Just another newb

Egbert · Jan 6, 2009

CabinetMaker said:
It is still an attempt to stretch data to fit a hypothesis. How is the homosexuality passed on since natural selection is not selecting for it?

Group selection is one of the basic concepts of evolution. This is by no means an unusual "stretching of data."
A study has shown that in humans, women with gay brothers produce more offspring than women with straight brothers or no brothers. The reason for this is unknown, but it is likely that it is due to a genetic tendency for greater fertility in women that also causes some males to be gay. This is a selection pressure. Now, if the gay males furthermore provide better child care, the genes of their parents will be passed on at a higher rate. Their DNA specifically is not passed on, but the genes from their parents are, including the genes that caused them to be gay.

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

Revelation said:
That is your simply opinion. I've already provided some of the supporting data. Such as observations of primate populations and also what I said here.

And I suggest you watch the video. Of course, if you can provide a better explanation for all these natural processes, then I would love to hear it.

Assuming that homosexuality is a genetic disorder, then natural selection selects against the disorder in that individuals with the disorder generally do not mate and pass it on. (Note: disorder here simply means a genetic condition that is outside the normal genome of a particular species.)

If homosexual behavior is learned behavior then it is not a genetic trait and natural selection plays no role.

I either case, society may use homosexual individuals to their advantage, but there is still no evolutionary advantage. If it is genetic then natural selection works against it. If it is behavioral then in never enters the evolutionary channel since it exists outside the genes. Your supporting data is suspect.

Revelation · Jan 6, 2009

CabinetMaker said:
Assuming that homosexuality is a genetic disorder, then natural selection selects against the disorder in that individuals with the disorder generally do not mate and pass it on. (Note: disorder here simply means a genetic condition that is outside the normal genome of a particular species.)

If homosexual behavior is learned behavior then it is not a genetic trait and natural selection plays no role.

I either case, society may use homosexual individuals to their advantage, but there is still no evolutionary advantage. If it is genetic then natural selection works against it. If it is behavioral then in never enters the evolutionary channel since it exists outside the genes. Your supporting data is suspect.

You aren't even reading what I post, so I don't even see why I should bother with you. As I already stated...

In short, scientific evidence suggests that homosexuality is naturally selected since those primate tribes that would not have developed it would not have had the benefit of extra help and protection for the tribe's offspring, and the offspring would have had less chance of survival, thus less chance to reproduce, and less chance for the genetics of that tribe to continue.

And a lot of the scientific evidence would suggest that homosexuality is well within the normal genome of the human speicies. I'll keep asking you to watch that video, because all of this is addressed there.

There is nothing suspect about the fact that that homosexuality is very much a natural part of the animal kingdom.

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

Egbert said:
Group selection is one of the basic concepts of evolution. This is by no means an unusual "stretching of data."
A study has shown that in humans, women with gay brothers produce more offspring than women with straight brothers or no brothers. The reason for this is unknown, but it is likely that it is due to a genetic tendency for greater fertility in women that also causes some males to be gay. This is a selection pressure. Now, if the gay males furthermore provide better child care, the genes of their parents will be passed on at a higher rate. Their DNA specifically is not passed on, but the genes from their parents are, including the genes that caused them to be gay.

So is the case with a multitude of genetic disorders. The offspring that inherits the detrimental form of the genetic disorder may well prove to be unsuccessful offspring (meaning they fail to reproduce). The parents pass a damaged gene to other successful offspring and the trait remains in the genome, but does not mean that natural selection is actively selecting that trait.

An intersting follow on question would deal with the rate of homosexual males and highly reporductive daughters in the offspring of a gay mans sister. Data gathered in the immediate generation is incomplete at best.

Revelation · Jan 6, 2009

CabinetMaker said:
So is the case with a multitude of genetic disorders. The offspring that inherits the detrimental form of the genetic disorder may well prove to be unsuccessful offspring (meaning they fail to reproduce). The parents pass a damaged gene to other successful offspring and the trait remains in the genome, but does not mean that natural selection is actively selecting that trait.

An intersting follow on question would deal with the rate of homosexual males and highly reporductive daughters in the offspring of a gay mans sister. Data gathered in the immediate generation is incomplete at best.

You are an engineer? Seriously?

First off, if you would actually watch the video to understand the processes, then you would not have made such a nonsensical post.

Second, since you clearly have vested interest in not watching the video there really isn't much left for us to discuss. You are selectively limiting what information you are open to discussing.

Third, had you watched the video, you would have learned that homosexuality is considered only in part to be genetic, but largely to be hormonal and a product of fetal development.

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

Revelation said:
You aren't even reading what I post, so I don't even see why I should bother with you. As I already stated...

And a lot of the scientific evidence would suggest that homosexuality is well within the normal genome of the human speicies. I'll keep asking you to watch that video, because all of this is addressed there.

There is nothing suspect about the fact that that homosexuality is very much a natural part of the animal kingdom.

Homosexuality may be within the genome of the human race but it remains an abnormal situation for the species. That it may be contained within the genome of the human race does not make it morally acceptable. Is somebody that lacks the genetic ability to adequately control their emotions still guilty of murder when they kill somebody?

Morals exist above the behaviors that exist as a result of our genetic make up. I am heterosexual who greatly enjoys sex with the opposite sex. Slaking that desire outside of marriage is equally immoral to homosexual sex. Both sex drives may be the result of genetic predisposition, but since sex outside of marriage between a man and woman is absolutely wrong (God's morals) both sex drives result in immoral acts.

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

Revelation said:
You are an engineer? Seriously?

MSEE

Revelation said:
First off, if you would actually watch the video to understand the processes, then you would not have made such a nonsensical post.

I am well acquainted with genetic processes. My daughter has to live the results of a double recessive gene and my other daughter is most likely a carrier.

Revelation said:
Second, since you clearly have vested interest in not watching the video there really isn't much left for us to discuss. You are selectively limiting what information you are open to discussing.

:sigh: I studied genetic mutations in college and we studied reproduction. If you can show me the evidence of another tribe in the same area that dies out because they did not have homosexual support within their tribe, then you will have something more than anecdotal evidence.

Revelation said:
Third, had you watched the video, you would have learned that homosexuality is considered only in part to be genetic, but largely to be hormonal and a product of fetal development.

And that changes things how?

Revelation · Jan 6, 2009

CabinetMaker said:
Homosexuality may be within the genome of the human race but it remains an abnormal situation for the species. That it may be contained within the genome of the human race does not make it morally acceptable. Is somebody that lacks the genetic ability to adequately control their emotions still guilty of murder when they kill somebody?

Morals exist above the behaviors that exist as a result of our genetic make up. I am heterosexual who greatly enjoys sex with the opposite sex. Slaking that desire outside of marriage is equally immoral to homosexual sex. Both sex drives may be the result of genetic predisposition, but since sex outside of marriage between a man and woman is absolutely wrong (God's morals) both sex drives result in immoral acts.

Full circle. You are the one who brought up the evolutionary argument as your argument against homosexuality beyond your Holy Scriptures.

So we are where we began. You holding to your belief that the Bible is the absolute source of knowledge in regard to moral truths and me holding to my belief that careful observation and study of the world itself is the absolute source of knowledge in regard to moral truth.

Your book tells you that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural, and my study tells me that it can play a beneficial role and is completely natural.

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

Revelation,

I'm still waiting for your response to post 58. I am interested in what you have to say.

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

Revelation said:
Full circle. You are the one who brought up the evolutionary argument as your argument against homosexuality beyond your Holy Scriptures.

So we are where we began. You holding to your belief that the Bible is the absolute source of knowledge in regard to moral truths and me holding to my belief that careful observation and study of the world itself is the absolute source of knowledge in regard to moral truth.

Your book tells you that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural, and my study tells me that it can play a beneficial role and is completely natural.

I stand by my assertion that evolution selects against homosexuality. While a society may use homosexual members to its advantage, natural selection does not select for homosexuality. When it does occur, it selects against it since homosexual pairs cannot reproduce.

Revelation · Jan 6, 2009

CabinetMaker said:
:sigh: I studied genetic mutations in college and we studied reproduction. If you can show me the evidence of another tribe in the same area that dies out because they did not have homosexual support within their tribe, then you will have something more than anecdotal evidence.

That would be difficult and I'm not aware of any such evidence. All that have been recorded are the benefits of homosexuality in some primate populations. Social ecologists are generally the ones who connect the dots when it comes to determining how behavior between individuals can affect the evolution of a species.

And that changes things how?

Quite significantly when your argument is that homosexuality is a genetic disorder.

Revelation · Jan 6, 2009

CabinetMaker said:
I stand by my assertion that evolution selects against homosexuality. While a society may use homosexual members to its advantage, natural selection does not select for homosexuality. When it does occur, it selects against it since homosexual pairs cannot reproduce.

I stand by my argument that evolution selects for homosexuality. The fact that you don't understand how social ecology affects evolution is not an argument against it, but merely shows you lack of an adequate understanding of evolution to discuss these details.

Egbert · Jan 6, 2009

CabinetMaker said:
I stand by my assertion that evolution selects against homosexuality.

There are selection pressures both for and against homosexuality. These mostly cancel each other out, but there is a net selection in one direction or the other, depending on which pressures are strongest.
If the net selection is really against homosexuality, then how do homosexuals still exist? Arguably there could be a common mutation that keeps cropping up despite being selected out of the gene pool anew with each generation, but that seems unlikely.

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

Egbert said:
There are selection pressures both for and against homosexuality. These mostly cancel each other out, but there is a net selection in one direction or the other, depending on which pressures are strongest.
If the net selection is really against homosexuality, then how do homosexuals still exist? Arguably there could be a common mutation that keeps cropping up despite being selected out of the gene pool anew with each generation, but that seems unlikely.

If there is a genetic componant to homosexuality, and I, for one, think there is (think Fredie Mercury), I think it is passed on in the same manor that the disorder my daughter has is passed on. The child that inherits the disorder results in an unsuccessful offspring that fails to pass on its genes. This is a case where natural selection selects against homosexual phenotype. Other children may inherit a "recessive" form of the gene that does not express as a phenotype and so is not available for natural selection to operate on. The "recessive" gene is passed on but it is an evolutionary neutral event because it is "hidden" in the genes of successful offspring.

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

Revelation said:
Quite significantly when your argument is that homosexuality is a genetic disorder.

I think it is a disorder if it is genetic. Evolution is driven by sexual reproduction. Homosexual pairs are incapable of reproducing and that inhibits evolution. Would a population of homosexual males isolated on an island be able to maintain a breeding population? Would a homosexual population of females isolated on an island be able to maintain a breeding population? Would a population of heterosexual males and females isolated on an island be able to maintain a breeding population? Of these three cases, which one represents a successful population?

Stripe · Jan 6, 2009

Revelation said:
The same ways anyone is meant to be committed to a partner.

In what way is that?

Technically, sexuality refers to attraction not just sexual relations.

An attraction to what end?

As I said before, I choose to believe in God for all the subjective, intuitive, and mystical reasons that anyone else chooses to do so. It's a belief I constantly question. I also believe in evolution because of all the evidence that has been compiled to support it. But that too is a theory which I constantly question. Teleology and naturalism are not as opposed as you might think on the philosophical level.

Uh .. good luck with that....

Egbert · Jan 6, 2009

CabinetMaker said:
If there is a genetic componant to homosexuality, and I, for one, think there is (think Fredie Mercury), I think it is passed on in the same manor that the disorder my daughter has is passed on. The child that inherits the disorder results in an unsuccessful offspring that fails to pass on its genes. This is a case where natural selection selects against homosexual phenotype. Other children may inherit a "recessive" form of the gene that does not express as a phenotype and so is not available for natural selection to operate on. The "recessive" gene is passed on but it is an evolutionary neutral event because it is "hidden" in the genes of successful offspring.

That is a reasonable idea, though the incidence of homosexuality is a bit high for that sort of explanation. At least if that is the cause, its culprit should be relatively easy to identify, like that of sickle-cell disease. Have you found any research supporting your theory?

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

4 minutes and 34 seconds of gay propaganda masquerading as science. That was your video. I have heard all the claims before.

I think that there is a genetic componant to homosexuality. But that does not change the morality of the situation. A gay has a harder choice to make than a heterosexual because as a heterosexual I can be married and still serve Christ. A gay cannot. A gay must choose between a moral life serving a God and and immoral life serving their sexual desires.

CabinetMaker · Jan 6, 2009

Egbert said:
That is a reasonable idea, though the incidence of homosexuality is a bit high for that sort of explanation. At least if that is the cause, its culprit should be relatively easy to identify, like that of sickle-cell disease. Have you found any research supporting your theory?

No. It is one of those subjects that is so mired in politics and religion that it can be very hard to find any ligitament scientific research into it.

Tony Funderburk · Jan 8, 2009

Egbert said:
Tony, quote tags work like this: type [ quote ] (text) [ /quote ] (without the spaces). It will show up like this:

Thanks Egbert. I knew that, but I got in a hurry because I had to
take a business phone call. I know it didn't work out well...proving once again...don't rush something if it's important.

Tony
:dunce:

Just another newb

New member

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

BANNED

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

BANNED

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

BANNED

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

BANNED

BANNED

New member

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle

New member

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!

New member