Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

SIGH.No.Natural selection favors the ones that are more fit relative to those that are less fit for the condition at hand. Sometimes this means one variety is favored sometimes it means the other is -- the peppered moths are a case in point. Simple yes, logic no. People do things because it feels good way more than they do things because it is logical eh?But let's consider the bees.The male (king) bee has a short and lustly life breeding with a female (queen) bee shortly after birth, and shortly thereafter dying (probably from the depredations of a lusty life, full of wine women and song eh?)The female (queen) bee has a lusty life at the start and then settles down (never to have sex again) to the duties of making the next generation(s) -- some of which will be male, some of which will be female, and some of which will be .... gay.But the gay bees are not interested in having sex with males or with females of their species, they lust after sex with a totally different kind of species -- they have sex with flowers (disgusting eh?), and get buzzed on the nectar of flower love, and THEN, when they get back to the hive they dance for the other gay bees to tell them where they can indulge in this wicked behavior.And they indulge in this deviant behavior of having sex with flowers day after day after day.And there are MORE of these gay bees than there are male AND female bees combined (er, or should I say "added together").Filthy little perverts!Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

While I can agree that they usually miss celibates in their list of people to attack, they do not only attack gays and I find that claim bizarre.They are currently engaged in a massive campaign against sexual expression, both in the making and using of such materials. They are directly attacking sexual hedonists, exhibitionists, voyeurs, and onanists.As part of this they have expanded concepts of what should be deemed inherently obscene and illegal as far as sexual acts go. In addition to the above, there is fisting, piss sex, scatalogical sex, bestiality, SM, and simulated rape fantasy. Oh oh oh and prostitution!This is not to mention that they are wholly against sexuality with, by, for, from, and around minors... especially if it also includes nonminors.In fact you can find leaders and communities on the left and the right attacking all of the above. The only difference between the morality brigades on the left and on the right, is that those on the right include homosexuals.My question is why are only homosexuals protected by the "morality" brigades of the left? Even free thinkers tend to spend undue time on protecting that one class of person, with the possible extension to a limited class of porn. Why?AbE: I should also probably note that the right is achieving victories in their campaigns against the above EXCEPT against homosexuals, and the reason is that the left is willing to help them against the rest. Perhaps the loudest noise you hear is homosexual issues, because the right has to expend more effort on that, as well as the left not spending much time advertising the plight of those other communities.Edited by holmes, : just a noteEdited by holmes, : pt 2

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

No, as has been pointed out, NS favors those organisms most fit for their environment.Besides, I don't see how homosexuality fits into a "Strong vs Weak" scenario. Not if the trait is neutral and naturally reoccuring. Assuming homosexuality is genetic, I would guess that the cause is (as holmes posited) a certain combination of genes that randomly occurs in the population and isn't necessarily "passed on." In this case, NS doesn't affect the trait because it is both neutral and mostly uninheritable (although the combination could occur more often in certain populations and/or families).You also seem to be assuming two things. One: that homosexuals never reproduce or that they can't except through heterosexual sex acts. You seem to either be ignorant of or just forgetting about the many ways this can happen. Some people choose to live a "straight" life, whether it be an "ex-gay" couple, a gay man/lesbian who lives in an area where s/he could be killed for being openly gay, or even those who, like my aunt and uncle, choose to marry a gay or stright friend for the sole purpose of procreation (the marriage is for the perceived benefit to the kids, otherwise they'd just screw). You also have random sperm and ova donation and receiving, plus the many, many gay men/lesbians who donate their sperm/wombs to their gay friends (and some straight men and women donate to them, too!).Two: that pending the end of the species (or the hypothetical island scenario) gay men and lesbians would not just suck it up and have sex in order not to go extinct. It also would not change their nature or even their inclinations. Just because a homosexual has sex with someone of the opposite gender does not mean that their membership is automatically revoked You would not have to show this at all. That theory would not hinge upon how many fertile siblings each individual homosexual has because all that would need to be shown is that the nieces and nephews of those that do have siblings receive some sort of advantage from the relationship. I'm not sure how you can see having sex with someone of the same sex entails "going out of one's way?" If you have sexual urges for someone of the same sex there are plenty of people out there who can satisfy you (twice as many if you're bi! ). You also seem to be equating "feeling good" with sex with anyone. Obviously, it doesn't feel as good to me to have sex with a man as with a woman. Also, some women make me feel "better" than others. Sure, there are some people (of all sexualities) who will fuck pretty much anything that moves and "feel good" but most people are somewhat picky and that's where the different urges come in.Anyways, your original argument was: Explanation of "it" in italics not in original post."Evolutionists" claim nothing of the sort. The sole mechanism through which sexually reproducing organisms reproduce is heterosexual sex. The sexual urges definitely have a role in this process, but are independent of procreation itself. I still don't get the whole "weaker" argument.You are equating desire with ability. Do you feel that celibate people are "weaker?" How about asexuals? People who choose not to reproduce for fear of passing on a horrible genetic disease?How about those with the desire, but not the ability? Are they "weak," too? At this stage, there is nothing to "overcome." When the extinction of the species is nigh, I'll let ya know how I feel about having sex with men. I'm sure I'll be more than cooperative (as long as I still get to have a girlfriend ), but it apparently will be alot to overcome.Edited by Jaderis, : fixed sloppy sentence

This kind of brings us back to the op.Then I ask this question. If there is no goal to evolution, then why do we have survival instincts, and a will to live? I don't think RAZD meant ever extinct species, but the species that have died from natural selection are now extinct. I totally agree with this. I love technology, but I wonder will it be our ultimate demise?Maybe that is one of the reasons I believe in God, and all that is part of the equation of the difference between God and man.

We are nature.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. We have survival instincts because that is what developed. That does not indicate that evolution has a purpose for us to survive to some goal. I feel relatively confident in asserting the Dinosaurs had a survival insitinct. Okay, I don't remember that I was responding to RAZD's post, but I'd agree with the above. I think you missed my point. Technology wasn't our demise, it was using it within a context of living in our fantasies rather than the real world. Most specifically using tech to fulfill demands of figments of our imagination such as Gods.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I thing the GAY bees are Sterile female bees and they go to flowers to get necter.I have herd of a flower that mimics a female be in some way to attract a bee in order for it( the flower ) to cross polinate.I assume it is attracting a Male drone.

Weaker means weaker. As in NOT FIT. The Fitist is the Heterosexual as this life form is MORE likely to pass on it's genes into the future in the form of offspring.A celibate person ( lifeform ) is also weaker than a sexualy active life form. ( see Star Trek fan boys) A life form that can not have sex is weaker as well.This is just the facts of Natural Selection as I have not had sex in a long time I must conclude I am weaker than my heterosexul and active friends, they are more likely to procreate as I am less just as homosexuals are less likely to unless they donate their genetic material.In the Natural world however this artificial method in not avilible to non-human life forms.Is Homosexuality genetic? If not then we must see it as a form of sexual proclivity that is in the MINORITY. (A sexual retardation) as I have such because I can not attract a mate of the oppisite sex. My case my be more common than many people want to advertise, but that is the situation. I even know many males that are bachlors well into their 70's and have given up on sexual companionship.this type person is less likely to pass on its genes as most homosexuals are. In the rules of Natural selection that would make me and gays Unfit...I.E. Weaker!Get used to it. I have.

I believe you are thinking of certain wasps and the orchids that mimic the wasps down to odour to attract pollinators:http://www.anu.edu.au/BoZo/orchid_pollination/This just shows what dollied up trollups those flowers are, and that they'll have sex with any species they can lure into their lurid schemes. Bird, bat, bug, slug ... They are sterile bees, the default (when sexual development in interupted) is probably female development (as it is in humans but not in all species -- a male DNA child with interupted sexual development will grow up looking and developing into a female down to ... but not including the sexual apparatus).Nectar is the sexual juice of the flower that's what it is made for. (sheesh are you trying to kill a good joke with too much information .... ?)

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Oversimplifying things slightly. Consider this scenarioA pair of identical twins who are genetically disposed towards childcare but not child bearing. One of them has a child and both twins dedicate themselves to raising and looking after the child. The childless twin genetically gains from the episode since the child is genetically as close as the twins own child would have been any way (50% of the genes).Meanwhile another pair of twins exists. This time they have mutltiple children but they don't look after their own children and spend their time trying to kill or harm the children of the other. This time both lose despite siring many children - since the children never make it to reproductive age the genes of both twins fail to be passed on and fortunately the infanticidal gene is lost.In our complex social world filled with sickness and overcrowding, caring for a child to ensure its survival might make one more 'fit' than being philoprogenitive. Passing on one's genes doesn't mean one has to reproduce. Your siblings share 50% of your genes and your cousins share 12.5% of your genes. It may turn out that a family unit that contains x% of non reproducing members passes on more of its genes - therefore more genes of the non-reproducing members get passed on by not reproducing than would have been passed on had they tried to procreate.That would make them evolutionarily more fit. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But outside of twins, or direct relatives, your scenario is meaningless to his point.Can't it be agreed that anyone who does not act to reproduce, or is less likely to reproduce, is a "weaker" reproducer from the purely evolutionary standpoint of passing on genes? I'm not sure why that in itself is a contentious claim.The errant position would be to argue that that standpoint has some objective moral weight, or that it is discussing the health/fitness of any individual within a society. As families get smaller, particularly as we drive for reductions in population growth, an individual's reproductive choice may become more important with respect to "passing on one's genes".

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Not really. His point was that the only determinant of fitness was reproduction. I was pointing out that the determinant of fitness was passing on as many genes as possible - directly or indirectly. Sterile insects never reproduce but they are fit because they ensure their genes pass on through their sisters/brothers (in some insects they may even be identical sisters/brothers just for added flavour). My point was that this isn't necessarily the case. It might be the case that high fecundity and no child caring members of a group is the measure of fitness - or it might not. If a person that does not reproduce helps their own genes in other ways, then they might calculate out to be fitter than a dedicated baby maker with a high infant mortality.The contention is that reproduction is not necessary to ensure that your genes are passed on - it is not the be all and the end all. Well, choice is a funny word. But yes - what the optimum strategy for direct reproduction or protection of genes through child caring varies from environment to environment - one would be mad to suggest otherwise. With a small family environment it might turn out that the 'child caring' class increase in size depending on other selection criteria until it reaches a new equilibrium point. Edited by Modulous, : just added a little bit

I think one of us is not understanding the other (perhaps both). How that reads to me above is that fitness can be measured by passing on certain genetic lines. Thus those that help other members who are carrying on the same line are still contributing to "fitness". Your example was of sterile insects whose "family" they help pass on genes.If I am correct then that missed my point. I was trying to say that that ASSUMES there are other "family" members to which any are helping. I don't know if there is any correlation between being gay (or celibate) and having more family that have more kids or that have more successful kids (especially helped by the gay person). In fact that seems a bit fanciful.If you are suggesting the "human family" as a whole, I think we are venturing into a strange area of discussion as it is various characteristics arising within the population which get selected on, and not all characteristics as a whole. I'm also a little hesitant to be drawing connections between anyone who is not reproducing to the sterile class of animals within an insect colony. The latter clearly do have evolved purposes for the colony, which is not the case for human behavior. While I can certainly agree with that, as a general rule isn't it easy to say that providing care is equal those who are not reproducing (for whatever reason) are "weaker" reproducers from a purely evolutionary standpoint of passing on genes?As an aside, are you actually suggesting that there is a "caring class" of human being?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm not assuming that gays have philoprogenetive families (though that might make for an interesting study). I'm not coming close to suggesting that.I was simply suggesting that the blanket statement:

quote:

---

The Fitist is the Heterosexual as this life form is MORE likely to pass on it's genes into the future in the form of offspring.

---

and

quote:

---

A celibate person ( lifeform ) is also weaker than a sexualy active life form. ( see Star Trek fan boys) A life form that can not have sex is weaker as well.

---

and so on, are not strictly true. If homosexuality/celibacy/infertility is genetic it might be an evolutionarily stable strategy where a pure hetero- population is not. Reproduction is not the be all and end all of evolutionary fitness. No, I'm certainly not espousing some kind of group selection concept. That sounds like an absolute statement there. Remember, the post I was responding to was assuming that the reasons for reduced fecundity were genetically based (as the thread is centred around). If homosexuality has a genetic bias, then there is - in a sense - a sterile class of humans. Its not entirely accurate, but it doesn't need to be since it is about statistics and tendencies which is all we really need to discuss.The ants are working for the colony, but they are not selfless. Each ant is a selfish collection of genes whose sole purpose is to try and make sure as many genes pass on as possible. If homosexuality has a genetic base, then several options for how it maintains its position in the gene pool1) It is a statitistical result of recombination. The 'gay gene' does not rely on inheratance to propagate, but chance combination of certain alelles in a certain way.2) A statistical increase in altruism/child caring.If option 1, then homosexuals are less evolutionarily fit and certain alleles may reduce in frequency as they are selected out for finding themselves in gay hosts more than other alleles.If option 2, then what I said.Since we are unable to test our ancient ancestral lineages for correlations between child caring responsibilities in social groups and homosexuality one would be very bold to try and make absolute statements as to the fitness of homosexuality in the grand scheme of things. We can try and work out how fit homosexuality is now, but it is still a very difficult task for obvious reasons.

But it is on the individual, or single gene line, level which is the point I was making and I think the poster was sort of coming from.Any individual when looked at from an evolutionary standpoint, could be considered "weaker" in comparison to other individuals based on his stated criteria.I get that from a population level, the individual may be seen as providing fitness in another way. Looking at colonies this is especially true, but then the drones really are adapted to a purpose which aids the population as a whole. We can see it.I'd almost consider colonial animals essentially a single organism with individuals acting as organs for that organism. They certainly seem as programmed as any organ for a specific role for the colony. That's not true if homosexuality is a side effect (perhaps just a potentiality) caused by a gene that produces a totally different effect which allows for its propagation.And this also assumes that homosexuals will not procreate, which simply is not supported by any historical data. People who have lived largely homosexual lifestyles, and gays in cultures where homosexuality was not oppressed, figured out what they needed to do if they wanted to have children and they did it.The urge to reproduce is significantly different than just the urge to have sex. As long as humans understood that they need to have sex with a female to have kids, and wanted kids, there is no reason for homosexuality to reduce in the population.Given our nearest ancestors, and early human civilizations, there probably wasn't much issue as they were generally practicing bi-sexual. That would lead to the potential for gay children (assuming some hard genetic link).Edited by holmes, : removed gays

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)