Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

To evolutionists that support homosexuality..

GOP
Posts: 453
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 9:03:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
From the Darwinist point of view, aren't you supposed to condemn homosexuality as it contributes nothing?

"From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior." - http://carm.org...

I would like to see your input.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 9:57:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The thing that evolutionists don't usually say is "we should make as many babies as possible". Most evolutionists are perfectly fine with other people not having kids..

And, "support" homosexuality doesn't mean "we want to turn people gay", it just means we think they should have all the same rights as a straight person. Just like most evolutionists don't "support" stupidity, they just think stupid people should have the same rights.
0x5f3759df
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 9:59:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 9:03:34 PM, GOP wrote:
From the Darwinist point of view, aren't you supposed to condemn homosexuality as it contributes nothing?

"From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior." - http://carm.org...

I would like to see your input.

Wow. So much fail.

1) There's no such thing as an "Evolutionist". That's a made up word used by theists to portray a scientific topic they don't understand as a belief system on equal footing with theirs.

2) Homosexuality clearly does not work for self-extermination, because it hasn't self-exterminated. Your reasoning about evolution removing the "gene" for homosexuality only holds up if homosexuality is a recent and localised variation in our genetic structure, which the evidence says is not the case. Especially since plenty of other species engage in homosexual behaviour.
The best conclusion is that the potential for homosexuality has been in the DNA of Earth Bound life for a very long time, thus we all have that genetic potential. After all, all members of sexually reproducing species have both male and female components...all males have the genetic components present for female biology, and vice versa.... just in different proportions It wouldn't take much to produce individuals who's sexual attraction doesn't match their biological gender.

3) Evolution is not an ideology. People who accept the science behind it do not also believe "this is the way things should be". In fact, survival of the fittest is a pretty horrible reality - the fact that if you're unlucky enough to be born weaker than other members of your species, you get killed and/or eaten, and prevented from reporoducing. It's pretty nasty. But that doesn't change the fact that it's true....in much the same way that natural disasters are terrible things, but we still believe they exist.
So just because someone is an "Evolutionist" as you call them, it doesn't mean their sense of right and wrong is going to be based on what is best for the evolution of a species.

4) It strikes me that homosexuality is something to be thankful for. It seems that if there was no such thing, and everyone was straight, then the amount of heterosexual reproduction would be 7 or 8 percent higher....now look at how much the population has been growing throughout history, and how dangerously high it is now. Imagine if that growth had been even higher....8% higher? How big would the world's population be now? Would we even be here? Or would we have hit critical mass ages ago and killed each other over resources?
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
savvga13
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 10:03:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There really hasn't been much scientific research (actually none at all, as far as I can tell), on whether gay people are born attracted to the opposite sex, or if they are just born as a homosexual. I think that would be a fascinating research experiment, although the question in hand is a bit touchy, assuming that researchers will need to ask little kids this in order to find out. Here's my take:

I believe that gay people become homosexual as the develop and grow over the years. Just like being bisexual, it is a discovery that you make, or a sort of gradual attraction that leads you to find out your sexuality. I mean, I doubt that when you're a little kid still running around the playground, you think about "attraction" and "sexuality" and big, meaningless words like that. It's later, when you're starting to enter puberty and become an adolescent that you gradually notice who you are attracted to. Girls? Boys? Both? It's kind of like a decision, I think, though I would have to ask a gay/lesbian/bisexual person to really know. Perhaps deciding your sexuality is like deciding which girl or boy is cute, or which person you like. Nonetheless, no matter the sexuality of a person, everyone deserves resect, as always.

Now, about that 'self destruction' part. Naturally, if everyone was gay, the population would stop growing, people get old, there's no children, no next generation to create and explore and invent, etc., this is all logical, but this scenario is really, really, really, really, really, really, (you get the point) REALLY unlikely to happen. In fact, I don't think it's going to happen.
-savvga13
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2013 11:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 9:03:34 PM, GOP wrote:
From the Darwinist point of view, aren't you supposed to condemn homosexuality as it contributes nothing?

"From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior." - http://carm.org...

I would like to see your input.

Under that logic, we would all be eugenicists. I feel this is an appropriate quote to answer your question:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

Furthermore, I think it would be best for you to avoid CARM, at least as a source of political opinions - their opinions seem to stem from imposing a theocratic view on society, and I personally think anyone who makes up their mind on what to think from one book without even attempting to justify it logically or practically first doesn't deserve the attention. I lost too many brain cells from looking around at their site.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 4:55:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 9:03:34 PM, GOP wrote:
From the Darwinist point of view, aren't you supposed to condemn homosexuality as it contributes nothing?

Darwinism is a scientific theory, condemnation has nothing to do with science.

"From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior." - http://carm.org...

This statement concludes that homosexuality is a learned behavior. You think Darwinists should condemn learned behavior? Without learned behavior, almost nothing would stay alive.

I would like to see your input.

Young children can't reproduce, neither can old people, how do children and old people "further the development and distribution of the human species" Does CARM advocate condemnation of children and old people too, are you properly filled with condemnation for children and old people?

Typing stupid questions and cutting and pasting nonsense quotes from CARN is a learned behavior, perhaps Darwinists should condemn that.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 5:28:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 10:03:20 PM, savvga13 wrote:
There really hasn't been much scientific research (actually none at all, as far as I can tell), on whether gay people are born attracted to the opposite sex, or if they are just born as a homosexual. I think that would be a fascinating research experiment,

It's actually been very very extensively studied by science, results are inconclusive but the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation results from a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. Studies of sexual orientation in different cultures and historical eras conclude that both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality, which is to say it is not considered a pathology or mental disorder by the medical community, rather diversity of orientations represent normal forms of human experience.

although the question in hand is a bit touchy, assuming that researchers will need to ask little kids this in order to find out. Here's my take:

I believe that gay people become homosexual as the develop and grow over the years. Just like being bisexual, it is a discovery that you make, or a sort of gradual attraction that leads you to find out your sexuality. I mean, I doubt that when you're a little kid still running around the playground, you think about "attraction" and "sexuality" and big, meaningless words like that. It's later, when you're starting to enter puberty and become an adolescent that you gradually notice who you are attracted to. Girls? Boys? Both? It's kind of like a decision, I think, though I would have to ask a gay/lesbian/bisexual person to really know. Perhaps deciding your sexuality is like deciding which girl or boy is cute, or which person you like.

Did you choose your orientation, was it a decision you had to make?

Nonetheless, no matter the sexuality of a person, everyone deserves resect, as always.

Now, about that 'self destruction' part. Naturally, if everyone was gay, the population would stop growing, people get old, there's no children, no next generation to create and explore and invent, etc., this is all logical, but this scenario is really, really, really, really, really, really, (you get the point) REALLY unlikely to happen. In fact, I don't think it's going to happen.

Heterosexual who say that homosexuality is a choice a person makes seem to me to be saying that they chose to be heterosexual, that the decision could have gone either way for them.

I hate to burst their bubble of condemnation, but if they actually had to choose to be heterosexual, if they were attracted to both sexes and could have chosen to be gay, especially if they needed to look in the Bible to decide which way to go, they are gay.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 6:19:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 9:03:34 PM, GOP wrote:
From the Darwinist point of view, aren't you supposed to condemn homosexuality as it contributes nothing?

"From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior." - http://carm.org...

I would like to see your input.

In order for homosexuality to be screened out by Natural Selection, there are 2 requirements it must meet:

1. It must be genetic. There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. While DNA obviously provides the potential, there are environmental factors to consider as well.

2. It prevents the organism from breeding. Gay people can still have children, even if they prefer not to have heterosexual encounters outside of procreation, so there has never been a selection pressure against being homosexual.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 7:28:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior." - http://carm.org...

A.) Please explain the link between something not furthering "the development and distribution of the human species" or something being "not natural" but a "learned behavior" and it being a condemnable offense.

B.) I don't "support homosexuality" I just don't see any reason to condemn it. If you can present a reasonable argument of why it should be condemned then perhaps you can sway me. The problem that the opponents of homosexuality have is they cant produce these arguments and instead have to revert to citing religious texts. Proof of that is the above attempt at creating a non-religious argument that makes no sense.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 4:23:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Don't see any connection between evolution and homosexuality.

Homosexuality existed in ancient cultures when the world was under populated, so it was a risk. If evolution is true and homosexuality is associated, the factor should have disappeared in a relatively short time as there is no net advantage.

There is no proof homosexuality is innate, being natural is functioning according to design, and homosexuality does not make the definition.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 4:51:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmm... I don't know where to start. I guess, the concept of evolution?

Evolution is a concept that biologists use to describe changes in organisms over time that can lead to adaptation, endangerment, extinction, the development into another class of organism as interpreted by us humans. We've narrowed these changes to be genetic in nature, but there's a great deal of behavioral influence, as well.

One aspect evolution as it relates to behavior is Darwinism. I think this is what the OP was referring to.

Darwinism is mistakenly considered "survival of the fittest," but that's not entirely true in the purest, most physical sense. Typically, people only consider a fraction of Darwin's observations, which discuss "fitness," or a specific organism's preparedness to survive in its environment compared with its species in general. This is relevant for two reasons. On one hand, most organisms reproduce sexually, requiring mutual cooperation, which integrates selection into the process of reproduction. In other words, only those that appear most "fit" will have the opportunity to reproduce. It's also relevant, because an organism's environment will result in its death if it isn't "fit enough" to survive, which can eventually eradicate a given characteristic that results in this lack of "fitness" from that species' gene pool.

So, having explained this to you, it should be plain that homosexuality isn't exactly relevant, not because it has nothing to do with the aspects of evolution at all, but more because homosexuals are a minority in every species in which it appears for those that do not produce asexually.

There are, of course, those lizards, the New Mexico whiptail, which are exclusively lesbian. They are all female, and they reproduce by turning one another on. True story, no joke.

However, I think homosexuality is more prevalent among primates.

Whatever the case may be, there are two reasons why homosexuality could not possibly be counterproductive to the fitness of a species. First, it's neither contagious nor ubiquitous within a species. Second, it is ubiquitous among organisms in general, so if it would contribute to the endangerment or extinction of a species, then it would threaten all life on this planet as we know it.

But, it doesn't.

(Also, there have been studies regarding the congenital nature of homosexuality -- anthropology currently learns toward genetics.)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 11:59:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/7/2013 9:03:34 PM, GOP wrote:
From the Darwinist point of view, aren't you supposed to condemn homosexuality as it contributes nothing?

"From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. Therefore, how is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction? It would seem that natural selection would have removed the "gene for homosexuality" since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior." - http://carm.org...

I would like to see your input.

A.) No genes are past on with homosexuality
B.) Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a birth defect.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 12:04:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Evolution is not a moral system.

As the rate of homosexuality increases with the amount on children born to a mother, it may actually be an evolutionary mechanism to counter over-population.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 1:22:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 11:59:34 PM, DanT wrote:

B.) Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a birth defect.

Source? Last I heard there was no single, definite explanation for homosexuality. People are homosexual for many different reasons.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 2:09:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 1:22:40 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/9/2013 11:59:34 PM, DanT wrote:

B.) Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a birth defect.

Source? Last I heard there was no single, definite explanation for homosexuality. People are homosexual for many different reasons.

"ABSTRACT

Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality. It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications ("epi-marks") originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants."
http://www.jstor.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 7:40:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Supposedly it makes the gay members of the family/tribe more likely to look after the family's children, who'd of guessed? This means that while they don't reproduce (with a theoretical double submissive gene expression, or any other possible genetic link), that their family's children may be more likely to survive (with a single or no recessive "gay" gene). This means it could be beneficial. Also, because of our social nature, bisexuality could help us with social situations (celebrating, making up, fighting war with a lover etc.) and homosexuality could be an extension of that. It could just be that homosexuality is and easily formed genetic and/or social "abnormality". While this wouldn't be good for an individual's survival, it could benefit a group (and now maybe our large group), by meaning they don't have to expand into other territory as quickly, or at all, meaning that the possibility of battle is lowered.

Obviously there are many ways people feel that we can derive morality, but from an "evolutionists" point of view, these are maybe the factors you wanted to hear.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 7:45:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 2:09:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/10/2013 1:22:40 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/9/2013 11:59:34 PM, DanT wrote:

B.) Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a birth defect.

Source? Last I heard there was no single, definite explanation for homosexuality. People are homosexual for many different reasons.

"ABSTRACT

Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality. It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications ("epi-marks") originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants."
http://www.jstor.org...


Is that basically saying that the hormones which are present for the fetus during fetal development could have an effect on its sexuality? Also, it seems many genes turn on and off throughout a twins, and everyone's lifetimes. This is shown by depression in one twin and not the other, and studies have been performed.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:38:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 7:45:15 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/10/2013 2:09:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/10/2013 1:22:40 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/9/2013 11:59:34 PM, DanT wrote:

B.) Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a birth defect.

Source? Last I heard there was no single, definite explanation for homosexuality. People are homosexual for many different reasons.

"ABSTRACT

Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality. It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications ("epi-marks") originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants."
http://www.jstor.org...


Is that basically saying that the hormones which are present for the fetus during fetal development could have an effect on its sexuality? Also, it seems many genes turn on and off throughout a twins, and everyone's lifetimes. This is shown by depression in one twin and not the other, and studies have been performed.

Yes - it's arguing for a epigenetic cause for homosexuality. I'm not sure how DanT jumps from an epigenetic cause for homosexuality to homosexuality is not genetic and it's a birth defect though.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:44:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:38:31 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/10/2013 7:45:15 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/10/2013 2:09:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/10/2013 1:22:40 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/9/2013 11:59:34 PM, DanT wrote:

B.) Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a birth defect.

Source? Last I heard there was no single, definite explanation for homosexuality. People are homosexual for many different reasons.

"ABSTRACT

Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality. It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications ("epi-marks") originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants."
http://www.jstor.org...


Is that basically saying that the hormones which are present for the fetus during fetal development could have an effect on its sexuality? Also, it seems many genes turn on and off throughout a twins, and everyone's lifetimes. This is shown by depression in one twin and not the other, and studies have been performed.

Yes - it's arguing for a epigenetic cause for homosexuality. I'm not sure how DanT jumps from an epigenetic cause for homosexuality to homosexuality is not genetic and it's a birth defect though.

Lol. Yeah I've heard that the amount of testosterone in the womb can affect someone's sexual orientation, and also their index finger to ring finger ratio, so that the two kind of correlate. :P
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:53:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rereading it, I'm not sure my post was clear -- my initial point is that it can't possibly result in self-destruction or extinction, or even contribute to it.

My latter points were that homosexuality is not an illness, and it's not exclusive to humans. Thus, there's no way to really determine whether it hinders development, because all organisms with sophisticated sexual behaviors exhibit some homosexuality.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 11:23:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:38:31 AM, Enji wrote:
At 8/10/2013 7:45:15 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/10/2013 2:09:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/10/2013 1:22:40 AM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/9/2013 11:59:34 PM, DanT wrote:

B.) Homosexuality is not genetic, it is a birth defect.

Source? Last I heard there was no single, definite explanation for homosexuality. People are homosexual for many different reasons.

"ABSTRACT

Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality. It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications ("epi-marks") originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants."
http://www.jstor.org...


Is that basically saying that the hormones which are present for the fetus during fetal development could have an effect on its sexuality? Also, it seems many genes turn on and off throughout a twins, and everyone's lifetimes. This is shown by depression in one twin and not the other, and studies have been performed.

Yes - it's arguing for a epigenetic cause for homosexuality. I'm not sure how DanT jumps from an epigenetic cause for homosexuality to homosexuality is not genetic and it's a birth defect though.

Epigenetics argues against there being a "gay gene". Epigenetics is the expression of genes, not variations in genes. Autism has an epigenetic cause, because it is triggered by placenta deficiencies in the womb. This classifies autism as a birth defect.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 11:25:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 9:53:49 AM, Such wrote:
Rereading it, I'm not sure my post was clear -- my initial point is that it can't possibly result in self-destruction or extinction, or even contribute to it.

My latter points were that homosexuality is not an illness, and it's not exclusive to humans. Thus, there's no way to really determine whether it hinders development, because all organisms with sophisticated sexual behaviors exhibit some homosexuality.

http://www.catcollection.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 3:56:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 11:23:42 AM, DanT wrote:

Epigenetics argues against there being a "gay gene". Epigenetics is the expression of genes, not variations in genes. Autism has an epigenetic cause, because it is triggered by placenta deficiencies in the womb. This classifies autism as a birth defect.

Epigenetics acts on top of genetics, not independent of genetics. This still does not explain why homosexuality is a birth defect.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 4:09:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 3:56:06 PM, Enji wrote:
At 8/10/2013 11:23:42 AM, DanT wrote:

Epigenetics argues against there being a "gay gene". Epigenetics is the expression of genes, not variations in genes. Autism has an epigenetic cause, because it is triggered by placenta deficiencies in the womb. This classifies autism as a birth defect.

Epigenetics acts on top of genetics, not independent of genetics. This still does not explain why homosexuality is a birth defect.

I never claimed they were independent of genetics, I said they were not the same as genetics. Epigentics determines how genes are expressed. A caterpillar and a butterfly has the exact same DNA, but that DNA is expressed differently.

Humans and Chimpanzees share 98.9% of their DNA. Half of that 1.1% difference is for the chimp's superior olfactory receptors, which leaves 0.55% dealing with other genetic differences. The main difference between Humans and Chimpanzees is due to epigentics.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 8:09:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Love how Natural Geography talked about flawed and unreproduced studies results, and "suggessted" hypothesises while maintaining that homosexuality is genetic. Come on, where is the science?

Btw, the 99%-98% chimp dna similarity is false. The claim was made in the 60s or the 70s, something like that, but the human genome project was completed at 2003. So something looks off.

http://www.icr.org...

"In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 9:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 8:09:44 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Love how Natural Geography talked about flawed and unreproduced studies results, and "suggessted" hypothesises while maintaining that homosexuality is genetic. Come on, where is the science?


Btw, the 99%-98% chimp dna similarity is false. The claim was made in the 60s or the 70s, something like that, but the human genome project was completed at 2003. So something looks off.

http://www.icr.org...

"In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns."

Did you not watch the video? While the estimate was made in the 1980's, it was later confirmed in more recent years.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:05:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Science is a descriptive field, morality is normative. They have nothing to do with each other.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)