Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

Well one can make any judgement on weaker/stronger on any criteria one chooses. When talking about genetic causes for homosexuality or altruism or whatever the individual is not the unit of selection, the gene is. Thus if one copy of a gene can sacrifice itself (by not replicating directly) to ensure that another copy of itself definitely does get replicated, then the job is done. Any gene which manages to replicate itself more often than its alleles will spread throughout the population - and it doesn't matter how that replication is acheived. Of course this, and the single organism/organ analogy are fair enough, but the central point remains that it is the genes that are protecting themselves and working to replicate themselves using an evolutionarily stable strategy for doing so. Each individual insect is no massive loss then, since the genes 'stored' in that individual are copied a million times throughout the colony. That's the spirit! The gene for homosexuality can have other ways to help propagate itself meaning that a term such as 'weak' is not necessarily true. Nobody is suggesting that homosexuals don't procreate, just that they have a tendency to procreate less which decreases their average fecundity which would appear to reduce their fitness. One homosexual might have a hundred kids, should they choose to and that is easy to see. If you want to argue that homosexuals are equally progenitive, then by all means present your case to the thread...it's not particularly relevant to this little subthread though since that is exactly what we are assuming without shame of admitting it.The point being that any reduction in fecundity could be made up in other areas, such as altruism. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I think I spotted the difference in what was being said. He seemed to be discussing the individual, characterizing the individual, which might have the gene. You are discussing the gene itself.I think you are both right, but its just a matter of viewpoint.But as a nitpick, if the gene which results in homosexuality for some offspring is actually used to produce other effects, and indeed gets selected for that reason, I'd hesitate to call it a gene for homosexuality. I think it would be generally anecdotal, but same would go for being asked to prove that heteros are more progenitive. We know that historically in culture that openly allowed homosexuality, people who lived largely "gay" lives where a same sex partner was their major love interest still took spouses and had children like everyone else.In the Greek world it was common for male lovers to help pick out the female partners for their lover.I agree with what others have stated in this thread, reproductive interest is separate from sexual interest.

---

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

Well indeed, that goes without saying. It is highly likely that any gene for homosexuality is like other genes in that it has multiple roles. As has been speculated upon here, it could also cause increased altruism or increased fecundity in non homosexual carriers. Calling it the gene for homosexuality would still be perfectly valid since that is what it is, it is also the gene for something else too.Naturally, the whole thing has been simplified massively, it is unlikely that one gene alone is involved - but this level of discussion is not necessary to get the point across. Indeed it is. When talking about reduced fecundity considering the individual as a unit of selection is not necessarily correct though. One cannot simply state that an entity that does not reproduce has a reduced fitness in evolutionary terms. It makes perfect sense in the simplified version of evolution, but not in the real version of it. A sterile insect is not a evolutionarily unfit organism, otherwise sterile insects would be getting selected out by natural selection. It doesn't really matter. The heart of the matter in this subthread is not homosexuality per se, but instead it is about how genes which reduce fecundity could happily survive in a population. If you wish to go down this road in any way, you may want to reply to Message 68 where CDarwin puts forward the position that

quote:

---

The Fitist is the Heterosexual as this life form is MORE likely to pass on it's genes into the future in the form of offspring.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't buy that one. But we can leave it as we seem to agree on the overall point. I've already posted (I think twice) how genes resulting in less reproduction can survive in a population. I only went to defend a portion of CD's claim based on looking at an individual from a large evolutionary standpoint, which is what I think he was doing.That he might be mistaken that that is the ONLY way to look at it, to make comparative claims, is duly noted.

---

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 think every living thing has a survival instinct, or a will to live.
Maybe we are the only species that commits suicide. Or using it to drive a race car at 200mph.

A person who does so stands a fairly decent chance of getting laid afterward.Fulfilling demands of gods that hate sex, and have worse odds of survival when carrying out their orders, entail little chance of getting laid afterward.

---

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

And yet there are still hundreds upon hundreds of millions upon millions of christians, muslims, and the likes around the world.

I'm not sure if I should mention Xian fascination with NASCAR, or point out that are millions more people who do not share the above mentioned faiths.Either way I stand by my claim that racing a car at 200mph is more likely to get a person laid than merely trying to fulfill a god's demands about forcing other people to live correctly.Just joking around of course.

---

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

Depends if your catholic or not, j/kActually that is part of our survival also. It gives many people a will to live. The imaginary god's have lifted many a broken soul up.

Well I was talking about getting laid by doing something, not extending survival time. But I will certainly concede your point. Deities, pure fantasy or not, have definitely resulted in many people holding on to life, even bettering themselves.

---

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

Joking aside, I don't think that's true at all. When I was younger I used to attend these religious youth things. You'd be amazed to find out how much sex goes on after each ceremony.Added by edit...All of which had taken a vow of abstinence until marriage. Always amazed me how that works.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

I just noticed this post.You've taken your words out of context. Try to think back where you made such a comment and in what context you were commenting on to who. Hint: It was a great debate thread.

What is so amazing about people being people?Surely you don't relate any of that to God, do you?God made us horny liars, get used to it.

So did I, but the pairings within that community seemed to favor the more daring guys (the types to race cars) than the pious ones. The latter seemed to get more "friends".I was raised Protestant, but had a bit of contact with Catholics and from what I saw/heard they were much wilder sexually despite all the supposed restrictions. I suppose Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred bit reflects that to some degree.

---

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

The only bigotry going on is the gross way some evolutionists are tryin to somehow consolidate their scientific beliefs with their moral pronouncements even they are diametrically opposed. I mean, at least cede this one point, that by the terms of natural selection, a homosexual is considered weaker. I've been gone most of the week and haven't had a chance to see RAZD's posts, but I can tell you this much even before I read them, that we are speaking on an individual basis not entire species or an entire population. See, you clearly recognize the implications of the argument, so you rush in to aid the homosexual community for political and moral reasons while trying to somehow make it so that your treasured beliefs don't coflict with your particular brand of science. Isn't that what evolutionists charge ID'ers and creationists with?- a pandering and catering to their beliefs instead of following the evidence wherever it may lead, irrespective of the results?This poses no problem to my argument. If a single worker bee is not selected by nature to procreate with the Queen bee, then he is clearly the loser in nature on an individual basis. Its the same for a homosexual. And if nature somehow had the forethought to produce homosexuals to abate the population growth, then one, you'd have to consider that nature has a mind which makes the intelligence design inference that much more attractive, or two, it refutes its own argument by making siblings reproduce the same amount of children into the population in stead of their brother or sister. Your argument doesn't work. I've contemplated the whole argument and can see no reconciliation between homosexuals and nature without drastically changing all of the paradigms that make science what it is today. Its a slippery slope for homosexuals, unless they can recognize that they are indeed nature's cannon fodder.

---

"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