Edgarfrndly wrote: » No, it isn't. So long as there are enough straight couples producing offspring, then the overall group is unaffected. In fact, homosexuality might contain a clan's population for the benefit of the group, where overpopulation becomes an issue due to food and resource concerns. The population as a whole would only be affected if all members of a group were homosexual. Otherwise, homosexuality would not exist at all.
Cianmcliam wrote: » I hope people reading this don't think that arguing that homosexuality was unlikely to be adaptive means the person arguing this case thinks it's a learned behaviour. I certainly don't think this at all. I personally think the explanation is probably hormonal events during gestation.
GreeBo wrote: » Sorry, why are you saying homosexuality wouldn't exist? If it's what I think you mean then why does my appendix exist?
Defender OF Faith wrote: » However is Homosexuality really inherited? I see people arguing about a "gay gene" which shows there lack of insight & knowledge into the research and studies done into this, well am sorry to break it to you as according to the Latest scientific studies and research done there is NO gay gene Homosexuality is a choice you make the environment you grow in and the way you were raised probably lead you to taking this choice
Edgarfrndly wrote: » Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is. For it to be a choice, someone would have to find both sexes equally attractive and then make a conscious decision to only be with one of them. It is certainly not a learned behaviour either, as homosexuality is visible across the animal world. Your environment does not turn you gay. You are born gay. It is not acquired over time.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.
Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Your entitled to your own opinion you seem to have not read what I posted in length but just remember that you are having faith that one day science will be able to support your claim however I dont think that day will ever come on thing though that I dont understand is why gay people are so afraid of the word "Choice"?
GreeBo wrote: » Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does. You might as well say people with one eye are not blind, people with none are just more expressed. From an evolutionary point of view gay people don't procreate, straight abd bisexuals do. I can see bisexuality being more beneficial than being straight in many ways, but being gay is a dead end, naturally.
Edgarfrndly wrote: » Nobody is afraid of the word choice. People just take issue with the absurd misuse of the word "choice". I have already explained why it is not a choice. Are you willing to concede that you find both sexes equally attractive? I do not find the same sex attractive. My heterosexuality is not a choice for me. In the exact same way, my gay brother does not find the opposite sex attractive. We were both brought up in the same household, with the same loving parents, in the same environment. He likes boys, I like girls. No choice involved, and it's not an issue. It's only an issue for people like you who thinks that people like my brother consciously go out of their way to choose a sexuality that would mean they were ridiculed in school, and suffered mass anxiety and depression for trying to contemplate a way to coming out to their friends and family. If there was a choice, I certainly wouldn't choose the one that made life umpteen times more difficult as a teen.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » You are putting your emotions into this and attempting to use logic to find your way around, also the fact that you have a homosexual brother makes your argument very biased.
Edgarfrndly wrote: » * If homosexuality is a learned behaviour, why does it exist in other animals?
GreeBo wrote: » Bisexuality doesn't preclude procreation, homosexuality does.
Oranage2 wrote: » How come animals have stopped evolving so?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
paddy1990 wrote: » But I think pure Darwinists have to be delusional about this subject on some level, because of the implications.
lanomist wrote: » just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?
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.
