Sexuality, Genes, and Evolution Debate- Your Thoughts

[Welsh Guy]

On this certain forum I visit I came across this heated and unusual discussion that started in a thread about transgenderism. Now I read it all and had a think about this, and I found it actually quite confusing. I was wondering however what the intelligent folk of TWC think about it and what your opinions are. It is a long read, but try and at least get the general gist of it before you post
(excuse the stupid dummy names)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Playfishpaste]

Seems like a bunch of people repeating themselves a lot.

In any case, the fact that homosexuality evolved and is so prevalent in various species suggests it's very likely to contribute to the survival of various species, such as elephants, humans etc. It might be that it doesn't do that, and only evolved as a spandrel (a useless trait that got tacked on with a useful trait, like the thumping sound that evolved along with your pumping heart). Either way I don't think it's terribly important in terms of the larger sociological or psychological issues, but is more important in terms of the neurology of sexuality and gender, something we definitely don't have close to a theory on yet.

[persianfan247]

People always assume incorrectly that the only purpose of sex is to reproduce however it is a fact that sex also plays a social role as well, I don't see why being gay would be any different. I was also watching something on Salmon and how they have evolved a system where alot of them won't survive. It is survival of the fittist species not the fittist individual. Your genes won't survive without the aid of the rest of your species. So being gay could be of some kind of use for the species.

Anyway I found this interview on NZ National Radio interesting and it's kind of relevant.

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn...uentes-048.mp3

[Phier]

People always assume incorrectly that the only purpose of sex is to reproduce however it is a fact that sex also plays a social role as well, I don't see why being gay would be any different. I was also watching something on Salmon and how they have evolved a system where alot of them won't survive. It is survival of the fittist species not the fittist individual. Your genes won't survive without the aid of the rest of your species. So being gay could be of some kind of use for the species.

Anyway I found this interview on NZ National Radio interesting and it's kind of relevant.

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn...uentes-048.mp3

Group selection has been found to be mathematically unsound and pretty much abandoned as an idea.

[Papay]

Mathematically evolution is impossible.If evolution is a blind and natural phenomenon our DNA should have many mutations that wouldnt make sense.For example since we evolved from fishes we should have fish scales on our body.From apes we should have tails etc etc.Nothing of these exists

[Hakkapeliitta]

Mathematically evolution is impossible.If evolution is a blind and natural phenomenon our DNA should have many mutations that wouldnt make sense.For example since we evolved from fishes we should have fish scales on our body.From apes we should have tails etc etc.Nothing of these exists

I'd say your posts are really the result of a cat playing with a peace of string on a computer keyboard and your posts are just the result of random chance.

[Blau&Gruen]

Sexuality, Genes, and Evolution Debate- Your Thoughts

You need to ask a family doctor not a forum dedicated to games made by Activision.

[Himster]

Mathematically evolution is impossible.If evolution is a blind and natural phenomenon our DNA should have many mutations that wouldnt make sense.For example since we evolved from fishes we should have fish scales on our body.From apes we should have tails etc etc.Nothing of these exists

How can anybody in the modern world have such a poor education as this?
Our DNA does have many mutations, we still have the genes for making tails, scales, primitive gills etc. they have all been deactivated by natural selection, any ten year old child knows that.

[sumskilz]

People always assume incorrectly that the only purpose of sex is to reproduce however it is a fact that sex also plays a social role as well, I don't see why being gay would be any different. I was also watching something on Salmon and how they have evolved a system where alot of them won't survive. It is survival of the fittist species not the fittist individual. Your genes won't survive without the aid of the rest of your species. So being gay could be of some kind of use for the species.

No, on your survival of the fittest species assertion. I think you might have misunderstood something. Generally, the salmon reproductive strategy is spamming the environment with massive quantities of low investment offspring.

Group selection has been found to be mathematically unsound and pretty much abandoned as an idea.

Hamilton's rule could be in effect in cases where a homosexual individual invests in his nieces and nephews. Would it be advantageous in some cases for a parent to have one homosexual child that would help increase the fitness of their grandchildren? I'm highly skeptical of the proposition, but it has some partial parallels in other mammal species. Meerkats come to mind and also Tamarins if I remember correctly, though both employ different mechanisms.

Although here’s another idea (which might not be mutually exclusive):
Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality

[Astaroth]

Mathematically evolution is impossible.If evolution is a blind and natural phenomenon our DNA should have many mutations that wouldnt make sense.For example since we evolved from fishes we should have fish scales on our body.From apes we should have tails etc etc.Nothing of these exists

You know what makes me doubt evolution? Your post.

[Himster]

You know what makes me doubt evolution? Your post.

Poor education =/= poor intelligence.

[Col. Tartleton]

This is why ID gets no respect.



Gay people don't really matter. I mean they matter as people, but they don't have anything to do with evolution or the lack thereof.

It's a blend of inherited traits and life experiences. Just like my sexual preferences for good looking brunette es named Tammy.

[boofhead]

If people are born gay, as gays like to claim, then explain this:

(WARNING: Some rude words)

http://www.vice.com/read/guns-and-roses-0000084-v18n12

How did an entire society get the gay gene?

[VALIS]

Mathematically evolution is impossible.If evolution is a blind and natural phenomenon our DNA should have many mutations that wouldnt make sense.For example since we evolved from fishes we should have fish scales on our body.From apes we should have tails etc etc.Nothing of these exists

Please buy these books.

[basics]

" Our DNA does have many mutations, we still have the genes for making tails, scales, primitive gills etc. they have all been deactivated by natural selection, any ten year old child knows that."

Himster,

Is that so? Well to take a leaf out of the athiest's own first line of defence, prove it. How does a ten year old kid know anything about genes unless taught by very biased atheistic teachers? How old were you when you started to believe that rubbish?

[The Dude]

If people are born gay, as gays like to claim, then explain this:

(WARNING: Some rude words)

http://www.vice.com/read/guns-and-roses-0000084-v18n12

How did an entire society get the gay gene?

That's not the gay gene, that's the same sort of homosexuality as practiced by ancient greeks. Gays as we know them are a western construct. You don't have to prance around in leather and brightly coloured fabrics while talking in a high-pitched voice to be able to bum a dude.

Additionally, the most telling part of that article is that quoted saying: "Men cost you gold, women your life." we're talking about a society in which religion has for centuries been allowed to stigmatise and diminish women. Not exactly the most heterosexuality-inducing rhetoric.

In comparison to christian society, which for centuries has been very reproduction-focused, to the point where it used to be common for your local pastor to show up on your doorstep for his semi-annual checkup of whether Bob had put some kids in Jane already, it be becomes pretty clear to see how fear of homosexuality became embedded in our culture.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Even if there's no gay gene, and even if homosexuality is a choice to a much larger extent than we presently think, then so what? There's still nothing wrong with being gay. This whole debate seems to ultimately be done on religious terms, ie. "why did God make gays if he doesn't like them?", "can homosexuality be a sin if it's involuntary?".

[Lazarus]

The only issue with homosexuality in the Western world is that the Roman Empire needed something to spruce up their day so they started listening to the philosophies of this Jesus fellow they killed quite some time ago. Prior to that, being gay was about as topical and edgy as owning slaves. We all know about the Greeks and men such as Alexander the Great... In the Far East, men of the Ming and Zhou dynasty were known to have homosexual relationships, Cao Cao, the most powerful warlord of the Three Kingdom period had a homosexual partner and there is evidence to suggest that Liu Bei, who came in close second for most powerful man in the Three Kingdoms also engaged in homosexual activities.

These cultures were the most forward thinking people of their times. They were the envy of the world. None of them took particular issue with homosexuality. Someone flipped a switch one day and all that changed...

[The Dude]

Even if there's no gay gene, and even if homosexuality is a choice to a much larger extent than we presently think, then so what? There's still nothing wrong with being gay. This whole debate seems to ultimately be done on religious terms, ie. "why did God make gays if he doesn't like them?", "can homosexuality be a sin if it's involuntary?".

The one that amuses me most is "homosexuality isn't natural."

Really now? Because if human beings are the product of nature, and human beings are homosexual, then homosexuality is obviously an occurrance in nature and therefore natural.

If human beings are not the product of nature, then the term unnatural loses all meaning.

The argument could be made that what is meant is not nature as a whole but simply "human nature", but even that reasoning is easily countered. If homosexuals exist as a part of the human species, then human nature as a term must necessarily include them. It is ridiculous to talk of human nature otherwise.

[Hakkapeliitta]

The one that amuses me most is "homosexuality isn't natural."

Really now? Because if human beings are the product of nature, and human beings are homosexual, then homosexuality is obviously an occurrance in nature and therefore natural.

If human beings are not the product of nature, then the term unnatural loses all meaning.

The argument could be made that what is meant is not nature as a whole but simply "human nature", but even that reasoning is easily countered. If homosexuals exist as a part of the human species, then human nature as a term must necessarily include them. It is ridiculous to talk of human nature otherwise.

I've seen it happen, that once the claim "homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong" has been refuted, the argument sometimes shifts to "rape and infanticide is also natural, do you argue that those are good also?" They start to argue on the basis that "homosexuality is natural therefore it is good" was the starting argument, not "homosexuality is unnatural therefore it's evil" like it actually was. It's incredible.

It's one big "natural=good, unnatural=evil" fallacy, but often someone who argues against homosexuality also doesn't believe that humans are the product of nature, but at least partially supernatural in origin. The disconnects in logic and cognitive dissonance some people exhibit in order to argue an anti-gay stance is amazing. Obviously they try to clutch at any available straws that might give them an argument, logical coherency be damned.