Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Discussion Forums > Science

Science From your kid's science project to relativity, this is the place to discuss it.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 02:41 AM
NickKIELCEPoland's Avatar
NickKIELCEPoland NickKIELCEPoland is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,082
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by shekib82 View Post
Is there such a thing as innate infertility? How many people are born genetically not able to have kids? What are the names of those conditions?
I don't know the answer to any of those questions.

Were they rhetorical questions or do you not know the answers either?

Incidentally, I don't know whether there is genetic homosexuality. But I consider it a joke to think gay people choose to be gay.
__________________
Europe
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 12:11 PM
dilettante's Avatar
dilettante dilettante is offline
Moderator
Resident Historian
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,082
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by shekib82 View Post
Is there such a thing as innate infertility? How many people are born genetically not able to have kids? What are the names of those conditions?
Klinefelter Syndrome, Kallmann Syndrome, and Y Chromosome Microdeletion are all genetic disorders that result in sterility or severely reduced fertility. There are plenty of others. One could reasonably argued that any genetic trait that severely impacts one's health or reduces one's lifespan (or, for that matter, makes one ugly) significantly decreases one's chances of reproducing.

If homosexuality is primarily genetic, then it's evolutionary path is certainly a complex one, but evolutionary theory doesn't claim that no genetic disadvantages (in terms of reproduction) will exist, only that they won't become dominant.
__________________
kyrie eleison
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 01:27 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,835
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by shekib82 View Post
If people were born with homosexual predilections, how would they still exist?

I mean if you look at evolutionary theories of Homo Sapiens and modern man you will find that Humanity according to this theory is very old. Old enough to escape any social pressure that would have forced homosexuals to marry and thus pass their preferences to their children.

So how would they exist? How would evolution allow it?
This is a long-standing and very challenging question. Unfortunately, our modern science has not yet been able to supply any definitive answers, though they certainly are studying this specific issue.

I certainly agree that it seems rather odd (or illogical) that homosexuality could exist/persist in society in any sizable numbers, given the nature of human reproduction, genetics and evolution. However, it is an apparent fact that homosexuality does in fact exist and persist in society (in fairly sizable numbers). Ergo, homosexuality must either be fully explicable according some unknown or as yet undiscovered genetic process, or alternatively, homosexuality may have some other, equally unknown, but non-genetic 'cause'. And of course, there is always a third possibility that it may be some unknown combination of a genetic and non-genetic 'cause'. The idea that homosexuality might be a 'choice' is so absurd and so lacking in any evidence that the suggestion must be simply dismissed.

All that being said, there is a theory that does explain homosexuality in terms of 'persistence' or 'success' in evolution. It involves the reproductive success of 'family' rather than 'individual genes'. Theoretically, males have a very strong evolutionary-genetic interest in assisting their sister in breeding/upbringing of children. The theory goes that any given male has a better chance of knowing that his own sister's children are truly his own 'flesh & blood'. A man can never truly know that 'his' children with another woman are in absolute fact his own genes. This is particularly important given the human propensity for sexual promiscuity, untruthfulness and deception. In this respect, actual breeding by a particular male (with with the 'so-called homosexual gene') might not be so important for genetic success, as long as his sister successfully breeds.

It is assumed that a 'bachelor' uncle would tend to be rather helpful and/or materially supportive of his sister's children, enhancing their chance of success and thereby passing on the same 'homosexual gene' that affected the uncle (so to speak). This is just a theory, but it does explain how homosexuality could realistically persist in genetic/evolutionary terms.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 01:30 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,835
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickKIELCEPoland View Post
Incidentally, I don't know whether there is genetic homosexuality. But I consider it a joke to think gay people choose to be gay.
It isn't a joke. It is a political requirement. If you want to "ban" homosexuality, it has to be, by nature, banable. If homosexuality is 'genetic' in origin, it can't be banned. Ergo, homosexuality MUST be presumed to be choice so that it can therefore be banned.

If homosexuality isn't a choice, it can't be banned. Ergo, since it must be banned, it therefore must be a choice.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 03:10 PM
shekib82 shekib82 is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickKIELCEPoland View Post
I don't know the answer to any of those questions.

Were they rhetorical questions or do you not know the answers either?

Incidentally, I don't know whether there is genetic homosexuality. But I consider it a joke to think gay people choose to be gay.
Cool, then just stick your index finger up your butt and see how it feels like. Then come and tell me if it is a joke or not.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 03:12 PM
shekib82 shekib82 is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante View Post
Klinefelter Syndrome, Kallmann Syndrome, and Y Chromosome Microdeletion are all genetic disorders that result in sterility or severely reduced fertility. There are plenty of others. One could reasonably argued that any genetic trait that severely impacts one's health or reduces one's lifespan (or, for that matter, makes one ugly) significantly decreases one's chances of reproducing.

If homosexuality is primarily genetic, then it's evolutionary path is certainly a complex one, but evolutionary theory doesn't claim that no genetic disadvantages (in terms of reproduction) will exist, only that they won't become dominant.
Do these come from some cancer or illness that are suffered by the mother or father. To be clear, are these kids born this way because their parents sperm or ovules are not fully formed?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 03:23 PM
shekib82 shekib82 is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
This is a long-standing and very challenging question. Unfortunately, our modern science has not yet been able to supply any definitive answers, though they certainly are studying this specific issue.

I certainly agree that it seems rather odd (or illogical) that homosexuality could exist/persist in society in any sizable numbers, given the nature of human reproduction, genetics and evolution. However, it is an apparent fact that homosexuality does in fact exist and persist in society (in fairly sizable numbers). Ergo, homosexuality must either be fully explicable according some unknown or as yet undiscovered genetic process, or alternatively, homosexuality may have some other, equally unknown, but non-genetic 'cause'. And of course, there is always a third possibility that it may be some unknown combination of a genetic and non-genetic 'cause'. The idea that homosexuality might be a 'choice' is so absurd and so lacking in any evidence that the suggestion must be simply dismissed.

All that being said, there is a theory that does explain homosexuality in terms of 'persistence' or 'success' in evolution. It involves the reproductive success of 'family' rather than 'individual genes'. Theoretically, males have a very strong evolutionary-genetic interest in assisting their sister in breeding/upbringing of children. The theory goes that any given male has a better chance of knowing that his own sister's children are truly his own 'flesh & blood'. A man can never truly know that 'his' children with another woman are in absolute fact his own genes. This is particularly important given the human propensity for sexual promiscuity, untruthfulness and deception. In this respect, actual breeding by a particular male (with with the 'so-called homosexual gene') might not be so important for genetic success, as long as his sister successfully breeds.

It is assumed that a 'bachelor' uncle would tend to be rather helpful and/or materially supportive of his sister's children, enhancing their chance of success and thereby passing on the same 'homosexual gene' that affected the uncle (so to speak). This is just a theory, but it does explain how homosexuality could realistically persist in genetic/evolutionary terms.
This is nonsense. Gay men like it up the butt. The prostate can give you a different kind of pleasure if you get sodomised. Most men will at some point in time have to get a prostate exam. Usually it involves a doctor sticking his index finger up your butt. If you get there you will see what it feels like.

Indeed a homsexual is a person who prefers to get sodomised then to penetrate. Any man can derive pleasure from the prostate, but to accept and enjoy another man doing this to him needs a submissive kind of personality. This indeed is a psychological illness.

You can be submissive without being gay. Too much submissiveness is a bad thing, so is too much dominance (in this case we find top gays and pedophiles).

On the sexual side, and here is an interesting psychological sexual test I came up with:

You could get a homosexual like Elton John (king of the gays) to go and sit in some college room. Then have him monitored using remote frmi (so without having something on his head and without him knowing it) and have XRay or whatever monitor his prick.

Then have a number of porno actresses come in naked talk to him while stimulating their vaginas. After the test, ask him if he felt something. Compare it to the fRMI results and the XRay results.

Do this to a number of bottom homosexuals.

Do the same thing to a number of puritan women.

Do the same thing to a number of straight men.

See how close do gay men correlate to straight men.

PS:
- This is science Not porno.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 03:31 PM
shekib82 shekib82 is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,134
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
It isn't a joke. It is a political requirement. If you want to "ban" homosexuality, it has to be, by nature, banable. If homosexuality is 'genetic' in origin, it can't be banned. Ergo, homosexuality MUST be presumed to be choice so that it can therefore be banned.

If homosexuality isn't a choice, it can't be banned. Ergo, since it must be banned, it therefore must be a choice.
You might as well ban porno. Promiscuous women and men. Pre-marital sex. etc....

Plus as I state these people are weak. Why do you want to torture them for that?

Just don't make an issue out of it. And yes, if they want to teach them that they can get straight.

If not through Jesus, then through psychology and sex therapy.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 05:06 PM
Donkey's Avatar
Donkey Donkey is offline
Official Forum Mascot
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 7,771
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Oy vey.
__________________
"It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize."
Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old Feb 11th 2014, 09:00 PM
Dominick's Avatar
Dominick Dominick is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dying Europe
Posts: 3,837
Default Re: Homesexuality and Evolution

Quote:
Originally Posted by shekib82 View Post
OK first of all I oppose both theories. But this will be a reasoning at absurdum.

If people were born with homosexual predilections, how would they still exist?

I mean if you look at evolutionary theories of Homo Sapiens and modern man you will find that Humanity according to this theory is very old. Old enough to escape any social pressure that would have forced homosexuals to marry and thus pass their preferences to their children.

So how would they exist? How would evolution allow it?

Now, current thinking is that evolution is about natural selection. It is not about best or worse but human nature taking its course and selecting things according to the environment.

How would that idea bring about people who cannot in any way, shape or form have kids. Because they cannot have sex?

How is that human innate nature? As opposed to a choice that people make in their lives?
If complex aspects of personality such as homosexuality are genetic then they are emergent properties of the whole genome and not some simple minded on/off switch which your questions imply. Evolutionary pressure doesn't select on such complex aspects of the genome because there are far to many allele mutations involved to be statistically realistic. That is, unless the property has a blatant impact on general viability or the ability to reproduce. This is no the case with homosexuality.

In the other case, i.e. if homosexuality is not genetic then that still doesn't mean that it isn't innate. There isn't enough information in the human genome to describe all higher level aspects of human nature. Most of those are emergent properties of the brain which is not genetically described in detail in the genome.

There is thus not really an issue as there is not necessarily any link between evolution and homosexuality either way.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com