Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

In case you are having trouble the post in question is Message 61How do you explain the reproduction of the gay bees?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.

(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?TTFN,WK

Wounded King responds to riVeRraT: classic.

In terms of pure selection on the genetic level, the rules don't apply. My reason for mentioning it is because the most coveted notariety an organism can achieve, as it pertains to evolution, is survivability and gene selection. So, if nature actually removes the desire of procreation by removing the desire to copulate with members of the opposite sex, isn't that the lowest form nature could derive? I mean, think about it objectively for a moment. For those who are imbued by a meaningless universe and who only find reason in simple terms of survival/death, weak/strong, the homosexual is an evolutionary dead end. I don't see any way of getting around that point.I find it that one's social acceptance of homosexuality is directly contravened by the naturalistic worldview. The two cannot coexist under both pretenses as they are incompatible. This is a separate issue because I'm aware that if homosexuality were the result of genes or the result of some glandular disturbance in early development is inconsequential to the argument on an individual basis. I'm speaking about a population. I'm merely asking what are the social :vs: naturalistic ramifications for homosexuality? Riddle me this: If nature removes the desire to pass on their genes then the homosexual will die genetically, right? Its not that they are physically any less fit. I don't suggest that or believe that at all. But if nature stymies ones will to procreate effectively, which, I think, everyone here could agree that so much evolutionary emphasis is on procreation, what does that say about the homosexual? Are they not a dead end, solely from an evolutionary standpoint?Some have said, "but they can procreate." Yes, I'm aware that they can physically procreate. But if nature gives us predilictions and penchants towards sexual attraction of the same sex, what purpose does it serve to try and override those emotions by procreating with a member of the opposite sex? Why supplant what nature has done? If homosexaulity is as natural as being born with green eyes, why try to go against the grain? If nature gives the desire for water by creating thirst, why try and go against that? If nature gives us the desire for food by designing hunger pangs, why go against that nature? Uh-huh, but where does nature fit into this? This doesn't strike you as odd and unnatural? Yes, I understand that, but we are speaking about nature and why nature would even develop homosexuality. Nature favors the strong and opposes the weak. There must be some underlying purpose for nature causing the actuality of homosexuality. If there isn't, then it was invented by man as just another thought to satisfy their salacious desires. And what are some of the social ramifications? Couldn't the pederast simply say that it was nature that made him desire children sexually? Can't the zoophile say that nature made him desire animals from another taxon with the same amount of conviction as the homosexual to feel justified in ones' actions? Its not an argument at all worth defending, IMO. If homosexuality is natures way of abating the population, but sis is spittin' out the same amount of kids for gay brother, then the exponent growth of the population is the same, in which case, you're still left pondering why nature ever experimented with homosexuality to begin with. It makes no sense. Its just a really bad argument and I wish the people positing such claims would stop to think how utterly unfounded and how ridiculous such a claim really is by a peoples that possible think of themselves as being pragmatists. But through all the floundering its very evident to me that some people understand the implications that I've addressed and they are trying to marry their social beliefs with their scientific beliefs because, as it is currently, they seem to be irreconcilable. You misunderstood my point. Many, if not most, of the evo's on EvC take the stance that survivability and procreation are pretty much two facets of life that are the pinnacle of any organism. Where then does homosexuality fit in the picture if, for them, its all about how it 'feels good' or 'feels right' when they are with a member of the same sex? If nature removes your desire to procreate, i.e., pass on your genes, then are't you an evolutionary dead end? I view people as having more value than being merely sperm receptacles and I see life as a bit more precious than this, but unfortuantely, most evo's believe that life is basically meaningless, and the only real measure of life is how succesful you are by living the longest and passing on the most genes. That, to them, is the measure of success, biologically speaking. Where then does the homosexual fit into those parameters? No, I do not, because I don't see the measure of one's self in procreation. That's probably because, one, I'm not an evolutionist, and two, I believe there is a higher purpose than a cosmic accident. Well, I think its more Malthusian conspiracy than it will be a problem that materializes any time soon.

---

"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

That this is what happens is an assumption. There is no reason to believe that the two are inextricably linked. Many lesbian couples choose to have baby's using donated sperm. They obviously still want to have and raise children despite not wishing to copulate with a man. Surely if a gay woman wanted a child enough she could force herself to actually have sex with a man, the desire for procreation may overide the lack of sexual desire or indeed distaste for that act.You would really need to show that the lack of desire was sufficient to render the individual essentially sterile, which would be pretty tricky. To counter this there are vast numbers of people who are gay that have at one time had heterosexual relationships and had children through those relationships. Which is strange given the many ways of getting around it that have been provided to you in detail. Again with the assumption that not wanting to have sex with the opposite sex means you don't want to pass, or are incapable of passing, on your genes. And again!! The desire to have heterosexual sex is not neccessarily the same as the desire to procreate/pass on your genes. Because there are two conflicting desires, and in such a case we frequently balance the strength of conflicting desires and one will win out. In some cases the dislike for heterosexual procreation may win out, although this is much less of an issue nowadays due to advances in reproductive technologies, but in a number the desire for procreation will win out. Only in the sense that there are some artificial technologies used in some cases not in that it is someway going against nature. You have already been given a number of varyingly plausible explanations. I would tend to favour the one supported by some recent italian work suggesting that male homosexuality may be linked to genes which increase female fecundity. Its good that you can speak for 'most evo's' like that, its a shame it is such complete horseshit however. That is the only measure of evolutionary fitness it has nothing to do with 'the measure of life' whatever the hell that is. No it isn't, but you just keep slinging those ad homs in there.TTFN,WK

Uh-huh, so if the desire is to have children still then how is it natural to subvert nature? Which might lead any reasonable person to conclude that its psychologically driven, not a propensity given to us by nature. Its not an assumption at all. If homosexuality is perfectly natural then there is a perfectly good reason why nature would cause individuals to not desire memebers of the opposite sex, which, again, to a strict naturalist the whole realm of purpose is wrapped up in the aspects of survival and procreation. So are humans the only animals that copulate for reasons of pleasure and procreation? This is an awful lot of hand waiving. You make it seem that nature and human technology are in cahoots with one another. I'm not talking about humans can overcome what nature has done, I'm asking why and how nature does it at all. If you can't guess as to what my motive is at this point, I'm questioniing whether homosexuality is a natural, biological desire as opposed to a psychological desire that manifests itself for other reasons. Female fecundity is one of the worst ad hoc explanations in my opinion. First of all, this only attempts to answers questions about male homosexuality. Where does it leave lesbians? One would have to believe that nature would produce a change in certain alleles. If there is a change in gene frequency, what are the calculations, what are the mechanisms, where are the loci of said gene, etc? But most condemning, if nature has a will to stiffle the human population by allowing for homosexuality, it quickly makes no sense if their siblings are essentially bringing into this world the same amount of children as would be if her sibling was having children. It just doesn't make any sense. I'll just ask you outright: What is the meaning of life? If that is a bit too broad, is the universe meaningless? Can any real meaning be found in life? That isn't ad hom at all. Naturalists, by and large, are not concerned with spirituality or with anything other than what nature alone can provide as far as answers are concerned. If you stop merely at biological function, which most evolutionists tend to do, then there is no purpose outside of some drab existence. Like it or not that's what we're left with when life is assigned merely a naturalistic point of view.

---

"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

Are you claiming that psychological drives are not given to us by nature?

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Eh? You just totally mixed up completely different suggestions. The idea that homosexuality is some sort of Malthusian safety valve came from a position espoused by some people the author of the OP knew, not from any scientific source, it has nothing to do with the fecundity hypothesis for which there is a growing body of research.you can't argue against a theory with some scientific evidence just on the basis of the ideas of some random people, or rather you can but it is a rubbish argument as is describing as ad hoc a hypothesis which has solid research to back it up, just look up some papers on pubmed. The recent Camperio-ciani paper was previously mentioned and the work of Blanchard is also particularly relevant. Together or individually? all sexual animals copulate, in one way or another, for purposes of procreation. A number of animals also appear to copulate for pleasure heterosexually, homosexually, with arms, etc... A very good question, at the moment there has been very little research on women. I don't know why that is the case but it is. I certainly see no reason why we should expect to find the same genetic basis, to the extent that there is one, for both male and female homosexuality. Well nature certainly can produce changes in alleles. The fact that a specific locus or loci has not been identified is since this research is at an early stage. Also if it is a maternal effect of female fecundity, i.e. an acculmulation of some sort of anti adrogenic antibody, then the homosexual themselves may not actually be a carrier of the relevant allele/s. What is the meaning of life may or may not be too broad but it isn't a question I can answer. Is the universe meaningless? I don't know. Can any real meaning be found in life? Yes certainly but it takes an effort of will to find it and it is likely to be very different for different people. So while it is possible to find meaning in life I don't think there is only one true meaning in life which applies to everyone. This is totally different form what you previously said. Not being concerned with spirituality is not the same as saying people are nothing but sperm receptacles. And if it isn't all we get is teh addition of good fairies, tyrant gods and invisible pink unicorns, big whoop.TTFN,WK

But it still does nothing to provide a reason for why homosexuals exist. Even in the article you provided from PubMed, which I've read before, concedes that homosexuality are paradoxical from an evolutionary standpoint. It goes on to share information that of their tested subjects, most homosexual males had older siblings and that the fecundity of their sisters were more highly elevated than that of their heterosexual counterparts. That does nothing to refute the disposition of being weaker by the terms of natural selection. Brothers and sisters aren't the same person. Though they are most genetically similar, they aren't the same person. If there is meaning then there are reasons for why nature does it what it does. Would you say that because there is such a thing as homosexuality that it quite literally serves a function that benefits nature holistically? I don't know why the surprise that many naturalists tend to view people as just blobs of well-formed molecules? I mean, the literature disassociates itself from any kind emotional connection and just gives us a stale and clinical approach to humanity. Instead of the mind, some might be inclined to view the it as if we're just a collocation of firing synapses in the frontal cortex and the hypothalamus... You know what I mean? Which is why I said,

quote:

---

Like it or not that's what we're left with when life is assigned merely a naturalistic point of view.

---

My invisible pink unicorn accidently stepped on my fairy. The wake is tomorrow at 10:00 Pacific Standard Time. You're invited if you want to go.

---

"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

Well it does in terms of population genetics. An allele which increases female fecundity is likely to produce a more productive lineage and therefore propagate more than one producing less fecund females. If that allele happens to produce, either directly or indirectly, homosexuality in a proportion of the male offspring of that lineage then that will impact the fitness benefit of that allele, but not neccessarily to a degree which overides the benefit accrued in the female line.While you may argue that an individual homosexual male who chooses not to procreate because of his sexual preferences is individually weaker in terms of fitness, in genetic terms the allele can still confer a net fitness advantage to its carriers in general which should be seen in its maintenance or spread through a population. Unfortunately without actually having a specific gene or locus this is still very speculative, but it is an explanation. The fitness benefit does not need to accrue to every individual carrying it in order for the gene to be positively selected. Tha doesn't make the people who write it stale and clinical in their approach to humanity any more than writing in french would make me french. I would but I have to attend the cremation of a friend's pookah.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : Correctd some typos

Especially when you consider that the fecundity of females is more limiting on the species than the fecundtity of males. Look at herd animals and you know you really only need one male for every 10 to 20 females to still have as many offspring per year as possible.The fecundity of males is generally way higher than necessary for species survival by several orders of magnitude.

---

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.

What do you make of a male dog who's after the male cat?

yeah,They're supposed to be after the male man eh?Seriously, animals raised in close proximity can be significantly confused about what they are. Horses and Donkeys don't normally mate, but raise one with the other and they will.

---

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.

Well, for starters, you can get around that point by recognizing that humans have a cultural and sociological development beyond all that we have seen (or understand, I should say) from the non-human animals. I will grant you that with regards to non-human animals an exclusive non-desire to engage in sexual activity with the opposite sex would most likely make that individual "weaker."Beyond that, your premise that homosexual humans have no desire to procreate simply because they have no desire to "copulate with members of the opposite sex" is completely unsupported. Contrary to the beliefs of some, sex and procreation are not exclusively one and the same. Supposing that you even have the slightest comprehension of what the "naturalistic worldview" entails, how would you suppose that it is incompatible with social acceptance of homosexuals. The ability to pass one's genes on to the next generation holds no moral, societal or ethical significance to "naturalists."We are not trying to make up some excuse for accepting homosexuals because we (and I hope I am not speaking too broadly) do not find anything inherently wrong with them (me). Yes, if the desire to procreate was completely and in every way expunged from the individual then their particular genes and other unique mutations would not be passed on except through (possibly) their siblings/relatives. However, this doesn't seem to be the case because many homosexuals DO have the desire and the ability to have children. No one else has suggested that, to my knowledge, on this thread. I have never taken the term "weaker" to have any correlation with my own personal well-being. I don't know why you brought it up. Yes, but you are, again, confusing the desire and ability to procreate with the non-desire to have heterosexual sex. Because my (and many others') "emotions" towards the same sex do not supplant the desire (whether it be biological, cultural or what have you) to have children. In the past, some have entered into "marriages of convenience," or simply had wanton heterosexual sex in order to have children, but now, we have many technologies that can help us to fulfill that desire (for both homo- and heterosexuals). Do you ask this question to people who get colored contacts? Nature, at least for humans, is simply the starting point. Culture, individuality, and all various societal influences play a HUGE part in our development and being. But people do this all the time. Have you never heard of fasting?Seriously, though, why are you so concerned about going against nature? I know most "naturalists" are not, so if you are trying to play devil's advocate (WRT to your side) here, it is not working since you are taking up a caricatured version of the opposing side. Only as "odd and unnatural" as in-vitro fertilization is. Or sperm or egg donation for heterosexual couples. I really don't see the problem. There is no "why." We can look at the possible effects of it or try to find some correlation to other factors, but there is no "why" when it comes to evolution. It just happens. You are the one trying to equate some kind of higher ramifications with homosexuality. No. No purpose at all. It happened. If genes are responsible for homosexuality and they never get passed on, then so be it. I certainly don't care. I'm sure "nature" doesn't care, either.However, it just so happens, that it (if it is genetic) seems to be passed on. Therefore, scientists, biological and social, are working on an explanation for HOW, not why. Yes, yes, of course. If not one, then it has to be the other. No room for any inbetween (besides the fact that you, again, attributed purpose to nature and therefore created a strawman argument). Ahhh...I was wondering when the slippery slope would come into play in this thread. These arguments will invariably lead us into an OT discussion. I recall a few recent threads that deal more directly with the "social ramifications" of homosexuality and I will be happy to discuss these with you there (if they are not still open I will propose a new topic). Of course, it makes no sense because I haven't seen anyone propose that homosexuality is "nature's way of abating the population" or that homosexuality is some sort of natural experiment in this thread. Not to say that the argument has never been put forward by anyone, ever (and it seems to be most often put forward by some gays who feel they have to justify their existence somehow in the face of hatred, myself included in my youth), but it doesn't seem to be a strongly held belief among homosexuals (and I should know...I go to all the meetings! ). But, again, no one here has posited that because that would imply that nature has some sort of higher purpose for us. No, you misunderstood my reply to your point. You implied that having sex with someone of the same sex would entail "going out of one's way" and I answered accordingly. I said it really isn't that hard. I said nothing about how my "feeling good" while fucking a woman inhibits me from fucking a man (or getting a sperm donation) in order to procreate. That is the measure of "success" BIOLOGICALLY. You, again, seem to forget that humans have a life beyond simple biology. Discussing biological and evolutionary "success" in humans is the same as discussing the biological and evolutionary "success" of antelope or algae.You seem to read that view of success as the only way that evolutionary scientists portray all of human existence and that is a false view and you know it (and if you don't then you were sorely lied to by your preacher). Well, I think the "accident" is the miracle. "What are the odds," right? And I view my current life as having purpose. Not just the one after this. Your reference to Malthus would make more sense if anyone actually believed that homosexuality had anything to do with population rates.Edited by Jaderis, : fixed a couple typos

quote:

---

Seriously, animals raised in close proximity can be significantly confused about what they are. Horses and Donkeys don't normally mate, but raise one with the other and they will.

---

And the bull-frog, horse-fly, spider-monkey? etc.?
jess asken! Promise it's the last silliness!