According to evolution theory, why shouldnt it die out in a generation or two? Most of those with the genetic trait of homosexuality will not breed so it should end.
Because you don’t understand evolutionary theory.
Not necessarily…that would depend on a few variables.
Why hasn’t the “gay gene” disappeared? Because there’s not one to begin with.
Everyone is born “tabula rasa”, it is possible that some are predisposed to certain qualities which when combined with their environment and nurturing may result in an individual etc. etc.
I think I’ll leave it there, because I feel like I may be getting into an area which could be interpreted as offensive which is not my intentions.
t-keela, you cant’ let these eggshell types who find offense easily deter you from communicating. Most of the time, they’re just trying to exercise control over others, forcing them to avoid a subject for fear of giving offense.
There are some people walking around who need offending. Offend them. It’s good for all of us.
Sorry, that’s just shorthand for the in utero environment: i.e. hormones, androgens, etc. Among other things, the specific “wash” for any given pregnancy affects the neural development of the fetus - including neuroanatomical structures that affect both sexual orientation and the behavioural traits associated with gender.
Studies have already linked androgen and testosterone levels in utero to sexual preference variations in both genders. Research is impeded by the pesky fact that experimentation on live human fetuses is a bad thing to do. So nothing conclusive…
Interestingly, the in utero environment is also altered by birth order and/or gender of prior births:
Why? The mother’s immunization to the Y- linked antigens (from the prior birth) creates antibodies that remain to affect subsequent births.
It’s not just about gay/straight - I don’t believe it’s an either/or effect. Every one of us gets a unique “wash” in utero (except multiple births, which is another interesting situation).
And of course replace the word “live” with “viable” and no moral implication intended (sloppy again!).
Just stressing the point that there are multiple factors involved in determining human sexuality and behaviour.
To be fair, an earlier poster stated that it is generally accepted that there is about a 10% prevalence of homosexuality in the population. That number is based on the Kinnsey studies from the 40s, which were biased and not properly representative of the general population. A more accurate distribution has been determined by later research, ranging from about 2-4% of the population, depending on the study. I don’t have the exact cites now (but I have had to research this for work, I work on HIV/AIDS prevalence, which as we all know sadly affects gay men to a large degree in North America), but do an online search and many articles will come up.
In truth, there are differences on whether the studies involved specific question on homosexual behaviour, feelings, etc. but the representation and methods are better than Kinnsey’s. Not that I am against gays or anything, it doesn’t seem like there is much of a choice (in my experience from the homosexuals I know) to be gay or not, even if it is not entirely genetic. There really is no logical reason for disliking or disapproving of homosexuality (from a scientific perspective anyway, don’t bring religion into this).
I know about natural selection. Men who prefer/select men, and women who prefer/select women, will attempt to breed with each other, and my biology class told me that no offspring will be created by such unions.
I suspect that our society is still a long way from being able to get a honest poll on the subject.
No, this is not how evolution works, and this has been explained over and over on these boards.
-
Genes may propogate as long as they do not adversely harm a species ability to propogate as a whole. Some genes that are individually harmful may still propogate recessively.
-
It’s not always clear that a particular trait is actually harmful for propogation of a species. For example, the genes which cause sickle cell also convey some immunity to certain diseases.
-
There are a number of species which propogate quite nicely even though individual members do not propogate. In some pack species, only a single male and female propogate. However, the “pack” genes or whatever, clearly haven’t died out, because there is some selection towards having non-breeding members of the species.
It is quite possible that if there is a gay gene, it propogates because there is a benefit to the species as a whole, even if the individual expression of such genes does not lead to offspring.
And finally, just because someone is gay, it does not mean they won’t have offspring.
As always, a good source of information about evolution is Talk Origins:
How come nobody ever bothers to go there?
Heh. Maybe they’d go there if I post the correct link:
You know, I used to joke that my youngest brother would have to be gay because the universe won’t allow my mother to have grandchildren. Little did I realize there’s a 66% chance I was right!
I’m kidding, I’m kidding, I know it’s not 66%.
One strong theory for the origin of homosexuality may be prenatal hormone levels (random clipping from Google below)http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/papers/twin_studies/theories.html
http://www.obgyn.net/newsheadlines/womens_health-Homosexuality-20030220-41.asp
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html
This may still be genetically linked as hormone levels would have a genetic basis. Thus by monitoring hormone levels and perhaps topping up during pregnancy it may well be possible to ensure that one does not (or even does) have gay offspring. No abortion needed.
hmmm I wonder If I could make money off this - perhaps among southern baptists?
sorry annaplurabelle
I didn’t read your excellent post before popping in with mine