Brain Scans Point to Homosexuality as Being Genetic

[Ravi]

 

[AtlasShrieked]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You too!

 

[AtlasShrieked]

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]

Evolution is not a PLAN.

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

 

[BrianH]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

BrianH, evolution is not a plan.

It serves no purpose.

It merely is.

 

[Shogun]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?