|
What are the evolutionary drives of homosexuality?
As a medical student, this question has always been in the back of my mind since my first encounter with Darwin's evolutionary theory and my acceptance of it in light of all the knowledge I had gained. The scientific literature seems to vaguely classify this line of thought as 'somewhat paradoxical' and I thought it'd be a good brain-storming topic to discuss with other inquiring and scientific minds.
First of all, this thread has no room for religious input; religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it. I'm only interested in scientific schools of thought, in line with the theory of evolution.
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns.
I encourage you to consider the following before you propose what evolutionary mechanisms might be behind homosexuality and why it's not being removed from the gene pool due to the apparent and obvious challenge it poses to the perpetuation of our species and, in fact, others:
Homosexuality is the biological drive and the performance of same-sex coitus.
It is observed in many species of animals other than Humans.
Sexuality is not a chosen preference.
Homosexuality as a side effect of increased sex drive (not exactly the case with humans).
Homosexuality as an adaptive response to remove competitors from seeking partners of opposite sex (not the case with humans)
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully?
and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg
|
As a senior BSNRN student, the only thing influencing my opinion on homosexuality is this:
Some homosexual males have a corpus colossum that is very large. Normally a thicker corpus colossum is seen only in the female brain, I find this very interesting.
It seems that in some cases of homosexuality- a physical change has taken place inside of the male body, and thus he can become 'gay.'
As for the evolutionary theory:
Homosexual acts are sometimes used in the animal kingdom to:
1. Increase social bonds
2. Help to diffuse heated social interactions
Species that exhibit these traits: A certain species of ram, some primates, big cats, dolphins ext
|
On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully? and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg
you cry when idra loses?
|
Is it seen in species do not copulate for pleasure (beyond the occasional mistaken identity which is common in bees and whatnot)?
|
Homosexuality's innate characteristics (in which it discourages procreation with the opposite sex) indicates that it may not be closely related to heredity. [I'm unsure if you have any studies that suggest sexuality is linked to heredity, but if you do, would you mind linking them in the OP?]
Not everything is directly determined by heredity, there are many other factors at play, even just random mutations that may lead to the homosexuality (the cause of homosexuality hasn't been pinpointed, as far as I know).
Edit: Actually, are you asking about genetics in general or heredity specifically? (since 'genes' can sort of describe both)
|
I heard on a podcast recently a theory that homosexuality is a result of promiscuity in women. Essentially, women were genetically predisposed to promiscuity when disease and mortality rates increased, due to their need to reproduce. With medical breakthroughs, life expectancy is longer and we are "safer," but this genetic code is still passed down, causing children to be increasingly promiscuous, possibly not discriminating in their sexual partners.
Obviously you can argue homosexuality as nature vs. nurture, or a number of other ways. Not saying I believe in this theory, just thought it was interesting.
|
On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully? and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg
You are being too specific. You are getting upset about someone or something you care about which is quite reasonable to assume might have some evolutionary advantages.
I do not quite agree that all behavior lies in the genes even though most of it can be explained through genes. How these genetic traits we have are exposed as we grow up and how we learn things will have an affect as well.
OnTopic: There mustn't be an evolutionary drive for homosexuality as long as homosexuals also has the desire to have kids which they do. It seems to be a natural variation among many species. There might be and I don't know what that advantage would be but just saying that there mustn't necessarily be one as long as it isn't either an evolutionary disadvantage (like not wanting to reproduce) or perhaps a common gene mutation of some sort.
|
On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully? and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg
Good troll. I won't go into how genes influence development of organs and functions thereof via homeostatic pathway regulations at numerous levels (and those in even different levels such as endocrine, neuronal or neuroendcrinal) second messenger coupling system efficiency, and bunch other only someone who studied them would understand.
Primal urges such as the sexual drive are governed by organ development at different levels, hormones and other inputs, all of which are regulated by gene activity.
On November 30 2010 07:52 Ramiel wrote:
As a senior BSNRN student, the only thing influencing my opinion on homosexuality is this:
Some homosexual males have a corpus colossum that is very large. Normally a thicker corpus colossum is seen only in the female brain, I find this very interesting.
It seems that in some cases of homosexuality- a physical change has taken place inside of the male body, and thus he can become 'gay.'
Yes, also the hypothalamus of homosexual individuals is notably bigger than those of heterosexuals. Another causal relationship between homosexuality and genes I suppose.
On November 30 2010 07:54 w_Ender_w wrote:
Is it seen in species do not copulate for pleasure (beyond the occasional mistaken identity which is common in bees and whatnot)?
Yes, some species copulate for pleasure, some species of birds if I'm not mistaken, as do macaques.
|
The following is just guesswork but it seems reasonable to me.
Wouldn't any set of parents contain the genes for both female and male attraction and any child could inherit either, like hair or eye color? If it's a natural genetic variation from any straight parents there would be no way for natural selection to actively select against the gene combination?
|
On November 30 2010 07:55 Ichabod wrote:
Homosexuality's innate characteristics (in which it discourages procreation with the opposite sex) indicates that it may not be closely related to heredity. [I'm unsure if you have any studies that suggest sexuality is linked to heredity, but if you do, would you mind linking them in the OP?]
Not everything is directly determined by heredity, there are many other factors at play, even just random mutations that may lead to the homosexuality (the cause of homosexuality hasn't been pinpointed, as far as I know).
As it's observed in numerous animal species and also in humans, it's evolved out of Darwinian natural selection somehow.
The obvious links of genes-to-behaviour of species (organs development, hormonal regulation; hypothalamus size in humans and therefore hormone differences in homosexuals and heterosexuals in FSH, LH and gonadotrophin hormones, etc) infers that it must be genetic (whether it's transmitted in heterozygous/homozygous passive/dominant fashion or in a completely different form of gene transmission yet to be discovered, is still in question however).
But the simplest way of looking at it; biological phenomena-->genetic heredity.
The question is, why has it not been rooted out of the genomes of species because of its obvious disadvantages?
|
That's a good point. Possibly correct too. But somehow I still feel like my butt is an "exit only" zone.
Anyways, back to being scientific (as much as a moron like me can be). I'd like to bite on the "Homosexuality as a side effect of increased sex drive (not exactly the case with humans)" point of view, coz I feel like there is something correct in it.
With all that evolution that's going on right now, it seems pretty logical. Humans mature earlier and they're a lot more ... open (?!) to all sorts of behaviors and conditions. Having said that thou, I do feel like it's not as much a case of pure evolution, but rather technology driven sex drive.
Why so ? Well, the freedom of speech gave us Playboy and Hustler. The ability to see moving and talking pictures inside a box (see that as Television), gave us the ability to capture our very intimate moments to review it later and be aroused by it. That sparked off a lot of sex-related fantasies and so on. Then plastics came along and gave us "toys" or simply tools to enhance our sexual experience, drive and passion.
Now you'll be right to correct me and say that homosexuality has been around since prolly Day 1 of humanity, but all that technology, made it a lot more accessible. And that is important.
With the advance of all the technology, people started to depend on it. Teenagers listening to music, watching videos on MTV and all that good and normal jazz that they do. We all did it, right ? So where's the difference ? Why now they seems to be a lot more homo- and bi-sexual individuals then before ? Or are they ? To me they are a lot more nowdays. Reason is simple.
Sex sales ! Back in the 80s and 90s, growing up kids were getting aroused by seeing Sandra's cleavage, while nowdays, kids are flooded with almost naked bodies from the screens. And I'm not entirely sure that they're getting the same kick out of it, as my generation back in the days for example. Could be just me thou.
So - maturing earlier, getting flooded with sex from all your surroundings ... Kinda answers itself I guess. Getting into sex earlier, means in 99% of the cases that you're not exactly matured enough for it, but yet, you keep driving yourself into it, because everyone around you thinks "it's great". And when you're that young and into sex, you don't always understand what's happening with your body or why is it happening. That leads to you, trying to figure out different things in sex that make you feel ... different for example.
Point is, we're getting driven into and by sex from all around us, so there's no surprise that humanity is taking a huge dive into understanding its sexuality. You can even go into extreme and call it "a fashion statement" if you want, because nowdays, a lot of the homosexuals are just extremely sex driven, as are insatiable hunger for sex. That will take a real evolution to be figured out (note : not "to be cured out" or "to be ridden out").
|
On November 30 2010 08:03 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully? and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg Primal urges such as the sexual drive are governed by organ development at different levels, hormones and other inputs, all of which are regulated by gene activity.
But you didn't say primal urges. You said:
As with every psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
You said to explain every psychological behavior one must turn to genetics. Please revise the op?
|
On November 30 2010 08:09 Asur wrote:
The following is just guesswork but it seems reasonable to me.
Wouldn't any set of parents contain the genes for both female and male attraction and any child could inherit either, like hair or eye color? If it's a natural genetic variation from any straight parents there would be no way for natural selection to actively select against the gene combination?
Successive generations (given there's no use for the gene) would see that gene suppressed, inactivated or deleted. The genes for gills for example, we evolved out of those.
|
is this allowed?
+ Show Spoiler +
i honestly believe that gayness comes from a lack of sexness with girls, and too much curiousity in when a man finds out he finds other men attractive and starts to look deeper into it, the other half dont look deeper into it and remain straight, its that simple. now with all the media okaying it and stuff, people are more comfortable, yet afraid but more likely to pursue gayness!
donno if i even answered a proper question but thats my theory on why people are gay. its not a bad thing, its just the way shit happens man simple as that.
|
On November 30 2010 08:13 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:03 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully? and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg Primal urges such as the sexual drive are governed by organ development at different levels, hormones and other inputs, all of which are regulated by gene activity. But you didn't say primal urges. You said: Show nested quote +As with every psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics. You said to explain every psychological behavior one must turn to genetics. Please revise the op?
No, what I say stands correct. Every thought process if essentially integrated from primal urges. Thoughts are biological outputs, they don't come out of nowhere. They, therefore, are governed by genes at the very basic level.
Don't nitpick what I say, contribute to the topic or get out 
|
Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this
"As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics
or this
Sexuality is not a chosen preference.
I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far.
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
Homosexuality as a side effect of increased sex drive (not exactly the case with humans).
Though not as scientific as the rest of this thread, I feel I have to chime in on this. In my experience I've come across a few college students that had gay relationships because of the conscious decision that only another man would share their elevated sex drive.
If you can't find a chick that wants to have sex every day of the week, find another guy.
|
On November 30 2010 08:03 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:54 w_Ender_w wrote:
Is it seen in species do not copulate for pleasure (beyond the occasional mistaken identity which is common in bees and whatnot)? Yes, some species copulate for pleasure, some species of birds if I'm not mistaken, as do macaques.
Sorry, either I wasn't clear or there was some misunderstanding. I meant that I was wondering if you see homosexuality in animals that DO NOT copulate for pleasure.
If you don't really see it in species that do not copulate for pleasure, then the evolutionary drive could plausibly be explained as a social or cultural trait among social species. It wouldn't need to deal with procreation at all.
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument.
Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement.
|
On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement.
He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religious dogma.
But of course the OP is kind of a pretentious and silly, but for different reasons.
As with every psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
Environment???
|
On November 30 2010 08:03 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully? and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg Good troll. I won't go into how genes influence development of organs and functions thereof via homeostatic pathway regulations at numerous levels (and those in even different levels such as endocrine, neuronal or neuroendcrinal) second messenger coupling system efficiency, and bunch other only someone who studied them would understand.
Don't be a prick. If you're gonna open a thread like this at least be prepared to explain your arguments to people, not just list them in a cute way and hope that they sound complex enough to make people make you as a great mind and take for granted what you say.
If you can't explain what you just wrote in a simpler way to someone not educated in the matter then it seems to me you dont really know it at all.
|
On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this Show nested quote +"As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far.
I'll do this once for the sake of promoting more intelligent discussion but this isn't a thesis committee platform. I'm not going to dig into every article I can get my hands on to and try to gather evidence for what I say for hours. This is an internet discussion, not much to it. (2+2=4? evidence??)
But here you go:
"There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice"
De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17.
Within the article are cited several studies.
Also, have a look at this, cites a lot of studies and journal articles.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/paradoxEvolution.html
|
On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma.
You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined with religion, and no, not their dogmas.
To make religion and a "discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence" mutually exclusive seems a rather bold move, no pun intended, and you're better be prepared to argument why they are so.
|
homosexual behaviour is seen throughout the animal kingdom, the only difference with humans is that our society distinguishes that behaviour from another.
A male frog can have sex with another male frog and all that will happen is no pro-creation. The frog does not have to worry about how the other frogs will judge him, it just happens. Frogs have actually developed a special call for when a another male frog attempts to have sex with it that basically says "you're wasting your time". But it has no social context, it is simply natural behaviour.
Humans need to label everything and disginguish between "normal" and "abnormal" in every aspect of the universe. We recently demoted Pluto to being a dwarf planet and people were appauled, Pluto doesn't care what we call it, we only label things for our own benefit so we can order the universe into groups that we can understand.
200 years ago is was not uncommon for homosexual sex to take place in communal baths, they did not label it as homosexual sex, simply as sex. Times changed and people labeled that behaviour as wrong, so now we live in a society attemtping to correct this decision.
There doesn't need to be an evolutionary reason for homoxsexuality, though there likely is some deep evolutionary process at work. Random genetic variation and mutation is the very basis of evolution and from what most of the credible sources i have come across say, homosexuality is very likely hard coded into your genes. Those who are like myself and bi-sexual also surely have a slightly different genetic variation that may or may not be advantagous to the species. We can not predict the future of our evolution.
The question about homosexuality is one of social evolution and not biological evolution, there has always been gay people else there would have been no reason for ancient cultures to have pointed out the behaviour as "abnormal". I was going to use a religious reference to make a point here, but i think you can see where i was going.
Anyways, I don't see why we have to label anyone as straight, bi or homosexual. I honestly don't think of myself as bi-sexual, only as sexual. If I find someone attractive then why shouldn't I enjoy having sex with them? Why should anyone else care?
|
On November 30 2010 08:28 night terrors wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma. You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined by religion, and no, not their dogmas.
Why are you purposely misinterpreting my arguments?
Unless you're arguing that the mathematics that predict the movement of the planets can be directly determined through religious text or logic
If you are, I'd love to hear that one lol.
|
I believe it's more scientific to say we have a "gay gene" than it is to say we have a "selfish gene" 
Seriously tho. I think sexual preference is both genetic and environmental. The environmental causes should be obvious for most, I don't think I need to explain. As for the genetics, from my personal observation. I think many of us will testify (myself included) to have met friends who seemed more feminine than other men since the age of 5 or so. When it's really hard to believe they might have been influenced by environment. And then many years later that friend would turn out to assume being gay indeed. I'm sure I'm not the only one who have seen this happen.
For this reason. If I had to bet, I would put my money that there is some genetic influence on sexual preference.
Pure anecdotal I know. But it's the best I've got. Certainly genetics influence on the amount of male and female hormones we produce. And then maybe those will influence sexual preference. That's probably the best hypothesis I can come up with.
|
On November 30 2010 08:24 w_Ender_w wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:03 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 07:54 w_Ender_w wrote:
Is it seen in species do not copulate for pleasure (beyond the occasional mistaken identity which is common in bees and whatnot)? Yes, some species copulate for pleasure, some species of birds if I'm not mistaken, as do macaques. Sorry, either I wasn't clear or there was some misunderstanding. I meant that I was wondering if you see homosexuality in animals that DO NOT copulate for pleasure. If you don't really see it in species that do not copulate for pleasure, then the evolutionary drive could plausibly be explained as a social or cultural trait among social species. It wouldn't need to deal with procreation at all.
I see your point but only a limited number of species observed copulate for pleasure as I understand it.
|
First of all, when taking the evolutionary perspepctive, you must acknowledge that not every behavior must be "necessary" to fitness. Behaviors can also manifest if they are not detrimental to reproduction in a population. It is important o note that I am talking abut a population here since, obviously, homosexuality is detrimental to individual reproduction.
Lets us assume that every person born has the same chance of being homosexual independent of those genetic characteristics that are relevant to reproduction, then you can explain why homosexuality persisted. The question, then, is whether it is possible that sexual preference is independent of most genetic aspects that are relevant to reproductive success.
Alternative idea: maybe sexual preference is not genetic in the classic sense but still innate. Current theories of prenatal development state that a childs sexual development in the uterus is mainly influenced by the amount of estrogen and testosterone it is confronted with. If we assume that the level sof the sexual homrmoes a child is exposed to are random variables and that certain extreme combinations may lead to same-sex-preference one can again conclude that homosexual preferences can remain stable in a population if the prenatal levels of hormones are independent of genetic traits associated with reprodictive success.
tl,dr: If sexual preference is distributed randomly and independent of genetic traits associated with reproductive ssuccess, homosexually is evolutionary stable in a population.
|
On November 30 2010 08:31 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:28 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma. You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined by religion, and no, not their dogmas. Why are you purposely misinterpreting my arguments? Unless you're arguing that the mathematics that predict the movement of the planets can be directly determined through religious text or logic If you are, I'd love to hear that one lol.
Howhave i 'purposely' misinterpreted (is that even possible?) your arguement?
How does what I said relate to the example you've mentioned?
You do realize that Cosmology is not exclusively physics or mathematics? Its a really diverse area of study in which religion sometimes plays a large role in the direction studies take.
|
On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17.
LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times.
"To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality."
- Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995
|
On November 30 2010 08:33 night terrors wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:31 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma. You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined by religion, and no, not their dogmas. Why are you purposely misinterpreting my arguments? Unless you're arguing that the mathematics that predict the movement of the planets can be directly determined through religious text or logic If you are, I'd love to hear that one lol. How does what I said relate to the example you've mentioned? You do realize that Cosmology is not exclusively physics or mathematics? Its a really diverse area of study in which religion sometimes plays a large role in the direction studies take.
You do realize you can't read?
He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence.
This discussion is purposely framed around questions that can be answered, provided enough information, through the deductive scientific method, its cosmological equivalent being the hard math and observed phenomenon.
|
On November 30 2010 08:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Current theories of prenatal development state that a childs sexual development in the uterus is mainly influenced by the amount of estrogen and testosterone it is confronted with. If we assume that the level sof the sexual homrmoes a child is exposed to are random variables and that certain extreme combinations may lead to same-sex-preference one can again conclude that homosexual preferences can remain stable in a population if the prenatal levels of hormones are independent of genetic traits associated with reprodictive success.
This is actually the theory I was taught- which would indicate that sexual orientation is governed more by prenatal hormones than genetics.
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
It is observed in many species of animals other than Humans.
Sexuality is not a chosen preference. Now that I think about it. Could anyone give one example of homosexuality on other animals that is exclusively homosexual and not bisexual? I mean, if you raise two male dogs together they will inevitably hump each other. But if after years of humping each other you introduce a female, they will hump the female as well. I don't remember seeing or hearing about any animal that will specifically only hump males and not females. Which makes me believe that it's indeed a chosen preference due to human social interactions which are not present on other animals.
Or am I wrong?
|
On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995
Quick to quote the unedited version of the post there, but nevertheless there is no such evidence; within that article several studies are also cited.
Your choice of quotee, Richard Lewontin also said;
The psychic and physical characteristics of human beings, and the differences between individuals, are the consequence of an interaction between the genes that are present in the fertilized egg and the sequence of environmental circumstances that the developing organism experiences during its life cycle.There are, morever, random events in cell growth and differentiation that are neither genetic nor environmental in the usual sense, and which play an extremely important part in development, especially in behavioral traits.
He is an evolutionary biologist.
|
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.
|
On November 30 2010 08:36 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:33 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:31 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma. You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined by religion, and no, not their dogmas. Why are you purposely misinterpreting my arguments? Unless you're arguing that the mathematics that predict the movement of the planets can be directly determined through religious text or logic If you are, I'd love to hear that one lol. How does what I said relate to the example you've mentioned? You do realize that Cosmology is not exclusively physics or mathematics? Its a really diverse area of study in which religion sometimes plays a large role in the direction studies take. You do realize you can't read? Show nested quote +He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. This discussion is purposely framed around questions that can be answered, provided enough information, through the deductive scientific method, its cosmological equivalent being the hard math and observed phenomenon.
I contend that exactly what you've quoted of him saying is inadequate. He is saying that it has no place. Im saying that is not so. Religion often has part in this area precisely because the human beings behind that are not machines which execute hard math and are capable of some sort of objecive analysis of the "observed phenomenom". You will find that many times religion has a part in these discussions. Im not saying that this discussion should be headed by religion. Im saying that that statement and a few others along his post make me cringe.
|
I strongly disagree with this new wave motion that every choice people make must be traced back to some Gene, I'm a firm believer in nurture over nature. Who you are is a direct result of the way you were raised and the events in your life and how you chose to deal with/associate them.
|
On November 30 2010 08:41 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995 Quick to quote the unedited version of the post there, but nevertheless there is no such evidence; within that article several studies are also cited. Your choice of quotee, Richard Lewontin also said; The psychic and physical characteristics of human beings, and the differences between individuals, are the consequence of an interaction between the genes that are present in the fertilized egg and the sequence of environmental circumstances that the developing organism experiences during its life cycle.There are, morever, random events in cell growth and differentiation that are neither genetic nor environmental in the usual sense, and which play an extremely important part in development, especially in behavioral traits.He is an evolutionary biologist.
Right- I've read many Lewontin/Gould books and dozens of articles. That quotation affirms my conclusion. Let me know if you need me to bold some parts and stuff.
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
First of all, this thread has no room for religious input; religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it. I'm only interested in scientific schools of thought, in line with the theory of evolution.
This kind of stuff just makes me lol.
OMG NOONE WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN IS RELIGIOUS. OMG I'M SO SMART. SHEEPLE, THAT'S ALL YOU RELIGIONFAGS ARE. CAN'T YOU OPEN YOUR MIND AND SEE????? CRUSADES INQUISITION SALEM GALILEO!!!1!! OMG RELIGION IS THE CAUSE OF ALL PROBLEMS ON EARTH!!11!1!
And i'm done here. But I just basically capsulating 99% of the internet's "free-thinkers" when it comes to crap like this.
Ps, I know what you were trying to say, which,(I hope) was merely meant to provoke discussion on its evolutionary traits, not turn into a right/wrong thread. It's worded poorly if that is the case though.
|
On November 30 2010 08:41 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
It is observed in many species of animals other than Humans.
Sexuality is not a chosen preference. Now that I think about it. Could anyone give one example of homosexuality on other animals that is exclusively homosexual and not bisexual? I mean, if you raise two male dogs together they will inevitably hump each other. But if after years of humping each other you introduce a female, they will hump the female as well. I don't remember seeing or hearing about any animal that will specifically only hump males and not females. Which makes me believe that it's indeed a chosen preference due to human social interactions which are not present on other animals. Or am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070929090349/http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/021105penguins.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Sexuality is certainly innate, whether genetic or due to say, conditions in the womb, and not a choice. Let's remember that a gene may perform multiple functions, and that multiple genes may influence the same things. That being said, then homosexuality might be a random but inevitable convergence of healthy genes.
|
There are effectively 3 explanations based on observed phenomenon. The OP is correct in saying their is a genetic drive for homosexuality accounted for in those theories. I will discuss the 2 with the most support.
1) Heterozygous character offers an evolutionary advantage. Like sickle cell trait in malaria-endemic areas of Africa and the Mediterranean, or iron retention (Feochromotosis heterozygotes) in Scandanavia, the cluster of genetic factors involved in homosexuality may offer some evolutionary advantage with regards to heterozygotes. Homosexuality is a byproduct of homozygotes for this reason and an acceptable evolutionary cost to confer advantage to a larger population. This is reasonable but the evidence is less clear.
2) The trait, while reproductively harmful to the individual, provides a greater advantage to the community, and so is evolutionarily favored. The benefits must always outweigh the costs to be evolutionarily supported. As evidenced by the observations of homosexuality in sheep, in particular, the prevalence of homosexual males within a herd is associated with greater reproductive success than those without homosexual males present or with an overabundance.
|
On November 30 2010 08:42 night terrors wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:36 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:33 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:31 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 08:27 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 08:25 night terrors wrote:On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns
You made me cringe when you said religious thought had no place in the sceintific mind. Philosophy of Religion and Cosmology are particularly intertwined with religion. Thats not even considering non-christian/catholic religions, which I asume are on the base of your argument. Then you completely lost me on that quote. There is no way I can see you can even come close to support such an arguement. Nice strawman bro. He never said that. He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. Perhaps you're right religion is what drove men to understand the movement of the Stars, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of the stars is not governed by religios dogma. You're wrong to asume that religion can only be religious dogma. Cosmology and Philosophy of Religion, quite current areas of study, are heavily intertwined by religion, and no, not their dogmas. Why are you purposely misinterpreting my arguments? Unless you're arguing that the mathematics that predict the movement of the planets can be directly determined through religious text or logic If you are, I'd love to hear that one lol. How does what I said relate to the example you've mentioned? You do realize that Cosmology is not exclusively physics or mathematics? Its a really diverse area of study in which religion sometimes plays a large role in the direction studies take. You do realize you can't read? He said religious thought had no place in a discussion about the scientific rational behind an occurrence. This discussion is purposely framed around questions that can be answered, provided enough information, through the deductive scientific method, its cosmological equivalent being the hard math and observed phenomenon. I contend that exactly what you've quoted of him saying is inadequate. He is saying that it has no place. Im saying that is not so. Religion often has part in this area precisely because the human beings behind that are not machines which execute hard math and are capable of some sort of objecive analysis of the "observed phenomenom". You will find that many times religion has a part in these discussions. Im not saying that this discussion should be headed by religion. Im saying that that statement and a few others along his post make me cringe.
Stop being thick ~_~, I get the feeling you understand what I'm saying, but keep on dodging it through long winded and irrelevant explanations.
If you can't quantify it down to observed behavior or evidence, then it isn't what the OP intended in this thread. Religion may play a part in science when it comes down to classifying or making judgments or developing precepts. It does not however, play a part in confirming or disproving theory empirically, which is what this thread is based around.
|
On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995
LOL @ quoting 15 year old studies.
Anyways back to the OP, the best explanation I have read revolves around the idea that particular fertility genes found in the X chromosome may cause homosexuality in men and increased fertility in women. Hence homosexuals aren't bred out of existence.
But as far as I can tell it is still an areas in which we only have best guesses and no widely agreed upon, established theories.
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics
No.
You just made your whole OP a joke with that sentence. Not only psychologists but also psychiatrists would call that bullcrap. It saddens me to see medical students who think like this - they're too many. You've made genetics your religion because it's easy. Open your eyes, start asking questions.
|
Why does there have to be evolutionary drive behind the trait? Can it not be due only to natural variation? Harmful genetic mutations and maladaptive behavior are not uncommon.
Note: I am NOT saying homosexuality is a disease and that there is anything wrong with it. I mean harmful only in the evolutionary sense of reproduction and the passing of traits because obviously homosexuality prevents reproduction.
|
Homosexuality is like, you sit comfy one day in your fouton, pondering. You nod your head to the left and think about women. You nod your head to the right and think about men.
You brain tosses a mental coin, and bam. there you have it. cornhole it is
p.s. pronouncing the word fouton does not help one's cause
|
|
|
On November 30 2010 08:44 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:41 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995 Quick to quote the unedited version of the post there, but nevertheless there is no such evidence; within that article several studies are also cited. Your choice of quotee, Richard Lewontin also said; The psychic and physical characteristics of human beings, and the differences between individuals, are the consequence of an interaction between the genes that are present in the fertilized egg and the sequence of environmental circumstances that the developing organism experiences during its life cycle.There are, morever, random events in cell growth and differentiation that are neither genetic nor environmental in the usual sense, and which play an extremely important part in development, especially in behavioral traits.He is an evolutionary biologist. Right- I've read many Lewontin/Gould books and dozens of articles. That quotation affirms my conclusion. Let me know if you need me to bold some parts and stuff.
So you ignore the first half and accept the second. How can you distinguish which part 'homosexuality' falls into; the random or genetically influenced? Even Lewontin can't and admits it so in his books, I suppose you would know. And recent studies have affirmed that most of the random events produced in the blastocyst or the foetal stages of development are in correlation with activation/deactivation/variation of portions of the so called junk-DNA sequences.
Without going into what these specific random events are, both points he makes in the quote affirm that it's a biomolecular interaction that results in this phenomenon and it's not a conscience choice. Moreover, this phenomenon is widely seen in other animals, developments of which work in different ways.
Lewontin strongly opposes genetic determinism anyway, attacking whole scientific fields like evolutionary psychology and sociobiology in the process.
|
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.
|
Just because it occurs in nature doesn't mean it is evolutionarily optimal. Evolution cares about one thing and one thing only, reproduction. If a trait does not result in some form of reproductive benefits, either directly or indirectly, then it is not favored by evolution, period. Homosexuality in the strict sense results in no offspring, which is the absolute best way to be removed from the gene pool.
|
On November 30 2010 08:50 Sleight wrote:
2) The trait, while reproductively harmful to the individual, provides a greater advantage to the community, and so is evolutionarily favored. The benefits must always outweigh the costs to be evolutionarily supported. As evidenced by the observations of homosexuality in sheep, in particular, the prevalence of homosexual males within a herd is associated with greater reproductive success than those without homosexual males present or with an overabundance.
I am a believer of this. Homosexuality needn't conflict with the evolutionary drive of reproduction since, as we've seen in present society, homosexuals, although they cannot reproduce with each other, still have a great drive to reproduce. It's not really at all paradoxical, especially when you consider that it's typically the traits that are favored for the species rather than the individual which are evolutionary favored, and that traits do not necessarily need to be beneficial to be passed along to future generations, just as long as they are not detrimental.
I'm also a fan of the prenatal hormone theory.
|
On November 30 2010 08:57 Enervate wrote:
Why does there have to be evolutionary drive behind the trait? Can it not be due only to natural variation? Harmful genetic mutations and maladaptive behavior are not uncommon.
Note: I am NOT saying homosexuality is a disease and that there is anything wrong with it. I mean harmful only in the evolutionary sense of reproduction and the passing of traits because obviously homosexuality prevents reproduction.
Taking you at face value, one would expect a merely maladaptive trait, especially one that stops you from procreating, would quickly be bred out as unfit. Homosexuality has survived among various species, and therefore there must be some valuable result, either to the species as a whole, or to individuals in other ways. Like how one post pointed to homosexuality being akin to sickle cell, and another post suggested that in women, the gene that causes homosexuality makes women procreate more.
|
On November 30 2010 09:00 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:44 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:41 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995 Quick to quote the unedited version of the post there, but nevertheless there is no such evidence; within that article several studies are also cited. Your choice of quotee, Richard Lewontin also said; The psychic and physical characteristics of human beings, and the differences between individuals, are the consequence of an interaction between the genes that are present in the fertilized egg and the sequence of environmental circumstances that the developing organism experiences during its life cycle.There are, morever, random events in cell growth and differentiation that are neither genetic nor environmental in the usual sense, and which play an extremely important part in development, especially in behavioral traits.He is an evolutionary biologist. Right- I've read many Lewontin/Gould books and dozens of articles. That quotation affirms my conclusion. Let me know if you need me to bold some parts and stuff. So you ignore the first half and accept the second. How can you distinguish which part 'homosexuality' falls into; the random or genetically influenced? Even Lewontin can't and admits it so in his books, I suppose you would know. Without going into what these specific random events are, both points he makes in the quote affirm that it's a biomolecular interaction that results in this phenomenon and it's not a conscience choice. Moreover, this phenomenon is widely seen in other animals, developments of which work in different ways. Lewontin strongly opposes genetic determinism anyway, attacking whole scientific fields like evolutionary psychology and sociobiology in the process.
Right, I was arguing that homosexuality is not necessarily genetic, as you said it MUST be in the op. I wasn't stating that it's a "choice."
|
On November 30 2010 09:03 Deletrious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:57 Enervate wrote:
Why does there have to be evolutionary drive behind the trait? Can it not be due only to natural variation? Harmful genetic mutations and maladaptive behavior are not uncommon.
Note: I am NOT saying homosexuality is a disease and that there is anything wrong with it. I mean harmful only in the evolutionary sense of reproduction and the passing of traits because obviously homosexuality prevents reproduction. Taking you at face value, one would expect a merely maladaptive trait, especially one that stops you from procreating, would quickly be bred out as unfit. Homosexuality has survived among various species, and therefore there must be some valuable result, either to the species as a whole, or to individuals in other ways. Like how one post pointed to homosexuality being akin to sickle cell, and another post suggested that in women, the gene that causes homosexuality makes women procreate more.
Or it could mean that "normal" sexuality is determined by a very wide array of genetic factors, and random mutations unrelated to genetics can very easily offset that balance. Many mental disorders which are highly self destructive (One again not saying that Gay is a disease, etc etc) exist due to a similar phenomenon.
Or even more likely, a combination of both, with early developmental environmental factors (both chemical and social) weakening or strengthening an inherent predisposition, what I personally believe.
Its pretty important to note human sexuality isn't anything close to black and white. 50% men report having some sort of sexual affection for other men at some point in there life (and in all likelihood, it is probably higher).
Which at the same time doesn't mean just because it exists at some level in many of us, means its choice. For some, it is a choice, (pan/bi) but for many others, it isn't any more of a choice then being straight is.
|
Just because its passed down and seen in multiple species does not make it inherintely good for reproductive success of the community or individual. Not relating gays to down syndrome, but chromosomal defects are found in multiple species. Common mutations in genes exist, some are more apparent than others. Homosexuality may be a genetic defect. Not to say that homosexuals are bad, but we are clearly different. I don't see why it cant be a defect that is not advantageous for reproductive sucess that has carried on.
PS I identify as a bisexual, so don't flame as gay bashing.
|
On November 30 2010 08:41 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
It is observed in many species of animals other than Humans.
Sexuality is not a chosen preference. Now that I think about it. Could anyone give one example of homosexuality on other animals that is exclusively homosexual and not bisexual? I mean, if you raise two male dogs together they will inevitably hump each other. But if after years of humping each other you introduce a female, they will hump the female as well. I don't remember seeing or hearing about any animal that will specifically only hump males and not females. Which makes me believe that it's indeed a chosen preference due to human social interactions which are not present on other animals. Or am I wrong?
I remember articles about homosexuality in birds, and also in bird species that only ever have one mate in their life. Those were the only birds described that will never mate with a female. But homosexuality was always described as an exception and most males went strictly after females.
|
On November 30 2010 09:09 Owarida wrote:
Just because its passed down and seen in multiple species does not make it inherintely good for reproductive success of the community or individual. Not relating gays to down syndrome, but chromosomal defects are found in multiple species. Common mutations in genes exist, some are more apparent than others. Homosexuality may be a genetic defect. Not to say that homosexuals are bad, but we are clearly different. I don't see why it cant be a defect that is not advantageous for reproductive sucess that has carried on.
PS I identify as a bisexual, so don't flame as gay bashing.
Please read my prior post. This is not likely and not consistent with the evidence available. There have to be ill effects due to homosexuality, which is not consistently observed. Almost universally the presence of homosexuality is indicative of a reproductively successful community.
EDIT:
Okay, example of homosexuality in animals: Sheep. Why doesn't anyone read my posts?
|
On November 30 2010 09:08 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:00 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:44 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:41 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995 Quick to quote the unedited version of the post there, but nevertheless there is no such evidence; within that article several studies are also cited. Your choice of quotee, Richard Lewontin also said; The psychic and physical characteristics of human beings, and the differences between individuals, are the consequence of an interaction between the genes that are present in the fertilized egg and the sequence of environmental circumstances that the developing organism experiences during its life cycle.There are, morever, random events in cell growth and differentiation that are neither genetic nor environmental in the usual sense, and which play an extremely important part in development, especially in behavioral traits.He is an evolutionary biologist. Right- I've read many Lewontin/Gould books and dozens of articles. That quotation affirms my conclusion. Let me know if you need me to bold some parts and stuff. So you ignore the first half and accept the second. How can you distinguish which part 'homosexuality' falls into; the random or genetically influenced? Even Lewontin can't and admits it so in his books, I suppose you would know. Without going into what these specific random events are, both points he makes in the quote affirm that it's a biomolecular interaction that results in this phenomenon and it's not a conscience choice. Moreover, this phenomenon is widely seen in other animals, developments of which work in different ways. Lewontin strongly opposes genetic determinism anyway, attacking whole scientific fields like evolutionary psychology and sociobiology in the process. Right, I was arguing that homosexuality is not necessarily genetic, as you said it MUST be in the op. I wasn't stating that it's a "choice."
Well now, don't forget to quote this form my previous post either:
'And recent studies have affirmed that most of the random events produced in the blastocyst or the foetal stages of development are in correlation with activation/deactivation/variation of portions of the so called junk-DNA sequences.'
At the very basic level again, biomolecular interaction --> genetics. Unless you're saying eating bananas (exposure to some chemical, etc) will make your baby gay, I don't see how you can't tie it down to genetics. There's whole fields dedicated to studying genetic influence over complex social behavior, let alone primal instincts and urges; we're way ahead of confirming genetic influence on such processes.
|
Well now, don't forget to quote this form my previous post either:
'And recent studies have affirmed that most of the random events produced in the blastocyst or the foetal stages of development are in correlation with activation/deactivation/variation of portions of the so called junk-DNA sequences.'
At the very basic level again, biomolecular interaction --> genetics. Unless you're saying eating bananas (exposure to some chemical, etc) will make your baby gay, I don't see how you can't tie it down to genetics. There's whole fields dedicated to studying genetic influence over complex social behavior, let alone primal instincts and urges; we're way ahead of confirming genetic influence on such processes.
Are you saying ones environment has no impact one ones behavior?
Please read my prior post. This is not likely and not consistent with the evidence available. There have to be ill effects due to homosexuality, which is not consistently observed. Almost universally the presence of homosexuality is indicative of a reproductively successful community.
Your "evidence" is basically some intuitive relationships that have been observed. Its very weak evidence. I don't see any comprehensive correlation charts here or data, we basically have some very basic relationships based upon intuition coming from a random guy.
I get the appeal of the theory, the Gay uncle theory is pretty well known in academia, but its also never been conclusive either way.
|
I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but when a population reaches it's limiting capacity, people will either die or stop reproducing or both because the environment can only sustain so many organisms. Homosexuality prevents reproduction, slowing down the growth of a population to a more controllable rate.
|
On November 30 2010 09:15 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:08 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:00 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:44 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:41 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995 Quick to quote the unedited version of the post there, but nevertheless there is no such evidence; within that article several studies are also cited. Your choice of quotee, Richard Lewontin also said; The psychic and physical characteristics of human beings, and the differences between individuals, are the consequence of an interaction between the genes that are present in the fertilized egg and the sequence of environmental circumstances that the developing organism experiences during its life cycle.There are, morever, random events in cell growth and differentiation that are neither genetic nor environmental in the usual sense, and which play an extremely important part in development, especially in behavioral traits.He is an evolutionary biologist. Right- I've read many Lewontin/Gould books and dozens of articles. That quotation affirms my conclusion. Let me know if you need me to bold some parts and stuff. So you ignore the first half and accept the second. How can you distinguish which part 'homosexuality' falls into; the random or genetically influenced? Even Lewontin can't and admits it so in his books, I suppose you would know. Without going into what these specific random events are, both points he makes in the quote affirm that it's a biomolecular interaction that results in this phenomenon and it's not a conscience choice. Moreover, this phenomenon is widely seen in other animals, developments of which work in different ways. Lewontin strongly opposes genetic determinism anyway, attacking whole scientific fields like evolutionary psychology and sociobiology in the process. Right, I was arguing that homosexuality is not necessarily genetic, as you said it MUST be in the op. I wasn't stating that it's a "choice." Well now, don't forget to quote this form my previous post either: 'And recent studies have affirmed that most of the random events produced in the blastocyst or the foetal stages of development are in correlation with activation/deactivation/variation of portions of the so called junk-DNA sequences.' At the very basic level again, biomolecular interaction --> genetics. Unless you're saying eating bananas (exposure to some chemical, etc) will make your baby gay, I don't see how you can't tie it down to genetics. There's whole fields dedicated to studying genetic influence over complex social behavior, let alone primal instincts and urges; we're way ahead of confirming genetic influence on such processes.
It's already been discussed in this thread by multiple posters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
|
On November 30 2010 09:17 Vestige wrote:
I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but when a population reaches it's limiting capacity, people will either die or stop reproducing or both because the environment can only sustain so many organisms. Homosexuality prevents reproduction, slowing down the growth of a population to a more controllable rate.
I doubt it. If you look at other animals, when their population outgrows their environment they'll continue reproducing as usual but they just die off because there isn't enough food/space/etc. They don't just experience a jolt in homosexuality in order to equalize population.
|
Homosexuality is a maladaptive genetic mutation (as most mutations are) that has persisted in humanities gene pool through mechanisms similar to those found in any maladaptive genetic mutation i.e. genetic disease etc.
Or,
Homosexuality arises from environmental effects, possibly while the fetus is still in the womb. These effects could be physical, for example increased estrogen levels. Or they could be psychological, the absence of a major male influence during pre-pubescent life.
I think its a combination of both, and any genetic factors are likely to be very subtle. Its silly to think that we'll someday isolate a "gay gene."
Needless to say I really don't think there is remotely enough research to make any sound conclusions yet.
|
On November 30 2010 09:19 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:15 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:08 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:00 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:44 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:41 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 08:28 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 08:20 Dont Panic wrote:Well if you want to have a scientific discussion you are going to need to provide proof for your assumptions. Especially this "As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics or this Sexuality is not a chosen preference. I've done papers on this for university but it's not going to be worth my time just judging from how this thread has gone so far. "There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice" De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17. LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times. "To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality." - Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995 Quick to quote the unedited version of the post there, but nevertheless there is no such evidence; within that article several studies are also cited. Your choice of quotee, Richard Lewontin also said; The psychic and physical characteristics of human beings, and the differences between individuals, are the consequence of an interaction between the genes that are present in the fertilized egg and the sequence of environmental circumstances that the developing organism experiences during its life cycle.There are, morever, random events in cell growth and differentiation that are neither genetic nor environmental in the usual sense, and which play an extremely important part in development, especially in behavioral traits.He is an evolutionary biologist. Right- I've read many Lewontin/Gould books and dozens of articles. That quotation affirms my conclusion. Let me know if you need me to bold some parts and stuff. So you ignore the first half and accept the second. How can you distinguish which part 'homosexuality' falls into; the random or genetically influenced? Even Lewontin can't and admits it so in his books, I suppose you would know. Without going into what these specific random events are, both points he makes in the quote affirm that it's a biomolecular interaction that results in this phenomenon and it's not a conscience choice. Moreover, this phenomenon is widely seen in other animals, developments of which work in different ways. Lewontin strongly opposes genetic determinism anyway, attacking whole scientific fields like evolutionary psychology and sociobiology in the process. Right, I was arguing that homosexuality is not necessarily genetic, as you said it MUST be in the op. I wasn't stating that it's a "choice." Well now, don't forget to quote this form my previous post either: 'And recent studies have affirmed that most of the random events produced in the blastocyst or the foetal stages of development are in correlation with activation/deactivation/variation of portions of the so called junk-DNA sequences.' At the very basic level again, biomolecular interaction --> genetics. Unless you're saying eating bananas (exposure to some chemical, etc) will make your baby gay, I don't see how you can't tie it down to genetics. There's whole fields dedicated to studying genetic influence over complex social behavior, let alone primal instincts and urges; we're way ahead of confirming genetic influence on such processes. It's already been discussed in this thread by multiple posters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship.
@Half I'm saying sexual orientation is genetically determined, either directly via genes and variations thereof or indirectly via other homeostatic systems.
|
|
|
On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship.
Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence.......
|
I don't understand the question.
An enormous variety of behaviour and physical traits, genetic abnormalities, predispositions etc, are not at all ideal or even beneficial. I thought the obvious and accepted answer is that it was simply random. But not probable enough to hinder the survival of the species, hence they continue to propagate.
I mean, I could ask, why do we get cancer? Shouldn't all the cancerous susceptible have already weeded it out? Obviously there's a lot more cancer than there are homos. Ok, so not a great example, since people tend to reproduce before they get cancer, but the idea stands. It could just be that it's a particularly hard maze for genetic mutation to find its way out of. Given enough time, it could.
|
On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence.......
But those influences are interpreted at a genetic level by threshold amounts again, set by genetic interactions. And that is not directly related to homosexuality, if you pump someone with testosterone or androgens, of course they'll exhibit opposite sex behaviour. Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels.
Exposure to gonadotrophins will only impede development, which is controlled by negative feedback systems. Once the stimulus is removed, the system will develop normally (fully functional males with women breasts due to hormone exposure, etc). But homosexuality is a complete switch of the perception of sex and sexual urges, there's nothing functionally wrong.
|
This is the problem with schools of thought that don't take environmental influences into account. Nature + nurture, not just one or the other.
|
On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... But those influences are interpreted at a genetic level by threshold amounts again, set by genetic interactions. And that is not directly related to homosexuality, if you pump someone with testosterone or androgens, of course they'll exhibit opposite sex behaviour. Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels.
But there is really no substantial evidence that people are "born gay." And that is what your entire argument seems to be based on.
Its really too early I think to rule out factors other then genetics.
|
On November 30 2010 09:20 MadVillain wrote:
Homosexuality is a maladaptive genetic mutation (as most mutations are) that has persisted in humanities gene pool through mechanisms similar to those found in any maladaptive genetic mutation i.e. genetic disease etc.
Or,
Homosexuality arises from environmental effects, possibly while the fetus is still in the womb. These effects could be physical, for example increased estrogen levels. Or they could be psychological, the absence of a major male influence during pre-pubescent life.
I think its a combination of both, and any genetic factors are likely to be very subtle. Its silly to think that we'll someday isolate a "gay gene."
Needless to say I really don't think there is remotely enough research to make any sound conclusions yet.
Proof no one understands heritability. Most mutations which persist are NOT MALADAPTIVE. In fact, most novel genetic mutations dramatically compromise reproductive capacity and then the trait quickly dies off. Just because the mutation is very probable to occur (e.g. Down Syndrome) doesn't mean it is persistent. The people with DS do NOT reproduce, so the trait is constantly re-occurring. The only genetic negative traits passed down DO NOT AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Examples? High cholesterol, hypertension, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc etc etc. They all occur well after reproductive age is achieved, so evolution has NO pressure on them except through reproductive benefits/disadvantages.
OR
Environment? How does that explain homosexuality across multiple species and the entire globe? What mystery chemical keeps "turning people gay?" Psychological? Have you met any gay people? There is no evidence to support a "psychological" model of homosexuality that doesn't include sexual harassment, in which case, it is a side effect of PTSD, rather than the issue we are talking about.
Seriously, people. Think with your brain.
|
On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... But those influences are interpreted at a genetic level by threshold amounts again, set by genetic interactions. And that is not directly related to homosexuality, if you pump someone with testosterone or androgens, of course they'll exhibit opposite sex behaviour. Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels.
Thats a stupid mentality. That's just chicken and egg. Then I could retort with something inane like genetics only adapted as a response to the enviroment, which would be equally valid according to your logic.
Plus, you just conceded that genetics is not the sole influence, while how we react to environmental stressors is genetically predetermined, there existence and intensity is not
Proof no one understands heritability. Most mutations which persist are NOT MALADAPTIVE. In fact, most novel genetic mutations dramatically compromise reproductive capacity and then the trait quickly dies off. Just because the mutation is very probable to occur (e.g. Down Syndrome) doesn't mean it is persistent. The people with DS do NOT reproduce, so the trait is constantly re-occurring. The only genetic negative traits passed down DO NOT AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Examples? High cholesterol, hypertension, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc etc etc. They all occur well after reproductive age is achieved, so evolution has NO pressure on them except through reproductive benefits/disadvantages.
Hai guess what, genetic sterility is something that is present in almost every single species across the world. If there is a single gene that could cause homosexuality, then it isn't likely that it occurs at the rate it does relying on mostly maladaptive mutations. However, as I said previously, human sexuality is not binary (in fact the homo/straight thing is a really polar and stupid way to look at it), and if sexuality is influenced by a wider set of genes, then the role of maladaptive genetic defect could play a wider role.
Environment? How does that explain homosexuality across multiple species and the entire globe? What mystery chemical keeps "turning people gay?" Psychological? Have you met any gay people? There is no evidence to support a "psychological" model of homosexuality that doesn't include sexual harassment, in which case, it is a side effect of PTSD, rather than the issue we are talking about.
Environmental doesn't just mean social, it also means chemical, including prenatal hormonal exposure levels. Anything not directly deriving from genetics is enviromental.
|
On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels.
Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development...
|
On November 30 2010 09:27 MadVillain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... But those influences are interpreted at a genetic level by threshold amounts again, set by genetic interactions. And that is not directly related to homosexuality, if you pump someone with testosterone or androgens, of course they'll exhibit opposite sex behaviour. Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. But there is really no substantial evidence that people are "born gay." And that is what your entire argument seems to be based on. Its really too early I think to rule out factors other then genetics.
Homosexuals aren't found in certain demographics or even species. Every species (almost) have it, regardless of the environmental exposure.
And read my other posts and look at the citations I made. There are distinct differences in organ structure (larger hypotahalamus) and hormone levels (FSH, LH), if not on other metabolically significant pathways etc.
|
On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:
Environment? How does that explain homosexuality across multiple species and the entire globe? What mystery chemical keeps "turning people gay?" Psychological? Have you met any gay people? There is no evidence to support a "psychological" model of homosexuality that doesn't include sexual harassment, in which case, it is a side effect of PTSD, rather than the issue we are talking about.
Seriously, people. Think with your brain.
OH! You're totally right! There is no way that every HUMAN culture across the world could have an environmental influence on homosexual tendencies so obviously it must be genetic!
|
On November 30 2010 09:29 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... But those influences are interpreted at a genetic level by threshold amounts again, set by genetic interactions. And that is not directly related to homosexuality, if you pump someone with testosterone or androgens, of course they'll exhibit opposite sex behaviour. Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Thats a stupid mentality. That's just chicken and egg. Then I could retort with something inane like genetics only adapted as a response to the enviroment, which would be equally valid according to your logic. Plus, you just conceded that genetics is not the sole influence, while how we react to environmental stressors is genetically predetermined, there existence and intensity is not.
The existence/intensity of the environmental stressors are genetic if you're referring to the hormonal influence of the mother, as I was. As I said, once the baby is born, all the hormonal influence will do is impede development; not change psychological perception or urge.
|
On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:20 MadVillain wrote:
Homosexuality is a maladaptive genetic mutation (as most mutations are) that has persisted in humanities gene pool through mechanisms similar to those found in any maladaptive genetic mutation i.e. genetic disease etc.
Or,
Homosexuality arises from environmental effects, possibly while the fetus is still in the womb. These effects could be physical, for example increased estrogen levels. Or they could be psychological, the absence of a major male influence during pre-pubescent life.
I think its a combination of both, and any genetic factors are likely to be very subtle. Its silly to think that we'll someday isolate a "gay gene."
Needless to say I really don't think there is remotely enough research to make any sound conclusions yet. Proof no one understands heritability. Most mutations which persist are NOT MALADAPTIVE. In fact, most novel genetic mutations dramatically compromise reproductive capacity and then the trait quickly dies off. Just because the mutation is very probable to occur (e.g. Down Syndrome) doesn't mean it is persistent. The people with DS do NOT reproduce, so the trait is constantly re-occurring. The only genetic negative traits passed down DO NOT AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Examples? High cholesterol, hypertension, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc etc etc. They all occur well after reproductive age is achieved, so evolution has NO pressure on them except through reproductive benefits/disadvantages. OR Environment? How does that explain homosexuality across multiple species and the entire globe? What mystery chemical keeps "turning people gay?" Psychological? Have you met any gay people? There is no evidence to support a "psychological" model of homosexuality that doesn't include sexual harassment, in which case, it is a side effect of PTSD, rather than the issue we are talking about. Seriously, people. Think with your brain.
Ok I sense some major anger. I'll admit, biology isn't my area of science but I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.
I'm saying that there could be some genetic trait that is being passed on, I dunno what the correct term would be for a non-adaptive trait that is passed on, yet is not maladaptive. I guess that was the wrong word.
And by "enviornmental" I meant factors that aren't strictly genetic, i.e. hormone levels during development of a fetus, or yes even psychological effects. I think your gettings scared off by the word psychological, I'm not saying that its damaging or anything, but that being gay could have a basis in some difference in brain structure or function. I don't see how you're getting so angry. Do you think i'm homophobic or something? Yes I've met and have gay friends so chill out.
Edit: @ Mikado, despite physical differences and the fact that homosexuality is seen across species doesn't necessarily rule out post-birth influences entirely. I still think that the research isn't really focused enough/ there isn't enough of it too make conclusions yet. Since this are big conclusions were all trying to make.
|
On November 30 2010 09:32 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:27 MadVillain wrote:On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... But those influences are interpreted at a genetic level by threshold amounts again, set by genetic interactions. And that is not directly related to homosexuality, if you pump someone with testosterone or androgens, of course they'll exhibit opposite sex behaviour. Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. But there is really no substantial evidence that people are "born gay." And that is what your entire argument seems to be based on. Its really too early I think to rule out factors other then genetics. Homosexuals aren't found in certain demographics or even species. Every species (almost) have it, regardless of the environmental exposure. And read my other posts and look at the citations I made. There are distinct differences in organ structure (larger hypotahalamus) and hormone levels (FSH, LH), if not on other metabolically significant pathways etc.
Once again chicken or the egg. Prolonged Hormone use also caused physical changes in the brain too.
I can't help but feel that this discussion is being artificially driven towards one direction because some people feel that homosexuality needs to be proven as 100% genetic in order to be socially accepted. While noble, that isn't good science.
|
On November 30 2010 09:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:
Environment? How does that explain homosexuality across multiple species and the entire globe? What mystery chemical keeps "turning people gay?" Psychological? Have you met any gay people? There is no evidence to support a "psychological" model of homosexuality that doesn't include sexual harassment, in which case, it is a side effect of PTSD, rather than the issue we are talking about.
Seriously, people. Think with your brain.
OH! You're totally right! There is no way that every HUMAN culture across the world could have an environmental influence on homosexual tendencies so obviously it must be genetic!
Sarcasm fail, lol.
Okay, so according to you every culture in the world, and every environment of every species that also displays homosexuality, share an environmental influence in common that causes homosexuality. What an amazing coincidence, I am surprised no one noticed.
|
On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:
The only genetic negative traits passed down DO NOT AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Examples? High cholesterol, hypertension, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc etc etc. They all occur well after reproductive age is achieved, so evolution has NO pressure on them except through reproductive benefits/disadvantages.
Type 2 diabetes can/is achieved before reproductive age. Gestational diabetes occurs pretty much during reproductive success and can have negative impact on the child and the mother.
|
Couldnt it be a viable argument to just be more attracted to the same sex rather than opposite?
Much like how your favorite color is blue or red or green. Or what pleasure/pain people prefer.
however i do know some tribes put those african neck rings and lip cups and all that whack shit in because its "beautiful"....
Are people thinking this out way too much?
This is a serious question. People may be attracted to blondes over brunettes, or big butts to small butts. Are all these genetic? Is the building blocks of all this really having to do with DNA and your ancestry, or the way your raised?
|
The point I should be making is that maybe "homosexual tendencies" are just regular dominant tendencies that we have repressed as a society because we ASSUME it's "not natural" or even that strict heterosexuality is the norm. Provide me evidence that heterosexuality is an evolutionary benefit or that occasional homosexuality is maladaptive or unnatural.
|
I dont understand how someone can be born gay? That sounds rediculous to me.
I think it's more logical that some people turn gay because of whatever mark society has left on their psyche, not because its genetic...
For example, some people turn punk rockers to rebel against society based on some previous experience in life, just like many rapists used to be rape victims themselves.
|
On November 30 2010 09:30 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development...
Excatly, and it is well known mothers' utero-ovarian hormone transduction is closesly linked with the development of the fetus. Genetic interaction between mother and the fetus, in other words. These interactions and differences are what causes the change in size of organs/system sensitivity to hormones etc.
This is to say, it might be the case that not a single gene causes gayness per se, but a genetic interaction between the mother and the fetus or only the foetal genes. Nevertheless, it's still genetic.
|
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter.
|
I wonder if hormone mimics have the potential to influence sexual orientation.
We've found estrogen mimics and inhibitors in several different plastics, and the vast majority have never been tested. The ones we have identified so far (BPA, for instance) we found only by accident because they showed up in laboratory plastics that people studying estrogen-sensitive cells were using. Since all steroid hormones have very similar structures, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that there are a lot of other artificial compounds that may influence the activity of other such hormones. We've only barely scratched the surface of what estrogen itself does.
It's impossible to determine if the rates at which people are predisposed to homosexuality have changed over time though, given all the other societal factors involved. Makes it pretty hard to look for any correlations.
I would wager that if there are "gay gene(s)," they are only correlated to homosexuality because they affect our ability to respond to hormones (both real and otherwise). If there is positive selective pressure for such hormone-associated proteins, it could easily outweigh any negative selective pressure when the right environmental conditions combine to cause a homosexual preference.
|
On November 30 2010 09:36 Deletrious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:
Environment? How does that explain homosexuality across multiple species and the entire globe? What mystery chemical keeps "turning people gay?" Psychological? Have you met any gay people? There is no evidence to support a "psychological" model of homosexuality that doesn't include sexual harassment, in which case, it is a side effect of PTSD, rather than the issue we are talking about.
Seriously, people. Think with your brain.
OH! You're totally right! There is no way that every HUMAN culture across the world could have an environmental influence on homosexual tendencies so obviously it must be genetic! Sarcasm fail, lol. Okay, so according to you every culture in the world, and every environment of every species that also displays homosexuality, share an environmental influence in common that causes homosexuality. What an amazing coincidence, I am surprised no one noticed.
Actually, yes, I am saying that. The fact that there are multiple males in one pack and that there is usually a dominance structure? Isn't that generally true of most populations where homosexual behaviors emerge?
|
On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully? and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg
And you go by the AKA _Darwin_ , Rofl.
I am actually curious about the point brought up: "Homosexuality as an adaptive response to remove competitors from seeking partners of opposite sex (not the case with humans)"
How does this work? Males have sex with other males so that there are less males that go for the females?
|
On November 30 2010 09:39 KaiserJohan wrote:
I dont understand how someone can be born gay? That sounds rediculous to me.
I think it's more logical that some people turn gay because of whatever mark society has left on their psyche, not because its genetic...
For example, some people turn punk rockers to rebel against society based on some previous experience in life, just like many rapists used to be rape victims themselves.
You really think trauma causes homosexuality...? How is that any less ridiculous than ´genes having something to do with what turns you on`?
|
On November 30 2010 09:36 MadVillain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 MadVillain wrote:
Homosexuality is a maladaptive genetic mutation (as most mutations are) that has persisted in humanities gene pool through mechanisms similar to those found in any maladaptive genetic mutation i.e. genetic disease etc.
Or,
Homosexuality arises from environmental effects, possibly while the fetus is still in the womb. These effects could be physical, for example increased estrogen levels. Or they could be psychological, the absence of a major male influence during pre-pubescent life.
I think its a combination of both, and any genetic factors are likely to be very subtle. Its silly to think that we'll someday isolate a "gay gene."
Needless to say I really don't think there is remotely enough research to make any sound conclusions yet. Proof no one understands heritability. Most mutations which persist are NOT MALADAPTIVE. In fact, most novel genetic mutations dramatically compromise reproductive capacity and then the trait quickly dies off. Just because the mutation is very probable to occur (e.g. Down Syndrome) doesn't mean it is persistent. The people with DS do NOT reproduce, so the trait is constantly re-occurring. The only genetic negative traits passed down DO NOT AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Examples? High cholesterol, hypertension, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc etc etc. They all occur well after reproductive age is achieved, so evolution has NO pressure on them except through reproductive benefits/disadvantages. OR Environment? How does that explain homosexuality across multiple species and the entire globe? What mystery chemical keeps "turning people gay?" Psychological? Have you met any gay people? There is no evidence to support a "psychological" model of homosexuality that doesn't include sexual harassment, in which case, it is a side effect of PTSD, rather than the issue we are talking about. Seriously, people. Think with your brain. Edit: @ Mikado, despite physical differences and the fact that homosexuality is seen across species doesn't necessarily rule out post-birth influences entirely. I still think that the research isn't really focused enough/ there isn't enough of it too make conclusions yet. Since this are big conclusions were all trying to make.
True, this may be the case but there's no documented external influence of a common denominator that distinguishes why homosexual have the structural/systemic differences that they do, unlike asbestos/lung cancer link; the existence of a common denominator that affects (almost) all the species around the world.
As always more study is definitely needed, of course but the scientific data at present points to only genetic interactions (whether in the blastocys/fetus or between mother and fetus), this is all I'm saying.
Keep in mind, twin studies have also been conducted, with evidence to show that both individuals show the same sexual tendencies.
|
On November 30 2010 09:37 Owarida wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:27 Sleight wrote:
The only genetic negative traits passed down DO NOT AFFECT REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Examples? High cholesterol, hypertension, Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc etc etc. They all occur well after reproductive age is achieved, so evolution has NO pressure on them except through reproductive benefits/disadvantages.
Type 2 diabetes can/is achieved before reproductive age. Gestational diabetes occurs pretty much during reproductive success and can have negative impact on the child and the mother.
So you are wrong and then prove my point. Type 2 diabetes is NOT a single gene disease. It is associated with a huge number of genetic risk factors that are made worse by environment, specifically diet and improper activity. It CAN be achieved before reproductive age, but is not necessarily, and when it does, it DOES impact reproductive advantage. Ever compared the reproductive success of a family predisposed to early onset type 2 diabetes to a healthy one?
Also, Gestational diabetes is largely environmental and has some associated genetics, but is not primarily genetic in origin.
GJ at picking two examples that are strictly dependent on environment to manifest. We are discussing the impact of genetics on reproductive success and you show that, in fact, the only "genetic diseases" that are common are not primarily genetic.
|
On November 30 2010 09:39 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:30 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development... Excatly, and it is well known mothers' utero-ovarian hormone transduction is closesly linked with the development of the fetus. Genetic interaction between mother and the fetus, in other words. These interactions and differences are what causes the change in size of organs/system sensitivity to hormones etc. This is to say, it might be the case that not a single gene causes gayness per se, but a genetic interaction between the mother and the fetus or only the foetal genes. Nevertheless, it's still genetic.
Hormonal interaction.
|
United States313 Posts
Simple fact of evolution is that there are no drives, evolution is absolutely blind, so to say what is driving evolution to develop or maintain a homosexual tendency is kind of like trying to have a scientific argument regarding intelligent design.
Not to tear the thread further to shreds, but I also have to bring up that everything doesn't lie in genetics, and i'm in a genetics PhD program =P Truth is we don't have a clue what the fundamental neural network remodeling coordinator is, whether its altered transcription levels or protein modification or potentially epigenetic such as DNA methylation, so to look for an evolutionary likelihood for neural network modulation specifically that affects the sexuality of an individual is kind of like asking if a mushroom is edible on a planet a few galaxies over without knowing how you traveled there in the first place.
|
Also, the fact that we have a reward system for orgasm probably has something to do with it.
|
Homosexuality is not necessarily a drawback in the evolutionary sense, as you can propagate your own genes by helping siblings to raise thier children. As witnessed in every animal species that shows homosexual behaviour. I thought this was generally accepted as the most plausible explanation of the homosexuality/evolution conundrum.
|
Actually, yes, I am saying that. The fact that there are multiple males in one pack and that there is usually a dominance structure? Isn't that generally true of most populations where homosexual behaviors emerge?
That is a) not true and b) awful logic.
a) Male-dominated social structures only occur in animals that live in herds or communities and then are only about 60-70% prevalent. Homosexual behavior occurs in a variety of species with many different social structures.
b) You are proposing that it is more likely some unknown but ever-present chemical exists everywhere homosexuality exists and has a direct cause-effect relationship than homosexuality has individually occurring genetic components that have, over time, contributed to the prevalence of homosexual behavior in species otherwise not in communication. So you are saying you believe in Creationism over Evolution. Can't argue with stupid.
|
On November 30 2010 09:48 TrueRedemption wrote:
Simple fact of evolution is that there are no drives, evolution is absolutely blind, so to say what is driving evolution to develop or maintain a homosexual tendency is kind of like trying to have a scientific argument regarding intelligent design.
Not to tear the thread further to shreds, but I also have to bring up that everything doesn't lie in genetics, and i'm in a genetics PhD program =P Truth is we don't have a clue what the fundamental neural network remodeling coordinator is, whether its altered transcription levels or protein modification or potentially epigenetic such as DNA methylation, so to look for an evolutionary likelihood for neural network modulation specifically that affects the sexuality of an individual is kind of like asking if a mushroom is edible on a planet a few galaxies over without knowing how you traveled there in the first place.
Proof you don't understand anything beyond your bacterial and viral micro-evolution, and that only poorly.
Why does antibiotic resistance occur if there is NO drive in evolution? Why is it that genetic conditions prevalent a thousand years ago are now less and less prevalent? Why is that sickle cell and the thalesemias are only highly prevalent where malaria is? Why is feochromotosis only highly prevalent in Scandanavian people and their offspring?
So that is coincidence since there are no drives, huh? GJ.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post.
|
On November 30 2010 09:47 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:39 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:30 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development... Excatly, and it is well known mothers' utero-ovarian hormone transduction is closesly linked with the development of the fetus. Genetic interaction between mother and the fetus, in other words. These interactions and differences are what causes the change in size of organs/system sensitivity to hormones etc. This is to say, it might be the case that not a single gene causes gayness per se, but a genetic interaction between the mother and the fetus or only the foetal genes. Nevertheless, it's still genetic. Hormonal interaction.
= genes
unless you can show me a study that has found a common denominator of outside influence that all homosexual behaviour displaying animals are exposed to.
@Half All of genetics did in fact arose as a response to external influence. If there's no receptor, there's no stimulus.
|
On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter.
OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion.
|
A few studies lately have shown that homosexual men have hyper-fertile sisters that get pregnant more easily. That could be the mechanism for genetic propagation, women carry the genes but they more obviously affect men.
|
This is why I laugh whenever someone tries to tell me that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice or trained behavior.
|
On November 30 2010 09:58 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:47 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:39 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:30 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development... Excatly, and it is well known mothers' utero-ovarian hormone transduction is closesly linked with the development of the fetus. Genetic interaction between mother and the fetus, in other words. These interactions and differences are what causes the change in size of organs/system sensitivity to hormones etc. This is to say, it might be the case that not a single gene causes gayness per se, but a genetic interaction between the mother and the fetus or only the foetal genes. Nevertheless, it's still genetic. Hormonal interaction. = genes
No, like many others have said, a person's (in this case mother's) hormone levels are determined by things other than genes. merry-go-round
|
On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves..
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.
|
On November 30 2010 07:51 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics.
every psychological behavior is explained via genetics??? so when i cry when idra loses it's because my ancestors who didn't cry for icons died out or those who cried gave birth more frequently/successfully? and like when i start pokemon red and oak tells me to name my rival, my psychological response of "hmm i think i'll name him KEFKA" is related to my genetics?!?! omg
If you cry because idra loses then your genetic makeup probably makes you more susceptible to the extremes of your emotions through differences in hormoe and neurotransmitter levels.
In the mean time, why don't you brush up on your fallacies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
|
@Half All of genetics did in fact arose as a response to external influence. If there's no receptor, there's no stimulus.
Exactly, that's my fucking point, that if you generalize this argument to the degree your doing, you've created a frame so large it no longer has any actual relevance.
By your logic, we've come full circle to the conclusion that homosexuality is purely due to environmental influences. My point being that your entire line of logic is bad.
= genes
unless you can show me a study that has found a common denominator of outside influence that all homosexual behaviour displaying animals are exposed to.
Jeeze you're dense. Hormonal levels vary drastically depending on ones environment, showing an environmental influence on ones sexuality.
|
|
|
On November 30 2010 10:00 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:58 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:47 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:39 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:30 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development... Excatly, and it is well known mothers' utero-ovarian hormone transduction is closesly linked with the development of the fetus. Genetic interaction between mother and the fetus, in other words. These interactions and differences are what causes the change in size of organs/system sensitivity to hormones etc. This is to say, it might be the case that not a single gene causes gayness per se, but a genetic interaction between the mother and the fetus or only the foetal genes. Nevertheless, it's still genetic. Hormonal interaction. = genes No, like many others have said, a person's (in this case mother's) hormone levels are determined by things other than genes. merry-go-round
You like to cut my quotes down to suit your context and then just say no.
Mothers' hormone levels are governed by internally set cascades and negative feedback systems, determined by gene interactions, to promote growth of the fetus. There's also a positive feedback loop of hormonal pathway that acts on utero-ovarian endocrine structures. There's also from hypothalmic centers and the pituitary gland.
Either my explanation is bullshit or yours. If you can prove that mine is bullshit, I'll sue my medical school lol
|
On November 30 2010 10:07 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:00 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:58 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:47 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:39 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:30 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 30 2010 09:26 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 09:22 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 09:20 mikado wrote:
And so, what then? Hormones are genetically expressed proteins; ergo genetic cause-effect relationship. Hormones levels are also highly variable due to environmental influence....... Being 'born' gay however, is a difference in organ structure of individuals and/or their innate hormone levels. Not if you are born in a womb. A mother's hormone levels have a huge impact on development... Excatly, and it is well known mothers' utero-ovarian hormone transduction is closesly linked with the development of the fetus. Genetic interaction between mother and the fetus, in other words. These interactions and differences are what causes the change in size of organs/system sensitivity to hormones etc. This is to say, it might be the case that not a single gene causes gayness per se, but a genetic interaction between the mother and the fetus or only the foetal genes. Nevertheless, it's still genetic. Hormonal interaction. = genes No, like many others have said, a person's (in this case mother's) hormone levels are determined by things other than genes. merry-go-round You like to cut my quotes down to suit your context and then just say no. Mothers' hormone levels are governed by internally set cascades and negative feedback systems, determined by gene interactions, to promote growth of the fetus. There's also a positive feedback loop of hormonal pathway that acts on utero-ovarian endocrine structures. There's also from hypothalmic centers and the pituitary gland. Either my explanation is bullshit or yours. If you can prove that mine is bullshit, I'll sue my medical school lol
I'm really confused. You don't think hormone levels are determined by anything other than genes? Lack of sleep, obesity etc etc etc have huge impacts on hormone levels.
|
On November 30 2010 10:07 Half wrote:Show nested quote +@Half All of genetics did in fact arose as a response to external influence. If there's no receptor, there's no stimulus. Exactly, that's my fucking point, that if you generalize this argument to the degree your doing, you've created a frame so large it no longer has any actual relevance. By your logic, we've come full circle to the conclusion that homosexuality is purely due to environmental influences. My point being that your entire line of logic is bad.
Not at all, it just means that level of discussion that you want to pull it down to
(how life started, genes' purpose) has no relevance to what we're discussing here (a major variation in a live organism).
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.
Still no one is responding to this, but where's the common external common denominator affecting all homosexual behavior exhibiting animals of all species around the planet?
|
On November 30 2010 10:00 Xog wrote:
This is why I laugh whenever someone tries to tell me that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice or trained behavior.
And that is why we laugh at you.
More to the point, frankly this is such a hard and still very clouded area in science that discussions on a SC forum trying to reach any conclusion are funny.
So I will just offer my favourite explanation with a disclaimer that it is just a aesthetical preference and I am ready to change my opinion with any scientific data that surface. As far as genetic influences go I definitely think there are some (I think there were some twin studies into hereditary influences) and the reason for their existence is that those gene variants in most cases offer group advatages and do not cause homosexuality. But as with anything in populations it is all about statistics, so those genetic influences are continuum and most beneficial equilibrium is probably so close to the "line" that some just fall on the other side(note that i used "line" since the range of homosexual behaviours is also pretty continuous.
|
United States313 Posts
On November 30 2010 09:55 Sleight wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 30 2010 09:48 TrueRedemption wrote:
Simple fact of evolution is that there are no drives, evolution is absolutely blind, so to say what is driving evolution to develop or maintain a homosexual tendency is kind of like trying to have a scientific argument regarding intelligent design.
Not to tear the thread further to shreds, but I also have to bring up that everything doesn't lie in genetics, and i'm in a genetics PhD program =P Truth is we don't have a clue what the fundamental neural network remodeling coordinator is, whether its altered transcription levels or protein modification or potentially epigenetic such as DNA methylation, so to look for an evolutionary likelihood for neural network modulation specifically that affects the sexuality of an individual is kind of like asking if a mushroom is edible on a planet a few galaxies over without knowing how you traveled there in the first place. Proof you don't understand anything beyond your bacterial and viral micro-evolution, and that only poorly. Why does antibiotic resistance occur if there is NO drive in evolution? Why is it that genetic conditions prevalent a thousand years ago are now less and less prevalent? Why is that sickle cell and the thalesemias are only highly prevalent where malaria is? Why is feochromotosis only highly prevalent in Scandanavian people and their offspring? So that is coincidence since there are no drives, huh? GJ. EDIT: Sorry for the double post.
Are you serious? Have you even taken a high school level of genetics? Answer me this, is a bacteria more or less likely to develop a resistance to ampicillin or penicillin on an ampacillin plate? Obviously this is oversimplified to prove a point, but I think its clearly one you are missing.
They are equally likely to evolve, but you are only looking for the ampicillin so thats all you'll see, the penicillin will die out before you know it existed, but that doesn't make it any less likely to happen. Evolution is the result of changes in the genome of an organism. Those changes can happen through all sorts of mechanisms, but one way it cannot occur is by sensing the outside conditions and intentionally mutating in a specific fashion just to survive the current conditions. For every successful mutation that helps an organism survive better, there are millions which either hurt the organism or don't have any effect.
Every example you listed is actually an example of evolution not having a conscious direction. The body's innate immune system reacts in certain ways to malaria, and the exact same changes it may have evolved over time are what make it particularly vulnerable to sickle cell, not because the body wants to be vulnerable to either of them, but because when malaria is killing everyone off, the people who can withstand it best reproduce the most regardless of a not yet exposed vulnerability to sickle cell.
|
I hate it when I type out a thoughtful reply and it gets ignored because people are too busy calling each other names 
|
On November 30 2010 10:03 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.. 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.
Ouch, you have very poor understanding of evolution in populations. First off it is possible to be attracted to the same sex and still have sex with the other. Also it is not necessarily true that the same genetic influences cause male and female homosexuality, I would actually guess that they are different, so a heterosexual woman can have homosexual sons and you need also to consider that genetics does not seem to be the only determining factor(womb environment seems another).
|
On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion.
religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it
this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol
|
On November 30 2010 10:14 Igakusei wrote:I hate it when I type out a thoughtful reply and it gets ignored because people are too busy calling each other names
Haha you are right, and i'm sorry that I'm quoting this post but not the other
|
I have a feeling this is going to be a looooong thread.
|
On November 30 2010 08:29 emythrel wrote:
A male frog can have sex with another male frog and all that will happen is no pro-creation. The frog does not have to worry about how the other frogs will judge him, it just happens. Frogs have actually developed a special call for when a another male frog attempts to have sex with it that basically says "you're wasting your time". But it has no social context, it is simply natural behaviour.
How can you be sure? It's not like someone actually asked the frog what he thinks about it. Maybe he's yelling "Get off of me you pervert!". ^^
On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't.
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation.
That doesn't make sense. They're no harm to the species, even if it was a defective gene they don't reproduce, they don't contribute to the future gene pool, therefore it will never become a problem that could endanger the species, which means there is absolutely no biological reason to disallow it.
My guess is that it happens because both male/female go through the same embryonal stages and sometimes the correct hormone levels won't get triggered which causes them to be attracted to the same sex. It's simply a sideeffect of this type of reproduction, but not significant enough to make the species go extinct.
What would be more interesting to know is why so many homosexuals act over the top gay (double rainbow!!11).
I find that rather disturbing, not just because they're attracted to men that act like girls and talk through their nose, but also because it seems so ridiculous and 'forced' as if they're wearing a mask that hides them from everyone (including their partners). I don't think that lesbians show this behavior either, but then again maybe there are much more down to earth guys than media suggests..
|
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?
|
On November 30 2010 10:14 TrueRedemption wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:55 Sleight wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 30 2010 09:48 TrueRedemption wrote:
Simple fact of evolution is that there are no drives, evolution is absolutely blind, so to say what is driving evolution to develop or maintain a homosexual tendency is kind of like trying to have a scientific argument regarding intelligent design.
Not to tear the thread further to shreds, but I also have to bring up that everything doesn't lie in genetics, and i'm in a genetics PhD program =P Truth is we don't have a clue what the fundamental neural network remodeling coordinator is, whether its altered transcription levels or protein modification or potentially epigenetic such as DNA methylation, so to look for an evolutionary likelihood for neural network modulation specifically that affects the sexuality of an individual is kind of like asking if a mushroom is edible on a planet a few galaxies over without knowing how you traveled there in the first place. Proof you don't understand anything beyond your bacterial and viral micro-evolution, and that only poorly. Why does antibiotic resistance occur if there is NO drive in evolution? Why is it that genetic conditions prevalent a thousand years ago are now less and less prevalent? Why is that sickle cell and the thalesemias are only highly prevalent where malaria is? Why is feochromotosis only highly prevalent in Scandanavian people and their offspring? So that is coincidence since there are no drives, huh? GJ. EDIT: Sorry for the double post. Are you serious? Have you even taken a high school level of genetics? Answer me this, is a bacteria more or less likely to develop a resistance to ampicillin or penicillin on an ampacillin plate? Obviously this is oversimplified to prove a point, but I think its clearly one you are missing. They are equally likely to evolve, but you are only looking for the ampicillin so thats all you'll see, the penicillin will die out before you know it existed, but that doesn't make it any less likely to happen. Evolution is the result of changes in the genome of an organism. Those changes can happen through all sorts of mechanisms, but one way it cannot occur is by sensing the outside conditions and intentionally mutating in a specific fashion just to survive the current conditions. For every successful mutation that helps an organism survive better, there are millions which either hurt the organism or don't have any effect. Every example you listed is actually an example of evolution not having a conscious direction. The body's innate immune system reacts in certain ways to malaria, and the exact same changes it may have evolved over time are what make it particularly vulnerable to sickle cell, not because the body wants to be vulnerable to either of them, but because when malaria is killing everyone off, the people who can withstand it best reproduce the most regardless of a not yet exposed vulnerability to sickle cell.
I agree with you, but if I understand him correctly he is trying to say that there is a drive and he means natural selection. And in this case you two are probably not really in a disagreement. If he does mean some real hidden drive than he is wrong
|
On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. Show nested quote + religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol
I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons?
There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there.
A scientific question requires a scientific response.
|
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 10:03 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.. 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.
how? mutations are a change in the DNA it doesn't have to already be there but it could. the reason why i said the first humans couldnt of been homosexuals because then we would not be alive today, though they could have possessed the trait from an ancestral species.
|
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.
|
To the people who think there is some strange environmental factor that causes homosexuality across a range of species, cultures, and geographical features (and hey, I'm not going to say that's not possible), what kind of environmental factor exactly would be able to cause such uniform behavior, and why such uniform behavior instead of any other effects? I mean, that sounds kind of... unbelievable, don't you think?
|
On November 30 2010 10:24 mikado wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons? There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there. A scientific question requires a scientific response.
i mean i just told you what religion has to offer.
|
On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter.
No, you have it backwards. The religious viewpoint argues that homosexuality is wrong on ethical/moral grounds, on no basis other than it's written in a book, or on an individual level more likely because of their own private disgust at the concept (often, not always).
Also biologically, there is no absolute imperative for everyone to reproduce, so that viewpoint would not even hold water.
|
United States313 Posts
On November 30 2010 09:40 Igakusei wrote:
I wonder if hormone mimics have the potential to influence sexual orientation.
We've found estrogen mimics and inhibitors in several different plastics, and the vast majority have never been tested. The ones we have identified so far (BPA, for instance) we found only by accident because they showed up in laboratory plastics that people studying estrogen-sensitive cells were using. Since all steroid hormones have very similar structures, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that there are a lot of other artificial compounds that may influence the activity of other such hormones. We've only barely scratched the surface of what estrogen itself does.
It's impossible to determine if the rates at which people are predisposed to homosexuality have changed over time though, given all the other societal factors involved. Makes it pretty hard to look for any correlations.
I would wager that if there are "gay gene(s)," they are only correlated to homosexuality because they affect our ability to respond to hormones (both real and otherwise). If there is positive selective pressure for such hormone-associated proteins, it could easily outweigh any negative selective pressure when the right environmental conditions combine to cause a homosexual preference.
Mimics definitely have that potential, dulled sexuality is actually a not so uncommon side effect of many main stream medications.
In response to your consideration about pressures though you bring up a good point, the only issue I see with it is our model currently is human beings, and the natural behavioral preference for establishing nuclear family units drastically impacts any type of selective pressure. What percentage of adult men are married, and what percentage have children? Any type of noticible increase in a population of humans is much more a result of culture than of genetics, given our incredibly slow maturation and distinct lack of strong selective forces thanks to the incredibly high number of participants contributing to the next generation.
For even something as strong as an antibiotic added to a bacterial culture, the amount of logarithmic growth required before that specific bacteria's genotype becomes prevalent is more than a you could see humanity change in 10 lifetimes even if a super virus was killing off 85% of the world population.
|
On November 30 2010 10:27 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:24 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons? There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there. A scientific question requires a scientific response. i mean i just told you what religion has to offer.
Irrelevance? We are not having a debate about the morality of Homosexuality.
Incidentally, if we were, it would be science that could give us no answer.
|
I'd just like to point out that homosexuality doesn't need to confer any evolutionary advantage in order to be passed on. If we assume that homosexuality is where sex differentiation "misfires" (not meant in any judgmental way) then it only has to be the case that the genes responsible for sex differentiation provide enough of an advantage to severely outweigh the reproductive loss of any homosexual people.
I think it's clear that it does.
|
On November 30 2010 10:23 Nienordir wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 08:29 emythrel wrote:
A male frog can have sex with another male frog and all that will happen is no pro-creation. The frog does not have to worry about how the other frogs will judge him, it just happens. Frogs have actually developed a special call for when a another male frog attempts to have sex with it that basically says "you're wasting your time". But it has no social context, it is simply natural behaviour. How can you be sure? It's not like someone actually asked the frog what he thinks about it. Maybe he's yelling "Get off of me you pervert!". ^^ Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't.
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. That doesn't make sense. They're no harm to the species, even if it was a defective gene they don't reproduce, they don't contribute to the future gene pool, therefore it will never become a problem that could endanger the species, which means there is absolutely no biological reason to disallow it.
its a mutation, an inactive mutation in all of us maybe. and with a chance it becomes active during embryonic stages.
|
jmillz, I'm not singling you out (because I know there are others like you in this thread, I just haven't really read many responses) but because I see your post on the same page as mine, I will say this:
your understanding of evolution and biology is LACKING, people should disregard your awful posts.
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing.
|
On November 30 2010 10:29 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:27 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 10:24 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons? There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there. A scientific question requires a scientific response. i mean i just told you what religion has to offer. Irrelevance? We are not having a debate about the morality of Homosexuality. Incidentally, if we were, it would be science that could give us no answer.
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
On November 30 2010 10:30 Masamune wrote:
jmillz, I'm not singling you out (because I know there are others like you in this thread, I just haven't really read many responses) but because I see your post on the same page as mine, I will say this:
your understanding of evolution and biology is LACKING, people should disregard your awful posts.
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing.
lol ok. say something productive
|
On November 30 2010 10:03 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.. 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.
I haven't read all 6 pages so I'll just pick up here (and ignore the petty argument that's going around).
First off, when we talk of the "first humans", we're not talking about two people, but of many Hominid species interbreeding and such and eventually a large portion of the hominid species dies out, leaving only a small group of homo sapiens which is why we have such a small gene pool today (correct me if I'm off, it's been a long time since I took evolutionary biology).
Second, I think there is a general misconception in this thread and in society as a whole that every person is either "straight" or "gay". Ever heard of the Kinsey scale? It basically says that few people are actually exclusively straight or exclusively gay, and most lie somewhere in between.
Also, I think homosexuality is really just a variation genetically that isn't harmful enough(because it isn't common) to the species to be rooted out completely. And there are plenty of non-optimal traits that exist in all species. Evolution doesn't eliminate everything non-optimal.
|
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.
edit
lol ok. say something productive
go away troll kthx.
|
I'd rather use philosophy and ethics as a guide for morality than religion.
|
United States313 Posts
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.
People haven't been taking Darwin as verbatim truth for quite a while now, if there wasn't so much evolution / creationism debate nonesense I'd try to find you a higher level resource than this, but it should give you a starting place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
|
On November 30 2010 10:33 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
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. Show nested quote +
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?
|
On November 30 2010 10:36 Masamune wrote:
I'd rather use philosophy and ethics as a guide for morality than religion.
And? The Study of ethics isn't just limited by your own personal guidelines of ethics.
|
On November 30 2010 10:32 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:29 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:27 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 10:24 mikado wrote:On November 30 2010 10:18 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 09:58 ShadeR wrote:On November 30 2010 09:40 jmillz wrote:
whats so appalling about the religious stand point of homosexuality? from a biological stand point it is very appealing. homosexuality, a genetic mutation inhibits attraction to the opposite sex decreasing the reproduction rate. every species instinctively reproduces for the survival of its species. i assure you the first humans were not homosexual, it is mutation that occurred over time, which is fine because that is how a species evolves.
now most mutations are considered harmful, some are considered neutral and some benefit the animal and the beneficial mutations will become widespread through natural selection. the conclusion that homosexuality is an abnormality is definitive.
so why do we allow homosexuality? from a biological stand point we shouldn't. but from an ethical stand point we must. man made ideologies such as liberalism suggest that homosexuals should be free to do as they please, backed up by an ethical stand point. and man made (if you will) ideologies such as religions suggest it is counter productive, backed up by the biological stand point.
so who are you to suggest that the religious viewpoint is invalid?
in conclusion; it is a genetic mutation, you don't chose which sex you can be sexually aroused by, and in all sense of biology it is a harmful mutation. but in our society were reproductivity can be controlled (ie artificial insemination) that doesnt really matter. OP is not saying that religious viewpoint is invalid, the thread was not made for homosexuals good or bad? Which is as far as religion goes. Instead i believe the OP wanted a rational evidence based discussion of homosexuality and religion being faith based a core is simply unable to partake in this discussion. religious point of view of homosexuality is clear and no one with a scientific mind cares for it this is what im referring to. i guess im just tired of the liberal politically correct kids running around these days, they think if they just add liberal + atheist they are never going to be wrong or something lol I'll give my thoughts on this too. What does religion has to offer in this discussion? That it's god's will, a test of their faith, a chance to prove one's faith, possesion by perverted demons? There's nothing material that religion can offer and here, this sort of discussion is what I specifically wanted to avoid, and thus why I put that sentence there. A scientific question requires a scientific response. i mean i just told you what religion has to offer. Irrelevance? We are not having a debate about the morality of Homosexuality. Incidentally, if we were, it would be science that could give us no answer. 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 Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:30 Masamune wrote:
jmillz, I'm not singling you out (because I know there are others like you in this thread, I just haven't really read many responses) but because I see your post on the same page as mine, I will say this:
your understanding of evolution and biology is LACKING, people should disregard your awful posts.
And religion can tell us as much about morality as science can--basically nothing. lol ok. say something productive
READ ABOVE EINSTEIN
|
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.
|
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 believe, dude, that he's referring to the entire concept of kin selection as your (as in you, specifically) intuition, and thus implying there is no evidence for it and that it is not "hard science", as he put it, bro.
At least that was my understanding of it, it's rather hard to manufacture an intelligent response out of a two-line quip.
|
On November 30 2010 10:52 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:51 Masamune wrote: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.
Where did I say anything should be taken as fact?
|
On November 30 2010 10:50 en4ser wrote:
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?
Totally random choice of thread dude.
www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/
|
i've seen lions do the younger males up the bum as a dominace play.
|
On November 30 2010 10:53 treekiller wrote: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 estimates Gallup)
I'd like to add one that puzzles me - 6) that anal sex is (I'm told  pleasurable. There's a sensitive gland up there that seems to be there solely to make anal sex pleasurable... so it's not only that homosexuality hasn't been selected against - it's really as if it's been selected for.
|
On November 30 2010 10:54 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:52 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:51 Masamune wrote: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. Where did I say anything should be taken as fact?
Not that I disagree with you (I don't have an opinion, as I am not educated enough to have one), but you quoting yourself without anything new does tend to come across as if you think it's the end-all-be-all of the discussion and anyone saying anything else should merely read your post and shut the hell up.
At least, that's how it came across to me.
|
On November 30 2010 10:43 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +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
as mcc said, no it does not. actually well explained by masamune why it does not.
In fact, with the darwin's theory in mind, if homosexuality would defies it, wouldn't it have died out long ago, not only by humans but overall?
Also, why must you be against it? wouldn't natural selection take care of it anyway?
|
On November 30 2010 10:59 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:43 mcc wrote: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 as mcc said, no it does not. actually well explained by masamune why it does not. In fact, with the darwin's theory in mind, if homosexuality would defies it, wouldn't it have died out long ago, not only by humans but overall? Also, why must you be against it? wouldn't natural selection take care of it anyway?
why are people born with hereditary diseases? shouldnt they have died out through natural selection? what if we acquired homosexuality through an ancestral species?
|
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data?
|
On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data?
logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior.
|
On November 30 2010 11:01 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:59 Keniji wrote:On November 30 2010 10:43 mcc wrote: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 as mcc said, no it does not. actually well explained by masamune why it does not. In fact, with the darwin's theory in mind, if homosexuality would defies it, wouldn't it have died out long ago, not only by humans but overall? Also, why must you be against it? wouldn't natural selection take care of it anyway? why are people born with hereditary diseases? shouldnt they have died out through natural selection? what if we acquired homosexuality through an ancestral species?
Are you actually asking these questions? Genetics turns out to be a lot more complicated than the version you learned in high school. In fact, that's what this entire thread is about.
Hereditary diseases do die out, but modern medicine helps keep them around (at least until we get better at gene therapy), new mutations continually arise, and in some cases there are actually competitive advantages to carrying a hereditary disease (sickle cell is usually the textbook example).
|
On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior.
I don't think you understand kin selection.
|
On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior.
I know PM's are private, so I will keep it private for the most part.
However, the fact that you think kin selection is a genetic trait leads me to believe you should really stop posting from a scientific perspective in this thread and possibly leave altogether.
|
this is pure speculation but maybe
In traditional prehistory human and primate societies only the dominate male would have the right to mate with females, infact if your not the dominate male and he finds you trying to get it on often this results in your death. Being gay often would allow you to live longer and gain favor with the alpha and then when would increase your chances of reproducing on the sly. Even in human history youll find kings and rulers who had hundreds of wives and children with many servants and slaves most of the male slaves being eunuchs. The dominate male passing on his genes is better for a species because it weeds out weak and unwanted traits so homosexuality isn't really that bad for a species.
|
On November 30 2010 10:45 FuRong wrote:
But natural selection looks at the benefit to the entire race rather than to any single individual. =(
As my prof in evolution would say, "That's an elementary failure in understanding of evolution."
I think I have to agree with the person stating that kin selection likely drives homosexuality in natural populations.
That or homosexuality is a genetic disease caused by the chance recombination of multiple highly beneficial alleles, such that in said combination would lead to low fitness. But in any other combinations is driven up in frequency by selection.
|
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.
So how do you explain the fact that so many gays are among the best looking men, have on average bigger dicks (dunno if this is true, maybe just a myth) and generally act a lot more alpha flamboyant, many of whom reach celeb status.
|
On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior.
I'm going to simplify this for you...
Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene"
Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids
Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters.
THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like:
Mom/Dad have kids
Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile
Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay
Top way = makes sense, your way = does not.
On November 30 2010 11:18 AlexDeLarge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote: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. So how do you explain the fact that so many gays are among the best looking men, have on average bigger dicks (dunno if this is true, maybe just a myth) and generally act a lot more alpha flamboyant, many of whom reach celeb status.
Looks =/= the lower level male. A lower level male may have other problems that are below the skin (Low intelect, many underlying health problems, low fertility, etc...) that will cause them to be lower level... looks is a good indicator of a good mate, but is not 100% infallible.
|
On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior.
Yet again you fail at actually understanding evolution and logic. If something that affects fertility sits on X chromosome and also by some side effect causes homosexuality(more likely increases likelihood of such) then it would explain that homosexual man would have fertile sisters, so no problem there as far as mechanism goes. And by that I am just rebutting your stupid argument, I am not saying that this explanation for homosexuality is correct.
|
On November 30 2010 11:09 Jswizzy wrote:
this is pure speculation but maybe
In traditional prehistory human and primate societies only the dominate male would have the right to mate with females, infact if your not the dominate male and he finds you trying to get it on often this results in your death. Being gay often would allow you to live longer and gain favor with the alpha and then when would increase your chances of reproducing on the sly. Even in human history youll find kings and rulers who had hundreds of wives and children with many servants and slaves most of the male slaves being eunuchs. The dominate male passing on his genes is better for a species because it weeds out weak and unwanted traits so homosexuality isn't really that bad for a species.
As far as eunuchs go, that would have to be kin selection since you certainly aren't passing on any genes yourself. You're helping the dominant male reproduce, but that's only advantageous from the gene's perspective if the dominant male is a relative of yours and has a pretty good chance of sharing the same gene.
Somehow I find the theory of people being gay so they can gain favor with the alpha male but reproduce "on the sly" a little silly, and them not actually being gay in the first place isn't the only reason.
|
On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior. I'm going to simplify this for you... Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene" Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters. THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like: Mom/Dad have kids Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay Top way = makes sense, your way = does not. Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:18 AlexDeLarge wrote:On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote: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. So how do you explain the fact that so many gays are among the best looking men, have on average bigger dicks (dunno if this is true, maybe just a myth) and generally act a lot more alpha flamboyant, many of whom reach celeb status. Looks =/= the lower level male. A lower level male may have other problems that are below the skin (Low intelect, many underlying health problems, low fertility, etc...) that will cause them to be lower level... looks is a good indicator of a good mate, but is not 100% infallible.
So basically you're saying gays, on average, are stupider, more prone to sickness, and have a higher chance of becoming sterile/impotent. Well i for one became a believer. The next logical step for you is to become a spokes person for the entire gay community, i'm sure they'd love to have you haha.
|
On November 30 2010 10:58 Igakusei wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:54 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:52 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:51 Masamune wrote: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. Where did I say anything should be taken as fact? Not that I disagree with you (I don't have an opinion, as I am not educated enough to have one), but you quoting yourself without anything new does tend to come across as if you think it's the end-all-be-all of the discussion and anyone saying anything else should merely read your post and shut the hell up. At least, that's how it came across to me.
I quoted myself because my post got lost in the shitstorm that was page 7 and because people happen to skim past long posts unless it's quoted.
I think the most important thing to be taken from my post is that homosexuality has a genetic basis and that it really doesn't defy evolution (it can be explained by inclusive fitness theory), not the point about the "gay uncle" theory lol. However, there have been a lot of other theories proposed but I think the gay uncle theory has a lot or merit for other reasons (i.e. studies) I didn't really list.
Anyway, I wish I had the time to talk about it today but I'm busy at the moment so I'll post more if the thread is still alive tomorrow or if you PM me, but if you understand behavioural genetics, homosexuality can be demystified quite a bit.
|
On November 30 2010 11:25 AlexDeLarge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior. I'm going to simplify this for you... Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene" Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters. THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like: Mom/Dad have kids Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay Top way = makes sense, your way = does not. On November 30 2010 11:18 AlexDeLarge wrote:On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote: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. So how do you explain the fact that so many gays are among the best looking men, have on average bigger dicks (dunno if this is true, maybe just a myth) and generally act a lot more alpha flamboyant, many of whom reach celeb status. Looks =/= the lower level male. A lower level male may have other problems that are below the skin (Low intelect, many underlying health problems, low fertility, etc...) that will cause them to be lower level... looks is a good indicator of a good mate, but is not 100% infallible. So basically you're saying gays, on average, are stupider, more prone to sickness, and have a higher chance of becoming sterile/impotent. Well i for one became a believer. The next logical step for you is to become a spokes person for the entire gay community, i'm sure they'd love to have you haha.
I... I have no idea how you finagled that from what he said.
|
On November 30 2010 11:29 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:25 AlexDeLarge wrote:On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior. I'm going to simplify this for you... Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene" Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters. THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like: Mom/Dad have kids Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay Top way = makes sense, your way = does not. On November 30 2010 11:18 AlexDeLarge wrote:On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote: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. So how do you explain the fact that so many gays are among the best looking men, have on average bigger dicks (dunno if this is true, maybe just a myth) and generally act a lot more alpha flamboyant, many of whom reach celeb status. Looks =/= the lower level male. A lower level male may have other problems that are below the skin (Low intelect, many underlying health problems, low fertility, etc...) that will cause them to be lower level... looks is a good indicator of a good mate, but is not 100% infallible. So basically you're saying gays, on average, are stupider, more prone to sickness, and have a higher chance of becoming sterile/impotent. Well i for one became a believer. The next logical step for you is to become a spokes person for the entire gay community, i'm sure they'd love to have you haha. I... I have no idea how you finagled that from what he said.
You gotta read the fine print, son.
|
On November 30 2010 07:52 Ramiel wrote:
Homosexual acts are sometimes used in the animal kingdom to:
1. Increase social bonds
2. Help to diffuse heated social interactions
Species that exhibit these traits: A certain species of ram, some primates, big cats, dolphins ext
You misspelled prison-mates.
|
On November 30 2010 11:25 AlexDeLarge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote:On November 30 2010 11:01 Igakusei wrote:
How significant is the evidence that gay men tend to have highly fertile sisters? Is there a lot of statistical weight there or is it more like the clinical evidence for homeopathy--a few cherry picked studies whose conclusions often aren't supported by their own data, focused on at the expense of a much larger pool of negative data? logic would tell you its bullshit. you dont turn gay because ur sister has a baby. kin selection is in no way tied to homosexuality. its a social behavior. I'm going to simplify this for you... Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene" Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters. THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like: Mom/Dad have kids Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay Top way = makes sense, your way = does not. On November 30 2010 11:18 AlexDeLarge wrote:On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote: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. So how do you explain the fact that so many gays are among the best looking men, have on average bigger dicks (dunno if this is true, maybe just a myth) and generally act a lot more alpha flamboyant, many of whom reach celeb status. Looks =/= the lower level male. A lower level male may have other problems that are below the skin (Low intelect, many underlying health problems, low fertility, etc...) that will cause them to be lower level... looks is a good indicator of a good mate, but is not 100% infallible. So basically you're saying gays, on average, are stupider, more prone to sickness, and have a higher chance of becoming sterile/impotent. Well i for one became a believer. The next logical step for you is to become a spokes person for the entire gay community, i'm sure they'd love to have you haha.
I never said that, don't put words in my mouth. He said gays are better looking than straight men, therefore they cannot possibly be the lower level male and means the theory is wrong. I just was saying that looks does not mean someone is higher or lower level. We don't know why someone is homosexual, and it might be there is a negative trait that could be passed down during reproduction that is being taken out that we do not know of, or maybe it is simply there is a homosexual gene and its being taken out and thats what makes them a lower level male, who knows, I don't.
I was simply saying that looks does not mean someone is the best reproductive partner.
|
On November 30 2010 11:27 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 10:58 Igakusei wrote:On November 30 2010 10:54 Masamune wrote:On November 30 2010 10:52 Half wrote:On November 30 2010 10:51 Masamune wrote: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. Where did I say anything should be taken as fact? Not that I disagree with you (I don't have an opinion, as I am not educated enough to have one), but you quoting yourself without anything new does tend to come across as if you think it's the end-all-be-all of the discussion and anyone saying anything else should merely read your post and shut the hell up. At least, that's how it came across to me. I quoted myself because my post got lost in the shitstorm that was page 7 and because people happen to skim past long posts unless it's quoted. I think the most important thing to be taken from my post is that homosexuality has a genetic basis and that it really doesn't defy evolution (it can be explained by inclusive fitness theory), not the point about the "gay uncle" theory lol. However, there have been a lot of other theories proposed but I think the gay uncle theory has a lot or merit for other reasons (i.e. studies) I didn't really list. Anyway, I wish I had the time to talk about it today but I'm busy at the moment so I'll post more if the thread is still alive tomorrow or if you PM me, but if you understand behavioural genetics, homosexuality can be demystified quite a bit.
I'm sure I know far less than you do having not attended grad school, but I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on college biology. It's a fascinating subject. I'm also interested in homosexuality because I came from a very conservative Christian background that held a viewpoint that practicing homosexuality was a sin, and a predisposition to do so was simply a spiritual hurdle to be overcome--much like a predisposition to lie, cheat, or steal.
It's always fun to challenge the notions you were raised with when you come across better answers.
|
On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:
I'm going to simplify this for you...
Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene"
Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids
Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters.
THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like:
Mom/Dad have kids
Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile
Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay
Top way = makes sense, your way = does not.
So... do you actually have any evidence proving that this "homosexual gene" actually exists? Because you're taking it for granted when there's no proof.
|
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up.
|
No, the really big issue is that homosexual tendencies are a pretty natural display of dominance in many parts of the animal kingdom. It's only because we were brought up in the 1900s that we think it's "unnatural" for a male to do another male in the butt or that there has to be some genetic reason for it.
|
On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up.
If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread).
Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations.
|
On November 30 2010 11:50 Igakusei wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up. If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread). Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations.
Where do you get this idea that there are "genes" for homosexuality? Please link source.
|
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation...
|
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius.
|
On November 30 2010 11:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:20 Insanious wrote:
I'm going to simplify this for you...
Mom/Dad has the "homosexual gene"
Daughter is born, she gets "homosexual gene" and now is super fertile and has tonnes of kids
Son is born, he gets the "homosexual gene" and now does not wish to reproduce with a female, and instead spends time taking care of his sisters kids / his other brothers / sisters.
THIS is what they are talking about, not something were you thought its like:
Mom/Dad have kids
Daughter is born, passing a gene to the mother that makes her brother gay and her super fertile
Son is born, gets the gene the daughter gave to the mother and is now gay
Top way = makes sense, your way = does not. So... do you actually have any evidence proving that this "homosexual gene" actually exists? Because you're taking it for granted when there's no proof.
He was describing evolutionary mechanism by which it COULD be achieved to show the guy he was responding to that his argument was incorrect. It is good to read things in context. Also there won't be one gene, and it will not make you homosexual just increase the chance other biological factors will do it.
|
On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns.
lol? You started your post declaring yourself a med student to assume for yourself some authority, but then write that? Both physical and psychological behaviors can be significantly affected and effected through outside stimulus. Are you serious?
|
AFAIK homosexuality (in males at least) is caused by a lack of testosterone in the womb and it ends up giving them a female brain somehow, the chances of it happening become higher with every male child a woman has.
|
On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:50 Igakusei wrote:On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up. If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread). Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations. Where do you get this idea that there are "genes" for homosexuality? Please link source.
It's a bit of a semantic argument. I didn't mean to imply that I thought that there is a homosexual gene that works like an on/off switch; I was replying how the person I quoted was discussing the evolution of homosexuality in their terms. You can't talk about evolution without talking about genes.
I have no clue how or why people are predisposed to homosexuality; if I did, I'd be telling people how instead of asking questions in this thread.
|
On November 30 2010 11:55 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns.
lol? You started your post declaring yourself a med student to assume for yourself some authority, but then write that? Both physical and psychological behaviors can be significantly affected and effected through outside stimulus. Are you serious?
I prefer the: "I'm from a prestigious law firm."-starter
|
On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:50 Igakusei wrote:On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up. If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread). Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations. Where do you get this idea that there are "genes" for homosexuality? Please link source.
There are genes that increase your chances of homosexuality, as there are a number of other measurable things that could tip the scales one way or the other. Problem is, these things only change your chances, it's not a binary thing.
Interestingly enough, certain genes that cause an increase in male homosexuality actually increase fecundity in women. Homosexuality isn't an evolutionary dead end, it's just a side product.
|
On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation...
Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something.
Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree.
|
On November 30 2010 11:55 jello_biafra wrote:
AFAIK homosexuality (in males at least) is caused by a lack of testosterone in the womb and it ends up giving them a female brain somehow, the chances of it happening become higher with every male child a woman has.
It's actually the opposite - higher testosterone in the womb. I believe homosexuals typically have more testosterone even into adulthood.
Source.
|
Gotta love how evolution is still misunderstood. People need to understand what exactly evolution entails, not how it's interpreted by idiots who read 2 lines out of context.
The reason the word/concept of genes is being thrown around in this thread is because that's a mechanism critical to evolution as it serves as the vehicle of transmission across generations. Darwin himself looked for this trans-generational mechanism but was unable to find it.
And it's isn't a simple binary switch, very few biological events function like that, more likely it's a combination of many different factors including environmental. It would also be just as foolish to think that a gene (or set of genes/factors) only influences homosexuality.
|
On November 30 2010 11:55 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:
As with every physical and psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics which directly or indirectly may influence evolutionary patterns.
lol? You started your post declaring yourself a med student to assume for yourself some authority, but then write that? Both physical and psychological behaviors can be significantly affected and effected through outside stimulus. Are you serious?
How much is the manner and degree to which you respond to outside stimulus affected by your genes? I don't feel like his quote is entirely wrong, even if it's too black-and-white.
|
On November 30 2010 11:57 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation... Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something. Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree.
Sources? Nobody is providing any sources that back any of this up.
Like if you can provide me with support for your "Of course there are genes that govern masturbation" statement I will completely reverse my stance on this issue.
|
On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius.
No.
If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything.
|
On November 30 2010 12:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:57 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation... Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something. Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree. Sources? Nobody is providing any sources that back any of this up.
You're missing the point of his posts, he's making assumptions sure, but hardly illogical ones given the current opinion in academia. Go read on the one gene theory so you at least have an idea of what's being discussed, because you are largely going to one extreme rather than putting it into context.
Edit: you would have far better success looking up genes governing aggression, now would it be a leap of faith to go from aggression to masturbation? not really.
|
On November 30 2010 11:57 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On November 30 2010 11:50 Igakusei wrote:On November 30 2010 11:42 cskalias.pbe wrote:
OP makes the assumption that there may be an evolutionary drive toward homosexuality. But a couple things stand out to me:
Random genetic variation could cause bisexuality/homosexuality (the mechanics of which may differ by species!) without necessarily an "evolutionary"/"naturally selective" reason.
heterosexuality could have evolved from "homosexuality" and not vice versa. one could argue that earlier forms of reproduction more resemble homosexuality than heterosexuality, although i'm not going to pretend that i could skillfully make that argument. but i just imagine things like worms, amoebas, etc, etc.
Also, what if homosexuality first "evolved" (if one argues that there is a biological basis for it as opposed to a psychological/societal basis) in say... females first (or the species equivalent of less physically capable gender), then they may not have necessarily been able to act out their homosexuality as the other gender merely forces heterosexual reproduction on them.
i skipped most of the pages of flame war, so excuse me if these points were already brought up. If the genes involved in homosexuality hearkened back to ancestors that didn't have separate sexes (what is that, a billion years at least), they wouldn't still be in working order unless there was a selective force keeping them in working order (hence, this thread). Genes whose function is no longer needed tend to deteriorate into garbage since harmful mutations in their sequences are no longer selected against. Look up how mitochondrial DNA is used to track the history of human populations. Where do you get this idea that there are "genes" for homosexuality? Please link source. There are genes that increase your chances of homosexuality, as there are a number of other measurable things that could tip the scales one way or the other. Problem is, these things only change your chances, it's not a binary thing. Interestingly enough, certain genes that cause an increase in male homosexuality actually increase fecundity in women. Homosexuality isn't an evolutionary dead end, it's just a side product.
Just because one study found (I haven't read the actual paper so I'll assume it's statistically significant) a correlation between homosexuality and increased fecundity in close relatives doesn't mean anything. I could easily find a study that demonstrates that toothpick acupuncture is more effective than placebo, but that certainly doesn't prove anything (aside from demonstrating my point). They might be on to something and it'll be really neat if they are, but be careful about repeating everything you hear as fact until there's a mountain of evidence behind it.
|
On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything.
Honestly your problem is that you view homosexuality as a deviant behavior when it's really a pretty normal behavior in most of the animal kingdom among many species of mammals. It's a dominance display. The only reason we have subverted this into an "issue" is because of our natural hedonism (pleasure-seeking) that lets us as humans choose to do things like have consensual sex with whoever we want and our culture has ingrained in us that this is wrong since we were born.
I would say it's MOSTLY social/environmental influences that influence homosexual behaviors.
|
On November 30 2010 12:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:57 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation... Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something. Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree. Sources? Nobody is providing any sources that back any of this up. Like if you can provide me with support for your "Of course there are genes that govern masturbation" statement I will completely reverse my stance on this issue.
Wiki for lack of interest in this sidetopic (see the first subsection Twin studies) : linky
But it is actually not that important to my argument that you have no idea what "governed by genes" means.
EDIT:link is to support the homosexuality is partially hereditary thing, not the masturbation thing
|
On November 30 2010 12:08 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
I would say it's MOSTLY social/environmental influences that influence homosexual behaviors.
And would that "MOSTLY" mean that 90% (arbitrary number) of the proverbial work is done by "social/environmental influences"? Or that the remaining 10% is completely necessary in order of the proverbial work to be done in the first place?
|
On November 30 2010 12:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:57 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:52 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
That's like saying there's a "gene" that governs masturbation... Of course there are genes that govern masturbation. Problem with your arguments is, it seems you cannot grasp what it means when someone says that genes govern something. Also there are indices that there are "homosexual genes" in some studies on twins that show that homosexuality is in fact hereditary to some degree. Sources? Nobody is providing any sources that back any of this up. Like if you can provide me with support for your "Of course there are genes that govern masturbation" statement I will completely reverse my stance on this issue.
The only things I've asserted can be found in any biology textbook anywhere. What's with your obsession with sources? If there were hundreds of scientific studies providing conclusive evidence regarding the origin and propagation of homosexuality, this thread wouldn't be 12 pages long already.
All we're doing is discussing hypothetical possibilities based on our current understanding of biological mechanisms. Yes I'm aware that you're not talking to me right now, but you did jump on me for not citing a source for something I didn't actually say.
|
On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything.
What i am saying, my dear obnoxious contrarian, is that there may be a reason on why the causes of homosexuality aren't well defined and on a general consensus by now. Maybe it's because there isn't any one particular reason, but rather a variety of factors determined by genetics and/or social environment/upbringing intertwined. I will not expand my theory further since it is not backed by sound scientific proof (nor do i care enough to further research it), but as a general thought i'm sure you all get the gist of it.
|
On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything.
actually yes, but not for his reasons. it's a bit semantically ambiguous though; "on certain levels" would merely be: not reaching the standards of attractiveness necessary to reach attraction in a "romantic" way.
the ancient Greek homosexual was not the same as today's. they weren't naturally gay, it was more of a class thing.
|
On November 30 2010 12:08 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything. Honestly your problem is that you view homosexuality as a deviant behavior when it's really a pretty normal behavior in most of the animal kingdom among many species of mammals. It's a dominance display. The only reason we have subverted this into an "issue" is because of our natural hedonism (pleasure-seeking) that lets us as humans choose to do things like have consensual sex with whoever we want and our culture has ingrained in us that this is wrong since we were born. I would say it's MOSTLY social/environmental influences that influence homosexual behaviors.
Oh my nonexistent god. How did you come to any of those conclusions about my statements ? Where have I ever said anything remotely like it. I am so far from viewing homosexuality as deviant behaviour as you can get, it is only deviant in the sense it is minority behaviour, but that is as far as I could go and I do not definitely think that homosexuality is wrong, wtf culture do you live in that thinks homosexuality is wrong ?(that was rhetorical).
Also it is actually you who are stating very unsupported beliefs as facts, show some sources for your homosexuality as "dominance displays hypothesis". I would also like to point out that you are mixing scientific enquiry with ethical statements.
|
On November 30 2010 12:08 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:03 mcc wrote:On November 30 2010 11:53 AlexDeLarge wrote:
Now, i have done basically no scientific research on the subject, so pardon my slight ignorance if i'm off track, but hear me out;
Could it be, that some men are attracted to other men, because they find women to be inferior on certain levels, and thus not reaching the standards that they require fulfilled?
I think this was the case in antiquity, back when all the great philosophers each had their own little boy toy protege. This was also an era were women were considered to be nothing more than a means to perpetuate the species. And during the renaissance period also. Weren't Plato, Aristotel and then Da Vinci, Michelango and all their ilk homosexual? If i remember correctly, they were. And they are regarded as pretty much the brightest minds in all of mankind's history.
So that pretty much shoves your theory down the drain, Insanius. No. If that answer is not enough , you are committing so many logical fallacies that even if your facts were correct it would not matter. You are assuming a lot about ancient Greece that I suppose you read from some popular sources. The case of homosexuality in ancient times is far from clear cut, and pretty much the only sure thing is that it was not looked down upon as it was later or in some different cultures. Also what has homosexuality of any number of famous people have to do with anything. Honestly your problem is that you view homosexuality as a deviant behavior when it's really a pretty normal behavior in most of the animal kingdom among many species of mammals. It's a dominance display. The only reason we have subverted this into an "issue" is because of our natural hedonism (pleasure-seeking) that lets us as humans choose to do things like have consensual sex with whoever we want and our culture has ingrained in us that this is wrong since we were born. I would say it's MOSTLY social/environmental influences that influence homosexual behaviors.
Sources?
See how annoying that is?
Anyway, even if that were true, our tendency to respond to those social and environmental influences is controlled in part by genes.
Say, hypothetically, that a certain mechanism by which one can become predisposed to homosexuality is caused by unnaturally elevated levels of a certain hormone while in utero. A genetic mutation that increases the fetus's affinity for that hormone might increase their predisposition towards homosexuality. Likewise, a genetic mutation that decreases their affinity for that hormone would lower that predisposition. Either of these would likely have secondary consequences, since that hormone is undoubtedly destined for another purpose entirely. Maybe the mother has a genetic mutation that causes her to produce that hormone in excess during the critical time in pregnancy during which it may cause it's effect?
Obviously that is an environmental factor (the mother's hormone levels), but how the fetus responds to it is in large part genetic. You could make a similar argument for other social and environmental factors such as how the child is raised. I'm not saying genetics is everything, but in my opinion it's pretty naive to dismiss it instantly because I don't have sources handy documenting how this works. Once again, we don't know how it works which is why we are having this discussion.
Genetic control provides perfectly plausible mechanisms though, and being an asshat by jumping on everyone who mentions genes and demanding sources just makes you appear annoying and ignorant.
|
I don't understand how threads can go on this long arguing about something that is so simple.
Twin studies indicate that if one of two who is homosexual 50% of the time the other is homosexual. This is referenced in multiple studies on homozygous twins.
This indicates that there are certainly genetics factors involved with the expression of homosexuality in humans, and that there are also environmental factors.
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Neither is fully correct. The problem is we haven't determined when, what, how, etc. are the determining environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality. However, we have isolated some of the genetic components which is what everyone wants to jump on and proclaim that homosexuality is not a choice and genetic. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data.
As always, nature tends to be a middle ground and does not polarize. Most things are a combination of genetic factors and environmental influence.
|
On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
I don't understand how threads can go on this long arguing about something that is so simple.
Twin studies indicate that if one of two who is homosexual 50% of the time the other is homosexual. This is referenced in multiple studies on homozygous twins.
This indicates that there are certainly genetics factors involved with the expression of homosexuality in humans, and that there are also environmental factors.
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Neither is fully correct. The problem is we haven't determined when, what, how, etc. are the determining environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality. However, we have isolated some of the genetic components which is what everyone wants to jump on and proclaim that homosexuality is not a choice and genetic. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data.
As always, nature tends to be a middle ground and does not polarize. Most things are a combination of genetic factors and environmental influence.
Well there you go, you just provided the scientific proof to back up my train of thought. Glad to see i was spot on regarding the subject, even though i put in minimal effort into deconstructing it.
|
On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
I don't understand how threads can go on this long arguing about something that is so simple.
Twin studies indicate that if one of two who is homosexual 50% of the time the other is homosexual. This is referenced in multiple studies on homozygous twins.
This indicates that there are certainly genetics factors involved with the expression of homosexuality in humans, and that there are also environmental factors.
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Neither is fully correct. The problem is we haven't determined when, what, how, etc. are the determining environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality. However, we have isolated some of the genetic components which is what everyone wants to jump on and proclaim that homosexuality is not a choice and genetic. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data.
As always, nature tends to be a middle ground and does not polarize. Most things are a combination of genetic factors and environmental influence.
Also it should be noted that environmental factors do not equal choice, and in this case it seems it is far from that, see those twin studies.
|
To say that nature tends to be middle ground is hardly correct either; Darwin's finches proves just as much
|
On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Environmental factors does not mean choice. It means things like childhood experiences, diet, etc.
If there's ever a choice for you to make, you're not homosexual but bisexual. At least that's how I view it..
|
On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
I don't understand how threads can go on this long arguing about something that is so simple.
Twin studies indicate that if one of two who is homosexual 50% of the time the other is homosexual. This is referenced in multiple studies on homozygous twins.
This indicates that there are certainly genetics factors involved with the expression of homosexuality in humans, and that there are also environmental factors.
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Neither is fully correct. The problem is we haven't determined when, what, how, etc. are the determining environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality. However, we have isolated some of the genetic components which is what everyone wants to jump on and proclaim that homosexuality is not a choice and genetic. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data.
As always, nature tends to be a middle ground and does not polarize. Most things are a combination of genetic factors and environmental influence.
I thought everyone knew this, but I guess this thread has gotten off track in the last page or two because clearly some people don't.
The thread is supposed to be about how the genetic factors for homosexuality can propagate given the obvious selection against them. You can't simply answer this by saying "oh, there are also environmental factors." Even if 90% of people born with every genetic factor predisposing them towards homosexuality end up heterosexual due to environmental factors, those genetic factors will eventually disappear unless there is some selective mechanism protecting them. THAT is what we're supposed to be talking about.
|
|
|
On November 30 2010 12:34 AlexDeLarge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
I don't understand how threads can go on this long arguing about something that is so simple.
Twin studies indicate that if one of two who is homosexual 50% of the time the other is homosexual. This is referenced in multiple studies on homozygous twins.
This indicates that there are certainly genetics factors involved with the expression of homosexuality in humans, and that there are also environmental factors.
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Neither is fully correct. The problem is we haven't determined when, what, how, etc. are the determining environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality. However, we have isolated some of the genetic components which is what everyone wants to jump on and proclaim that homosexuality is not a choice and genetic. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data.
As always, nature tends to be a middle ground and does not polarize. Most things are a combination of genetic factors and environmental influence. Well there you go, you just provided the scientific proof to back up my train of thought. Glad to see i was spot on regarding the subject, even though i put in minimal effort into deconstructing it.
No you were not, because environmental does not mean societal. Nearly noone argues that only genetic factors influence it, more people argue that most(like close to 90-100%) of the influence is done before we are born, these are two different concepts. If I wanted to actually put a number to it my guess would be something like 90.
|
On November 30 2010 12:36 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
I don't understand how threads can go on this long arguing about something that is so simple.
Twin studies indicate that if one of two who is homosexual 50% of the time the other is homosexual. This is referenced in multiple studies on homozygous twins.
This indicates that there are certainly genetics factors involved with the expression of homosexuality in humans, and that there are also environmental factors.
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct.
Neither is fully correct. The problem is we haven't determined when, what, how, etc. are the determining environmental factors that influence the development of homosexuality. However, we have isolated some of the genetic components which is what everyone wants to jump on and proclaim that homosexuality is not a choice and genetic. This is a gross misinterpretation of the data.
As always, nature tends to be a middle ground and does not polarize. Most things are a combination of genetic factors and environmental influence. Also it should be noted that environmental factors do not equal choice, and in this case it seems it is far from that, see those twin studies.
On November 30 2010 12:38 Almania wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2010 12:31 eshlow wrote:
If environmental factors did not matter and it was genetically determined then if one of the twins was homosexual there would be 100% chance that the other twin would be homosexual.
Therefore, saying someone's sexual orientation is a matter of choice is part correct, and saying someone's sexual orientation is genetically determined is part correct. Environmental factors does not mean choice. It means things like childhood experiences, diet, etc. If there's ever a choice for you to make, you're not homosexual but bisexual. At least that's how I view it..
I would argue against that... to a point.
We do make choices when we are younger (albeit not very informed), and how we were raised probably does play a role as well especially likely dietary factors.
Note that monozygotic divergent twins who were raised apart do show more different than the ones that are raised together
|
Nothing good seems to be coming from this thread aside from unsourced or misinformed opinion and borderline flaming. If you want to continue, please use the gay starcraft players thread, but pay attention to the OP for what the thread is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
