nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin's theory

lanomist

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Find more posts tagged with

puffins

in limbo

Quick Links

Comments

marieholmfan

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Humans are apes who together with all other apes evolved from common ancestors.

folan

floggg wrote: »

How do two blonde parents have a ginger child?

one of em is cheating

Akrasia

Barely There wrote: »

The homosexual gene is passed on by the woman, not the man.
That's why it hasn't been 'evolved out' of the gene pool.

The vast majority of women have bisexual tendencies - any perusal of the popular porn websites will demonstrate this.

There isn't one single 'homosexual gene'. There are probably many genes involved as well as epigenetic factors to do with gene expression during pre-natal development and early childhood years (which would explain why not all identical teins share the same sexual preference)

fryup

let philamena cunk explain....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKPXPlaHBEk

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

Because how can unrelated births pass on being gay to some offspring?

How do two blonde parents have a ginger child?

Honestly, go look up a first year biology book before you start trying to argue genetics and evolution.

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

Because how does a population pass on "some" people are gay for the good of the population? A hive with a single queen could as queens who have some gay offspring would likely have an offspring who also had some gay offspring, all assuming it's a trait that can be passed on.

Things survive between generations because it's useful, more of those with the useful trait survive.
I don't see how some being gay can be passed on?

Btw I don't see why the attitude is required, feel free to post without it.

Let's say a family of primitive humans had a gay member, and assumed that his homosexuality was genegic. He is the only homosexual in the family, so Instead of leaving the group to find a mate, he stayed and helps his parents and siblings raise their offspring, increasing their chances of surviving and competing for food etc.

He didn't pass on any genes himself, but the genetic ingredients which may have caused his homosexuality are still present to varying degrees in his siblings, and capable of activating in future generations.

Indeed there is some statistical evidence to show that women with gay siblings tend to have more babies - which may well be due to the fact that havthat's large family wasn't as risky or demanding where there were non-reproducing family members available to assist them.

GreeBo

FobleAsNuck wrote: »

what if homosexuality is the nature's way of limiting the population?

I think normally the environment does that, you cant consume what isnt there, so you move somewhere else or you have less people, not by choice (unless you are China) but because you physically cannot support them.

Akrasia

FobleAsNuck wrote: »

what if homosexuality is the nature's way of limiting the population?

Nature doesn't intend to limit populations. populations limit each other through predation, competition for resources and reproduction and diseases. in times of plenty, populations surge, in times of disease/famine/disaster/loss of habitat, populations decline. This is a tautology because the only meaningful definition of 'plenty' is a situation where there are more than enough resources than required for survival.

human population trends are not typical of nature, because we have foresight and the ability to use technology to keep people alive who would not survive if the natural course of things were to unfold.

folan

in conclusion, Darwin is the roy.

Roy keane none too happy

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

Ants come from a single queen, so a queen that has both gay and straight offspring could benefit her give.

The problem seems to be your interpretation of "more people would become gay"
You have decide it means people switching from straight to gay. Since this is a thread about evolution, I assumed you would understand that "more people" means more of the population over time, offspring, children, yunno evolution.
My mistake, I'll dumb it down next time, for the less evolved amongst us.

GreeBo wrote: »

Nope.
If, as I said, homosexuality is a persistent and pervasive trait then eventually everyone is gay and you dont get any offspring to rear.

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

To be honest either way if interpreting your "become" gay comment is kinda dumb.

If your argument was that if homosexuality was to be seen as some evolutionary genetic advantage, eventually the entire species would go gay and die off, then its your thinking and understanding of the subject is just cripplingly underdeveloped.

Obviously that wouldn't happen because homosexuals themselves would be much less likely to occur procreate. So of homosexuality is genetic, it's never going to be a dominant generic trait in the species.

Anybody putting that forward as a hypothesis is just dumb, and neither understand evolution, homosexuality or reproduction. And anybody who thinks it's the only way geneticly derived homosexuality is compatible with evolution is equally dumb.

if you ever watched the discovery channel or even just looked at an ant colony you'd realise that lots of animals thrive by being social and taking a collective approach to food harvesting and child rearing.

A large percentheir of weaver birds for example never have their own offspring, but instead help raise their siblings. Clearly there has been an evolutionary advantage for weaver birds in some members of the family not reproducing and there must be some mechanism whereby their desire to do so is suppressed. This is most likely a genetic trait.

I don't think there's any question that humans do better when acting collectively rather than individually - particularly the significant length of time it takes humans to reach maturity.

It really shouldn't take much for you to realise that there would be an advantagthin our hunter gatherer days for a family where one or more members did not wihunte have offspring of their own and instead dedicated their time and resources to helping the family as a whole. That would free up other members for either child minding or food gathering roles.

So if you take a somewhat broader view of human nature and reproduction it's really not hard to see how there would be an evolutionary advantage to having some (but not all) members of your family being homosexual.

but it looks like you already dumbed things down even without me.

Edit- from subsequent posts it seems your thinking is somewhat better developed than I thought, so "dumb" may have been harsh (though I was responding in kind).

Still think your thinking is underdeveloped though - just not as much as I had thought.

bnt

stmol32 wrote: »

That's a really good point.
Also if it's survival of the fittest how come there's fat people?

As long as you survive long enough to procreate, that's what defines "fittest", what happens afterwards doesn't matter. Hence all those diseases of old age, against which there is no "evolutionary pressure". Get old and fat, lose all your hair and teeth, drop dead of a heart attack at 45 - it's irrelevant as long as the kids survive to do it all again. :cool:

tigger123

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Some pretty much have (see crocodiles) but most haven't. Part of the problem with being human is that we tend to see things on a very, very short time-frame and tend to have difficulty grasping ideas that have a scope of hundreds of years, let alone thousands to millions of years.

You're right about the timescales involved, but evolution can be seen in real time too. The arms race between antibiotics and diseases is an example of evolution as diseases adapt to their surroundings and prosper. It's very early, maybe someone can explain it more clearly.

PopePalpatine

Nodin wrote: »

I have a theory, and that theory states that you don't actually believe in creationism at all, at all.

By any chance is this Poe's Law? :pac:

Akrasia

GreeBo wrote: »

I appreciate that, I just don't see the advantage to having gay children at this time.
I can see in the past where a mother having many male children where more and more of them are gay could be useful.
But can you give a modern example of where it's useful?

I think it's more likely to be a result of something else that is typically beneficial, a side effect or that it's an excess of something that's beneficial in smaller "amounts".

Like a strong jaw is attractive, but desperate Dan is too far.

What do you mean by modern?

For at least 10,000 years human reporduction has been driven by many factors more than just sexual selection. The reasons why people have children are complex and vary by culture and nation. For example, in cultures with arranged marriages, feeling attracted to your mate isn't a requirement for reproduction. Being sexually attractive may not be as big a factor in the number of children you have, as the amount of money or political power you have, (for example) or the religious attitudes you hold towards contraception and/or the family and the role of women.

Going forward, being gay may not be a major barrier to having children. In societies that are repressive towards gay people, men and women will still hide their sexual preferences and have heterosexual marriages regardless of theuir sexual preference. In progressive societies, Gay women can already get pregnant via invitro fertilisation, gay men can use surrogates if they choose, a choice that might become more common as gay marriage becomes normalised and more married men feel the urge to have their own family. People of any sexual preference can sire multiple children by donating eggs or sperm etc

donutheadhomer

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

my theory is that certain humans evolved into apes

smcgiff

paddy1990 wrote: »

But I think pure Darwinists have to be delusional about this subject on some level, because of the implications.

That's a poor justification.

FobleAsNuck

what if homosexuality is the nature's way of limiting the population?

Barely There

The homosexual gene is passed on by the woman, not the man.
That's why it hasn't been 'evolved out' of the gene pool.

The vast majority of women have bisexual tendencies - any perusal of the popular porn websites will demonstrate this.

GreeBo

Akrasia wrote: »

Individuals don't need to reproduce in order that their genes are carried forward. It's enough that their genetic kin re-produce.

You share about 50% of your genes with your siblings. If having a gay brother or sister helps you to have more children and raise them to reproductive age, then having a 'gay gene' in your gene pool may have a selective advantage.

I appreciate that, I just don't see the advantage to having gay children at this time.
I can see in the past where a mother having many male children where more and more of them are gay could be useful.
But can you give a modern example of where it's useful?

I think it's more likely to be a result of something else that is typically beneficial, a side effect or that it's an excess of something that's beneficial in smaller "amounts".

Like a strong jaw is attractive, but desperate Dan is too far.

Akrasia

GreeBo wrote: »

Indeed, but a gene, trait, whatever that's passed on to make you gay that relies on you not coming out until you have had kids first seems a little...convoluted at best.

The same argument is given earlier, lots of gay people have kids so then it's not an evolutionary dead end.
I have no problem accepting that perhaps some gay offspring had benefits to the family as a whole, I don't agree but I accept the argument.
I don't accept the argument that because gay people often have kids before they come out or that they have them via science that it's not a dead end for them.

Individuals don't need to reproduce in order that their genes are carried forward. It's enough that their genetic kin re-produce.

You share about 50% of your genes with your siblings. If having a gay brother or sister helps you to have more children and raise them to reproductive age, then having a 'gay gene' in your gene pool may have a selective advantage.

In cooperative species that share the child rearing and hunting and protective duties, having childless adults can be helpful.

Also, there may be lots of other genetic advantages to being gay. Having a mixture of male and female personality and physical attributes may allow gay people to fill essential roles in the group better than heterosexual people and thus benefit the group and by extention, the propogation of the genes in that gene pool.

Akrasia

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Some pretty much have (see crocodiles) but most haven't. Part of the problem with being human is that we tend to see things on a very, very short time-frame and tend to have difficulty grasping ideas that have a scope of hundreds of years, let alone thousands to millions of years.

No Animals stop evolving. Crocodiles may not have changed very much morphologically in millions of years, but their immune system, for example, needs to constanrtly evolve to deal with the fact that pathogens in the environment are evolving.

Roger Hassenforder

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It is still your belief. And you are entitled to take that point of view. I wont argue it with you.
And it may indeed be scientific fact. On this, I probably agree with you. But there is more to the world than science. And being a 'scientific fact' does not necessarily tell the full story. It is just one perspective.
Similarly, by your definition of what a man is, and what an ape is, you deduce that a man is an ape. OK. But only by your definitions.

biology agrees with him.

GreeBo

Nokia3210 wrote: »

Evolution doesn't necessarily find the most efficient or best solutions, there is no planned path after all. Gayness could simply could simply be a negative side effect of particular genes which are usually highly advantageous for propagating genes.

Or a leftover from a time when it did give some advantage.
My issue is with not accepting that it's a negative side effect, from an evolutionary point of view. The fact that some gay people have kids is not an argument against this, for me anyway.

GreeBo

citrus burst wrote: »

Homosexuality however doesn't totally dismiss procreation as homosexual humans can still reproduce. The preference is different, but the ability is still there.

Indeed, but a gene, trait, whatever that's passed on to make you gay that relies on you not coming out until you have had kids first seems a little...convoluted at best.

The same argument is given earlier, lots of gay people have kids so then it's not an evolutionary dead end.
I have no problem accepting that perhaps some gay offspring had benefits to the family as a whole, I don't agree but I accept the argument.
I don't accept the argument that because gay people often have kids before they come out or that they have them via science that it's not a dead end for them.

ollkiller

Firstly on the idea of gay animals, oh yeah, worked in a pet store for 3 years and two male budgie's were at it every day for 3 years. Chicks in with them as well, not a look did they get.

Love the Evolution is just a theory line, right then, go to the nearest tall building, go to the top of it, jump off and see if the theory of gravity is just a theory.

Creation science, a nice extra security blanket for the religious to make them believe that what they believe is is true and to hide themselves from the fact, as all religions do, that you are afraid of dying and need something to allay that fear.

Antar Bolaeisk

Oranage2 wrote: »

How come animals have stopped evolving so?

Some pretty much have (see crocodiles) but most haven't. Part of the problem with being human is that we tend to see things on a very, very short time-frame and tend to have difficulty grasping ideas that have a scope of hundreds of years, let alone thousands to millions of years.

citrus burst

GreeBo wrote: »

Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.

Homosexuality however doesn't totally dismiss procreation as homosexual humans can still reproduce. The preference is different, but the ability is still there.

Oranage2

How come animals have stopped evolving so?

paddy1990

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

* If homosexuality is a learned behaviour, why does it exist in other animals?

I thought pure homosexuality was exclusive to humans? Sure some animals display some gay tendencies and engage in gay sex but they will also engage in hetero sex given the chance whereas in humans you will find out and out gayness to the exclusion of any hetero behavior.

I could be wrong on this though but that was my understanding from some stuff I have read.

paddy1990

For all the Darwinists, how do you reconcile the fact that your emotions are basically just illusions.

Darwinism basically posits that humans are material things. We, and every other animal, are material objects. The emotions we have are just biochemical reactions in our brains that happened to be advantageous for our ancestors so they got naturally selected and don't have any absolute meaning by themselves. The reasons the biochemical pathways formed was because they were advantageous in terms of propagating genes. It just happens to be this way. If evolution had taken a different path, the biochemical pathway that produces the emotion of happiness would be different.

No doubt religious people are "deluded" as Dawkins puts it. But I think pure Darwinists have to be delusional about this subject on some level, because of the implications.