# Brain Scans Point to Homosexuality as Being Genetic



## Toro (Jun 17, 2008)

> The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests. ...
> 
> Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure.
> 
> ...



BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences'


----------



## Ravi (Jun 17, 2008)

Interesting, but how do they know that the brain changes don't occur after a period of time practicing gayness (sorry for the awkward phrasing, caffeine hasn't kicked in). I'd think they'd have to image the brains of fetuses and compare them in later life to consider this "proof." Also, why didn't they also study bisexual people?


----------



## editec (Jun 17, 2008)

Some people are so obvious born gay that I marvel that this debate continues to interest people.

It takes a particularly vile kind of stupid to think that people CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite sex OR to the same sex.

Those of us who are hetero...can any of us recall when we DECIDED to find the opposite gender attractive?

Or did we just find that attraction for the opposite sex manifesting in us one day?

If the latter, then why on earth would any of us think that gay people CHOOSE to be gay?

I mean, how fucking stupid and hateful must one  be to imagine that other people _choose_ their sexual preferences?

_We didn't _choose but we demand that others _must_ choose?

Homosexuality is a normal subset of the human sexual condition.  Always was, always will be.

Debating this issue with the nitwits who think otherwise is a waste of time.

They're not motivated by a desire to know the truth, they're motivated by the desire to feel morally superior to others.

This isn't _obvious?_


----------



## Diuretic (Jun 17, 2008)

Given that it might be genetic/physiological I wonder what the evolutionary purpose is (if any)?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 17, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Given that it might be genetic/physiological I wonder what the evolutionary purpose is (if any)?



Careful now, you may stub some believers toes with talk like that. Those that worship the white smock will not be amused.


----------



## editec (Jun 17, 2008)

> Given that it might be genetic/physiological I wonder what the evolutionary purpose is (if any)?



Evolution has no purpose.

Evolution  merely has outcomes which work out (or not) in the long run.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 17, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Given that it might be genetic/physiological I wonder what the evolutionary purpose is (if any)?



It gives the right something to occupy their minds with.


----------



## 007 (Jun 17, 2008)

It's an interesting observation... but now they'll have to sell it to the scientific community, instead of just throwing it out there to an ignorant public who'll buy it as fact.

It's just another homo agenda stunt.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 17, 2008)

I think that the constant presence of homosexuality among cultures of varying acceptance, proves that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture.  We might as well be debating if southpaws are products of genetics or learned behaviour.  There was a time when lefties were considered less than righties too.  Yet, despite the social pressures to write with the right hand, we still have a variant sample of lefties rife in our population.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 17, 2008)

Shogun said:


> I think that the constant presence of homosexuality among cultures of varying acceptance, proves that homosexuality is nature rather than nurture.  We might as well be debating if southpaws are products of genetics or learned behaviour.  There was a time when lefties were considered less than righties too.  Yet, despite the social pressures to write with the right hand, we still have a variant sample of lefties rife in our population.



So you don't Dick Cheney's method of raising his children is responsible for his lesbian daughter?


----------



## 007 (Jun 17, 2008)

Ravi said:


> So you don't Dick Cheney's method of raising his children is responsible for his lesbian daughter?



Might have been... how would we know?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 17, 2008)

Ravi said:


> So you don't Dick Cheney's method of raising his children is responsible for his lesbian daughter?



not at all.  in fact, one might just find the irony in his politics and his offspring prove my point.



to paraphrase John Kerry, "Lynn Cheney likes eating pussy like I do.."


----------



## Ravi (Jun 17, 2008)

Shogun said:


> not at all.  in fact, one might just find the irony in his politics and his offspring prove my point.
> 
> 
> 
> to paraphrase John Kerry, "Lynn Cheney likes eating pussy like I do.."



Yep. I was being sarcastic, btw.


----------



## manifold (Jun 17, 2008)

From a policy standpoint, why does it matter whether gayness is genetic?


----------



## editec (Jun 17, 2008)

> From a policy standpoint, why does it matter whether gayness is genetic?



Can any of us really imagine a world without flaming gay men, or hyper-mascualine gay men, either?

In the first case, who would style  our hair or design our women's clothing?

In the second, who would coach our young athletes or become eagle scouts?

If there were no gays in the world it would be a far less interesting place, folks.


----------



## manifold (Jun 17, 2008)

editec said:


> Can any of us really imagine a world without flaming gay men, or hyper-mascualine gay men, either?
> 
> In the first case, who would style  our hair or design our women's clothing?
> 
> ...



I fail to see why you bothered quoting me since this has nothing to do with the question I asked.  Unless this is a round-about way of saying that it doesn't matter.


----------



## 007 (Jun 17, 2008)

editec said:


> Can any of us really imagine a world without flaming gay men, or hyper-mascualine gay men, either?
> 
> In the first case, who would style  our hair or design our women's clothing?
> 
> ...



Well then why don't you walk on down to your local fag hang out and ask them if you can join in on one of their homo sexcapades, since you find it all so interesting.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 18, 2008)

editec said:


> Can any of us really imagine a world without flaming gay men, or hyper-mascualine gay men, either?
> 
> In the first case, who would style  our hair or design our women's clothing?
> 
> ...



YES....


----------



## Shogun (Jun 18, 2008)

fucking nazis.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 18, 2008)

As far as it being nature or nurture, so if it's something Genetic, then there most have been a "first" correct?  So was it choice or genetic?  If it is genetic, is it now considered a mutation to be gay?  Do you have a mutation in your DNA that causes you to be attracted to the same sex?  Is it a mutation of a gene that causes testosterone growth?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 18, 2008)

Do we see similar mutations that effect the genetic physical results?

Causes of left-handedness

    Main article: handedness

    * Hand orientation is developed in unborn children, most commonly determined by observing which hand is predominantly licked or held close to the mouth.[citation needed] Current genetic research suggests there is a genetic factor involved.
    * In 2007, researchers discovered LRRTM1, the first gene linked to increased odds of being left-handed. The researchers also claim that possessing this gene slightly raises the risk of psychotic mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.[10]
    * Long-term impairment of the right hand: People with long-term impairment of the right hand are more likely to become left-handed, even after their right hand heals.[citation needed] Such long term impairment is defined as 8 months or more.
    * Testosterone: Exposure to higher rates of testosterone before birth can lead to a left-handed child.[11] This is the Geschwind theory, named after the neurologist who proposed it, Norman Geschwind. It suggests that variations in levels of testosterone during pregnancy shape the development of the fetal brain. Testosterone suppresses the growth of the left cerebral hemisphere and so more neurons migrate to the right hemisphere. The highly developed right hemisphere is now better suited to function as the center of language and handedness. The fetus is more likely to become left-handed, since the right hemisphere controls the left half of the body. The theory goes on to tie the exposure to higher levels of testosterone and the resultant right-hemisphere dominance to auto-immune disorders, learning disorders, dyslexia, and stuttering, as well as increased spatial ability.
    * Ultrasound theory: Ultrasound scans may affect the brain of unborn children, causing higher rates of left-handedness in children born to mothers who have ultrasound scans compared to those who do not. This is probably based on a few studies[12][13] where this relation is studied. In one of these the authors claim that "...we found a possible association between routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent non-right handedness among children in primary school." However later in the same article the authors state that "Thus the association ... may be due to chance" and "The result was not significant, suggesting that the study had insufficient statistical power to resolve the relationship between ultrasonography and subsequent left handedness in the child"


Left-handedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BrianH (Jun 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Do we see similar mutations that effect the genetic physical results?
> 
> Causes of left-handedness
> 
> ...



Exactly, that's what I mean.  Blue eyes is a mutation also.


----------



## manifold (Jun 18, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Exactly, that's what I mean.  Blue eyes is a mutation also.



Everything was a mutation.  That's kind of how the whole evolution thing works.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 18, 2008)

Toro said:


> BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences'



Why do people view the straight/ gay thing in such black and white terms? It seems to me there is a spectrum and a lot of us fall somewhere at points in between gay and straight with some people at the very ends.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 18, 2008)

oh it is a spectrum.

Hell, go to college and get some of those girls drunk ans see how long it takes for the pseudo lesbian schtick to surface.


----------



## editec (Jun 18, 2008)

> Well then why don't you walk on down to your local fag hang out and ask them if you can join in on one of their homo sexcapades, since you find it all so interesting.



Because I'm not gay, obviously.  

I just happen to think that the gayfolk make our world a more interesting place. 

Much the same way I feel that outlaw bikers make our world a more interesting place, to be frank.

One doesn't need to_ be a frog _to think frogs add something to the ambiance of the swamp, after all.

So, now... based on the venom that you spewed in my general direction for no apparent reason,  perhaps it's time for _you _to do some self reflection.

You might start out by asking yourself why you so _obviously _care that _other people _are queer.

Why does that offend _you?_


----------



## editec (Jun 18, 2008)

> Everything was a mutation. That's kind of how the whole evolution thing works.



Spot on!


----------



## manifold (Jun 18, 2008)

Anguille said:


> Why do people view the straight/ gay thing in such black and white terms? It seems to me there is a spectrum and a lot of us fall somewhere at points in between gay and straight with some people at the very ends.



I've had the same thought.

To answer your question, I think the alternative scares people.

To ask one of my own: If this is true, doesn't that support the notion that there is an element of choice involved?


----------



## matty (Jun 18, 2008)

I'd be afraid to find out what else fits in your realm of what makes this place Interesting.

"Much the same way I feel that outlaw bikers make our world a more interesting place, to be frank."

What did you just say--did you compare gays to Outlaw bikers? 

"One doesn't need to_ be a frog _to think frogs add something to the ambiance of the swamp, after all."

No, but it does hint that one might be a bit of a tadpole.  And I'm fucking tripping on frogs at this point, can't we just have a nice day at the pond?

If we were being infiltrated by beastiality, pedophelia, I hope someone would speak up and make some sense.

"You might start out by asking yourself why you so _obviously _care that _other people _are queer."

Why do you care so much that he cares not have the gays surrounding him?

Me thinks something fishy besides the waters here.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 18, 2008)

*Why do you care so much that he cares not have the gays surrounding him?*


it's the same stupid arguement that we heard from the south circa 1960s.  Did having blacks for neighbors run off on anyone?  would gays?  How many gay neighbors would it take to make you crave some hogleg to suck on?


----------



## editec (Jun 18, 2008)

> I'd be afraid to find out what else fits in your realm of what makes this place Interesting.



Afraid?  What a silly thing to be afraid of.



> What did you just say--did you compare gays to Outlaw bikers?



Aren't they ALSO a group that many people fear on sight and without any real cause.  The anology is apt.



> No, but it does hint that one might be a bit of a tadpole. And I'm fucking tripping on frogs at this point, can't we just have a nice day at the pond?



Now you're just being contrary.  Are you really _tripping over gays _in your life? 



> If we were being infiltrated by beastiality, pedophelia, I hope someone would speak up and make some sense.



Infiltrated?  ARe you being _infiltrated _by homos?  That not only sounds uncomfortable, but unhygenic, too.




> Why do you care so much that he cares not have the gays surrounding him?



Gays _"surrounding"_ him?

Either you guys live in San Francisco (and then you might ask yourselves why you've chosen to live in a town renound for its gay community) , or I don't really know what you're talking about.

You appear to me to be saying that you are plagued by homosexuals, and that they're infiltrating your lives.

Seems prety simply to me.

If you don't want to be queer, don't be.

If you don't like queers, don't hang around where queers congregate.

Is that really all that hard to understand?


----------



## matty (Jun 18, 2008)

The analogy is anything but Apt, but whatever.

I don't know about you but I don't fear gays, of all people.

"Now you're just being contrary.  Are you really _tripping over gays _in your life?"

You can say that to anyone who thinks differently.  Contrary is not equivalent to Wrong.

An' yes, here in the sticks, I've been smothered in the gay agenda, in the Sticks I can't hide from it or keep it from my children.  There's some sorta mob mentality surrounding it now, it's picked up so much speed you'd think it'd developed into an American fad, an infatuation.

People are infatuated by the lowliest of things, though.

"You appear to me to be saying that you are plagued by homosexuals, and that they're infiltrating your lives."

That's simplifying.

"Seems prety simply to me.

If you don't want to be queer, don't be."

Nobody said we feared they could indoctrinate us.--You've been indoctrinated already and don't know it.

"If you don't like queers, don't hang around where queers congregate.

Is that really all that hard to understand?[/QUOTE]"

Is it any harder to understand that I should get to pick how my kids come up in the world to some degree I can live with??!!


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 18, 2008)

They also find that whites and asians have bigger brains than blacks, which they can further accurately correlate with measures of intelligence, such as "IQ" and "G".

I don't recall the British Broadcasting of Communism covering those studies, however. What a shock.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 18, 2008)

SMOTHERED in the gay agenda, eh?


So, I take it you are fending off the urge to suck some cock since all those rainbows have moved to town?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 18, 2008)

manifold said:


> I've had the same thought.
> 
> To answer your question, I think the alternative scares people.
> 
> To ask one of my own: If this is true, doesn't that support the notion that there is an element of choice involved?



If one is bisexual then there is some element of choice. But you really can't choose who you are attracted to, can you?


----------



## manifold (Jun 18, 2008)

Ravi said:


> If one is bisexual then there is some element of choice. But you really can't choose who you are attracted to, can you?



I don't know.

But if the spectrum theory is correct, then choice would necessarily have to be part of it.  Unless there is a defined tippingpoint along the scale for which one side is gay, one side is straight.  But that would undermine the whole spectrum theory since it would make the matter once again black/white.

Basically, unless choice is involved, it has to be a black/white matter.

Or to put it another way, it's logically inconsistent to say it isn't a choice but it's also subjective.

Get it?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 18, 2008)

manifold said:


> I don't know.
> 
> But if the spectrum theory is correct, then choice would necessarily have to be part of it.  Unless there is a defined tippingpoint along the scale for which one side is gay, one side is straight.  But that would undermine the whole spectrum theory since it would make the matter once again black/white.



I don't know either. It seems to me everyone would have the ability to be either and some combination of factors pushes one either way. Those factors could be hormonal, genetic and/or experience. Kind of like picking chocolate chip cookies over lemon pie...it could be a choice but something is making one choose.

Wouldn't bisexual people be the gray?


----------



## manifold (Jun 18, 2008)

btw:  While you were replying, I rewrote my post you quoted in an effort to be more clear about my point.  I know sometimes I leave too much to the imagination. 



Ravi said:


> Wouldn't bisexual people be the gray?



Not necessarily.  What if attraction to the same sex and attraction to the opposite sex are two different spectrums, with positive and negative ends.  Perhaps bisexuals are just on the positive end of both.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 18, 2008)

I don't know, the entire thing is pretty confusing. What makes anyone attracted to anyone else? I've heard various things...a certain body type, a certain odor, etc., so really being attracted to someone of the same sex probably isn't any more mysterious (or just as mysterious) as me liking a certain type of man. Which brings us back to the question you asked earlier--why does it even matter?

Blame it on the monkeys we descended from.


----------



## manifold (Jun 18, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't know, the entire thing is pretty confusing. What makes anyone attracted to anyone else? I've heard various things...a certain body type, a certain odor, etc., so really being attracted to someone of the same sex probably isn't any more mysterious (or just as mysterious) as me liking a certain type of man. Which brings us back to the question you asked earlier--why does it even matter?



A question yet to be answered by the way.

I was hoping gnome-deeplume might offer some insight on the matter.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 18, 2008)




----------



## AtlasShrieked (Jun 18, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Interesting, but how do they know that the brain changes don't occur after a period of time practicing gayness (sorry for the awkward phrasing, caffeine hasn't kicked in). I'd think they'd have to image the brains of fetuses and compare them in later life to consider this "proof." Also, why didn't they also study bisexual people?





> to try to look for the source of those differences.





> This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences.


just ask where the illusive source is. people are NOT born gay. it is a preposterous premise.  what is acting gay? what does gay look like? what are the quantifying criteria for making the case for gay vs not gay? sexual preference? how silly. how pc, on all sides


----------



## BrianH (Jun 19, 2008)

manifold said:


> Everything was a mutation.  That's kind of how the whole evolution thing works.



What could possibly be the evolutionary advantage for blue-eyes?  Better vision?  How about, if homosexuality is a mutation, what's the evolutionary purpose of it?  If a species is supposed to evolve to adapt and to carry on it's species, why would to homosexuality be considered  an evolutionary mutation?  --That would "DISCONTINUE" our species.  And you speak of mutation as "was" like it no longer happens.  I believe some mutations are evolution, however, if you expect me to believe that a down-syndrome baby is some kind of evolutionary mutation, you may want to rethink your position. 

Do brown eyes see better than blue?  Quarks, Quirks and Quips

Brown eyed people have been shown to have better vision that blue-eyed people.  Their dark eyes absorb more light waves.  So why would the human race need to evolve to blue eyes?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 19, 2008)

theory
the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality lies in it's nulification of the necessity to fight for the right to procreate the specie.  In an overpopulated state animals tear each other apart for the right to mate.  homosexual variations deflates this conflict.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> theory
> the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality lies in it's nulification of the necessity to fight for the right to procreate the specie.  In an overpopulated state animals tear each other apart for the right to mate.  homosexual variations deflates this conflict.



Hmmm.............. Great point.
But wouldn't homosexuality (in essence) be a "self-defeating" evolutionary mechanism.  In the human world, we have the knowledge to pro-create even if you are a homosexual (i.e. surrogate mothers, test-tube babies, sperm donation) etc.  However, in the animal world, homosexual animals would be unable to reproduce, thus not being able to spread their mutated gene.  This is interesting.......


----------



## Shogun (Jun 19, 2008)

indeed.. the midigating factor seems to be our ability to reason above animals.  perhaps this is why such behaviour always seems to pop up in every culture while the same cant be said for the animal kindom.  I mean, who hasn't seen a male dog hump a leg?  Certainly, this behaviour wouldn't perpetuate canines but.. in an animal that is aware of the proverbial "I"?  We have the benefit to behave according to desire rather than reflex or instinct.  I could be totally wrong but, in regards to the evolutionary construct of homosexuality, no other animal kills because two males of its specie are humping each other.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> indeed.. the midigating factor seems to be our ability to reason above animals.  perhaps this is why such behaviour always seems to pop up in every culture while the same cant be said for the animal kindom.  I mean, who hasn't seen a male dog hump a leg?  Certainly, this behaviour wouldn't perpetuate canines but.. in an animal that is aware of the proverbial "I"?  We have the benefit to behave according to desire rather than reflex or instinct.  I could be totally wrong but, in regards to the evolutionary construct of homosexuality, no other animal kills because two males of its specie are humping each other.



LOL....I would certainly hope not.  Unless of course they're caught in an ambiguously gay love triangle.  This is an interesting topic....unfortunately, I'm all "gayed-out" for today and have to get going.  Have a good Thursday!


----------



## Shogun (Jun 19, 2008)

You too!


----------



## AtlasShrieked (Jun 19, 2008)

Shogun said:


> theory
> the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality lies in it's nulification of the necessity to fight for the right to procreate the specie.  In an overpopulated state animals tear each other apart for the right to mate.  homosexual variations deflates this conflict.



humans are much more than simple animals with instinctual drives that rule.

to define homosexuality that way is to misrepresent the human experience. heterosexuals decide to remain child free. where does that fit in your evolutionary theory?


----------



## editec (Jun 19, 2008)

Evolution is not a PLAN.

Crediting evolution with having some hidden logic to make it all work is flawed logic.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 19, 2008)

editec said:


> Evolution is not a PLAN.
> 
> Crediting evolution with having some hidden logic to make it all work is flawed logic.



Answer the questions I/others have posted instead of just posting stupid crap to make other people feel dumb.  

Why do you think blue-eyed gene mutation is part of evolution?  What purpose does it serve considering brown-eyed people have been shown to see better...?  Why do you think homosexuality has to do with evolution?  Shogun has stated his opinion and we've had a decent discussion about it.  Are you capable of doing so?   

Does it make sense to you that people evolving into homosexuals would actually make the species extinct?   I've seen gay bulls refuse to mate with a cow but instead hump another younger bull into submission.  If you think this is evolution, then the bovine species would simply go extinct.  Therefore, if it is genetic, the bull would never reproduce to pass on it's mutation and the homosexual gene would not exist to duplicate from it's original carrier.  

I think it's a simple mutation, just like cystic-fibrosis. <----it's a genetic mutation in a certain gene that causes this disease, this is not evolution, considering that it's easier to breath without cystic-fibrosis and not to mention you'll live longer without it.  Not all mutations are evolution at work.


----------



## Abelian Sea (Jun 19, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Why do you think blue-eyed gene mutation is part of evolution?  What purpose does it serve considering brown-eyed people have been shown to see better...?



I think that his point is that the "why" question doesn't fit well.

There is no purpose to any mutation. They just happen.

Some of them, if they're disastrous or unlucky enough, get selected out over time. But even very bad ones can linger pretty much indefinitely if they often lie unexpressed for generations at a time.

The more advantageous ones will have a higher chance of increasing, but being disadvantageous is no garauntee of going away.

Consider blue eyes. They are a bit disadvantagous vision-wise, which hurt their chances of survival over the long term. But they're also recessive, so not everyone with a gene for blue eyes will have blue eyes, which confers a significant buffer between blue eyes and natrual selection. Thus, you might expect that while blue eyes do keep happening, they would be noticeably rarer than brown eyes. Is that the case?

So, suppose that homosexuality were entirely genetic. Obviously, it is extremely disadvantageous when it comes to reproduction. But it is not a terribly dominant genetic strain, given how often the children of gay people are not gay, and the proportion of gay people born to straight parents. So what would you expect to happen? Much like the case of blue eyes, you'd expect it to be rare, but still bubble up.

Evolution is an extremely sloppy process with lots and lots of randomness. Mutations do not have to be at all reproductively beneficial to survive; being so just gives them better odds at being more wide-spread.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 20, 2008)

Abelian Sea said:


> I think that his point is that the "why" question doesn't fit well.
> 
> There is no purpose to any mutation. They just happen.
> 
> ...



I agree 100%.  My question of (why?) is not merely just a question of why it happens, but why they consider it an evolutionary event.  Considering that evolution (in theory) is a mechanism for which organism can adapt to their environment.  Therefore, why would a mutation for blue-eyes (worse vision than brown-eyes) be a mechanism for adaptation?  And why would homosexuality ( if a gene mutation) be a mechanism in place for the survival of the human race?  I really don't know the answer, but I am just asking in case anyone does.  I really like your post though...


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 20, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I agree 100%.  My question of (why?) is not merely just a question of why it happens, but why they consider it an evolutionary event.  Considering that evolution (in theory) is a mechanism for which organism can adapt to their environment.  Therefore, why would a mutation for blue-eyes (worse vision than brown-eyes) be a mechanism for adaptation?  And why would homosexuality ( if a gene mutation) be a mechanism in place for the survival of the human race?  I really don't know the answer, but I am just asking in case anyone does.  I really like your post though...



Blue eyes do not "see worse" than brown eyes. And it, as well as blonde/red hair, came about via sexual selection(AKA attractiveness).


----------



## editec (Jun 20, 2008)

BrianH, evolution is not a plan.

It serves no purpose.

It merely is.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 20, 2008)

AtlasShrieked said:


> humans are much more than simple animals with instinctual drives that rule.
> 
> to define homosexuality that way is to misrepresent the human experience. heterosexuals decide to remain child free. where does that fit in your evolutionary theory?



much more, eh?  looking at macro interaction between human tribes (nations) say otherwise when compared with packs of animals.  Sexual promiscuity does too.    Im afriad im going to need a bit more than just the statement that humans are much more than simple animals.  Hell, the more we look the more we find out that animals really aren't that simple.

Misrepresent the human experience?  what the hell does that even mean?  Further, how do you judge your human experience versus that of, say, a 3rd century begger?  Heterosexuals may very well decide to not have kids but the natural option remains while it does not for gays.  What is the staggering comparison between heteros who choose not to have kids with those who do compared with the sample of gays who opt for natural birthing methods?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 20, 2008)

editec said:


> Evolution is not a PLAN.
> 
> Crediting evolution with having some hidden logic to make it all work is flawed logic.



who said anything about a "plan"?  I theorized about the reason homosexuality could be a social pressure valve to relieve relevant social pressures among varous societies as well as being evident in the animal kingdom.  Did you have something youd liek to add?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 20, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Blue eyes do not "see worse" than brown eyes. And it, as well as blonde/red hair, came about via sexual selection(AKA attractiveness).



but at some point there had to be an original mutation.  Without this original mutation there would have been no natural selection.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 20, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> Blue eyes do not "see worse" than brown eyes. And it, as well as blonde/red hair, came about via sexual selection(AKA attractiveness).



Do brown eyes see better than blue?  Quarks, Quirks and Quips

"But does your eye colour influence how you see?

It turns out that it does. The darker the eyes, the more light is absorbed as light waves pass through the eye, and the less light is available to reflect within the eye."

Research says your wrong....


----------



## BrianH (Jun 20, 2008)

editec said:


> BrianH, evolution is not a plan.
> 
> It serves no purpose.
> 
> It merely is.



Editec, we're not talking about a plan.  Evolution may not have a plan, but it has a purpose.  There is a purpose for hurricanes.  They may not have a plan, but there is a purpose...to cool down the ocean.  Evolution may not have a plan on what it wants to do, but it has a purpose.  What is the purpose of evolving into worse vision?  Or what is the purpose of evolving into humans/animals that can't/won't reproduce?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 20, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Editec, we're not talking about a plan.  Evolution may not have a plan, but it has a purpose.  There is a purpose for hurricanes.  They may not have a plan, but there is a purpose...to cool down the ocean.  Evolution may not have a plan on what it wants to do, but it has a purpose.  What is the purpose of evolving into worse vision?  Or what is the purpose of evolving into humans/animals that can't/won't reproduce?



Is is worse or that blue eyes are more prone to glaucoma from UV rays? Maybe were being "selected" for living in caves again after the nuclear winter, lol.


----------



## editec (Jun 20, 2008)

Shogun said:


> who said anything about a "plan"? I theorized about the reason homosexuality could be a social pressure valve to relieve relevant social pressures among varous societies as well as being evident in the animal kingdom. Did you have something youd liek to add?


 
Fair enough.

Your choice of verbs lead me to think you were seeking an explanation for why things evolved the way they did. My error.

As to the theory that the propensity toward some individuals becoming homsexuals is triggered by population, I have seen studies of mice populations which seem to indicate that might be the case.

The mechanism which causes that outcomes is unclear, though.

I have also read statistical studies which seem to indicate that the number of births that mothers have seems to have something to do with some of their children being predisposed to homosexuality, too.

Again, researchers noted this trend by studying large families and order of births of boys within those families, but they didn't have solid theory to explain what seems to be causing that outcome.

Homosexuality seems to me to just be part of the human condition. 


Yes, I do understand that there is situational homosexuality (like in prison) but I'm not sure I'd label people involved in that kind of sexual behavior, authentic homosexuals... unless of course, they would be engaging in that kind of behavior when the opposite gender was available.


----------



## Alpha1 (Jun 20, 2008)

Toro said:


> BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences'



Brain Scans Point to Homosexuality as Being Genetic?

genetic? As in a brain defect from birth....?

Isn't most mental illness genetic in the same fashion to a degree....?


----------



## editec (Jun 20, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Brain Scans Point to Homosexuality as Being Genetic?
> 
> genetic? As in a brain defect from birth....?
> 
> Isn't most mental illness genetic in the same fashion to a degree....?


 
No. Genetic as in  a _normal manifestation  of the human genome._

You know much like people who are geniuses or imbeciles are often perfectly normal examples of that genome's amazing span of possibilites?



> Isn't most mental illness genetic in the same fashion to a degree....?


 
Oh absolutely.

Whose family doesn't drive them completely bonkers occassionally?


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 20, 2008)

editec said:


> No. Genetic as in  a _normal manifestation  of the human genome._



"Defect" is more appropriate than "normal". Normal is impossible to qualify when it comes to genetics, unless you are talking about the distribution of a set of data or something. It would be a defect since it hinders the orgnisms ability to produce offspring.

I find it ironic that all these sex-linked traits, all verboten for scientific scrutiny/study heretofore, that the lefties have been hiding forever so as to not give any credence to the claim men and women differ intellectually or on any level for that matter. Now the lefties next pet project is homosexuals and all bets are off.

Mr. Rahman is a fraud, btw, no real scientist would ever say anything as dogmatic and absolute as "as far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay."


----------



## William Joyce (Jun 20, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> They also find that whites and asians have bigger brains than blacks, which they can further accurately correlate with measures of intelligence, such as "IQ" and "G".
> 
> I don't recall the British Broadcasting of Communism covering those studies, however. What a shock.



Yes, when genetics point to racial differences in behavior and intelligence, it's a big vortex of silence.

If they might help homosexuals, it's big news.

In any event, I believe both are true.


----------



## William Joyce (Jun 20, 2008)

editec said:


> Evolution has no purpose.
> 
> Evolution  merely has outcomes which work out (or not) in the long run.



But isn't that a purpose?  Seems to me the purpose of evolution is survival.


----------



## Toro (Jun 20, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> But isn't that a purpose?  Seems to me the purpose of evolution is survival.



Homosexuality in nature.

Homosexuality in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Abelian Sea (Jun 21, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> Seems to me the purpose of evolution is survival.



Evolution, or, rather, the clusterfuck process by which genes get mixed around through the generations, whose step-by-step rudiments we grasp and about whose long-term appearance we have a great many clues, does, usually, serve the purpose of survival.

"Usually," because it just doesn't work out for some species...




It may seem an overly-subtle shift between "evolution's purpose is survival" and "evolution serves the purpose of survival," but there is an interesting difference in their shadows.

They suggest different answers to the question, "what has the purpose?" The former seems to say that evolution has a purpose, and that purpose is survival. With the later, evolution fulfills a purpose, the purpose of a species to survive. In this case the species has a purpose, but the process of evolution does not.

The former, I think, is far more fun and interesting, and more apt to prompt speculation among people.

The later, which is far more catious in attributing purpose, is more fitting to the strict skeleton of scientific theories (which may not even want to say that species have a purpose, prefering to say only that some survive and some do not). The Method wants its theories to be as detatched and doubt-drenched as possible. In this stance any question about "evolutionary purpose" is inherently problematic, and it may well see the former stance to be a result of a certain tendency of humans to project human attributes (like intent) onto things that they are trying to understand.

The later view reminds us that speculation rooted in attention to purpose is suspect, and that isn't exactly a bad thing to keep in mind. But really? Fuck it. It's sure easy to see evolution as purposeful, it makes sense in a way, so roll with it and let the speculations fly. We can't exactly test them anyway - the shit takes too damn long - so let's pile 'em up and see what makes sense together.

Here's mine: insofar as homosexuality is genetic, it is not reproductively advantageous and so natrual selecion will work against it. It is rarely expressed, however, and doesn't always prevent reproduction when it is expressed, especially among humans, who are well able to act against their instincts and most of whom live in cultures that give one a great deal of incentive to stay in the closet and make with the kids. This means that natural selection doesn't have much of a grip on it; when it's there, it is usually not expressed, and even then it doesn't always have an impact on reproductivity. So, on it goes, possibly forever.

Its evolutionary purpose? None that I see. It's just not working against evloution's purpose strongly enough to get smacked down by natural selection.


----------



## editec (Jun 21, 2008)

manifold said:


> A question yet to be answered by the way.
> 
> I was hoping gnome-deeplume might offer some insight on the matter.


 
I think it does.

Come on now, didn't we ALL KNOW some nancy boys when were were little kids?

Boys who just WERE NOT REALLY BOYS even before puberty set in? 

Who here _really _thinks those boys had any CHOICE about being gay?

If that's not somatically induced gayness I don't know what is.

Don't we also know hypermaculine men who are also gay?

How the hell does _that _happen?

Do we really think these guys are _choosing to be gay?_

_Really?_ 

Why? 

Why would anyone _choose _to take on the lifetime's worth of crap that most gays deal with if they were not compelled by their very natures to be gay?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 22, 2008)

What I take away from this discussion is the belief that there is a big group of people that think sexuality is a learned behavior and many of them fear the possibility exists that one day they will wake up and suddenly be gay. I find that as laughable as the possibility that one day a gay person may wake up and suddenly be straight.

But on the remote chance that it can happen, these people that suddenly find themselves hot for someone of the same sex can take comfort in the fact that if they don't act on their desires they will still be "normal."


----------



## editec (Jun 22, 2008)

Ravi said:


> What I take away from this discussion is the belief that there is a big group of people that think sexuality is a learned behavior and many of them fear the possibility exists that one day they will wake up and suddenly be gay. I find that as laughable as the possibility that one day a gay person may wake up and suddenly be straight.
> 
> But on the remote chance that it can happen, these people that suddenly find themselves hot for someone of the same sex can take comfort in the fact that if they don't act on their desires they will still be "normal."


 
Yeah, I think the fearing homosexuality or imagining that it is a conscious choice makes about as much sense for people secure in the gender roles as fearing that one day you'll discover that you're this guy...



> As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect. He was lying on his hard, as it were armor-plated, back and when he lifted his head a little he could see his dome-like brown belly divided into stiff arched segments on top of which the bed quilt could hardly keep in position and was about to slide off completely. His numerous legs, which were pitifully thin compared to the rest of his bulk, waved helplessly before his eyes.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 22, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Is is worse or that blue eyes are more prone to glaucoma from UV rays? Maybe were being "selected" for living in caves again after the nuclear winter, lol.



LOL...maybe so.  Maybe evolution does have a plan...lol.  (j/k)


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 22, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Given that it might be genetic/physiological I wonder what the evolutionary purpose is (if any)?



Could just be a mutation (or set of them) with a base percentage of occurrence in the population.  Not all mutations have to confer and advantage to persist under evolutionary theory.  There's a wholoe body of work on neutral mutations, started by (IIRC) a guy named Kimura back in the 1960s.

Maybe it's a population control trait that exists at a baseline level, and when a population becomes stressed in terms of over-population, the trait occurs at higher levels and reduces procreation.  Aren't there a number of animal species that use mutations in sex or gender traits to control population?


----------



## Larkinn (Jun 22, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Editec, we're not talking about a plan.  Evolution may not have a plan, but it has a purpose.  There is a purpose for hurricanes.  They may not have a plan, but there is a purpose...to cool down the ocean.  Evolution may not have a plan on what it wants to do, but it has a purpose.  What is the purpose of evolving into worse vision?  Or what is the purpose of evolving into humans/animals that can't/won't reproduce?



Evolution works by random mutations happening and the ones who have helpful mutations being more likely to survive than those with unhelpful mutations or crippling mutations.   Humans are better equipped to survive in this world than frogs, so why are there still frogs?   Because the world is large and complex and has enough room in it for organisms other than the most highly evolved to survive.    

Evolution doesn't really have any "purpose".   It has results but its not exactly an uncomplicated force and there are obvious reasons why those with blue eyes continued to survive along with those that are brown eyes.   The difference isn't that large.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Evolution works by random mutations happening and the ones who have helpful mutations being more likely to survive than those with unhelpful mutations or crippling mutations.



That's part of the picture anyway.  Natural selection.  But natural selection alone has a hard time accounting for everything, and there is good evidence that it isn't the only factor at work.  There are some good primary science articles on evolution without natural selection, and some interesting work in bacteria that show something more than just mutation and survival at work.


----------



## 007 (Jun 22, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Evolution works by random mutations happening and the ones who have helpful mutations being more likely to survive than those with unhelpful mutations or crippling mutations.   Humans are better equipped to survive in this world than frogs, so why are there still frogs?   Because the world is large and complex and has enough room in it for organisms other than the most highly evolved to survive.
> 
> Evolution doesn't really have any "purpose".   It has results but its not exactly an uncomplicated force and there are obvious reasons why those with blue eyes continued to survive along with those that are brown eyes.   The difference isn't that large.



Hmmm... could you link me to the evidence that has proven evolution. I'd like to be the first to cash in on it, because as far as I know, evolution is still just a "theory."


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 22, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> Hmmm... could you link me to the evidence that has proven evolution. I'd like to be the first to cash in on it, because as far as I know, evolution is still just a "theory."



So is the electrical theory behind how your computer is running right now.  Most of what you accept in science is theory.  In order for something to make it to the status of theory in science it has to be very successful.  Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful ones around.


----------



## William Joyce (Jun 22, 2008)

Abelian Sea said:


> Evolution, or, rather, the clusterfuck process by which genes get mixed around through the generations, whose step-by-step rudiments we grasp and about whose long-term appearance we have a great many clues, does, usually, serve the purpose of survival.
> 
> "Usually," because it just doesn't work out for some species...
> 
> ...



A good distinction to make, thanks.  Your point about the anthropomorphizing of evolutionary theory is tantalizing!



Abelian Sea said:


> Here's mine: insofar as homosexuality is genetic, it is not reproductively advantageous and so natrual selecion will work against it. It is rarely expressed, however, and doesn't always prevent reproduction when it is expressed, especially among humans, who are well able to act against their instincts and most of whom live in cultures that give one a great deal of incentive to stay in the closet and make with the kids. This means that natural selection doesn't have much of a grip on it; when it's there, it is usually not expressed, and even then it doesn't always have an impact on reproductivity. So, on it goes, possibly forever.
> 
> Its evolutionary purpose? None that I see. It's just not working against evloution's purpose strongly enough to get smacked down by natural selection.



Plausible, plausible.  Homosexuals can play useful roles in a society, however, and I wonder if they don't serve a group evolutionary function.  What this is, I'm not sure... the design of really cool military uniforms which in turn inspire a group to fight hard against its enemies?  Who knows.


----------



## 007 (Jun 22, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> So is the electrical theory behind how your computer is running right now.  Most of what you accept in science is theory.  In order for something to make it to the status of theory in science it has to be very successful.  Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful ones around.



No... it's not. Little do you know I have a BS degree in Electrical Engineering, and I can assure you, there is no theory involved with electricity that can't be proven.

Evolution of life on the other hand is still nothing but theory. There is wide spread speculation and acceptance of it, but the fact of the matter is, it still remains just an unproven theory.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 22, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> No... it's not. Little do you know I have a BS degree in Electrical Engineering, and I can assure you, there is no theory involved with electricity that can't be proven.



That's nonsense.  So you've observed the little electrons moving around?  No.  no one has.

And I have a B.S. in molecular biology and chemistry, graduate school in biochemistry, and years of biomedical research, part of that time in an evolutionary biology lab.  I also work with mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineers on a daily basis.  So I'm not impressed.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jun 22, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> So is the electrical theory behind how your computer is running right now.  Most of what you accept in science is theory.  In order for something to make it to the status of theory in science it has to be very successful.  Evolutionary theory is one of the most successful ones around.



A theory is something that has been empirically tested many, many times and obeys the predicted result every time.

I wouldn't even qualify evolution as a theory, since it's nearly impossible to control and test all the parameters one would need to test to substantiate it as a theory. It's more like a consensus hypothesis at this point.


----------



## 007 (Jun 22, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> That's nonsense.  So you've observed the little electrons moving around?  No.  no one has.
> 
> And I have a B.S. in molecular biology and chemistry, graduate school in biochemistry, and years of biomedical research, part of that time in an evolutionary biology lab.  I also work with mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineers on a daily basis.  So I'm not impressed.



I'm also a licensed Electrician. I'm also an Integrated Avionics Instrumentation/Flight Controls Systems Specialist. I'm also an IBM Customer Engineer in the Office Products Division. I'm also an Expert Harley Davidson Technician. So what now? Your next credential going to be Astronaut? Tell me that electricity "ISN'T" the movement of electrons? The movement of electrons may not be able to be seen, but, they can be measured, thus proving the movement.

And whether or not you can explain what electricity is, that has absolutely SQUAT to do with evolution. So like I said, if you can prove evolution isn't a theory, please tell me where the proof is, I'd like to turn it in and get rich. Otherwise, you're just another theory pusher with a book full of big words that still don't prove zip. You're still stuck with nothing more than a theory at the end of the day.... and I'm not impressed either.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2008)

nomdeplume said:


> A theory is something that has been empirically tested many, many times and obeys the predicted result every time.
> 
> I wouldn't even qualify evolution as a theory, since it's nearly impossible to control and test all the parameters one would need to test to substantiate it as a theory. It's more like a consensus hypothesis at this point.



Depends on what part of it you are talking about.  Plenty of evolutionary theory is observable, predictable, manipulable, etc.  If you're talking about speciation, then you're getting further away from that.  If you're talking about origins of life, then you're getting even further away.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> The movement of electrons may not be able to be seen, but, they can be measured, thus proving the movement.



No, it proves you are measuring SOMETHING.  The theory is that it is the movement of electrons.  And it's a damn good theory.  But in the end, that's what it is until someone observes the movement of the electrons themselves (not likely to happen any time soon).

As for evolution, I never said it wasn't a theory.  In fact, I think I was clear that it IS a theory.  Maybe being an electrician doesn't help reading comprehension, eh?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 23, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> No, it proves you are measuring SOMETHING.  The theory is that it is the movement of electrons.  And it's a damn good theory.  But in the end, that's what it is until someone observes the movement of the electrons themselves (not likely to happen any time soon).
> 
> As for evolution, I never said it wasn't a theory.  In fact, I think I was clear that it IS a theory.  Maybe being an electrician doesn't help reading comprehension, eh?



I'll have to say that I would trust the theory of electricty rather than trust the theory of evolution...


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I'll have to say that I would trust the theory of electricty rather than trust the theory of evolution...



I would certainly hope so.

Though if you ever have occasion to use some of the newer drugs that are being produced - so-called biologics, for example - then there's a good chance you're using something developed heavily on principles of evolution (mutation, selection, and the like).


----------



## BrianH (Jun 23, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> I would certainly hope so.
> 
> Though if you ever have occasion to use some of the newer drugs that are being produced - so-called biologics, for example - then there's a good chance you're using something developed heavily on principles of evolution (mutation, selection, and the like).



I'm not debating the theory of evolution by arguing it's existence.  Do I think we came from bacteria in a pond?  So far, no.  It's all theory based on small observances in human and animal traits and characteristics that have changed over time. Electricity is definately more of a constant practiced science than evolution is.  Sure, you have biomeds and small other observances in evolution..but it's still (in large part) just theory to suggest we derived from bacteria or monkeys.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 23, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I'm not debating the theory of evolution by arguing it's existence.  Do I think we came from bacteria in a pond?  So far, no.  It's all theory based on small observances in human and animal traits and characteristics that have changed over time. Electricity is definately more of a constant practiced science than evolution is.  Sure, you have biomeds and small other observances in evolution..but it's still (in large part) just theory to suggest we derived from bacteria or monkeys.



I think I made that same point already.  As I said, evolutionary theory is enormously successful, and there has been plenty of observation and testing.  When you get into speciation, and then into origin of life issues, you're getting well away from that part of it.  In fact, that's a small part of evolutionary theory as a whole, though its the part people who don't understand molecular evolution like to focus on when they're arguing against it.

As for bacteria from a pond, I don't know anyone who thinks that, evolutionary scientists included.  Where did you get that idea?  Same goes for humans being derived from monkeys.  No one believes that either.  At least, no one who understands evolution.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 23, 2008)

first off.  10 points to steerpike for a healthy dollop of pwnage.


I've never seen an electron... or any atom for that matter.  Why don't we go ahead and scrap the periodic table since, apparently, theories just don't count even if they are our closest understanding of the physical reality?  Plate tectonics?  I mean, has anyone ever SEEN continents drift?  Anyone KNOW how many layers there are in the Earth anyway?  

We rely on evidence when we can't create a lab test.  Evolution has a pretty loquacious fossil record.  Until I see better evidence for another theory the rhetorical bullshit just won't amount to much.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 23, 2008)

Steerpike said:


> I think I made that same point already.  As I said, evolutionary theory is enormously successful, and there has been plenty of observation and testing.  When you get into speciation, and then into origin of life issues, you're getting well away from that part of it.  In fact, that's a small part of evolutionary theory as a whole, though its the part people who don't understand molecular evolution like to focus on when they're arguing against it.
> 
> As for bacteria from a pond, I don't know anyone who thinks that, evolutionary scientists included.  Where did you get that idea?  Same goes for humans being derived from monkeys.  No one believes that either.  At least, no one who understands evolution.



Hmm...maybe I'm starting to see the larger conspiracy of "taught" evolution here in the South then...LOL.


----------

