[2011-Jul-17] Evidence for evolutionary and homosexuality

[Phaazoid]

what if being gay is actually evolution working it's magic? Overpopulation is the earths biggest problem right now. We already know how to use artificial insemination, the species wouldn't die out if everyone was gay. And it would finally kill, or at least severely hurt a lot of major religions if everyone were gay, another large threat to the earth in general. maybe evolution, is like, conscious.

[smbcfan]

I'm confused about this comic. apparently what it says is that anyone who makes a coherent argument against homosexuality being genetic is a fat loser? Why on earth would anyone ever want to read this?

How is it coherent? "All human beings ever" are not optimized for heterosexual reproduction, even setting aside the fat loser shut-in portrayed in the comic. I was born intersex and sterile, for example.

The idea is that any genes that contributed to you being sterile are genes that will now no longer be passed on. Any trait that inhibits the ability pass on genetic information is apparently against survival of the fittest where the most fit to survive is the one who is able to reproduce the most.

That's how the argument is generally posed. It is a coherent argument pertaining to the likelihood that homosexuality is an inherited genetic trait, but it fails to disagree with evolution or the possibility that it's caused by something else (perhaps it is a defect caused by something in our diet or maybe it is merely something we haven't figured out yet).

Usually some right-winged people take this argument and run way too far with it, to some unknown ends I guess. Even if homosexuality was a choice, who cares and how does it affect anyone else?

I'm just going by the "all human beings ever" quote stated in the comic, which our friend Not thinks is a "coherent" argument.

[Gangler]

It's coherent. It's just not correct.

[Tori]

Homosexuality in geese has an interesting effect. When 2 males "fall in love" (I guess you would call it), neither one will accept the bottom position, but they'll try to have sex anyway. Often, a female goose will fall in love with one or both of them, and will squat between them when they try to procreate. She'll be impregnated by them, and when the eggs hatch, both males believe that the goslings are theirs. They both protect the children, who are more likely to survive than goslings with only 2 parents.

[Kimra]

It's all about female trickery! You only need to trick them once to get the baby.

>_>

Ed! What you doing tonight?

[Edminster]

Ed! What you doing tonight?

I am staying home watching people play minecraft on the internet.

Pretty much the farthest thing from sex, really.

[Kimra]

Oh. Oh well, I guess the day after is okay. See you then?

[Eisbreaker]

Pretty much the farthest thing from sex, really.

I guess you haven't seen the newest patch then?

[gavin]

Below are responses to Smiley_Cow, Loraxxe, Phaazoid, and Ed. Look for your quote in that order. This was to avoid double posting.

While I don't disagree that sexual orientation is most likely based on more than just genetics I think it's worth pointing out that being gay doesn't necessarily mean you won't biologically have children or you don't have the willingness to reproduce. Even if you're married to someone of the same sex, it's still not uncommon to have a surrogate mother, have a child through artificial insemination, etc.

(shortened your quote to make the post smaller) Your statements are very true. The thing is that this trait would diminish the frequency of reproduction so if it were a gene it should still be diminishing with each generation rather than increasing like it is. There are other factors that could slow the diminishing of it as well. Such as the fact that a gay parent doesn't necessarily produce gay offspring. If it were genetic, then it's possible that the children become carriers of one gene. That being said, it should still be diminishing since several hurdles need to be taken for a homosexual individual to have children, such as using a lab or having sex with a gender you are possibly repulsed by.

As for the multi-preferences comment. This would essentially lessen the number of chances to reproduce since each time sex is performed, there is now competition between the gender that could produce children and the one that cannot. So again, we should see the occurrence of the gene diminishing.

That being said, there may be genes that predispose individuals to an increased likelihood of homosexuality. For example, let's say that the mother takes a large amount of estrogen supplements while pregnant and it somehow affects the child's sexual development. This perhaps leads to children with both forms of genitalia as the fetus is getting the hormones too. However, let's say that a gene makes the individual more resistant to such hormones or makes the individual less resistant. That's a way that genes could supplement homosexuality without being the direct cause.

For starters, Sickle Cell Anemia is an extremely maladaptive trait. It's the underlying genetics making at least twice as many babies (I don't know if SCA affects prenatal viability) fit enough in a high-malaria environment that keeps the gene around. If homosexuality followed the same pattern, even ignoring group fitness, the theoretical "gay gene" could certainly be helpful overall. But if it were that simple and absolute, the gene likely would have been identified by now. It's likely far more complicated, and chemicals certainly seem to be playing a significant role nowadays, at least prenatally. Like most traits, genetics, epigenetics, and environmental factors all likely play a role.

Sickle Cell Anemia is a bitch, you're right. But carrying only one of the genes is what allows the individuals have better odds at survive malaria. Having just one gene is not the same as having two. The one-gened individuals are the ones that are passing along the gene so successfully because they are not dying from Malaria and they don't actually have Sickle Cell Anemia. What they have is sickle cell trait and as such they have a 3/4th's chance of producing offspring that at least don't have Sickle Cell Anemia. Sickle Cell trait can carry it's own problems but they are more rare than common.

I'm glad you agree with additional factors likely being the cause. But remember that survivability strictly adheres to the surviving and passing on of genetic information, not living longer. I say this in response to the sentence on the gay gene, if existent, being helpful. To the individual, maybe, but to the passing on of their genes, not so much.

what if being gay is actually evolution working it's magic? Overpopulation is the earths biggest problem right now. We already know how to use artificial insemination, the species wouldn't die out if everyone was gay. And it would finally kill, or at least severely hurt a lot of major religions if everyone were gay, another large threat to the earth in general. maybe evolution, is like, conscious.

1. Then it would be magic. I could see scarcity of resources resulting in us using products that may increase homosexuality, but I do not see evolution creating a new gene due to some odd foresight. That would make it god.

2. According to a few articles and a piece I heard on NPR, religion generally helps build communities and helps them to work together. The idea of an unseen watcher who has the power to inflict punishment for evil acts encourages individuals to do good or not to do anti-social acts even when no one is looking. Yes, at its worst, religion has been used in war. But I think humans are fundamentally greedy enough to come up with other reasons to kill even if religion didn't exist. Humans are the biggest threat to the earth, not our constructs or beliefs.

That being said, the apparent pull towards forced ignorance of scientific facts is pretty dangerous in that it may slow down learning. But the past two thousand years saw Christianity and Islam (later on) creating universities and only slowing knowledge in very specific areas (poor Galileo). It's surprising how many breakthroughs were found by monks alone (how expressed alleles get passed on, for an example pertinent to this discussion). It is only recently that we've seen so strong a push against proven science and hopefully religion can get to a point where it evolves to accept science while still encouraging man not to be a dick to his neighbor. In summary, religion is a tool that may be used for both good and evil, it is not itself to blame.

Minecraft

I've built palaces in the sky, castles hewn into the mountain sides, netherworld gates to travel faster as well as irrigation channels saddled with rail-road tracks. I've even made a giant galleon ship out of wood blocks and white cotton squares.

What do you do? I love this game as it appeals to my lego/model years like nothing else. But I am running out of ideas. My next goal will be the creation of an entire town.

[Kimra]

Will it be a ghost town? Because ghost towns are cool.

[gavin]

Will it be a ghost town? Because ghost towns are cool.

I can't see it being anything else. It isn't on a server. I think I'll shoot for an older english period model since cobbled stones are so easy.

[Eisbreaker]

Here's a project for you: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/anti-zombie-fortress

[Edminster]

What do you do?

I use yogbox.

[Gangler]

Phaazoid suggests that evolution may perhaps be Bizarro-God on a quest to kill religion by bringing the novel Brave New World to fruition through the power of homosexuality and someone felt that needed a rebuttal.

I just feel the need to bring attention to the fact that this happened.

[gavin]

Phaazoid suggests that evolution may perhaps be Bizarro-God on a quest to kill religion by bringing the novel Brave New World to fruition through the power of homosexuality and someone felt that needed a rebuttal.

I just feel the need to bring attention to the fact that this happened.

I am right now sitting on a phone conference with people from three continents that are learning the product I've been working on for two years now. You have no idea how bored I am.

The concept that evolution somehow sees the futures is also a common misconception about the process. What if one person reads the rebuttal and realizes that what they believe is as stupid as it is? Maybe that person's kid won't be quite so dumb.