Homosexuality vs Evolution

Mandana said:
Where does homosexuality stand concerning the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...

How about homosexuality is evolutions answer to world overcrowding, more and more homosexual couples = less children = problem solved. Well done nature.


Just a thought…
 
There is a gene for attraction to men. The female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children. So homosexuality is what happens when this gene is "misplaced". The evolutionary payoff must be significant if this gene survives, even though it results slightly less reproduction on the part of some individuals. One presumes there is a similar gene that produces attraction to females, and this explains female homosexuality.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926702.200-how-bisexuality-is-passed-on-in-the-genes.html
 
spidergoat said:
There is a gene for attraction to men. The female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children. So homosexuality is what happens when this gene is "misplaced". The evolutionary payoff must be significant if this gene survives, even though it results slightly less reproduction on the part of some individuals. One presumes there is a similar gene that produces attraction to females, and this explains female homosexuality.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926702.200-how-bisexuality-is-passed-on-in-the-genes.html
Click to expand...

So following on from that, it would make sense that male siblings of lesbians would be more fertile.
 
spidergoat said:
There is a gene for attraction to men. The female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children.
Click to expand...
I wonder how that ties in with the study (lost the link, but it has been posted on Sci before now) that showed that with twins, if they are of opposite sexes, if one is gay the likelihood is that both will be.
I.e. the guy will be attracted to men whereas the woman won't. Does he somehow "steal" all her "allotment"?
 
Mandana said:
Where does homosexuality stand concerning the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...

well if its a gene that is responsible for homosexuality then how did it stay in our gene pool up till now.

my theory is when the mutation happened it should have died with the person cause they didnt reproduce but yet its still around.

1) so either everyone has the gene but its not turned on,
2) arranged marriage or going with the normal avoiding social outcast
3) or just to knock someone up cause our desire to reproduce is strong

i like no3 cause i looks at it as if a straight man went gay for 1 night to have a baby. now every gay and lesbian can have their kid made in a test tube.
 
The reason it persists in the gene pool is that when the gene for attraction to men is present in female relatives, it causes greater reproduction. So the benefits to the entire gene pool are significant, even though it might occasionally cause reduced reproduction when expressed in a man. The mutation isn't specific to men. The unit of selection isn't the individual, it is the gene itself.
 
Last edited:
atheist said:
well if its a gene that is responsible for homosexuality then how did it stay in our gene pool up till now.

my theory is when the mutation happened it should have died with the person cause they didnt reproduce but yet its still around.

1) so either everyone has the gene but its not turned on,
2) arranged marriage or going with the normal avoiding social outcast
3) or just to knock someone up cause our desire to reproduce is strong

i like no3 cause i looks at it as if a straight man went gay for 1 night to have a baby. now every gay and lesbian can have their kid made in a test tube.
Click to expand...
It could also be that most homosexuals are the result of a unique mutation like Down's Syndrome.

People with Down's Syndrome rarely reproduce, yet they persist in the population because chromosomal nondisjunction happens every so often during the process of meiosis.

Homosexuality may also be due to some error (mutation) that occurs every so often.

Alternatively, it could be a situation like sickle cell anemia in which there is a benefit to having one gene for homosexuality and that benefit outweighs the reproductive disadvantage to those who carry two copies of the gene.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Do you mean where (how) does homosexuality fit into the theory of evolution or where do homosexuals stand on the subject?
Presumably the former, but you never can tell...

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/pets-animals/stories/evolution-of-homosexuality-in-birds-explained
http://www.mirapuri-enterprises.com/Anand/NatHomoE.htm
Click to expand...

Orleander said:
Yeah....I don't understand the question. And is it all homosexuality or just male?
Click to expand...

I re-write the question: How does all homosexuality fit into the theory of evolution?

spidergoat said:
There is a gene for attraction to men. The female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children. So homosexuality is what happens when this gene is "misplaced". The evolutionary payoff must be significant if this gene survives, even though it results slightly less reproduction on the part of some individuals. One presumes there is a similar gene that produces attraction to females, and this explains female homosexuality.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926702.200-how-bisexuality-is-passed-on-in-the-genes.html
Click to expand...

Thanks and I found this comment:

Don't see how something that would increase somebody's sex drive towards men would somehow invalidate one's sex drive towards women.
 
Mandana said:
Don't see how something that would increase somebody's sex drive towards men would somehow invalidate one's sex drive towards women.
Click to expand...
Maybe it doesn't. The development of one's personal desires also has much to do with experience and conditioning.
 
.

what now? homosxuality is evolution, what i know about that is that it's bullshit,
homosexuality existed thousadns of years ago,
there are an arabic tribe in past, before islam, where all men do it with each other, and everywhere, and and and...
not evoultion!
infact, i prefer the word "adaptation" more than "evolution"
 
.

Dywyddyr said:
Explain this please.
I get the feeling you've misread the question.
Click to expand...

what i understood from the question, is that, if the homo is a part of evolution, or the new humans if i say, that the next step in evolution is homo, first that brakes the nature rules, because you can't reproduce by homo sex
like man with man, or woman with woman, natrually, inless you change the sexual organs.
 
Shadow1 said:
what i understood from the question, is that, if the homo is a part of evolution, or the new humans if i say, that the next step in evolution is homo, first that brakes the nature rules, because you can't reproduce by homo sex
like man with man, or woman with woman, natrually, inless you change the sexual organs.
Click to expand...
Then you HAVE misunderstood the question.
The question asks, "since homosexuality occurs how does the theory of evolution ACCOUNT for it?"

I.e. homosexuality doesn't (apparently) help the species continue, yet both are still around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top