Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

All right, let me just ask:

Why are the causes of homosexuality relevant in this thread?

[Solifuge]

That said, if the "gay gene" exists, it is my theory that one of the strongest sustaining forces for it may have been the anti-homosexual taboos of the past. Following this line of thought brings one to an unpleasant conclusion; as the taboos of the past are lifted, fewer homosexuals will be under social pressure to engage in heterosexual relationships. As such, fewer homosexuals may directly pass on their genes, leading to a diminished gay population.

Fewer will also be dead of hate crimes before being forced to procreate and pass on their genetic material.

Just to be clear, I do not support anti-homosexual sentiment. <Insert obligatory "Some of my best friends are gay!" bit here>. I'm just taking a step back from feelings of right and wrong, and indicating that, from a genetic standpoint, social pressure on individuals to be heterosexual (be they from the necessity of having children to work on your farm, from religious beliefs, etc.) may have done more than just ruin people's lives. The notion of increased tolerance and acceptance leading to a decline in the very thing that's being tolerated/accepted (homosexuality) would be horribly ironic, but seems to be the case, by my present understanding of history and culture, and assuming the genetic nature of homosexuality.

[Sheb]

1.natural selection drives genes hampering procreation rate out of the genome

Proven

Actually no. Loads of ants have gene that prevent them from reproducing. But since their Queen do it, the gene prospere nonetheless.

Also we human did evolve since civilization came around. We European as well as Massai and the like evolved gene to digest lactose since we domesticated cattles. I remember reading somewhere that gene to degrade alcohol were also selected among Chineses soon after they started cultivating rice.

Edit. Well, I guess Vector is right. That was a slight derail.

[scriver]

All right, let me just ask:

Why are the causes of homosexuality relevant in this thread?

Because derail make happy!

[Truean]

Truean: Except of course that fitness in evolutionary terms only means having more copies of your genes in the next generations. Your friend's daughter may well be really successful in life, but if she decide to have only one kid, her evolutionary fitness will be crappy.

Nowadays, gene that get passed around are whatever gene may predispose you to join a fundamentalist church, seeing as they got more kids.

Vector: It's always relative. You might kill off all the rabbits, but the last one to die will be the one that screwed the most (or rather, got the most kids reproducing themselves. Screwing a lot isn't always the best strategy). What he's saying is that the individuals with the best fitness will always tend to squeeze out the individuals with worse fitness in the same species. Of course you need to take in account group selection.

How can you not see that your argument to me contradicts your argument to Vector?

To me: Evolutionary advantage only = most reproduction (copies of genes).
To Vector: "Screwing a lot isn't always the best strategy"

How do you reconcile that?

[Solifuge]

Human civilisation is only a few thousand, but we've been social creatures since we climbed down from the trees.
A form of society has always existed and many social animals cast out or kill any of their number with a noticeable genetic deviation from them.
I find it impossible to imagine being gay was easier and not something people felt they had to hide back when they were apes with clubs.

Animals of the same sex have been known to couple. In cultures without anti-homosexual taboos, humans do the same. There is nothing genetic or natural about homosexuality being seen as bad or something to hide... that's purely a cultural construct.

[Rose]

My theory: There is no gay gene. It's just one of the many random things that can happen growing up.

There is, however, a bastard sonavabitch gene, which I have.

[Solifuge]

My theory: There is no gay gene. It's just one of the many random things that can happen growing up.

There is, however, a bastard sonavabitch gene, which I have.

Are you sure the later is genetic? I'd assume it comes from having been born illegitimately, and raised by a single female dog.

[G-Flex]

Human civilisation is only a few thousand, but we've been social creatures since we climbed down from the trees.
A form of society has always existed and many social animals cast out or kill any of their number with a noticeable genetic deviation from them.
I find it impossible to imagine being gay was easier and not something people felt they had to hide back when they were apes with clubs.

Animals of the same sex have been known to couple. In cultures without anti-homosexual taboos, humans do the same. There is nothing genetic or natural about homosexuality being seen as bad or something to hide... that's purely a cultural construct.

Sexual orientation itself is, in part, a cultural construct. That's my opinion, anyway. There are likely many ways of viewing sexual preferences, binary/ternary gender-based preferences (gender itself being a very cultural thing, for that matter) being one of them. The Greeks, for example, didn't exactly categorize things the same way.

[Sheb]

Truean, the number of copies of your genes depend not only of the number of kids you make, but of the proportion that survive long enough to reproduce.
If animal A got 10 kids to animal B's two, but that nine of them dies before mating, A's fitness is lower than B.

My point to you was that nowadays, since almost everyone in the West got the same chance of surviving until they can procreate, there is no real natural selection going on anymore. You teaching math to your friends' daughter is cool, and will help make here more successful in life as well as help the parents, but has no real impact on her evolutionary fitness.

My point to Vector was that even if a population is disappearing, the fittest individuals will progressively make a bigger and bigger proportion of that population, even if their actual number is declining (Because 10% of 2000 is less than 50% of 20). And that there is more to fitness than screwing around.

[G-Flex]

We're also kind of ignoring the fact here that genes can be expressed differently in different individuals and circumstances. Even if homosexuality were highly genetic, those same genes could be responsible for positive/fit traits in individuals who are not necessarily homosexual.

[Bauglir]

All right, let me just ask:

Why are the causes of homosexuality relevant in this thread?

My guess is that people feel like it would be helpful in rationalizing whatever position they happen to have. Of course, it really isn't that helpful, since people who think it's a sin will see any such cause as something to correct, while people who defend it as a valid characteristic for a person to have will see it as benign. So, for instance, if it's genetic, you'll get some people shouting that it's a disorder and some people shouting that it's a natural behavior, and both will talk past one another forever.

[Sheb]

Or it could be a gene next to another, positive gene, and the two got selected together.

But anyway, I think we all agree that there is currently now way to know if homosexuality is due to gene, education, psychology, sociology or aliens, that the Iowa pressure groups that started that "Pledge for Marriage" things only want to define it as a choice for gay-bashing reason, that Santorum is an ass and that this derail was long enough.

[Truean]

Truean, the number of copies of your genes depend not only of the number of kids you make, but of the proportion that survive long enough to reproduce.
If animal A got 10 kids to animal B's two, but that nine of them dies before mating, A's fitness is lower than B.

My point to you was that nowadays, since almost everyone in the West got the same chance of surviving until they can procreate, there is no real natural selection going on anymore. You teaching math to your friends' daughter is cool, and will help make here more successful in life as well as help the parents, but has no real impact on her evolutionary fitness.

My point to Vector was that even if a population is disappearing, the fittest individuals will progressively make a bigger and bigger proportion of that population, even if their actual number is declining (Because 10% of 2000 is less than 50% of 20). And that there is more to fitness than screwing around.

Real simple; Two ways to influence evolution via its two factors:
1.) Reproduction = Gen Sample Size.
2.) Survival ratio of offspring = fitness and contribution to Next Gen Sample Size and Characteristics.

Transitive Property: If influencing #2 is indirectly influencing gene pool, and I have then I have indirectly influenced gene pool sans reproduction.

Your argument is that there is effectively or nearly no #2, because #2 is constant for all individuals in society currently.

Defection ant has defected:
My counter to your counter is ants. They're incredibly successful, with an uncountable number of colonies and colony populations in the millions yet usually only one ant/colony reproduces. In the colony all ants have a roughly equal chance of survival, yet this fact for all intents and purposes is a nullity. Even pointing to shared genetic material between ants, that point could be countered by helping those related to me. I've simply decided to help a different set of more deserving genes. You can't forget half of the equation and get the same answer....

Correct?

[Lysabild]

I can't believe people really think it's even possible for it to be genetic, honestly, but it seems Vector isn't interested in this discussion going on in here.