(Warning: I am a vegetarian, and therefore “biased,” but please judge the logic on its own merit.)
You like steak because it tastes good. It won’t help you live any longer. It tastes good because back in “the old days,” people that liked to eat meat could acquire their necessary protein in a more concentrated form and gain strength faster, thereby gaining an evolutionary advantage. Nowadays, meat eating is, in the standard American’s case, an evolutionary liability. Cholesterol, don’t you know. Besides, very people actually have any need for the protein powerhouse that is meat. Most Americans get too much protein, and that ain’t good either. (Which is why claims such as “good source of protein” really irk me.)
Life is a Game. Sometimes a Computer Game.
Life is a Magazine, here again, gone again.
Life is breakfast cereal.Mikey likes it.
This has been asked and answered several times, but the basic rundown is: if homosexuality were, say, a recessive genetic trait, that could mean that, say, my brother is a carrier, but he’ll still reproduce. Or it could be that the gay gene is on a genetic section that mutates rapidly, causing it to reappear many times even if individual strains are “bred out”.
Also, I’m sure that there have been multitudes of secret homosexuals that have continued to breed because their particular society may have been homophobic.
Did anyone else hear about that study in Great Britain? They said that women who are vegetarian are more likely to concieve girls than boys, while meat eaters were more likely to have boys than girls. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but I found it interesting that those proportions are what you’d want if your hunter-gatherer society ran out of hunt and men presumably wouldn’t be needed as badly. (I don’t mean to sound sexist – that is just a theory.)
I’m sorry furthur, I don’t mean to pick on you personally, but I have seen this question many times and the people asking usually seem to think that they’re cleverly pointing out the flaws of the “we were born this way!” argument when really all they are doing is pointing out their ignorance of genetics. Heck, I’m no expert on biology, but you don’t need to know anything beyond what is taught in Intro Bio to figure this one out. If a genetic trait is recessive or if it requires an environmental trigger then the trait can show up in the offspring of parents who were carriers but did not exhibit that trait. There are other possibilities of course, but those strike me as the two most obvious explanations.
I wasn’t trying to point out any flaws; I’m convinced homosexuality is genetic. And I can understand how a trait is passed on, I was just wondering if there were any theories on why. There are theories on how altruism is advantageous and evolved in humans, and I was wondering if there were any ideas on how homosexuality could also be considered advantageous.
further:
I think you meant “waist to hip ratio”.
It looked more like a sincere question than a rhetorical device to me.
I don’t mind people being ignorant too much, but when ignorant people insult other people, using idiotic logic to do so, I get annoyed. Humans have been around for several thousand generations. Do the math. Even if heterosexuality gives only a 1% advantage (a ridiculously small number), over one thousand generations this would multiply to about e^10, or about 10^4. In other words, if one thousand generations ago homosexuals and heterosexuals existed in equal proportions, and heterosexuality gives only a 1% advantage (both ridiculous assumptions), we would expect in the US, a country of about 200 million people, there to be about 10,000 homosexuals. Now, do you really believe that there are only 10,000 homosexuals in the US? If not, quit shooting off about subjects even you admit you know nothing about.
Everyone knows that the answer to the great question of life, the universe, and everything is 42.
First of all, this is assuming that the adaptation is positive. Making this definition itself is not as easy as one might think.
While it might be advantageous for a species to adapt to a cold environment by getting fur, what if that encironment changes?
Also, the case of the sickle cell is an obvious one where the mutation depends on the eye of the beholder. To someone in Africa, the sickle cell developed because it was helpful towards quelling the spread of malaria, whereas in areas where there is no malaria, sickle cells are not an advantage.
I believe that sexual orientation comes from both camps, but that it is primarilly something we are predisposed to. Assuming I am correct, this adaptation need not be positive as I explained. Many negative mutations and adaptations pop up in many species - humans included - with frequencies even higher than the estimated 10% figure estimated to represent homosexuals in the world.
Now, that said, even IF homosexuality was genetic and considered to not be “helpful,” this does not make homosexuality WRONG in my eyes anymore than drawfism is “wrong.”
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, five days, 16 hours, 42 minutes and 23 seconds.
5107 cigarettes not smoked, saving $638.48.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours, 35 minutes.[/sub]
The answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything is 42.
Well, one anecdote does not a counter-example make, but I know my mom (vegan) was most frustrated by the fact that she had four boys before giving up. She really wanted us to have a sister.
…To Strike down your enemies and hear the lamentations of the women!!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
Despite the cocksure arrogance of this post, it would appear that The Ryan has made a basic error in his own mathematics. He has looked at homosexuals and heterosexuals as 2 different populations, each with it’s own reproductive rate. Actually, homosexuals and heterosexuals can give birth one to the other, making the calculation alot more complicated. A heterosexual who possesses a gene for homosexuality (if one exists) is as likely to reproduce as another heterosexuals, and in reproducing pass on the homosexual gene. This dilutes the advantage of the heterosexual gene. Assuming that about 15% of carriers are actually homosexual brings the numbers into a quite reasonable range.
This was the point made by Lamia, which The Ryan, in his rush to denigrate another, has ignored.
Of course, this says nothing about the original thesis. I haven’t the vaguest notion if there is any truth to this, and make no claims in this regard.
don’t forget to add “see them driven before you” after “enemies”
There is no meaning.
It doesn’t need one!
While I am aware of the complexity of genetics, I did not think that spelling out every detail would aid comprehension.
Yes, but they’re less likely to have heterosexual children.
Yes, it does. And I took this into account when I came up with my 1% threshold.
First of all, the issue in question is how homosexuality could have survived natural selection pressure given that it is genetic, not given that it is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Secondly, how would a 15% figure bring the numbers into a “quite reasonable range”? My 1% threshold can accomodate such a small factor, and indeed was selected with such a factor in mind. I could use a math exercise. So I’ll tell you what. Come up with a secenario in which you tell me:
- whether you think the homosexual gene is dominant or recessive;
- what percentage of the current human population has the genes that “should” make them homosexual;
- what percentage of the latter are actually homosexual.
I will then give you the approximate number of generations ago that homosexuals and heterosexuals existed in equal numbers.
Apparently fighting ignorance is a form of “denigrating others” :rolleyes:
You don’t consider “Assuming that about 15% of carriers are actually homosexual brings the numbers into a quite reasonable range.” to be a claim?
The Ryan,
You did not dwell on Lamia’s main point at all. You did not give a figure for what percentage you felt were homosexuals, or even acknowledge the fact that the population with a homosexual gene included heterosexuals.
I was assuming that 1% was the advantage that heterosexuals had over actual homosexuals, which it seemed from your post that you were saying. (This is not reasonable in our times, but in other times most homosexuals married and had children as has been pointed out by other posters). Assuming that 1,000 generations ago there were 50% of the population that had the homosexual gene, of whom 15% (7.5% overall) were actual homosexuals. This means that the reproductive disadvantage of the homosexual-gene population was .01*.15. Taking .9985 to the power of 1,000 (rough approximation of 1000 generations) gives .2229, meaning that about 18% of the population should have this gene (.2229/1.2229). 15% of this population, or about 2.7%, will be actual homosexuals. This is a reasonable estimate of the current population.
I was refering to the following:
Fighting ignorance does not require this.
I meant that I am not making any claims as to whether or not there actually is a genetic basis for homosexuality, or whether it is counterproductive in any way. I was addressing solely the issue of whether or not it is feasible mathematicaly.
Also, neither you nor The Ryan took into account societal pressures and homosexuals having offspring.
I believe that the meaning of life is reproduction. I mean, look around, the world revolves around sex. We are born, we try to survive so that we can reproduce, then you die. If you don’t ever reproduce offspring, then I guess you would be the “anamoly” of the lifecycle. shrug hey, don’t look at me, I just believe what I do.