Is the existence of homosexuality incompatible with evolution?

It's called estrogen and it also replaces your thoughts of football and sportscars with thoughts of dancing, nagging, and being poked by foreign objects.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All embryos began as female, as so for a male, both the body and the brain have to be masculinized. Sometimes one or the other doesn't happen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Isn't the discussion supposed to be about whether homosexuality is incompatible with evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The gay gene makes about as much sense as the shoe gene within women. The shoe gene in women makes females especially attracted to shoes.

Since homosexuality was made more socially acceptable, over the past few decades, more people have experimented with homosexality. This seems to imply that the gay gene can be passed orally via words and sounds. The homosexual urge will then appear because of the aerial gene transmission.

I am playing around, but explaining a a behavior in terms of a gene, makes little sense, since behavior is more complex than one protein. Behavior is based on how the brain processes complex data in the light of sensory and imaginary input and personality firmware. The human brain can also supersede the impact of the DNA. If we are cold we can invent clothes and don't have to wait centuries for the DNA to grow fur. We can also ignore the hetero-gene if we want to do alterate things.

As far as homosexuality inducing group cohesion, this does not entirely add up. I can see being affectionate and postive with all other people, even those of the same sex. Humans will shake hands as a greeting between men-men, or women-women, men-women. But such greetings do not have to end in sex for it to work. It is not gay for males to shakes hands. The gay starts when this become foreplay. Now cohesion becomes tentitive to the stresses of dating and love.

If sex is between close cohesive people, people can become jealous if more than one person cohesives too much to mutual object of desire. The handshake or hug does not create such problems, but the glue changes when you add sex; this wild card variable is not a sure thing.

I can see how the "top man" within this gay cohesion strategy might like the arrangement, since the stiff whilly has no conscience and can rationalize anything to release the compulsion. But the "bottom man" may not see it the same way when he needs to bite the pillow. The rapist might say he was trying to cohesive the two of them. Ask the gal if that worked.

This logic would suggest the top man in the gay group cohesion theory is the dominant, like in a prison. This strategy is not exactly optimzed for free will cohesion, unless you can't leave. The bottom man gains less in the prison cohesion system. Whips and chains in play might reflect the true nature of the cohesion; prison cohesion.

In Sodom and Gamoreah, there is is an example of this group cohesion strategy. There was a band of wild and brutal men raping anything that moved. They might have thought this was useful to the cohesion of the group, since they were the top men. The bottom man or towns people saw it differently.

I am not against gays and lesbians. I have many friends. I am more against the excuses generated by those trying to pitch a product to create a self forfilling prophesy.

 

Sexual attraction happens even without social conditioning, that proves it's genetic.

 

This attitude happened because of the in your face revolution imo.

 

Thanks for pointing out what's obvious to most.

 

Or the interior decorating gene, the gene that allows women to see shades of color that men can't, like the difference between midnight blue, dark blue and ultra navy.

Silly, right? Except it's real. Some women CAN see more colors than men, and it's genetic.

Or that more people are willing to come out now that they will not be mocked, fired, arrested or killed for it.

Of course. Behavior is far more complex than that, and includes developmental factors, personality traits _and_ genetic predisposition.

Absolutely. And we can ignore a homosexual orientation, especially if we'll be arrested if we admit we have it. Indeed, a great many people have.

Hmm. Not sure why you're changing topics like this. Yes, rape (sex without consent) is a problem, traditionally a much bigger problem in heterosexual communities than in homosexual communities. Google "Genghis Khan" for a particularly egregious example.

Again, that's not a straight or gay issue. Consensual BDSM has been a pretty central part of alternative sexuality in heterosexual communities for centuries. (And has nothing to do with "losing free will.")

 

Sure, and if wellwisher were right, the percentage of the population that was homosexual would be increasing over time, and I don't think that's true.

 

Supposedly, isn't it increasing now after the "in your face" revolution.

 

The way evolution is currenty defined, we begin with some random genetic changes. Through the process of natual selection, beneficial traits that appear from these changes will dominate via selective advantage. The animals with these advantages will breed, passing the advantageous genes forward. This strengthens the species.

Homosexuality satisfies the first two conditions, but not the third. It is reasonable that homosexuality is due to genetics. Homosexuality can also create selective advantage under many conditions. But once the gun is loaded, the trigger is not pulled, since step three will require a heterosexual encounter to make a baby so the genes can move to the future.

As an analogy, say the deer are in their breeding season. A large buck with a 12 point rack, wins the mating Olympics. His genes will be passed forward. This will make the herd stronger. But at the last moment, he decides not to breed. The potential for evolution is there, but no genetic cigar. The evolutionary three part cycle of Darwin is aborted at step two.

Even if we assume genetics to begin the process, and selective advantage to make the genes stand out, unless you close the deal in step three, it is like it never happened in evolutonary history. Since homosexual continues to appear, that would mean the same random genwtics appearing again and again at step one. That would suggest this genetic change it is not random but ordered. The idea of genetic ordering conflicts with genetic theory.

It would be like our herd of deer defining their big buck for breeding, season after season. They win selective advantage year after year, but they never breed or want to breed. There is no genetic transmission, yet the big buck comes back every season to win. This suggests new mechanisms for genetics, where genetics can be tweaked into renewable order. I have no problem with that, but current evolution will not hear of it, since order messes up the theory.

If you try to be consistent with evolutionary theory we have the step three paradox. If we explain the paradox with the theory of renewable genetic ordering factors, this offends genetic theory and evolution.

 

Not at all. Sickle cell anemia is deadly, and generally prevents people (people outside of a society with good medical care that is) from reproducing. Yet in many countries it is still quite prevalent.

At first glance this would seem to go against evolutionary theory. Why is a genetic trait retained if the result is a deadly disease? It seemed like a puzzle until we better understood genetics, and realized that it indirectly conferred some very significant benefits (resistance to malaria.)

Again, not at all, as the sickle cell case demonstrates. A genetic trait that has an obvious detrimental expression may well have other, beneficial expressions that warrant retaining it as a selective advantage (to either the organism or the society it is expressed in.)