Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

Explain packs where only one male and one female reproduce but the whole pack takes care of raising the young.That's 3 to 4 times the number of reproducing individuals that are not reproducing.No way?Explain ants and bees where one male mates (and dies) with one female, and the whole nest takes care of raising the young.That's 100's times the number of reproducing individuals that are not reproducing.No way?Explain the lizard in SW where there are only females (no males), and that reproduce by cloning themselves after gay sex.No way?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Riverrat, even though I realize that questioning one's credentials violates some kind of forum rules, but I really must ask after you asked this question. Where do you get your knowledge in biology from: school, the press, popular culture, your local preacher, or common sense?The reason I ask is because just about everything you say seems to have come straight from thin air. Even your questions demonstrate lack of understanding of what you are talking about.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

????My question.....demostrates.......a lack of understanding of what I am talking about.My question...talking about...My question, not talking about anything. If I had credentials in that field of knowledge, I would not have asked that question, would I?Instead of attacking me, explain to me how it could happen, so I can understand too. Just like your unwarranted response, right from thin air. There is no room for BS like this in an intelligent conversation, so stop.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

I am not exactly sure how this promotes gay people to exist. I did not know about that, that is fascinating. Seriously. But we do not clone, so that kind of supports what I am saying.Think of the moths from the book of Darwin. The white moths got weened out due to natural selection. Straight people would not get weened out, because the majority of gay people are not reproducing.The only thing I can think of, and it is a very ignorant narrowminded view of it, is that gay people are more the result of society, than natural selection.Please, don't everyone beat up on me, but just explain why I am wrong, and if there is no truth to what I am saying. We have established that I have nothing against gay people, and I have declared that I don't really give a crap how they got to be gay, other than it is just plain interesting.

Sure there is. There are many fantastical scenarios that COULD happen so that the gay population increases BECAUSE OF natural selection. But the fact is we just don't know what exactly goes into constructing any individual's sexual preference, and so can't validly discuss natural selection issues.I mean the first thing one needs is a genuine genetic connection. And then one has to show that selection FOR an advantage it produces has something to do with that orientation. For example, while presence of a gene might end up promoting attraction to same sex in an individual, its advantage may actually be for something else it does in the human body. For example maybe it is responsible for fertility in females, or better breast milk, and it just so happens that as a side effect it results in affecting sex preference of children in a way is not in and of itself detrimental for the gene to be passed on.Before people leap to the conclusion that there IS a gene which causes a desire for the same sex and that it ALSO causes them to care for children or entertain the masses, maybe it would be wise to look for direct physical advantages?But that really is only if one must find an advantage when no one has to. There are also genetically inheritable conditions which exist throughout humanity, patent disfunctions. Why do they exist? Because it makes those people contribute to society in some special way? No, it is simply because the way the gene is passed on does not get culled.And that is really only after we assume there is a genetic link, which no one has really shown, and indeed only after we assume humans are straight or gay, when in fact that is simply a cultural invention. Humans as a whole are polymorphous perverse. Its a spectrum with only a relative few at the poles of strictly hetero (nonkinky) and stictly homo (nonkinky). We box people into declaring some allegiance to preference, which artificially exaggerates actual numbers on either side. That is one way humans "increase" both the gay and straight populations.Whatever happened to "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"? Isn't that catchier than "we're here, we're queer, and that's because evolution creates us to be caretakers and entertainers of society so you really need us to fulfill those social roles"? Edited by holmes, : subtitle

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That wasn't your question. Your question was: With the clear implication that your doubt was centered on them not reproducing.Clearly natural selection can select for populations of organisms where significant numbers are not reproductive members of that population yet provide a selective advantage to the population for the continuation of the species -- and whether they are "gay" or not is immaterial to the selection process if they don't reproduce eh? The act of sex is all that is needed to stimulate reproduction in these lizards. Yes they are clones but that is because no DNA is transmitted during sex. Toujours gai. The white light moths were not eliminated, they were reduced in numbers while the dark moths increased in numbers, and when the pollution was cleaned up, the environment was not sooty anymore and natural selection swung back to favor light moth population over the dark moth population.Natural selection does not always mean elimination of one set of organisms within a population. It could also result in a dividing of the population into two new species -- if the pollution had continued and dark moths were predominantly selected in polluted areas and light moths were predominantly selected in non-polluted areas there could be a point reached where they did not or could not interbreed (due to further mutations within populations after being isolated by preferential predation).If there is an {advantage\disadvantage} disequilibrium in a population for one variation within a population over another variation in the population, then natural selection will favour the {relatively advantaged} set over the {relatively disadvantaged} set, regardless of what that variation includes.Enjoy. (no beating up done)

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks holmes. I guess what I wrote wasn't really what I meant.Let's say that whatever it is that would increase the number of homosexual people on the planet continued, and all we were left with was homosexual people. Wouldn't our race then die out, making the natural selection process a failure?Also, are there any other species that we know of, that have evolved themselves right off the planet?I know all this is far fetched and would never happen, but it is fun to discuss it.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I wasn't really focusing on the fact that they are gay, just the fact that most homosexuals do not reproduce. Absolutely. But what if it was all, and not some? Hey wouldn't it be funny if all of a sudden lesbians started reproducing in the same fashion?I wonder if this would make them happy or not. But there was a purpose, or an explanation why that happened. I wonder what our explanation is.I have always felt that the moth was designed to do just what it did, and it isn't something that would lead it to being another species.

Just all the ones that are extinct. That would include the ones we don't know of as well.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Just all the ones that are extinct. That would include the ones we don't know of as well.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

1) If people kept reproducing then it wouldn't matter if they were straight or gay, they wouldn't die out. If we assume orientation will be so great that they ignore reproductive urges, which has not been the case in history, then I suppose an increase in gays would pose that problem.2) But even if this did happen, it would not be a "failure". It might suck from our perspective but there is no goal to evolution. If anything I suppose it was "successful" in removing a species that was no longer suited to environmental demands. I'm not going to say every extinct species, since some were not the result of characteristics evolving, but rather environmental conditions changing around them and their not having sufficient capabilities. I assume some must have evolved characteristics that were ultimately detrimental, but I do not know enough about evolutionary history to say which. Maybe someone can fill us in with details. Want something more realistic? A species grows the capacity for more abstract thought which allows for greater innovation and technology, but also fantasy.This species becomes so unable to disentangle elements of their fantasy from reality that they use technology to reshape reality to fit their fantasies. Eventually certain factions invent wholly fictional species which talk to them and demand the destruction of all life that does not believe in those fictional species or how they want reality to be seen. These factions proceed to use their improved technology to kill off members of their own species to placate the fictional entities, wiping out everyone in the process.In other words I think we have more to worry about than homosexuals being selected to such a degree that we don't reproduce.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

If all members of a population were not reproductive, there would be no reproduction. Naturally, this is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. In humans, homosexuality ratios might be an ESS, just like insect colonies find their own ESS for non-reproductive members. As well as homosexuals there are probably other members who are genetically inclined towards celibacy. I reckon there might even be an ESS for those memetically inclined towards homosexuality or celibacy or other non-reproductive tendencies (such as members of VHEMT).

um actually documented IIRC ... and then there are also those mono-sexual perverts ... and everyone else that doesn't engage in the purposeful propagation of the species by having sex with whoever is available ... (sorry ... just getting a little venting steam off ... why are only homosexuals discriminated against by the "morality" brigadees ... )Edited by RAZD, : ubbcodecc

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Natural selection favors the stronger over the weaker in most cases. It also needs a gene pool in which drift and select from, right? So if homosexuals don't have a prediliction to pass on genes then they are an evolutionary dead end, no? As well, to even make this argument that siblings pick up for their gay bro/sis, you'd have to quantify how many homosexuals have any siblings at all. You'd also have to to quantfiy how many heterosexuals have siblings and also find out how fertile they are. I mean what you are espousing is the biggest strawman I've ever seen-- its king of the scarecrows. I'm not confusing anything. This is very simple logic. If it was just about merely 'feeling good,' just about anything could satisfy some baser appetite, so why go out of one's way to find someone of the same sex if just about feeling good?. If someone claims they are gay they are claiming that they have no sexual desire for the opposite sex. If that desire doesn't exist because of genetics, then by the terms of natural selection, they are the weaker forms of humanity because they will have no desire to perpetuate. To overcome this they have to go against their own expressed nature. Bottom line: Evolution and homosexuality are at odds.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

isn't it great to see your typical creationist use evolution to support his bigotry?you know the problem with your argument is? I'd go check out some of razd's posts on this thread--the ones discussing the bees and ants (and some other organisms). problem is--there are many species where every member is not involved with the act of procreation. hmm--kind of shoots down the argument, huh. unless you want to use it to justify your social darwinistic bigotry. at which point the evidence won't matter.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences