Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,489 Year: 6,746/9,624 Month: 86/238 Week: 3/83 Day: 3/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Natural Selection.
Modulous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 76 of 243 (348380)
09-12-2006 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Silent H
09-12-2006 10:59 AM


genes as the unit of selection
But it is on the individual, or single gene line, level which is the point I was making and I think the poster was sort of coming from. Any individual when looked at from an evolutionary standpoint, could be considered "weaker" in comparison to other individuals based on his stated criteria.
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.
Looking at colonies this is especially true, but then the drones really are adapted to a purpose which aids the population as a whole. We can see it.
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 not true if homosexuality is a side effect (perhaps just a potentiality) caused by a gene that produces a totally different effect which allows for its propagation.
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.
And this also assumes that homosexuals will not procreate, which simply is not supported by any historical data.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 09-12-2006 10:59 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 09-12-2006 6:12 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 77 of 243 (348496)
09-12-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Modulous
09-12-2006 12:18 PM


Re: genes as the unit of selection
The gene for homosexuality can have other ways to help propagate itself meaning that a term such as 'weak' is not necessarily true.
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.
If you want to argue that homosexuals are equally progenitive, then by all means present your case to the thread.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2006 12:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2006 1:35 AM Silent H has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 243 (348618)
09-13-2006 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Silent H
09-12-2006 6:12 PM


reduced fecundity does not make one less fit
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.
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.
I think you are both right, but its just a matter of viewpoint.
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.
I think it would be generally anecdotal, but same would go for being asked to prove that heteros are more progenitive.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 09-12-2006 6:12 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2006 5:13 AM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 79 of 243 (348654)
09-13-2006 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
09-13-2006 1:35 AM


Re: reduced fecundity does not make one less fit
it could also cause increased altruism
I don't buy that one. But we can leave it as we seem to agree on the overall point.
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
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2006 1:35 AM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 80 of 243 (348662)
09-13-2006 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
09-11-2006 8:18 AM


Re: RiverRat: They're here, They're queer, and so are the rest of us.
I feel relatively confident in asserting the Dinosaurs had a survival insitinct.
I think every living thing has a survival instinct, or a will to live.
Maybe we are the only species that commits suicide.
Most specifically using tech to fulfill demands of figments of our imagination such as Gods.
Or using it to drive a race car at 200mph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2006 8:18 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2006 9:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

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


Message 81 of 243 (348700)
09-13-2006 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by riVeRraT
09-13-2006 6:49 AM


Re: RiverRat: They're here, They're queer, and so are the rest of us.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by riVeRraT, posted 09-13-2006 6:49 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taz, posted 09-13-2006 11:48 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 84 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 7:18 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 82 of 243 (348732)
09-13-2006 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Silent H
09-13-2006 9:54 AM


Re: RiverRat: They're here, They're queer, and so are the rest of us.
And yet there are still hundreds upon hundreds of millions upon millions of christians, muslims, and the likes around the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2006 9:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2006 3:06 PM Taz has replied

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


Message 83 of 243 (348790)
09-13-2006 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taz
09-13-2006 11:48 AM


Re: RiverRat: They're here, They're queer, and so are the rest of us.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taz, posted 09-13-2006 11:48 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 09-14-2006 1:05 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 84 of 243 (349008)
09-14-2006 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Silent H
09-13-2006 9:54 AM


Re: RiverRat: They're here, They're queer, and so are the rest of us.
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.
Depends if your catholic or not, j/k
Actually 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2006 9:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2006 10:34 AM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 85 of 243 (349033)
09-14-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by riVeRraT
09-14-2006 7:18 AM


Re: RiverRat: They're here, They're queer, and so are the rest of us.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 7:18 AM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 86 of 243 (349056)
09-14-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Silent H
09-13-2006 3:06 PM


Re: RiverRat: They're here, They're queer, and so are the rest of us.
holmes writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2006 3:06 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 7:10 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2006 7:12 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 87 of 243 (349091)
09-14-2006 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by riVeRraT
09-06-2006 5:52 PM


riverrat writes:
I feel there is truth in that statement, but to be fair, if you put a bunch of heterosexuals on the island, who were born with the inability to procreate, they would also die out.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by riVeRraT, posted 09-06-2006 5:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 88 of 243 (349136)
09-14-2006 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Taz
09-14-2006 1:05 PM


Re: RiverRat: They're here, They're queer, and so are the rest of us.
All of which had taken a vow of abstinence until marriage. Always amazed me how that works.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 09-14-2006 1:05 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 89 of 243 (349137)
09-14-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Taz
09-14-2006 1:05 PM


Re: RiverRat: They're here, They're queer, and so are the rest of us.
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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 09-14-2006 1:05 PM Taz has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 243 (349144)
09-14-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by kuresu
09-09-2006 7:44 PM


Oppositional slander
isn't it great to see your typical creationist use evolution to support his bigotry?
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.
you know the problem with your argument is? I'd go check out some of razd's posts on this thread--the ones discussing the bees and ants (and some other organisms). problem is--there are many species where every member is not involved with the act of procreation. hmm--kind of shoots down the argument, huh. unless you want to use it to justify your social darwinistic bigotry. at which point the evidence won't matter.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by kuresu, posted 09-09-2006 7:44 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 09-15-2006 5:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 92 by Wounded King, posted 09-15-2006 10:56 AM Hyroglyphx 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