Total Posts:132|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

homosexuals vs. evolution

truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:23:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuals?
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:40:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:23:50 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuals?

evolution only effects genetics.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:52:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:23:50 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuals?:

Why aren't left-hand dominant people eliminated by natural selection?

Because homosexuality nor left-hand dominance play any significant impact on their viability/survivability, that's why. Why would it?

Why do you think homosexuality would be eliminated by natural selection?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:53:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:23:50 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuals?

Why would it?

Homosexual black swans raise their (stolen) children better then heterosexual swans.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:59:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 11:52:03 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/3/2011 10:23:50 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuals?:

Why aren't left-hand dominant people eliminated by natural selection?

Because homosexuality nor left-hand dominance play any significant impact on their viability/survivability, that's why. Why would it?

It does on their reproductive abilities (well, their reproductive desires).

The only reason to survive in an evolutionary sense is to reproduce, i.e. spread the genes that allowed you to survive. If you don't pass on the genes, it is the exact same as if you died years ago (from an evolutionary standpoint).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:02:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:23:50 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuals?

That is assuming that homosexuality is caused by genes.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:12:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:02:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/3/2011 10:23:50 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuals?

That is assuming that homosexuality is caused by genes.

Actually, that would be assuming that homosexuality is entirely caused by hereditary genes, which I don't think any scientist actually supports.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:20:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It does on their reproductive abilities (well, their reproductive desires).:

That doesn't affect their lives, nor does it affect their ability to procreate. It would be one thing to call homosexuals an "evolutionary dead-end," but it means nothing to whether or not homosexuals would be eliminated from the gene pool. And as evidenced by their continued and unabated proliferation, it appears I'm right.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:45:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:20:57 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It does on their reproductive abilities (well, their reproductive desires).:

That doesn't affect their lives, nor does it affect their ability to procreate.

It affects their desires to procreate, which is tied to their ability. If you are a man, attracted to another man, and only sexually interested in another man, and not sexually interested in women, no matter how successful you are, you're not going to be reproducing and passing on those genes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 6:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It affects their desires to procreate, which is tied to their ability. If you are a man, attracted to another man, and only sexually interested in another man, and not sexually interested in women, no matter how successful you are, you're not going to be reproducing and passing on those genes.:

Then by the same token, men or women who have no desire to ever procreate (like my uncle) are they weaker from an evolutionary aspect in comparison to some welfare queen who shits out 12 kids a year?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 6:05:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 6:01:45 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It affects their desires to procreate, which is tied to their ability. If you are a man, attracted to another man, and only sexually interested in another man, and not sexually interested in women, no matter how successful you are, you're not going to be reproducing and passing on those genes.:

Then by the same token, men or women who have no desire to ever procreate (like my uncle) are they weaker from an evolutionary aspect in comparison to some welfare queen who shits out 12 kids a year?

Well, yes--the welfare queen is adapting to her environment (a welfare state) perfectly, from an evolutionary standpoint.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 6:19:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 6:05:24 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 5/3/2011 6:01:45 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It affects their desires to procreate, which is tied to their ability. If you are a man, attracted to another man, and only sexually interested in another man, and not sexually interested in women, no matter how successful you are, you're not going to be reproducing and passing on those genes.:

Then by the same token, men or women who have no desire to ever procreate (like my uncle) are they weaker from an evolutionary aspect in comparison to some welfare queen who shits out 12 kids a year?

Well, yes--the welfare queen is adapting to her environment (a welfare state) perfectly, from an evolutionary standpoint.

agreed, from a purely evolutionary view, that is accurate. I'm not saying that the evolutionary view is morally correct or the way things ought be viewed through. But if we are talking just about evolution, than that is true.

Though laziness is not genetic either.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 6:24:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I can imagine that everyone is a little bit gay.

Imitating and recognizing a guy a girl would want to screw would enhance survival ability. Of course, it's possible that the signal can be mixed with a gay dude and the dude actually wants to screw the dude.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 6:25:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 6:24:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I can imagine that everyone is a little bit gay.

Imitating and recognizing a guy a girl would want to screw would enhance survival ability. Of course, it's possible that the signal can be mixed with a gay dude and the dude actually wants to screw the dude.

lol, I need to find it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 6:28:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 6:25:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/3/2011 6:24:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I can imagine that everyone is a little bit gay.

Imitating and recognizing a guy a girl would want to screw would enhance survival ability. Of course, it's possible that the signal can be mixed with a gay dude and the dude actually wants to screw the dude.

lol, I need to find it.

http://dsc.discovery.com...

Though this is actually kind of different, it is kind of similar too.

Male lizards that "cross-dress" because they cannot compete physically with the older males. So they sneak in, mate, and leave. Though occasionally, the older males try to mate with them, and boy do they get a surprise.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 3:52:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Because homosexuality isn't directly passed down by genes. You don't end up with things like gay families. It is however genetic in other senses.

Many speculate that homosexuality is actually nature's way of population control. It is a fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be homosexual. This makes perfect sense when you take into account that it can be difficult to feed an entire family of a large size.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 9:44:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 3:52:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Because homosexuality isn't directly passed down by genes. You don't end up with things like gay families. It is however genetic in other senses.

Many speculate that homosexuality is actually nature's way of population control. It is a fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be homosexual. This makes perfect sense when you take into account that it can be difficult to feed an entire family of a large size.

only applies to boys, not girls. This is also believed to be the case, not because of genes, but because the way the mother's body treats the developing male embryos. Since the mother's body gets more familiar each time with the hormones of pregnancy, the more it can cope and pass those hormones into the developing baby, thus casing it to develop more "feminine" (such as an attraction for men).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 9:49:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 9:44:49 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 3:52:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Because homosexuality isn't directly passed down by genes. You don't end up with things like gay families. It is however genetic in other senses.

Many speculate that homosexuality is actually nature's way of population control. It is a fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be homosexual. This makes perfect sense when you take into account that it can be difficult to feed an entire family of a large size.

only applies to boys, not girls. This is also believed to be the case, not because of genes, but because the way the mother's body treats the developing male embryos. Since the mother's body gets more familiar each time with the hormones of pregnancy, the more it can cope and pass those hormones into the developing baby, thus casing it to develop more "feminine" (such as an attraction for men).

Aren't all foetuses female?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 9:54:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 9:49:45 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/4/2011 9:44:49 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 3:52:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Because homosexuality isn't directly passed down by genes. You don't end up with things like gay families. It is however genetic in other senses.

Many speculate that homosexuality is actually nature's way of population control. It is a fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be homosexual. This makes perfect sense when you take into account that it can be difficult to feed an entire family of a large size.

only applies to boys, not girls. This is also believed to be the case, not because of genes, but because the way the mother's body treats the developing male embryos. Since the mother's body gets more familiar each time with the hormones of pregnancy, the more it can cope and pass those hormones into the developing baby, thus casing it to develop more "feminine" (such as an attraction for men).

Aren't all foetuses female?

No. They may not have developed testicles until later in pregnancy, but testicles is not what makes one male or female. XX or XY chromosones do, and those are determined at conception.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 11:49:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What would be some of the advantages to a homosexual "gene", from an evolution stand point?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 12:35:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 9:54:22 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 9:49:45 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/4/2011 9:44:49 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 3:52:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Because homosexuality isn't directly passed down by genes. You don't end up with things like gay families. It is however genetic in other senses.

Many speculate that homosexuality is actually nature's way of population control. It is a fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be homosexual. This makes perfect sense when you take into account that it can be difficult to feed an entire family of a large size.

only applies to boys, not girls. This is also believed to be the case, not because of genes, but because the way the mother's body treats the developing male embryos. Since the mother's body gets more familiar each time with the hormones of pregnancy, the more it can cope and pass those hormones into the developing baby, thus casing it to develop more "feminine" (such as an attraction for men).

Aren't all foetuses female?

No. They may not have developed testicles until later in pregnancy, but testicles is not what makes one male or female. XX or XY chromosones do, and those are determined at conception.

they do however all develop initially as if they were to be female and then several weeks into the process the Y chromosome gets switched on and starts making changes that eventually result in a male.

and the thing about children with older siblings being more likely to be gay works only if the previous children were male. the mother actually develops antibodies against male hormones (so the theory goes) thus resulting in an incomplete masculinization of the fetus. that theory may have been debunked, or the study called into question for some reason. i'm not sure...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 12:38:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 11:49:45 PM, jharry wrote:
What would be some of the advantages to a homosexual "gene", from an evolution stand point?

it doesn't have to have benefits. it could be the genetic version of a spandrel:

(genetics) A phenotypic characteristic that evolved as a side effect of a true adaptation

its a mistake to think that every characteristic is there because it is evolutionarily beneficial. many traits are neutral or even deleterious in ways, but not enough to result in being outcompeted by some other species or individual.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 11:03:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/5/2011 12:35:02 AM, belle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 9:54:22 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 9:49:45 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/4/2011 9:44:49 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 3:52:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Because homosexuality isn't directly passed down by genes. You don't end up with things like gay families. It is however genetic in other senses.

Many speculate that homosexuality is actually nature's way of population control. It is a fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be homosexual. This makes perfect sense when you take into account that it can be difficult to feed an entire family of a large size.

only applies to boys, not girls. This is also believed to be the case, not because of genes, but because the way the mother's body treats the developing male embryos. Since the mother's body gets more familiar each time with the hormones of pregnancy, the more it can cope and pass those hormones into the developing baby, thus casing it to develop more "feminine" (such as an attraction for men).

Aren't all foetuses female?

No. They may not have developed testicles until later in pregnancy, but testicles is not what makes one male or female. XX or XY chromosones do, and those are determined at conception.

they do however all develop initially as if they were to be female and then several weeks into the process the Y chromosome gets switched on and starts making changes that eventually result in a male.

I prefer to view it as both male and female start off completely gender neutral (not both as males or both as females), then they diverge in development and go their seperate ways.


and the thing about children with older siblings being more likely to be gay works only if the previous children were male. the mother actually develops antibodies against male hormones (so the theory goes) thus resulting in an incomplete masculinization of the fetus. that theory may have been debunked, or the study called into question for some reason. i'm not sure...

Sorry, I meant that when I said "only applies to males," meaning it only applies to previous sons, not all kids. I see how my previous words didn't articulate that properly.

As for the theory, yeah, it is just a theory and not likely something we will ever be able to prove (not many mothers are going to be willing to let doctors perform hormone testing experiements on their babies).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 9:55:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 11:49:45 PM, jharry wrote:
What would be some of the advantages to a homosexual "gene", from an evolution stand point?

Read Franklin's post.
I miss the old members.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:23:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:23:50 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
why hasn't evolution eliminated homosexuals?

I'm not sure if one's sexuality is entirely based of genetics.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2011 1:41:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Homosexuality is probably a triggered genetic characteristic. Left-handedness seems to be triggered by something in the environment of the womb, and that seems to also be the case with homosexuality. Identical twins sometimes have one gay and one straight twin, ditto left and right handed. As suggested, having the trigger might be a survival advantage by controlling population.

Blue crabs change sex entirely under population pressure. Molting crabs change from male to female if populations are low, the opposite if populations are high. Limpets change sex during their ordinary life cycle, with more time spent female if populations are low.

I was born nearsighted. How could that be a product of evolution? There seems to be no survival advantage whatsoever. I think evolution doesn't result in perfect adaptation, just "good enough."
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2011 1:48:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
also according to the tralfamadorians, there can't be babies without male homosexuals (though there can be babies without female homosexuals). and you know, they can see in the fourth dimension. so they should know!
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2011 8:03:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 9:49:45 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/4/2011 9:44:49 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 3:52:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Because homosexuality isn't directly passed down by genes. You don't end up with things like gay families. It is however genetic in other senses.

Many speculate that homosexuality is actually nature's way of population control. It is a fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be homosexual. This makes perfect sense when you take into account that it can be difficult to feed an entire family of a large size.

only applies to boys, not girls. This is also believed to be the case, not because of genes, but because the way the mother's body treats the developing male embryos. Since the mother's body gets more familiar each time with the hormones of pregnancy, the more it can cope and pass those hormones into the developing baby, thus casing it to develop more "feminine" (such as an attraction for men).

Aren't all foetuses female?:

In the very first stages of gestation (hence why men also have nipples), but a portion of he X chromosome drops off, creating the Y feature. Then what could have been a clitoris enlarges in to a penis.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)