Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,197 Year: 5,454/9,624 Month: 479/323 Week: 119/204 Day: 19/16 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   morality, charity according to evolution
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 94 of 243 (311970)
05-15-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Hyroglyphx
05-15-2006 10:42 AM


Re: The altruism conundrum
Evolving into homosexuals makes no sense. So, what are the scientific implications for it?
A population becoming entirely homosexual may well make no evolutionary sense, but then that isn't something that happens. A sporadic trait of homsexuality might however prove beneficial to a gene's spread. Indeed one of the bases for a genetic benfit linked to homosexuality lies in reciprocal altruism and particularly in the forming of mutually beneficial same-sex alliances leading to increased reproductive success for both parties. This is obviously by no means a clear analogue to what is generally considered as homosexuality in common parlance but it is not insignificant perhaps that there are large numbers of men with homosexual proclivities who nontheless have families and children. If one accepts a genetic contirbution to homosexual orientation then 'flaming' homosexuals, i.e. a Kinsey 6, may simply be the most extreme end of a spectrum of that genetic trait which is still present to a greater or lesser extent throughout the rest of the population.
Really to answer these sort of questions we need to know to what extent homosexual behaviour, though obviously not in the case of exclusively homosexual behaviour, affects the reproductive success of an individual.
If you want to make an argument based on the idea that humans are currently 'eviolving into homsexuals' i think you are going to have a tough time of it.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2006 10:42 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2006 12:52 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 119 of 243 (312677)
05-17-2006 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
05-16-2006 9:09 PM


Re: altruism and homosexuallity
I can't think of one benefit it would serve an overall population if any one of us as individuals were a homosexual
Which just suggests that you haven't read any of the half dozen posts on this thread which have suggested a variety of ways in which the maintenance of a gene which prediposed to homosexuality within a population might be associated with inreased fitness in the population, as well as reasons why such an association need not exist for the trait to be maintained.
We've had kin selection reasons, mutual-altruism reasons, homosexuality as a side effect of genes promoting female fertility and a couple of others as well.
The fact that you still can't think of one suggests that you are both unimaginative and have a very poor memory.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2006 9:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 127 of 243 (312801)
05-17-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Hyroglyphx
05-17-2006 10:51 AM


A genetic basisi for Homosexuality
I've also been bombarded by the notion that everyones purpose in life is to procreate with the most healthy individual of the opposite sex as possible.
Well the problem seems to be that what you have been bombarded with is some idiot cartoon version of Natural selection and evolution.
If you don't have the physical ability to impregnate a memeber of the same sex or lack the physical ability to be impregnated by a member of the same sex, then that kind of precludes any sort advantageous or neutral trait.
Wow, you must have a really screwed up idea of what 'homosexual' means, or was that just the sound of someone shifting their goalposts? Or do you have some startling new medical evidence to report?
heterosexual sex is the only way to proliferate genes
Not quite, heterosexual sex is the only way to pass on genes directly, but a trait can easily exist which causes itself to proliferate without requiring the individual carrying it to procreate themselves, that is the entire point of kin selection.
We're talking about homosexuals, not the normal and average people.
I'm not sure what you mean here, are you saying that you will only allow for a scenario where the gay men and gay women are mating? No heterosexuals allowed. This seems like a ludicrous thought experiment stuffed with straw. One problem is it assumes that the basis for homosexual behaviour in males and females would neccessarily be the same, a pretty unwarranted assumption.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-17-2006 10:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 128 of 243 (312804)
05-17-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Hyroglyphx
05-17-2006 11:06 AM


Re: altruism and homosexuallity
Biology and ethics don't mix. Since there are alot of pedophiles out there, is it the product of biological evolution or the product of some reprehensible minds?
Why couldn't it be both, it is a sad possibility that evolution might produce its fair proportion of reprehensible mental traits.
I mean, for us to get mad about our children being raped is as valid as getting angry at someone born with blue eyes.
No, but if you were angry athe fact that someone was born with a particular prediliction then you would be right that it is just as valid.
People get mad about these things for reasons totally divorced from evolutionary considerations. It is a sad fact that natural selection can favour strategies such as rape or infanticide, we humans are lucky to be apparently be able to overcome inclinations towards such distasteful behaviours, and for years many homosexuals have had to hide their inclinations because of societies views. If those other behaviours were socially acceptable then I am sure you would see a vast increase in their prevalence, it isn't the prediliction that is neccessarily to be abhorred so much as the failure to overcome it and resist the temptation to follow ones impulses.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-17-2006 11:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 143 of 243 (313202)
05-18-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Hyroglyphx
05-18-2006 12:54 PM


Re: Glossing over the obvious
Do you have a legitimate study showing that gay men's sisters are hyperfertile and produce, 'in their brothers stead,' lots of children?
Hyperfertile is perhaps a hyperbolic term, but there is certainly evidence that there is increased fecundity in the female relatives in the maternal line of male homosexuals (Campero-Ciani, et al., 2004).
You are blowing that one hyperbolic phrase into a phantamagorical arabesque of hyperbole however and consequently coming up with nonsense criteria.
Here's the bottom line: Evolution needs reproduction in order for anything to evolve. So if some chance mutation removed the desire to procreate with a memeber of the opposite sex, then the homosexual is an evolutionary dead end. He/she will be removed from the population, or rather, they removed themselves. Its really that simple. Its so simple that I suspect evryone's floundering has more to do with sentimental reasons for protecting both homosexuality and evolution, than it does with actual scientific merit.
The only person floundering is you, you have had it explained to you umpteen times how a gene which caused a proportion of the males in a lineage to be gay could be maintained. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it less reasonable, it just suggests that you are not bothered to actually understand any of the science involved.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 12:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-18-2006 6:52 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 192 of 243 (314806)
05-24-2006 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Hyroglyphx
05-23-2006 10:08 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
the evidence of such said gradations leaves me undesired.
I don't know what this means but it sounds about right to me.
We know that things aren't inexplicably becoming 'less' evolved, becoming less autonomous, or less complex.
Exactly the opposite of what is the case. The exact examples you are replying to are of organisms which are evolving to become less autonomous and arguably less complex. Simply pretending it isn't so is not good enough, if you think that the scientific research into genomic reduction is flawed then make a case, but you can't expect us all to just blithely accept your word for it.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-23-2006 10:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 9:50 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 211 of 243 (315073)
05-25-2006 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Hyroglyphx
05-24-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
Well since it is you we are trying to demostrate it to what we need is your definition of complex. It is arguably more complex because the argument is about this very issue of complexity. There has been more than one occassion where people have gone into in depth demonstrations of how coomplexity or information may arise only for their oponent to say , 'oh, that isn't what I mean by complexity. Since you first made the assertion that everything is becoming more complex why has this only suddenly ocurred to you that actually defining complexity might be an issue?
What I am thinking of specifically is drastic reductions in the size of the genome and the loss of genes which would be required for the organism to exist in isolation from a host.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2006 9:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 218 of 243 (315124)
05-25-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Hyroglyphx
05-25-2006 12:02 PM


Re: Some responses to NJ (some redundant)
The two are not homologous, as Gould illustrates in the paper you provided.
I don't think this means what you think it means, perhaps compatible would be a better term rather than homologous.
as if I haven't presented anything beyond that
Which is pretty much the case in terms of anyhting resembling science or a coherent chain of thought.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-25-2006 12:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 224 of 243 (315280)
05-26-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by kuresu
05-26-2006 9:41 AM


Re: Memitic evolution
Susan Blackmoore is one of those who have picked up the 'meme' concept and run with it. Richard Dawkins coined the term but has not really gone anywhere with it.
Blackmoore defines a meme as...
information copied from person to person by imitation.
Dawkins defined it more extensively thus...
We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ”Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ”gene’. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. ... Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by kuresu, posted 05-26-2006 9:41 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by kuresu, posted 05-26-2006 9:57 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024