| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
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. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:52 Half wrote: 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? | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
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/ | ||
|
TibblesEvilCat
United Kingdom766 Posts
| ||
|
Almania
145 Posts
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 estimatesGallup) 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. | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:54 Masamune wrote: 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. | ||
|
Keniji
Netherlands2569 Posts
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? | ||
|
jmillz
73 Posts
On November 30 2010 10:59 Keniji wrote: 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? | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
| ||
|
jmillz
73 Posts
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. | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On November 30 2010 11:01 jmillz wrote: 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). | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote: 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. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote: 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. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
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. | ||
|
Wayra
195 Posts
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. | ||
|
AlexDeLarge
Romania218 Posts
On November 30 2010 09:01 FindingPride wrote: 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. | ||
|
Insanious
Canada1251 Posts
On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote: 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: 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. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On November 30 2010 11:03 jmillz wrote: 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. | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
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. | ||
|
AlexDeLarge
Romania218 Posts
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. 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. | ||
| ||
|
|
Master's Coliseum
herO vs Astrea
Reynor vs Spirit
Korean StarCraft League
Master's Coliseum
Zoun vs MaxPax
Serral vs GuMiho
Red Clan Cup
Master's Coliseum
DaveTesta Events
OSC
OlimoLeague
LiuLi Cup
SKillous vs Solar
MaxPax vs SHIN
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
