Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

riVeRraT.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

then how about thishomophobionomatophobia
"fear of being called a feared of a queer" (agian, the poor rhyme)(in good humor)oronomatohomophobia?
(at least it's easier to say)

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I really do not see that possibility. The TRAIT would have to passed on in some way. Male baby sitters are not always gay.But My point was that out side of Religious contempt of Evolution there is secular ideas that believe that Evolution can think. This is what I am trying to tell people no matter what their religious or sexual prefrence is.I mean like you say if Evolution were intelligent it would just make non-reproductive humans of either gender. And those do exist but not by design.

If Homosexuality is a mental disorder, is Pedophillia just a prefrence? We Vill-a-fie Child sex advocates for obvious reasons yet that form of sexual activity is more common all over the world than adult homosexuality.It also has the advantage of Reproduction over that of Homosexuality in a FITIST catagory.I have read that Homosexuality is related to hormone levals in the Mother's whom and that after 5 or 6 male children the 7th male child is more likely to be gay.No coralation has been made for gay women in that study.

Yes. I agree. I have come across this problem before in my city at open mike readings that envoke Evolution into their topic. I try to tell them that Natural selection does not have a destination. This concept is hard for even non-reliogious people to understand.I feel the reason is that we are all born into a culture that promotes a creator and that we all have purpose.N.S.and Evolution do not give people that same confidence about people individual lives.

Yes I see your point. But I am asking.. (posting) this observation with the conviction that these people I talked to really believe in the idea THEY were invented. I asked them why they believe this and they gave me the idea that ALL of evolution is PROGRESSIVE, meaning that every generation is an improvment of the previous one.Obviously this is not the case.So that means we are smarter than humans born 20 years ago and we are adapted to our invironment better and that we are better at seeing the problems of the world than our parents. This has led to the beliefe that being GAY has a NOBLE purpose in reducing the over population of humanity.I ask them What about AIDS? Was that invented by evolution to reduce the GAY population in the United States? Where Star Trek fans Invented to reduce human population growth? ( Star Trek fans do not reproduce as fast as foot ball fans)It seems that it will take time and science to learn what GAY sex is or if it has any benifit. Right now I just say to them that we are all the same in nature and that at this time there is no NEW HUMAN speices that has come onto the population to save us from past deeds.

So the evolution of HIV\AIDS is to make the human population better? (see sig btw) There have been a number of studies of twins raised in different (adoptive) families that show a strong correlation of homosexual behavior with genetics and counter to family environmental conditions.This does not mean that it must be genetic -- it could be formative environmental conditions (certain pollutants or missing minerals during fetal growth and before birth) that cause changes to both twins before birth.It is also quite possible that the genes that affect {whatever it is that defines} what an individual is attracted to as a sexual partner are close to, but not on, the genes that determine sex. Thus attraction does not always allign with sex. It could be a common transcription mutation.But the other thing we can be fairly sure of is that whatever the cause is, it is a recurrent mechanism. Whether it is a common fetal developmental mutation or whether it is a recurrent mutation in a susceptible gene section, it keeps re-appearing in populations generation after generation -- and not just in Homo sapiens but many species.It could be genetic, it could be fetal formation environment, it could be both in different combinations. We don't know. Neither of these would show up as a "homosexual gene" because it could be a similar but different variation, or just a point in development that is blocked by either mechanism, with lots of different ways to make the block.This essentially means that it is not necessarily selected for. It just keeps reappearing because of the other half of the mechanism: mutations.The only thing I have seen that would argue for an evolved selection for homosexuality is a slight tendency for more homosexuals as the last offspring in large families (the idea being that an environmental factor builds up in the mothers reproductive system the more kids she has).What we do know is that it is not choice.That's my take on it.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.

I guess we're kind of hardwired to find purpose in things, so that we see it even if none exists. For some people, the instinct is too strong to overcome. One could ask them to read some Dawkins - since he spends a lot of time trying to break down this appearance of purpose. I doubt that will happen, if you think you are important in some noble evolution delusion there's not much one can do.Seems you are doing as well as possible to put it to them, but they sound like they have come to their conclusion and will not be shaken. Good luck.

I think that in this last case some of them might find out that they are not as homo as they previously believed to be the case. Many homosexuals feel the urge to build families and have kids. They usually try to adopt but that might be hard to do in that isolated island...

Welcome to EvC. Aside from that, if natural selection intended to spit out homosexuals, then they are obviously "weaker" by the terms of natural selection. Couldn't possibly be comforting to know that you are an evolutionary dead end and nature's cannon fodder. Even though you and I disagree fundamentally, we are in total agreement on this aspect. I wish more evo's would listen to you instead of trying to be PC and defend homosexuality not on naturalistic premises but for cultural taboo. Well, they feel very ostracized and aren't sure where they fit in. As far as they go, they are the very antithesis of nature and evolution, specifically, because the entire theory of evolution is completely dependent on heterosexual sex to perpetuate a secies. Theologically its no better as most of the beliefs ask the simple question of why a Creator would choose to go agaist the very nature it created in the first place. There have been quite a few theories circulating, but no, nothing concrete. Yeah, I find it libelous to be labelled a 'homophobe' simply because you find it difficult to reconcile homosexuality as a natural process.What can I do?

---

"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

you like patently false statements, don't you? as you can guess--wrong. the ToE is dependent on getting your genes passed on. your statement discludes (i may have made that up?) all the asexually reproducing organims. and if you don't have children, but you're sister or brother does, what do you generally do? you help your sister/brother with raising them--they do have a good chunck of the same genes you do--they are family.In my own personal experience:I have an aunt, mom's sister, who couldn't have children. She has spent more money on my brother and cousins (mom's side of family) and me than any other aunt/uncle. She has also done more for us. If she had kids of her own, she wouldn't have. of course, this one example won't establish causality, but it's a start. someone here probably has a study to link for this.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Only if you say so. I believe the word you were looking for was "precludes." I'm having a hard time in even dignifying this with an answer because its such masterful ad hoc, PC nonsense. I'll stiffle that urge. First of all, asexual organisms are clearly exempt from this example, however, it doesn't take a genius to realize that sexual reproduction is critical, absolutely critical to most of the Kingdoms. Secondly, whether brothers or sisters share a proportionate amount of similar genetic simalarity doesn't invalidate how important sexual reproduction is, in fact, it aggrandizes the notion quite well. Lastly, your brother and sister are not you and I can't even find the words to show the absurdity that somehow nature 'knows' how to give your bro and sis a leg up for you. That's patently false to the point of total absurdity. And to further elucidate the point, it still does nothing to explain why they have sexual urges, if most evolutionists claim that the sole reason for sex is to proliferate. Why such sharp instincts that go in reverse, if nature, with its rapier wit, can muster the understanding that your siblings will take up your honor in your stead? That was asinine as it is begging the point. She obviously wants children because her instincts tell her this. And that's another thing: If what you said is even remotely true about homosexuals, then why the desire to adopt children if they are really just natures way of abating overpopulation?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"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

Has it occurred to anyone here that whether or not homosexuality is advantageous or disadvantageous in evolutionary terms has absolutely no bearing on whether it is A-OK to be gay or not?What I have seen so far is a hardcore creationist or two who have repeatedly claimed that the theory of evolution is just bullock using in this thread the theory itself to attempt to indirectly bash gay people. Isn't it time you people try to be more "christ-like"?

Thank you I will keep trying.

I am sure he meant Human reproduction. We as humans see the would in our context. We have only just begun to notice our biases.