attack on homosexuality, it's just a theory...
|
On November 30 2010 10:37 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:33 Half wrote:
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing.
If we accept morality is relative, and accept religion as culture, both standard nonreligious secular intellectual viewpoints, then it certainly tells us a lot about morality. And if we don't accept morality as relative, well...then it tell us even more lol.
i discussed the ethics of homosexuality in only one sentence. ill sum it up; religion is anti homosexual because it defies the law of a species survival. take it how u will, but thats bio 101
This thread is specifically not stated by the OP not to discuss that, but instead to focus on the scientific element ~_~. Also, that isn't why (christian) Religion is against Homosexuality, it's against homosexuality because God/Moses/Bible said so. The reason you gave is why a misguided Darwinist Cultist who is terribly misinformed would be against Homosexuality. and what benefit does homosexuality contribute to a species?
Maybe none but it doesn't need to.
Edit: ninja'd by happyness
|
I know this is the wrong thread but I can't find a computer thread/make blogs yet so I'll ask it here (please forgive me :p)
Can this computer run sc2 on high without any problems?
Processor:AMD Athlon II 250 3.0 GHz
Hard drive: 1 TB
OS: Windows 7
5 gigs Ram
ATI Radeon HD 4200 integrated graphics card.
Will this also be able to run black ops?
User was banned for this post.
|
the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction.
and how does that relate to homosexuality? what ur suggesting is simply a social behavior to ensure the survivability of the species, not through reproduction but care taking. a sterile female insect will help their mother in production of additional offspring, well shit dude their fucking sterile.
do these animals who neglect to reproduce do so their whole life and do they have sexual drives towards the same sex? ur trying to relate to two completely different things.
|
On November 30 2010 10:44 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:42 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:25 Masamune wrote:
I'll answer this in a nutshell.
Homosexuality is most likely a form of kin selection. Your inclusive fitness still remains becuse your indirect fitness prospers at the expense of your direct fitness.
The definition of kin selection (from wiki): Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring.
So just like a worker bee will halt it's reproduction to help its closely related kin produce offspring that share a large amount of genes, homosexuality (at least in men; female homosexuality is a little more complicated and unclear) in humans means that a male will be gay in order to help raise his sister's and/or brothers kid's who share a large amount of genes with him as well.
There have been studies showing that the female relatives of homosexual men happen to be more fecund so it's most likely that whatever makes a man gay, makes his female relatives (specifically his sisters and mother, from an altruistic perspective) produce more offspring.
This leads to the "gay uncle" theory, whereby if you have a sister who is pumping out a bunch of kids, then you can still successively pass on your genes by helping to ensure these kids reach adulthood and propagate their genes.
Eusociality in insects has most likely evolved many times, so it's not hard to believe that homosexuality is an alternate mechanism by evolution to pass one's gene's in humans.
And there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it's just not pinpointed just like there is no pinpoint gene for the variation of intelligence in humans. It's most likely complex and has many factors occurring, including such things as epigenetics, that make it hard to really assess. However, studies have demonstrated that monozygotic twins have a higher concordance for homosexuality than do dizygotic twins, so this is pretty solid evidence for there being a genetic basis to it and not a "choice". Yes most intelligent people in this thread are already aware of the gay uncle theory. Any kind of "hard science" proof besides your intuition based on your cultural perception of gay people.
what the hell does this even mean?
|
On November 30 2010 10:51 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:44 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:42 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:25 Masamune wrote:
I'll answer this in a nutshell.
Homosexuality is most likely a form of kin selection. Your inclusive fitness still remains becuse your indirect fitness prospers at the expense of your direct fitness.
The definition of kin selection (from wiki): Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring.
So just like a worker bee will halt it's reproduction to help its closely related kin produce offspring that share a large amount of genes, homosexuality (at least in men; female homosexuality is a little more complicated and unclear) in humans means that a male will be gay in order to help raise his sister's and/or brothers kid's who share a large amount of genes with him as well.
There have been studies showing that the female relatives of homosexual men happen to be more fecund so it's most likely that whatever makes a man gay, makes his female relatives (specifically his sisters and mother, from an altruistic perspective) produce more offspring.
This leads to the "gay uncle" theory, whereby if you have a sister who is pumping out a bunch of kids, then you can still successively pass on your genes by helping to ensure these kids reach adulthood and propagate their genes.
Eusociality in insects has most likely evolved many times, so it's not hard to believe that homosexuality is an alternate mechanism by evolution to pass one's gene's in humans.
And there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it's just not pinpointed just like there is no pinpoint gene for the variation of intelligence in humans. It's most likely complex and has many factors occurring, including such things as epigenetics, that make it hard to really assess. However, studies have demonstrated that monozygotic twins have a higher concordance for homosexuality than do dizygotic twins, so this is pretty solid evidence for there being a genetic basis to it and not a "choice". Yes most intelligent people in this thread are already aware of the gay uncle theory. Any kind of "hard science" proof besides your intuition based on your cultural perception of gay people. what the hell does this even mean?
I left out a question mark >.< on the last sentence.
Basically you've presented a relevant theory, and expect us to take it as fact with no evidence but a few intuitive relationships.
|
I can't contribute anything to the scientific 'meat' of this discussion, because it's not my area of study, but I am however a little bewildered by the OP's general approach regarding this thread.
@mikado: Why did you make this thread? Your OP contains a whole bunch of absolute statements. You seem convinced that your sources are the best and that others offered are just invalid/unconvincing and you generally haven't moved an inch on any of the proposals raised.
You basically look like you've already made up your mind and merely want to prove it to others without being prepared to move on it. You would think the whole point of making a thread was to foster discussion (for the purposes of developing a viewpoint further) but I swear every post you make just seems so dismissive.
|
Doesn't this stand against everything about evolution? If someone was born having evolved the homosexual trait, they wouldn't reproduce (being attracted to the same gender) and the trait would die out, as often happens in non-optimal evolutionary traits.
I only see homosexuality working as an evolutionary trait if it first appeared in a woman, who was later raped and had to give birth to someone who then had the homosexuality trait suppressed by other genes and spread it.
No one is denying that homosexuality is in itself an evolutionary disadvantage. However, it is possible that the same gene(or genes) that give someone a predisposition to homosexual/bisexual behavior may also i some cases provide a benefit.
A good example of this is the sickle-cell trait. The homogeneous version causes sickle-cell anemia, and is likely fatal. However, if someone gets the heterogeneous version, they have the sickle cell trait and are more resistant to malaria.
That being said, I am not aware of any scientific study that has conclusively shown this to be the case in homosexuality and sister fertility, though there is some evidence that it is a potential link.
Any scientific theory of homosexuality should be able to explain the following observations:
1) Persistence of orientation from puberty
2) Genetically identical twins can have different orientations
3) bisexuality and apparent continuum of orientations
4) presence of homosexual behavior in animals
5) frequency of homosexuality/bisexuality in the population given apparent evolutionary disadvantage(5-10% of the general population by most estimatesGallup)
I have found most theories can explain some of these observations, but not all. The pure genetic argument can explain 1 and 4, but not the rest. The"its just a lifestyle choice" can explain 2, but not 1.
The hardest to explain are 3 and 5. The problem with the more fertile sister argument is the presence of homosexuality in women. The hypothesis is that the evolutionary disadvantage in males is counteracted by the gene making women who get it more fertile. Why doesn't it make them lesbians? Or is homosexuality in women a completely different gene combination? And this doesn't explain the evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality in women as straight men with gay sisters are not observed to be more fertile.
|
On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:42 L wrote:
The evolutionary drive towards homosexuality is incredibly clear on a genetic level. Past looking statistics show that for the majority of human life, 80% of women pass on their genes, whereas only 40% of men pass on theirs. The resulting glut of young, socially constrained males normally leads to increases in intra-species violence and fighting as a result. Subsequently, forces which reduce and pacify lower level males become a net benefit at the group level as members of the society are removed from the competition to become sexually successful, much like menopause does.
Grandmother effect, in essence. that or you have no idea wtf your talking about.
You should probably look up the social enabling factor behind menopause, given that menopause is a genetic deadend on the individual level, but a massive benefit in terms of group selection. Homosexuality, similarly, provides a similar release from the narrow focus of sexual competition, which allows for groups of individuals to have alternative priority structures and thus multi-faceted sets of skills and capabilities.
Beyond human 'production' on the genetic level, there are other ways to significantly reduce group selection on a larger level. The key non-chronic culling agents acting on human populations have been lack of resources (mainly 1) food), 2) war and 3) disease. During tribal living, human density was directly corelated with a group's ability to obtain 1) up until the point where the local area's carrying capacity was overshot. Trade with large dense societies that had a surplus of 1) (which typically meant a society with domesticated animals) typically resulted in increased levels of 3) as dissimilar groups don't share common herd immunities. In the worst scenarios, wars of aggression occur to capture new resources to continue growth. More common, however, is the capture of breeding rights inside of groups by higher status males, leading to chronic social problems as men are cast out of the group to reduce competition. In certain cases, organization and violence become the standard response. Ducks, for instance, deal with this intra-male competition over valuable mating rights by growing gigantic corkscrew penises. Rams run into each other. Bee drones go to the point of dying while their junk is used as a plug to prevent other drones from competing after copulation.
Non-reproductive members of society, however, reduce the rate at which populations grow while providing benefits to a group's ability to forage for or cultivate food, as well as provides physical force with which to reduce the threat of outside violence which gives a group protection against all three factors, and similarly reduces the level of competition needed for males to become genetically successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
