Study seeks genetic roots of homosexuality

[SeVeR]

Of course war, murder and pedophilia can be attributed to genetics.

 

Murder and war: A product of our fight for dominance over our enemies and the neighboring tribes. Without murder and war we would have died out as a species by now.

 

Pedophilia: Is partly due to genetics. Our genetics teach us to look for youth in our mates as they are more fertile, and this argument applies when the victim is sexually able. Additionally, male humans are programmed to be the dominant sex, and where the search for a mate is unproductive, the male would be prone to dominating those who don't have a choice in the matter. It's why you don't see pedophilia in females, at least when the male-child is below the age of being able to have sex. Genetically, males are programmed to have sex with as many individuals as possible (to spread the seed), and thus when the search for a mate is unproductive, the domination or subversion of children younger than the norm can occur.

 

Whale Backbones... do i even need to say?

[AstroProdigy]

The argument that homosexuality has gentic benefits hinges on the idea that homosexuality is a mutation in human genes or behavior. I believe that claim was meant to be in a survival of the fittest sense, saying like "well if homosexuality put us at a disadvantage, the mutation would ahve died out by now." Murder, pedophilia, war, etc can't be inserted into this argument because they arent genetic or behavioral mutations.

 

Like say people had the idea of war to gain territory, and they failed at war. In this case war would have been a "bad mutation." However 200 years later, a completely separate group of people could have had the same idea (Im talking like cavemen level). The death of one group did not stop the mutation. War, murder, pedophilia are not somethign that would stop if they put the people at a disadvantage. The whole thing about the advantages only applies in genetics because of the hereditary nature of the traits.

The idea is that homosexuality could be a genetic population cap to prevent overpopulation. Also, war back in the days of the cavemen was a disaster for the losers, but was essential for the growth of the winners. If you kill all the adult males in another group you can take the females and spread the genes of your clan as well as have those females to work for the survival of the tribe. Therefore, yes war is a survivalist trait. If it wasn't then there would be no carnivals to begin with as they took advantage of the peacefulness of other species to thrive.

[Bak]

TJ, you pointed out the argument I was making: just because something exists doesn't mean it has genetic benefit. I agree with you!

 

most animals don't kill each other (murder) much less do it on a large scale (war). "Without murder and war we would have died out as a species by now." is simply wrong.

 

It's why you don't see pedophilia in females, at least when the male-child is below the age of being able to have sex.

Funny, I thought it was because you can't have sex with someone that doesn't have a !@#$%^&*.

 

Whale Backbones... do i even need to say?

please do!

 

 

Also, SeVeR, you can't make !@#$%^&*umptions like "Genetically, males are programmed to have sex with as many individuals as possible," because they're simply not true. There's a trade off between having lots of children and having a few that you can hunt for and feed. Even among animals there are examples of species which have single mate for their entire lives. Who knows how humans are genetically programmed?

 

All human characteristics can be explained in terms of survival and reproduction.

Not everything is justifiable genetically and when you search for explanations for everything it ends up making genetics look bad. But if you don't believe here's some more things for you to find genetic explanations for: necrophilia, belief in lepercons, vestigial structures (ex: whale backbones), cinema.

[Russky]

Higly unlikely cause gays can't p!@#$%^&* on their gay genes if there were any...

[Drake7707]

Higly unlikely cause gays can't p!@#$%^&* on their gay genes if there were any...

 

best conclusion ever .... why didn't i think of that xD

[SeVeR]

Bak:

Also, SeVeR, you can't make !@#$%^&*umptions like "Genetically, males are programmed to have sex with as many individuals as possible," because they're simply not true.

I think you'll find that males are far more inclined to acquire multiple mates than females are, and that this is supported both theoretically and experimentally in alot of psychology papers. So no, it's not really an !@#$%^&*umption. Saying it's "simply not true" is an !@#$%^&*umption, although you can try to prove it if you like.

 

Not everything is justifiable genetically and when you search for explanations for everything it ends up making genetics look bad.

Everything, the good and the bad, are due to our genetically ingrained principles for survival and reproduction. War, rape, murder, pedophilia, pain, fear, hate, even religion.

 

I have no problem with making genetics look bad, because our ideas of good and bad are in fact shaped by our genetics aswell. We view all things that threaten our personal survival as bad, yet we have no problem doing it to others if we fear the response less than we perceive the benefits of the act. On the side of good, we developed empathy to make others feel we care for their well-being, establishing a sign of trust, and mutually enhancing our survival prospects.

 

Funny, I thought it was because you can't have sex with someone that doesn't have a !@#$%^&*.

I guess you don't understand what pedophilia is then.

 

please do!

Whale backbones allow for the swimming motion. A backbone provides the necessary support for muscles down the entire length of the whale, allowing it to co-ordinate it's swimming motion in the easiest possible way. If the muscles were not supported by a back-bone the contraction of the whale's muscles would only shorten its length rather than bend its body in order to swim.

[Russky]

Higly unlikely cause gays can't p!@#$%^&* on their gay genes if there were any...

 

best conclusion ever .... why didn't i think of that xD

 

it's not 100% accurate statement there are obvious flaws to it but it does cover a really big general picture... the issue of homosexuality is purely mental because by instinct i believe we should be attracted to pheromones of the opposite sex.

which in turn leads to people with hormonal imbalances... because we are different and not much is known about that... there is or should not be any genetic root because...

 

1. it has a lot to do with your upbringing (society)

 

2. your hormones (which you are actually born with but it is influenced by your surroundings greatly) for example how do you explain why people hit puberty at different times?

[SeVeR]

[Bak]

I think you'll find that males are far more inclined to acquire multiple mates than females are

You said "males are programmed to have sex with as many individuals as possible". Acquiring multiple mates and having sex with as many individuals as possible are not the same thing.

 

I guess you don't understand what pedophilia is then.

Gawd, an old man can have sex with a young girl because he can have a !@#$%^&*. An old woman can't do the same because the young boy can't have a !@#$%^&*... what are you saying?

 

Aha, I was remembering incorrectly about the whale backbones; I meant whale pelvises. Why do whales have pelvises? Why do crabs have tails? why do humans have ear muscles?

 

Ideas are NOT genetic. They may enhance survival and be subject to natural selection, but you're claiming that everything is genetic. So let's say two hindus have a kid and put him up for adoption right as he's born... you're saying that the child, adopted by Christian parents, is likely to become hindu? That's absolutely absurd.

 

genetics can enhance survival and effect natural selection.

ideas can enhance survival and effect natural selection.

 

your conclusion: ideas = genetics.

 

 

snow is white.

your momma is white.

 

your conclusion: snow = your momma.

[SeVeR]

You said "males are programmed to have sex with as many individuals as possible". Acquiring multiple mates and having sex with as many individuals as possible are not the same thing.

They are the same, or at least can be. Having sex with someone doesn't mean they'll become your mate. Acquiring multiple mates also doesn't put a limit on the number of mates either.

 

Gawd, an old man can have sex with a young girl because he can have a !@#$%^&*. An old woman can't do the same because the young boy can't have a !@#$%^&*... what are you saying?

I'm saying pedophilia is not limited to penetrative sex.

 

The whale pelvis is a vestigial organ, meaning it once served a use, but doesn't anymore. Evolution can't just switch off a vestigial organ over-night, it takes time. The fact that we know the whale's once had a use for their pelvis, is all that is needed to justify them having a genetic purpose for it.

 

Some crabs use their tails as rudders in the sand to avoid being swept away by the sea. What specific crab are you referring to?

 

Human beings have ear muscles in order to maintain the shape of the ear for optimum acceptance of sound waves.

 

So let's say two hindus have a kid and put him up for adoption right as he's born... you're saying that the child, adopted by Christian parents, is likely to become hindu? That's absolutely absurd

I am absolutely not saying that.

 

Maybe you are picking up on what i said earlier about religion being genetic. What i mean is: human beings are prone to creating religion in order to explain phenomena, but lets be clear that the specifics of that religion are not genetic, and are environmental instead.

[Bak]

Aha, I see what you're saying now. I think many more things are environmental, whereas you say many more are genetic. Let's agree that not everything is genetic.

 

I remember being told (I can't find the source for the life of me, sry) of this island that was isolated from the rest of the world where there was practically no suicide. Then at some point one kid committed suicide and left a suicide note and everyone heard about it. Suddenly suicides started happening all over the island. I'd say this is evidence for saying that suicide is environmental and not genetic. Again, hopefully this story isn't fiction and I wish I had the source(searching for "island suicide" on google doesn't really work; if someone knows what I'm talking about please say so).

 

 

also, small apples but "multiple" and "as many as possible" do not mean the same thing.

[SeVeR]

Well there is a need in all of us to seek attention. I'm not going to try and explain it, but us humans seek attention in order to rise to positions of respect and power, and to attract mates. I would say that is in our genes.

 

Without knowing the cause of the suicides, i would guess that alot of depressed and lonely people saw the attention given to this person after committing suicide, and wanted it for themselves. Thus the underlying cause is genetic, but the environmental causes that are the depression and the suicide note allowed those `attention seeking' genes to contribute to the other suicides.

 

It's the same with war. We are ingrained with the aggression and hatred that is needed to fight our enemies because we've needed that aggression in the past to survive; but the trigger is always something in our environment. Maybe i wasn't clear on that before.

[Russky]

[ThunderJam]

Sever my point was that those ideas do not continue to exist because of their benefits. Each of those ideas (war, pedophila, etc) can have negative or positive outcomes. However in their cases, even if they result negatively, the next generation will still be drawn to them. It's not like genetic mutations where you can apply "If you don't need a feature, you lose it." War, pedophilia do not hinge on helping the species in order to be passed down the the next generation. If there were only two people left on earth, war over population obviously wouldn't be good, but the people could still be drawn to kill each other if they got in a serious fight over something.

[SeVeR]

Russky: That's a good point and something i've considered before. The bonds between twins/brothers and the tendency to mimic eachother's behaviour increases with increasing similarity. Thus it might make sense for twins to show higher levels of homosexuality than for non-twin brothers. Given a particular family environment, the homosexual twins may be the only twins who had mimicked behaviour enough to both end up homosexual. Unless the twins were separated at birth, it's impossible to say how much these family influences contribute.

 

TJ: I'm pretty sure our species would be extinct, or in great difficulty now without war. It's a benefit.

Choosing younger mates, and the dominant nature of males in our species are also benefits (or at least were), thus pedophilia is the result of genetic benefits, although certain environmental causes are needed to bring those genetics into play.

Edited December 11, 2007 by SeVeR

[Bak]

sever your application of genetic theory doesn't make accurate predictions as is needed by a science. You say there are `attention seeking' genes. One might predict that people should walk around with megaphones all day to seek attention, however you don't see that. Unless you can make predictions and not just explain things after the fact, your theory is about as scientific as creationism.

[SeVeR]

Yet there is plenty of evidence to suggest humans seek attention as a means to acquire friends and lovers.

 

Too much attention seeking can be seen as a threat to other members of our society. People do not like it when you "steal their thunder", as there is only so much attention to go around. Why would be bring ourselves this hostility from our peers? Thus, we don't walk around with megaphones.

 

Social conformity is also a factor that reduces extravagance. We fit in with our friends for obvious survival reasons. They are our tribe, our brothers, and our bonds with them are increased by re-inforcing their appearance with our own.

 

These influences therefore act contrary to attention seeking, but all that i've mentioned in this post so far is down to evolutionary psychology, and the genetics favoured by natural selection.

 

A scientist acknowledges that his theory is uncertain, a creationist believes his theory is fact.

[Bak]

your theory doesn't make any predictions that aren't known to be true before you make them. Scientific theories must make such predictions or they can't be disproven.

[darkhosis]

hey, i just saw this thread, but..

 

Study Finds Gay Gene in Fruit Flies

 

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50915.asp

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html

 

this was reported about 2 weeks ago or so..

[Wild Luck]

hey, i just saw this thread, but..

 

Study Finds Gay Gene in Fruit Flies

 

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50915.asp

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html

 

this was reported about 2 weeks ago or so..

beein bysexual and beeing gay are two different things and that study clearly says that flies determine sex of its mate flie by how it smell so thats how they determine if its male or female, so making male smell like a female is one thing and making it gay is another thing.

 

Besides we human dont do smelling

[darkhosis]

Besides we human dont do smelling

there's a whole bunch of research and studies that would suggest otherwise

Edited December 30, 2007 by darkhosis

[Wild Luck]

Besides we human dont do smelling

there's a whole bunch of research and studies that would suggest otherwise

phenormones is a mith in humans

[darkhosis]

Besides we human dont do smelling

there's a whole bunch of research and studies that would suggest otherwise

phenormones is a mith in humans

i can tell that youre obviously the expert on such matters so i'll bow to your superior knowledge and expertise

[Emo Girl]

Who cares where homosexuality comes from, it's not a disease.

[ThunderJam]

Thus says "emo girl". I hate when people jump into the debates without considering anything that's been said, and simply throw out a completely irrelevant personal opinion.