| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2010 02:43:11 PM · #4501 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If we're all born innately bisexual, or maybe even asexual, that means we are born with the potential to be gay (or straight) but that "taste" is acquired later. |
I seriously doubt that any thinking person would opt for a lifestyle that would result in a lifetime of oppression.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 02:55:28 PM · #4502 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So everyone is born innately bisexual and then we acquire a taste for same-sex or opposite-sex people? |
No, some (maybe most) preferences are not acquired tastes. People are generally born with two hands, and could use either one, but express a natural preference for the right or left hand. It's genetic, and not a choice. The same principle likely applies to sexual orientation. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 03:03:22 PM · #4503 |
| I'd drop the bisexual idea. That's Louis' pet theory and I have never seen it seriously considered. What possible evolutionary benefit would be had by not having the genetic default be to maximize the chances that you mate with someone who can have offspring? |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 03:39:53 PM · #4504 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd drop the bisexual idea. That's Louis' pet theory and I have never seen it seriously considered. What possible evolutionary benefit would be had by not having the genetic default be to maximize the chances that you mate with someone who can have offspring? |
I'd drop the evolutionary benefit idea. It's not a prerequisite. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 03:44:08 PM · #4505 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd drop the bisexual idea. That's Louis' pet theory and I have never seen it seriously considered. What possible evolutionary benefit would be had by not having the genetic default be to maximize the chances that you mate with someone who can have offspring? |
I'd drop the evolutionary benefit idea. It's not a prerequisite. |
I wasn't specifically talking to you (in case you think I was picking a fight). But I entirely disagree with your second statement. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 04:07:15 PM · #4506 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wasn't specifically talking to you (in case you think I was picking a fight). But I entirely disagree with your second statement. |
I really don't care in either case. You're trying to argue from two myths.
1- That evolution always selects beneficial traits
2- That evolution is incompatible with homosexuality
Those, along with your frequent third claim, demonstrate a poor grasp of the theory. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 04:11:34 PM · #4507 |
Check this out and you can do the experiments yourself. It's pretty cool. Population Genetics Simulator
In doing experiments you will see that if we assume A2A2 to be homosexual, A1A2 to be gene carriers who remain heterosexual, and A1A1 to be heterosexual then the A2 gene quick disappears from the population (or relies on de novo mutation) if the fitness of A1A1 and A1A2 are equal. BUT, if A1A2 is even slightly more fit (I used 1 vs. 0.98), you can maintain the A2 gene in the pool.
As examples. If you have an intial A2 frequency of .5 (50% of the genes are A2), and fitness of 1.0, 1.0, and 0.3 (phenotypic homosexuals have 1/3rd the kids that heteros have) and no mutation rate (for now). The gene quickly disappears. If you have the same, but have the fitness 0.98, 1.0, and 0.3 then you can maintain an A2 frequency of about 4%.
These are, of course, back-of-the-envelope figures and I highly doubt homosexuality is as simple as Mendelian genetics, but it provides evidence for my point that you need some sort of reproduction benefit to offset the disadvantage of the A2A2 genotype. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 04:16:31 PM · #4508 |
Read your own #2 dude. It entirely talks about my point. Sheesh.
It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.
Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).
Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, as one recent study suggests, just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anaemia is maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria.
Each of those examples speaks to EXACTLY what I am talking about...
And I am not making mistake #1, although you are trying to cram me into it. The true statement is that "evolution always eventually selects beneficial traits". Just like gambling, you can win in the short term, but you can't win in the long term. The house always wins. In two competitive groups (whether inter or intra-species) the more fit eventually wins (although statistical chance can of course trump that. The fittest group may be wiped out by a natural disaster, etc. In that case the unfit group wins).
EDIT: Make sure to understand "more fit" to mean "passes its genes on with more frequency".
Message edited by author 2010-02-05 16:29:32. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 04:43:32 PM · #4509 |
| If homosexuality is so "unnatural" and incompatible with evolution, how come there are still homosexual gulls, bonobos, and Samoans? |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 04:49:07 PM · #4510 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If homosexuality is so "unnatural" and incompatible with evolution, how come there are still homosexual gulls, bonobos, and Samoans? |
Didn't you read? One speculates that somehow there is an increased fitness in a related population which allows the gene(s) to remain in the population.
It's like talking to a brick wall in here. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 04:53:34 PM · #4511 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If homosexuality is so "unnatural" and incompatible with evolution, how come there are still homosexual gulls, bonobos, and Samoans? |
I'm pretty sure DrAchoo's last post answers this question. Try reading it again.
Edit: make that second to last post. In the time it took me to type on my phone DrAchoo already replied to your question.
Message edited by author 2010-02-05 16:55:47. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 05:22:44 PM · #4512 |
| I guess I was being a bit sarcastic -- and pointing out that your own examples show that homosexuality is neither unnatural nor incompatible with the evolutionary survival of a species. So then, on what basis can you continue to justify legal discrimination against homosexual humans, since they would appear to fall within the gamut of "normal" human beings? |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 05:27:01 PM · #4513 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I guess I was being a bit sarcastic -- and pointing out that your own examples show that homosexuality is neither unnatural nor incompatible with the evolutionary survival of a species. So then, on what basis can you continue to justify legal discrimination against homosexual humans, since they would appear to fall within the gamut of "normal" human beings? |
Do I even need to go there again? Genetic predisposition does not equate to societal acceptance. The genetics are irrelevant. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 05:42:36 PM · #4514 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read your own #2 dude. It entirely talks about my point. |
Your point ignores other possibilities that have nothing to do with a benefit. It could simply be that sexual preference is prone to genetic alteration and varies even with no benefit whatsoever. Roughly the same (or greater) percentage of people exhibit infertility (an even more obvious barrier to reproduction). You wouldn't automatically assume that this condition must be a choice or have some evolutionary benefit, so why do it here? Must there also be a benefit to albinism? Of course not... and even with the obvious downsides of extreme susceptibility to UV radiation and discrimination, the trait still occurs. There are rumored to be some people in this world who genuinely hate the taste of chocolate. They didn't merely decide to hate it, and there's not necessarily any benefit to avoiding chocolate. They just do.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am not making mistake #1, although you are trying to cram me into it. The true statement is that "evolution always eventually selects beneficial traits". |
Your "true statement" ***IS*** mistake #1. It's simply not true. A trait can be neutral or completely non-beneficial, even to the point that the species becomes extinct. Moreover, just because a trait is beneficial does not guarantee it will be passed on, and entire branches of the evolutionary tree reach dead ends as a result. A simple example with marine iguanas: Ordinarily, iguanas cannot tolerate salt water, but a growing population on a small island would eventually deplete the available vegetation. Obviously, a tolerance for salt would be beneficial since it would allow the iguanas to reach new food resources. Now... what if the first few individuals to exhibit increased salt tolerance are picked off by sharks? The trait would no longer be passed down, and the remaining population could eventually die out because the beneficial trait WASN'T selected.
This sort of thing happens all the time. Amphibians in many parts of the world are currently under siege from the chrytid fungus. This fungus has been around since at least the Devonian period, and some of the early amphibians (like the Asian Giant Salamander) are immune. However, that resistance was apparently not passed along to later forms of amphibians, and they're getting wiped out en masse as a result. Evolution doesn't care. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 06:00:23 PM · #4515 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I guess I was being a bit sarcastic -- and pointing out that your own examples show that homosexuality is neither unnatural nor incompatible with the evolutionary survival of a species. So then, on what basis can you continue to justify legal discrimination against homosexual humans, since they would appear to fall within the gamut of "normal" human beings? |
Do I even need to go there again? Genetic predisposition does not equate to societal acceptance. The genetics are irrelevant. |
But he posted it in this thread, which is mecca for irrelevant arguments, so it's relevant. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 06:06:05 PM · #4516 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read your own #2 dude. It entirely talks about my point. |
Your point ignores other possibilities that have nothing to do with a benefit. It could simply be that sexual preference is prone to genetic alteration and varies even with no benefit whatsoever. Roughly the same (or greater) percentage of people exhibit infertility (an even more obvious barrier to reproduction). You wouldn't automatically assume that this condition must be a choice or have some evolutionary benefit, so why do it here? Must there also be a benefit to albinism? Of course not... and even with the obvious downsides of extreme susceptibility to UV radiation and discrimination, the trait still occurs. There are rumored to be some people in this world who genuinely hate the taste of chocolate. They didn't merely decide to hate it, and there's not necessarily any benefit to avoiding chocolate. They just do. |
You are going to be the death of me. I'll give it one more shot and then you are on your own in your own little world.
1) "Roughly the same percentage of people exhibit infertility". Are you insinuating that all the infertility has a genetic basis? Most infertility is a result of infection or other environmental causes. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It is as obvious as the nose on my face that a gene which conferred infertility could only remain in a population by a) de novo mutation or b) pleitropy (the gene affects other means of "fitness" which gives reproductive benefit to those who have the gene but are not infertile).
2) Albinism occurs at a rate of 1:17,000, must lower than homosexuality so entirely different forces may be in effect. However, the exact same forces may be at work. White skin in general is thought to be of benefit in northern latitutes for increased Vitamin D production. The benefit seems to outweigh the detriment of less UV protection provided by melanin. Albinism could be an extreme manifestation which definitely is to the detriment of the individual. The gene, however, remains in the population because the partial expression is of benefit.
You are welcome to use the population simulator and give me the numbers that represent one of your scenarios. My eyes will definitely be opened if you can show your point there. Other than that I just suggest you take look into a Genetics class at your local community college.
Message edited by author 2010-02-05 18:08:25. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 06:21:50 PM · #4517 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read your own #2 dude. It entirely talks about my point. |
Your point ignores other possibilities that have nothing to do with a benefit. It could simply be that sexual preference is prone to genetic alteration and varies even with no benefit whatsoever. Roughly the same (or greater) percentage of people exhibit infertility (an even more obvious barrier to reproduction). You wouldn't automatically assume that this condition must be a choice or have some evolutionary benefit, so why do it here? Must there also be a benefit to albinism? Of course not... and even with the obvious downsides of extreme susceptibility to UV radiation and discrimination, the trait still occurs. There are rumored to be some people in this world who genuinely hate the taste of chocolate. They didn't merely decide to hate it, and there's not necessarily any benefit to avoiding chocolate. They just do. |
You are going to be the death of me. I'll give it one more shot and then you are on your own in your own little world.
1) "Roughly the same percentage of people exhibit infertility". Are you insinuating that all the infertility has a genetic basis? Most infertility is a result of infection or other environmental causes. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It is as obvious as the nose on my face that a gene which conferred infertility could only remain in a population by a) de novo mutation or b) pleitropy (the gene affects other means of "fitness" which gives reproductive benefit to those who have the gene but are not infertile).
2) Albinism occurs at a rate of 1:17,000, must lower than homosexuality so entirely different forces may be in effect. However, the exact same forces may be at work. White skin in general is thought to be of benefit in northern latitutes for increased Vitamin D production. The benefit seems to outweigh the detriment of less UV protection provided by melanin. Albinism could be an extreme manifestation which definitely is to the detriment of the individual. The gene, however, remains in the population because the partial expression is of benefit.
You are welcome to use the population simulator and give me the numbers that represent one of your scenarios. My eyes will definitely be opened if you can show your point there. Other than that I just suggest you take look into a Genetics class at your local community college. |
So you're requring Shannon to provide a scientific basis for his argument before your eyes can open? Interesting. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 06:31:53 PM · #4518 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So you're requring Shannon to provide a scientific basis for his argument before your eyes can open? Interesting. |
...giant eye roll.... |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 06:51:08 PM · #4519 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd drop the bisexual idea. That's Louis' pet theory and I have never seen it seriously considered. |
It's not my pet theory at all. As I mentioned when I brought it up, it's right out of Kinsey. And you're only partially right when you suggest that the Kinsey scale is considered quaint by researchers. However, they think it too simplistic, meaning it doesn't fully describe sexual orientation in a way that makes sense of its complexity. That is, the scale accurately describes degrees of orientation without offering the reasons for those degrees, such as environmental factors (of all kinds, including social factors). |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 07:12:39 PM · #4520 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd drop the bisexual idea. That's Louis' pet theory and I have never seen it seriously considered. |
It's not my pet theory at all. As I mentioned when I brought it up, it's right out of Kinsey. And you're only partially right when you suggest that the Kinsey scale is considered quaint by researchers. However, they think it too simplistic, meaning it doesn't fully describe sexual orientation in a way that makes sense of its complexity. That is, the scale accurately describes degrees of orientation without offering the reasons for those degrees, such as environmental factors (of all kinds, including social factors). |
Well, I'll certainly agree with you that human sexuality is complex. I guess I don't quite get the Kinsey scale as it pertains to real life. What does it mean to be a 2? a 4? considering that 0 means "exclusively heterosexual" and 6 means "exclusively homosexual". The definitions are too nebulous. How do you define heterosexual and homosexual? A simple "who do you have sex with?" definition doesn't seem to work because the vast majority are going to fall into the 0 category and then the scale is pretty unhelpful. But if you get more complicated with the definition, I think you are going to introduce cultural bias, etc. Does it mean how you act? (more macho vs. more effeminate) That doesn't make sense either. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 07:16:39 PM · #4521 |
| "Homosexual" is described as a response to stimuli in relation to that research, as far as I know. |
|
|
|
02/05/2010 07:24:35 PM · #4522 |
Originally posted by Louis:
"Homosexual" is described as a response to stimuli in relation to that research, as far as I know. |
Oh, that makes sense... :D |
|
|
|
03/03/2010 09:24:06 AM · #4523 |
Did you guys hear that Virginia's amazing idiot govenor repealed the executive order that banned discrimination against gays for state employment? I'm telling you I gotta find another state to live in. I'm straight, but I am so sick of this redneck town in this redneck state.
Gay "marriage" - Part of me thinks gays are the only ones who even really want to get married anymore. Straight people are increasingly just shacking up. But, I also think that marriage is a sacrament of the church, and that what happens at the court house should be completely separate legally from what happens at the church.
And being as my freedom of religion is one of the freedoms I value most highly - I think any laws passed granting the right for gays to marriage also need to protect religious persons and institutions from becoming persecuted. For instance - a church in New Jersey was sued for refusing to allow a lesbian couple to hold a commitment ceremony on their property. A photographer in New Mexico was sued for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony. The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2010 02:53:38 PM · #4524 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion. |
Out of curiousity, exactly why do you think that granting gay's the right to marry would usurp the freedom of religion of others?... I really fail to see the link.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/05/2010 03:18:23 PM · #4525 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
The rights of gays to marriage should not usurp others' right to freedom of religion. |
I see. So if my religion obliged me to stone homosexuals to death, the right of homosexuals not to be stoned should be overturned, correct? |
|
