morality, charity according to evolution

Alright, I'm done talking about homosexual Coelecanth. I apologize for the tangents. I see everyone's point with the Coelecanth, however, wouldn't you agree that homosexuality fits this thread? If you say, no, then I'll refrain from speaking about it in here.

it does if you want to consider homosexuality a moral issue. However, it does not fit into my aim of discussing how morality fits in with evolution. The morality I am talking about is that propogated by religions and philosophies, i.e. the golden rule or the ten commandments.

again, a misunderstanding of ToE.ToE and natural and sexual selection are not truly random. However, this does not mean that it is directed toward achieving a goal, as in starting life to eventually end with humans. The only goal ToE achieves is the survival of the species by adaptation.

The gene that causes males to incline to homosexuality may in females cause hyper fertility. At least that is what some preliminary studies have found. So a guy might be gay but his sister might be especially adept or inclined to have a large family. Someone linked to the popular description of this on this forum awhile back. Certainly more research would need to be done on this specific case but it is a good example of how a trait that seems counter to reproductive success may propogate itself.You have to remember, genetics is not so cut and dry. You have to take it all in the context of the environemnt which in this case part of your environment is your other genes (XY or XX).

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This is plausible, but we would have to hypothesize some mechanism linking the two. Alternatively, we might take an epidemiological approach to see if incidience of homosexuality was correlated with population density, but how would you get reliable data (how would you know how many people lied about it?). And even then, you would only have demonstrated a correlation, not causation. Careful now. "For-the-good-of-species" arguments are of no value. The species is not a unit of selection. The species doesn't care what's good for it or not. Strive to derive adaptationist explanations that operate at the level of the individual, or at least small, closely related groups.

This is the last bit on any thing dealing with homosexuality, everyone, so please, NO MORE.the final answer, NJ, is that NS would breed out homosexuality if it was detrimental to the reproductive fitness of the species. As to how long this process might take, I've no clue. If you want to discuss it farther, though I see no need to, please start a new thread.

First of all, natural selection doesn't have to 'choose' a trait for it to be evident in the population. A trait can also be selectively neutral so that it is merely tolerated and persists at low frequency. That's what I'm explaining with the thievery example.
Society is always going to be intolerant of thieves, but there will always be some.Secondly, it doesn't "undermine the entirety of evolution" (although I am sure you would like to find something that does, I suggest that would be virtually impossible) - the behavior itself doesn't even have a fitness cost associated with it unless heterosexual activity is completely avoided, the exception rather than the rule, as I understand it. No one has yet mentioned homosexuality in the context of sexual selection. I think this might actually be interesting to consider. But you would have to actually understand 'frequency dependent selection first before I could disucssit with you, and you obviously haven't made it that far yet. Not at all. It is the trait that evolves, not the individual. Many, many homosexuals have children despite thier homosexuality. If that weren't the case, we probably wouldn't see the rates of homosexuality that we do. Of course not. Silly me. I forgot it's a completely learned behavior - a product of exposure to godless lifestyles. No behavior has any heritable component, for that matter. That's just one more lie we can chalk up to evolutionary theorists, right?But putting aside for a moment your abysmal lack of biological understanding regarding even the basics of heredity, there have been some important enivronmental influences linked to the development of homosexuality. Unfortunately, they are all prenatal and linked to chemical imbalances and conflicting hormonal signals from the mother that sometimes result in gender misalignment in the brain during early stages of development. So, they don't really help your 'socialogical reasons' theory. It is starting to look like maternal stress during pregancy can be causal to some degree. Like maybe when a mother is harassed by anti-abortion activists and then prevented from getting an abortion. Just speculating here...

OK, then. Engaging in the behavior might reduce competition for breeding partners among adult members of a tribe or group. That in itself might qualify as altruism in a sense. The actions of one adult who would otherwise have contended for a mate would allow other adults to conserve their energy as well. A double plus.How's that?I'm trying to put this in a way that makes sense to me and others, but I don't have an extensive science background, so I'm trying to draw on the basics I have learned and on common sense. Admittedly, that leaves a lot of (sometimes rather large) gaps, but this is definitely the place to come get an education.

nemesis_juggernaut: Okay, here's an evolutionary explanation of same-sex relations.It occurs (rarely) in other animals, so exists as a mutation or genetic possibility.It's a form of kin-selection. Once humanity started living in groups, having around some people who did not raise children meant they could but added effort into aiding group survival: thus allowing their siblings (and other close relatives) genes to be passed on. An ESS would emerge: too many and the group has too few children, too few and there's no aidi effect.

---

For Whigs admit no force but argument.

No problem.We welcome everyone here who has an actual interest in learning.
(Wish we could say that for everyone, but alas...)Take a look at what MarkAustin has written right above this.
I think the argument could be couched in terms of group selection, and kin selection is the strongest form of group selection.However, I also think that we should not entirely abandon possible individual benefits.Ever hear of 'fag hags'?
In the disco days, these were women who liked to hang around with gay guys because they found them lees threatening, more stylish, whatever. Some of them would end up having sex with them. I knew guys that were jealous of how many women friends the gay guys had.My point is that homosexuality doesn't necessarily require a group selectionist explanation if most homosexuals also have heterosexual sex. Can we find any other potential individual benefits for homosexuality? We need to consider this carefully within the context of fitness within human society.But we should really start a new thread to discuss the evolution of homosexuallity. The author of this thread would like to steer the topic back to 'morality and charity'.

The infrequency of homosexuality is not even a concern. I'm not asking why or how they would or would not be bred out of existence, I'm asking why they exist at all if it undermines expressed intent of natural selection. And why wouldn't it be avoided if they have no sexual desire for members of the opposite sex??? So, homosexuals have to go against their own self-proclaimed natural desires in order to genetically survive? As its been pointed out several times just in the three weeks that I've been here, natural selection's sole 'goal' is to pass on genes. So what purpose does it serve for anyone becoming a homosexual so that they'd have to circumvent their natural desires just to keep their genes alive? That makes no sense. None. All this conjecture, I suspect, is pandering to two theories you've chosen to align yourself with - and so, marrying the two is a way to make them tantamount. There is no sexual selection because ovaries don't exist in the rectum, and cunnilingus or synthetic phalluses cannot impregnate anyone. I think that sufficiently removes all doubt. The 'many' homosexuals that have children had to go against their own nature which isn't in keeping with your purely naturalistic theory. This is what I keep mentioning if only to have someone attempt to cleverly derail the premise by bringing up totally asinine arguments. You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what I think. Heh. Maybe if you aligned yourself more with Mendel rather than Darwin, there might have actually been some veracity to your allegations. So from the standpoint of reproductive fitness, you are asserting that homosexuals are the product of adverse effects? Also, where can I find the abstract and/or dissertation on this study? Heh. That's a pretty big speculation.

Homosexuality is NOT the subject of this thread.However, Human sexuality is NOT binary. Individuals vary from very heterosexual to very homosexual. Most are somewhere in between with a strong leaning to one side. It is quite reasonable for a prodominantly homosexual individual to be a little or when pushed a bit able to engage in heterosexual behavior.Homosexuality can also be present in the population if it is linked to advantageous behaviors (as others have pointed out several times I think.)Homosexuality can also simply keep arising because it can be brought on by a number of different mutations and they occur fairly easily.There is evidence for the first and second cases above. I don't think there is any at all for the third.ABE Something you may think but the evidence that exists suggests that you are (again ) wrong.Edited by NosyNed, : Can't leave well enough alone.

Well, I don't want to dig to heavily into the philosophical or sociological suppositions concerning homosexuality. My only reason for mentioning it is because it certainly appears to undermine the entire of premise of evolution, being that evolution is only made possible by heterosexual contact leading to offspring. If this desire is so intrinsic and ingrained, as some suggest, then why do most humans spend much of their sexual time trying to NOT get pregnant (i.e. abortions, contraceptives). And if its so innate then why aren't homosexuals, heterosexuals? I can't think of one benefit it would serve an overall population if any one of us as individuals were a homosexual, other than it being nature's way of quelling an elevated populace that is growing beyond what the earth can sustain. But that would imply that nature has a mind for it to 'know' that the human population is possibly increasing to dangerous levels or that homosexuals are termed as 'weaker' as far as it relates in terms of natural selection. In either case, I don't think those are terribly comforting thoughts to any avowed homosexual.

quote:

---

You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what I think

---

I thought my sarcasm was going to be understood. Aside from which, if homosexuality is a perfectly natural and normal occurance, couldn't we just exonerate pedophilia and beastiality under the same pretense? Should those avenues be morally acceptable if they were found to be the result of some glandular disturbance or random mutation?

Which just suggests that you haven't read any of the half dozen posts on this thread which have suggested a variety of ways in which the maintenance of a gene which prediposed to homosexuality within a population might be associated with inreased fitness in the population, as well as reasons why such an association need not exist for the trait to be maintained.We've had kin selection reasons, mutual-altruism reasons, homosexuality as a side effect of genes promoting female fertility and a couple of others as well.The fact that you still can't think of one suggests that you are both unimaginative and have a very poor memory.TTFN,WK

[content deleted]Edited by U can call me Cookie, : posted via slip of the mouse...will post full post soon