Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,491 Year: 6,748/9,624 Month: 88/238 Week: 5/83 Day: 5/24 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Natural Selection.
CDarwin
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 243 (347200)
09-07-2006 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taz
09-07-2006 12:14 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 09-07-2006 12:14 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taz, posted 09-07-2006 12:13 PM CDarwin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 243 (347211)
09-07-2006 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2006 12:06 AM


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.
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.)
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.
'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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2006 12:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-09-2006 6:59 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 65 by riVeRraT, posted 09-11-2006 7:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 33 of 243 (347226)
09-07-2006 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CDarwin
09-05-2006 9:36 PM


This is a problem I have because if I say it is not I am called Anti -Gay and homophobic which I am not. But how do I get the message that Evolution does not try to reach a Pre-destination? It seems like two very diffrent groups want to see Evolution to fit their own agenda. What can I do?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CDarwin, posted 09-05-2006 9:36 PM CDarwin has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3546 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 34 of 243 (347278)
09-07-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by CDarwin
09-07-2006 2:48 AM


I wasn't referring to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by CDarwin, posted 09-07-2006 2:48 AM CDarwin has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 670 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 35 of 243 (347362)
09-07-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
09-06-2006 6:00 PM


you put a bunch of homosexual men and women on an island?
The island will have no children, but be decorated really fabulous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-06-2006 6:00 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 6:39 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 670 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 36 of 243 (347368)
09-07-2006 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by CDarwin
09-06-2006 9:01 PM


If Homosexuality is a mental disorder, is Pedophillia just a prefrence?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by CDarwin, posted 09-06-2006 9:01 PM CDarwin has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 129 days)
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 37 of 243 (347382)
09-07-2006 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CDarwin
09-05-2006 9:36 PM


I come across Gay people that tell me that Evolution invented gay people to cure over population. I tell them this is not how the process of Natural selection works.
N.S. ( natural selection) is not intelligent nore knowlegeable of the numbers of any life form on the planet. N.S. is the process of change and non change in a species. Evolution is the result of N.S. and is incapible of thinking out a solution to a given problem like over population.
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CDarwin, posted 09-05-2006 9:36 PM CDarwin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2006 11:37 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 129 days)
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 38 of 243 (347388)
09-07-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ringo
09-06-2006 6:06 PM


Ringo writes:
riVeRraT writes:
Homophobe is fear of homosexuals, but then what do you call someone who is afraid of being called a homophobe?
riVeRraT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 6:06 PM ringo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 243 (347541)
09-08-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Omnivorous
09-07-2006 9:19 PM


Sorry, but I have to disagree with you omni...
The evidence for a genetic component in homosexuality is pretty strong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tell them evolution made them what they are for their intrinsic worth, not to control overpopulation. Who wouldn't adore that?
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.
Who wouldn't adore that?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 09-07-2006 9:19 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Fragallrocks
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 243 (347546)
09-08-2006 11:59 AM


Sex, Sexuality and Reproduction
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.

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5396 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 41 of 243 (347550)
09-08-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CDarwin
09-05-2006 9:36 PM


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?
-Equinox
Edited by Equinox, : Really funny typo - typed "Bono" instead of "Bonobo".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CDarwin, posted 09-05-2006 9:36 PM CDarwin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2006 6:13 PM Equinox has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 243 (347605)
09-08-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Equinox
09-08-2006 12:29 PM


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...
something that is selected against slowly dies out. Therefore, since homosexuality exists today, there must be some explanation that makes it selected for.
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.
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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Equinox, posted 09-08-2006 12:29 PM Equinox has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by riVeRraT, posted 09-08-2006 8:58 PM Silent H has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 43 of 243 (347606)
09-08-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by riVeRraT
09-07-2006 7:48 PM


stereotyped, but ...
... but be decorated really fabulous.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by riVeRraT, posted 09-07-2006 7:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by riVeRraT, posted 09-08-2006 8:56 PM RAZD has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 670 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 44 of 243 (347629)
09-08-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
09-08-2006 6:39 PM


Re: stereotyped, but ...
Are you saying we could infer intelligent design???
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 6:39 PM RAZD has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 670 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 45 of 243 (347631)
09-08-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Silent H
09-08-2006 6:13 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 09-08-2006 6:13 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 09-08-2006 9:25 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 09-08-2006 9:40 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 50 by Silent H, posted 09-09-2006 5:28 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024