Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Homosexuality and Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#101 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 June 2009 - 09:04 PM

Homosexuality is only "abnormal" at the level of the individual.
At the population level, there has been a proportion of homosexuals throughout recorded history. It's even documented in many other species.

Therefore, to say that homosexuality is unnatural is unequivocably, undeniably, objectively incorrect.

It's statistically abnormal. From an evolutionary standpoint you are correct.

As far as individual traits go, there are few ones which seriously affect the way your life works, especially when compared to the rest of the population. Homosexuality is different from a quirky trait. To say it is no more than that would be to deny a hirearchy of relevance.

#102 nox

nox
  • 6707 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 June 2009 - 09:35 PM

since much of this is just speculative theory.. my opinion is tht homosexuality is just a small cistron that managed to tag along a larger gene ... iv'e read some of the research advocating the 'successful homosexual gene' and i find it very hard to believe; it's not a trait that would ever be selected for so

Edited by nox, 20 June 2009 - 09:36 PM.


#103 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 June 2009 - 08:24 AM

It's statistically abnormal. From an evolutionary standpoint you are correct.

As far as individual traits go, there are few ones which seriously affect the way your life works, especially when compared to the rest of the population. Homosexuality is different from a quirky trait. To say it is no more than that would be to deny a hirearchy of relevance.

And the topic is... Homosexuality and Evolution.

since much of this is just speculative theory.. my opinion is tht homosexuality is just a small cistron that managed to tag along a larger gene ... iv'e read some of the research advocating the 'successful homosexual gene' and i find it very hard to believe; it's not a trait that would ever be selected for so

It's hard to believe because your understanding of evolution is basic.
I believe I discussed a few mechanisms concerning how it could persist on page one.

#104 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 July 2009 - 08:25 PM

And the topic is... Homosexuality and Evolution.


Yeah, but topics which have some relevance are subject to be included. Or else you don't get the big picture, see Joe? I'm just a regular fellow, so I don't suppose I know much about what you know, but some attitudes tend to really stink of psuedo-intellectual bullshit, know what I mean? Take it easy.

#105 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 July 2009 - 04:52 AM

Yeah, but topics which have some relevance are subject to be included. Or else you don't get the big picture, see Joe? I'm just a regular fellow, so I don't suppose I know much about what you know, but some attitudes tend to really stink of psuedo-intellectual bullshit, know what I mean? Take it easy.

I suppose. But then, I don't agree that statistical obnormalities are really relevant at all.
In the UK, at least, roughly one in ten people are homosexual or bisexual. It's more common than earning over £1000 a week, but high rollers aren't considered deviant, are they?

Staistics can be manipulated, and they are only useful for comparisons.

#106 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 July 2009 - 10:06 AM

The statistics are somewhat essential to understanding the various views on this issue, I think. That's what I'm getting at. Some caution is necessary when measuring statistics but usually when its related to sociology there's a lot of gray as is so it kinda blends in.

#107 nerdgirl

nerdgirl
  • 47 posts

Posted 14 September 2009 - 09:59 AM

Homosexuality is useful to evolution because it gives a society extra people to allocate where they're needed.

Societies compete against each other, just like individuals do. If Group A over here has all straight people, we can assume said straight people are mostly reproducing and spending their effort on their own children. Group B has some homosexuals, who don't reproduce (nearly as often), and that group has fewer children, but they also have those homosexuals to do things like helping take care of someone else's children (most likely their siblings'), gathering food, defending the group, building shelter, or making new discoveries; or freeing up heterosexuals to do those things. The children of the heterosexuals in that group, who carry recessive genetics for homosexuality, grow up, and some of them turn out to be homosexual.

In times of plenty and safety, the heterosexual group will be just fine. Their many children will grow up and have more little heterosexual children. That's an advantage because more children means more genes spread around; but only as long as the good times last.

In times of famine or war or with dangerous predators around, though, the group with homosexuals in it will start to do better. They're spending more effort on fewer children, so that each particular child has a better chance of surviving to adulthood; while the heterosexuals are trying to cope with too many children that they most likely can't feed in the first place, and ending up with only a few, weaker, adults in the next generation. They no longer have an advantage over the group with homosexuals in it because the extra children they were having end up dying, and the rest don't get as much care. Effort spent on children who die before they reproduce is, as far as evolution is concerned, wasted effort; and the exclusively heterosexual group in a time of famine will waste a lot of effort that way.

Over time, the societies with homosexuals--but not too many homosexuals--start to become predominant. Many hands make light work--and healthier children.

Edited by nerdgirl, 14 September 2009 - 10:00 AM.


#108 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 14 September 2009 - 02:02 PM

*snip*

Very well explained. *hat tip*


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users