Brain Scans Point to Homosexuality as Being Genetic

[Ravi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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.