Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

As a Darwinist the last thing I want to be is Christ like.Christ wants to kill most people that do not follow him.
Read the Bible.

I can find the words for this absurdity: "creationist strawman". Nature knows nothing. However, natural selection favors genes which promote the spread of those genes through the gene pool, which is obviously achieved by any gene which promotes the well-being of one's siblings' children. (See also: ants, bees, naked mole rats.) 'Cos gay people have the same nerve endings as everyone else.You are confusing two issues: the reason why sex exists, and the reason why people have sex. Sex exists 'cos it spreads your genes; the reason people have sex is 'cos it's fun. (See also: masturbation, fellatio, anal sex between heterosexual couples, et cetera.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't think there's much you can do, except to stick to your guns regarding the facts.Of course you might ask them if they are then going to be deselected as they lose their evolutionary purpose (of "curing" overpopulation) by having children through surrogates and the like. And for those who believe they are selected to take care of the community's children you might want to ask how many are doing that now. I'm unaware that anyone has shown specific social behaviors beyond sex linked to homosexuality.What's odd is that this is being discussed as if there really is some set polar possibility. Gays and straight are simply endpoints on a spectrum of preference where most people fall. Both 100% sexual pref types exist because that's what organic processes set to develop sexuality for any individual CAN produce, but will do so rarely.

---

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

I wasn't referring to you.

The island will have no children, but be decorated really fabulous.

I don't know if you got where I was coming from. If homosexuality is a mental disorder, then every sexual preference is then. It all hinges on what you perceive as order, and disorder.

The evidence for a genetic component in homosexuality is pretty strong. Like all individual expressions of our species' potential, likely both nature and nurture play a role. Nonetheless, in the sense that evolution made us all what we are, they are correct: not in the teleological thrust of their argument, but in the basic premise that we should look to evolution to fully understand the phenomenon: many other animal species exhibit the same behavior, so there must be some evolutionary force at work.Keep in mind that the individual is not the only arena in which evolution operates. Demographics show us that gays are more affluent than their otherwise statistically identical counterparts; cultural stereotypes suggest an affinity for the arts and other creative endeavors. It is reasonable to suspect that some level of incidence of homosexuality benefits the group.Can there be an advantage to the community in a genetic constellation that contributes to both intelligent creativity and alternative sexuality? That seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me; is creativity liberated by freedom from the burden of procreation? As a father and grandfather, that also seems reasonable. Tell them evolution made them what they are for their intrinsic worth, not to control overpopulation. Who wouldn't adore that?

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you omni... There is very little to suggest this, unless you are referring to a gene which allows for, or the lack of a gene which inhibits, the possibility that environmental factors could produce a near 100% sexual orientation (one way or the other).What I have seen suggests that orientation is generally outside a person's control, but its controlled more by environment than genetics. This also does not make much sense to me. Evolution developed a sex drive, it is usually generalized and you can find animals (including humans) mating with not only the same sex but just about everything imaginable. The bigger question to me is why people are looking for some reason for homosexuality to be around. As long as a specie has generalized sexual drives they will produce a spectrum of behaviors. In a specturm some will be homosexual, or engage in homosexual acts.Even if its presence held some genetic component, that is to say the "spectrum" is dependent on differing gene combos, as long as there was no problem with a gene being passed on, it simply would be. It need not provide any advantage to anyone, just inheritability in a way that does not remove the possibility for future inheritance. Uhm... this could be explained in so many more ways than a connection to their sexual orientation. And it forces me to ask if this means poor, uncultured gays are failing at their evolutionary role? I find it sort of demeaning to suggest that a person's sexual orientation must be connected to some social benefit for the community. As it is we DO NOT see that in the animal kingdom. But that's simply replacing one piece of PC BS with another. Why can't gays who are ignorant about evolution just be corrected about the reality of evolution, rather than change science to stroke their egos?I might add that there are plenty of other alternative sexualities out there. Pretty much every individual's sexual preference is "alternative" in some way. Do they all need similar justification or is it just "gayness" that needs an explanation?Finally, being homosexual does not stop them from having children. It just means the person they have children with will not necessarily be their main squeeze. In times where societies openly accepted homosexuality, people still chose husbands and wives for the express purpose of procreation. Today many gays are striving to have children, whether on their own or through adoption. Well I can't speak for everyone that has sex with members of their own sex, but for me I sure wouldn't. I may be creative, but I am not an idiot, and dumbing down science to make anyone feel good is insulting to me.Once again I am sorry for disagreeing, and I apologize for having my hackles up on this reply. I agree with almost everything you say, but this one rubbed me completely the wrong way.AbE: I just notice you suspended yourself for 72 hours? So sorry for posting while you were suspended and couldn't reply.Edited by holmes, : more apologies

---

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

Surely you need to seperate sexuality and the desire to reproduce. Just because a woman finds other women sexualy attractive it does not mean that they do not want to reproduce. Look at the number of homosexual couples that have adopted or had suregutes (sic?) or marrages of conveniance.I think that people need to distinguish between desire to reproduce and sexuality.

CDarwin wrote:

quote:

---

But like the religious people I talk to the Gay community in Santa Monica seem to want to see evolution as a reason they exist.
It mat be correct that Homosexuality is genetic but yet unproven.

---

OK, here is my understanding of a possible solution. I’ll write this assuming homosexuality is completely genetic, which is the worst possible scenario for our discussion, since any bit environmental only makes it easier for homosexuality to exist and to have survived natural selection. Also, it is quite clear to me that something that is selected against slowly dies out. Therefore, since homosexuality exists today, there must be some explanation that makes it selected for.First, most traits are polygenic - that is many genes contribute to them. This is unlike eyecolor, or sex determination, which are monogenic. For example, skin color is controlled by more than one gene - hence the fact that there are intermediate skin colors, not just “all black” or “all white”. So it is reasonable to guess that sexual orientation is polygenic. This fits the data too. Kinsey and other studies have shown that people fall on a range from pure homosexual, through bisexual, to pure heterosexual, with plenty of points in between. Thus, if some point in the middle is selected for, then the genes for both will be selected for. Pure homosexuality can therefore be selected against. For instance, say the alleles show incomplete dominance, like skin color, and the alleles are S for straight and s for gay, and futher say it is on 4 loci (complete guess, more or less still works). So a completely straight person is SS SS SS SS, completely gay is ss ss ss ss, and most people are, say, pretty much straight (SS SS Ss Ss), but some are bisexual (Ss SS ss ss) or some such.Now - if all that is reasonable, then why would some point in the middle be selected for instead of (SS SS SS SS)? Remember that the optimum place can be anywhere, as long as it isn’t either extreme. In other words, if SS Ss Ss SS is the optimum, then the s allele still survives, and some people will end up, by mendelian chance, with something like ss ss Ss ss, and be gay.The ability and desire to sometimes have homosexual sex seems easy to be advantageous. One way is to look at the Bonobo chimp (our closest relative after the regular chimp). They use sex like we use a handshake, and just about as often and as indiscriminately. They have sex with whoever is needed to solve social problems. Our chimp ancestors could have been like that, or even a little like that, and hence we have the s allele.Similarly, in the rough Pleistocene, sex may have been rare to get. You have to have not only the right kind of person (not a sibling, too old or too young), but you also have to get the right sex. Would a person with some bisexual nature have been able to have sex a little more often, thus keeping from getting rusty or to enhance social standing? Seems feasible. Yes, in really hard times that could waste protein, but it’s not hard to imagine us only being turned on when we were healthy (that’s how it is today, after all).So there we go, no problem with evolution “planning for population control” or any such stuff, and still genetic, with no selection problem. What do you think?-EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : Really funny typo - typed "Bono" instead of "Bonobo".

I realize you are not suggesting it must be all genetics, just using that as a possibility and running through how it could work, so I am not going to address that part. However... The former sentence does not lead to the latter. Something does not need to be selected "for" in order not to be selected "against". For would mean advantage, and against a disadvantage, but there is always just plain NEUTRAL. As long as there is no disadvantage a characteristic can still keep going. If the purpose was just to keep from getting rusty or enhance social standing, why couldn't they have had sex with siblings as well as people that were old or young? Or, uhm, masturbate? Why would they have to go for members of the same sex?You mentioned the bonobos and they do it with everyone, young old, related unrelated, same sex and opposite sex. If we are close to them then that's likely why we see humans doing all those same things.Edited by holmes, : typo

---

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

Are you saying we could infer intelligent design???

---

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.

No, I am saying we could infer talented design.If it was an island of broken down cars, I don't know how quickly they would get running, but they would be painted in great colors.I know, I know, I am sterotyping,,,,, so what?

There really is no way that the gay population could increase through natural selection, is there?