What is the evolutionary bonus for having gays?

File: 42 KB, 480x640, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 04:58:39 2011 No.2520978 [Reply] [Original]

What is the evolutionary bonus for having gays?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 04:59:39 2011 No.2520981 inb4 population control

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 05:00:39 2011 No.2520982 no bonus, but people should fuck who they like so who the fuck cares

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 05:00:39 2011 No.2520984 >>2520978 Please watch this video if you want to know the misconceptions inherent in your question, and you genuinely want to know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIMReUsxTt4

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 05:01:39 2011 No.2520988 Mother Nature is wise and spreads teh ghey to control the plague of the human animal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 05:02:39 2011 No.2520990 >implying evolution only produces traits that help a species >implying homosexuality either hurts or helps us as a species at this point

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 05:03:39 2011 No.2520993

Who says there has to be one? No one ever claimed all traits are adaptive. It could be that homosexuality is a byproduct of some other trait, and the loss of fitness for some of one's offspring is made up for by increased fitness of one's other offspring.

There is the "gay uncle" hypothesis. The idea is that homosexuals pass on their genes not through direct reproduction, but by helping to raise their nieces and nephews, who share a significant number of their genes. However, no one has found any evidence to back this up. Gay aunts and uncles don't appear to be any more doting than straight aunts and uncles.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 05:03:39 2011 No.2520994

>>2520984
In short, you automatically assume that every visible behavior has Darwinian fitness value in all situations. That's not how evolution by natural selection on the brain works. Instead, it sets up rules of thumb. Sometimes those rules of thumb backfire. Don't ask what's the survival value. Ask if there's a survival value, and if there isn't what is the origin of the behavior and that origin's survival value.

An example is sexual lust and orgasm. You orgasm whether or not you use a condom. What's the point of orgasm when you're wearing a condom? It's a misfiring of rules of thumb built up by evolution. Possibly the same thing for gays.

Maybe there is a survival value for gays. The video suggests one (and then dismisses it based on the evidence).

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 05:05:39 2011 No.2520998 >>2520993 not having kids would make them more doting, wouldn't it? since they wouldn't have their time split (dominated) by their actual offspring

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 05:06:39 2011 No.2521000 >>2520998 One would think so, but there doesn't seem to be any supporting data.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 05:15:39 2011 No.2521030 >>2520984 Thanks for posting this. I haven't watched it since shortly after it was posted back in 2009.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 05:49:39 2011 No.2521099

Since homosexuality is caused by abnormal hormonal conditions in the womb which is a consequence of how the genes for sexuality are not contained in the sex chromosones, I think we can deduce that the advantage is just a side-effect of not having to have the genes for the brain encoded in sex chromosones, which are meant to deal with genitals and the production of gametes.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 06:03:39 2011 No.2521131 >>2521099 >Fantastic claims. Fantastic claims everywhere. Going to need some citations for those please.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 06:04:39 2011 No.2521133 >>2521131 google.com If you think it's genetic you're a retard.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 06:07:39 2011 No.2521145 >>2521133 Again, citations please, or at least some form of coherent plausible argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 06:17:39 2011 No.2521160 File: 29 KB, 800x600, 1285403043738.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >implying homo is genetic

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 06:17:39 2011 No.2521162

If it's genetic, it's probably a disorder like Trisomy 21 (Is that the correct English term for, ahem, mongolism?), just not as debilitating.

If it's due to environmental factors, it doesn't need to make sense at all.

I doubt it's "intended by nature", for lack of a better term, since it doesn't make any sense biologically: If the "gay aunts and uncles" theory or the "women with the gay gene are more fertile" theory were true, we'd have a lot more gays, since that would've been a pretty big advantage in premodern times. The "gay gene makes chicks fertile" thing also has the added weakness of failing to explain lesbians, unless you think that lesbians and fags have different genes making them homo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 06:38:39 2011 No.2521195 I'm gay and have been since as far back as I can remember. Personally, I don't give a shit. Being gay is just what I am, not who I am.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 06:43:39 2011 No.2521208 roads, aqueducts, bridges, you know - engineering.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 06:45:39 2011 No.2521210 >>2521162 Please reread: >>2520994 and or watch the video: >>2520984 And pay attention this time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 06:47:39 2011 No.2521212 >>2521208 you're alright anon, you're alright

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 06:52:39 2011 No.2521226 >>2521210 >Please reread: >>2520994 Oh, you were serious about that condom thing? Really?

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 06:52:39 2011 No.2521227 >>2521226 Yes!

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 06:57:39 2011 No.2521243

As a gay I thought I'd be somewhat offended by these posts but I'm not at all. It's nice to see intelligence in the whole debate rather than "lolgays". I don't define myself and/or my life from me being gay; that would make me well...sad, wouldn't it? I don't see sexual orientation as being physically/sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, for me it's purely an emotionally and psychological one. Sex is sex and in the past I've admittedly had one-night stands with females, what makes me homosexual is purely the romantic and emotional side to it. I could never cuddle up with a female watching a DVD, for example.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 06:59:39 2011 No.2521249

>>2521227
But it's bullshit, y'know?
1. By this logic, orgasming while masturbating wouldn't work, either.
2. >implying putting a barrier between your sperm and the ovum means orgasm doesn't make sense

I mean, what do you expect? Humans evolving sperm so small it will go through condoms or evolving stronger prostates so that we can shoot through condoms?

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:00:39 2011 No.2521253 >>2521243 Dunno. I would hope you're not offended. I'm not offended when I analyze the evolutionary reasons for why I enjoy orgasms without resulting in pregnancy.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:02:39 2011 No.2521262

>>2521249
I think you misread what I wrote.

Let me try again. Some behaviors may not have survival value. Instead, they may be misfirings of general purpose rules of thumb.

Ex: Rule of thumb - orgasms feel suite. Purpose: replication of the gene. Misfirings: masturbation, sex with condoms.

Ex: Rule of thumb - ???. Evolutionary purpose: ???. Misfiring: gay people.

Alternatively, gayness might have actual survival value for the gay genes.

You shouldn't discount either possibility as we don't have sufficient evidence either way.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:04:39 2011 No.2521271 >>2521262 >orgasms feel great Fixed.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:04:39 2011 No.2521272

>>2521253
Because nobody would put up with women, families and children if orgasms wouldn't feel good.

If you look at it egoistically, having a family is the last thing you want: Testosterone is lowered, much stress, loss of time and sleep, etc.
However, nature cares not about you personally, but about you propagating your species.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:05:39 2011 No.2521274 >>2521253 Put it this way: "Being gay is unnatural" would offend me. "Being gay is 'unnatural' and here is an intelligent, scientific argument to why I think this..." is interesting to me.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:06:39 2011 No.2521276

>>2520978

Read up about Bonobos. They use sex and sexual acts and a social currency. Almost all are bisexual.

I'm quite sure humans are also bisexual to a certain extent, though our unhealthy fixation on heterosexuality mostly caused by our upbringing and culture makes it almost impossible for people to discover their nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:07:39 2011 No.2521285 >>2521276 >as a social currency. My bad.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:07:39 2011 No.2521286 >>2521276 Interesting idea.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:11:39 2011 No.2521296 >>2521276 >Along with the Common Chimpanzee, the Bonobo is the closest extant relative to humans. There might be something in what you are saying.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:11:39 2011 No.2521297

>>2521262
>Ex: Rule of thumb - orgasms feel suite. Purpose: replication of the gene. Misfirings: masturbation, sex with condoms.

No. Are you retarded?
You seem to think that orgasming should only happen if you were inside a chick, without protection. In truth, orgasming happens whenever you rub your dick in something for long enough.

Since condoms are a relatively recent invention (Middle Ages, IIRC) and don't exist in nature, and fapping does not in any way keep you from impregnating some chick one day (and also carries a lot of side benefits, for example prostate health and lowering of stress levels), your argument really doesn't make any sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:13:39 2011 No.2521305 >>2521276 >unhealthy fixation on heterosexuality What unhealthy about heterosexuality? Humans: Generally homophobe to some extent Bonobos: All bi Humans: Top of the food chain Bonobos: Not top of the food chain Guess we're doing something right.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:17:39 2011 No.2521315

>>2521305

There's no middle ground, that's what annoys me. When media, society and culture fixate on heterosexuality it usually ends up becoming homophobic.

When media, society and culture fixate on homosexuality, they usually portray it as a magical kingdom full of fairies and sparkly things. As a fully straight-acting gay, this annoys me.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:18:39 2011 No.2521316

>>2521305

That's a really fallacious argument. Our species does A LOT of things right compared to other species.

And humans adapt to the environment in kinda the same way any other animal does, except it's faster evolution on our case because it's either conscious or cultural evolution. Some change in the environment or population might have caused this cultural shift but all I'm saying is that our psychical nature might not have caught up with our culture.

In other words, putting big pressure on heterosexuality might be good for our species and/or individuals but it might be in a way going against our genetic makeup.

Or I'm just talking out of my ass, don't mind me. I'm just entertaining some ideas.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:19:39 2011 No.2521319

>>2521297
... You're still misunderstanding. This is getting frustrating. One more try.

Forgive me for the loose use of personification of evolution and your genes in the following.

Your genes want to replicate. Your genes have been selected by evolution over time to be very good replicators. Some of your genes affect your brain so that you like sex. In fact, so that sex feels very very good. However, the mechanisms available to your genes to affect your brain are very general purpose. What your genes actually do is make your brain and body so that when you rub your penis in just the right way, you feel really damn good - orgasm.

The practical effect of this rule of thumb for our ancestors is that they would have sex, and replicate. This rule of thumb thus led to the replication of these selfish genes.

However, this rule of thumb, from the perspective of these selfish genes, misfires. It misfires - that is doesn't complete its intended goal - when you masturbate. The rule of thumb that sex certain tactile sensations feel really good has been subverted from its original purpose. It still feels really good, but it no longer fulfills the original Darwinian survival value - hence the term misfire.

Same thing with condom use. It still feels really good because your genes simply installed a general purpose rule of thumb in your brain. That's all they can do. There are no machinations available to your genes to say "Only reproduction feels good". They only have access to "Getting rubbed in this certain way feels good".

1- Gayness could have Darwinian survival value, or

2- gayness could be a misfiring of some behavior which used to have, or has in other contexts, Darwinian survival value.

There. I hope to goodness that you can't misread that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:19:39 2011 No.2521320 >>2521316 >physical Fuck me, I suck.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:19:39 2011 No.2521321
File: 785 KB, 1280x960, 1270059499730.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mportant new evidence on a plausible mechanism for the evolution of "gay genes" has emerged from the work of Camperio-Ciani.[23] They found in two large, independent studies that the female relatives of homosexual men tended to have significantly more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. This indicates that females carrying a putative "gay genes" complex are more fecund than women lacking this complex of genes, and thereby can compensate for any decreased fertility of the males carrying the genes.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:21:39 2011 No.2521325 >>2521321 That would be news to the guys in the video here: >>2520984 >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIMReUsxTt4 Citations please.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:23:39 2011 No.2521331 >>2521325 The study Pinker speaks of was looking at a different proposed benefit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:26:39 2011 No.2521335 whats the evolutionary disadvantage for having gays? name any that is inherent to gays that are not inherent to any other sexuality

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:28:39 2011 No.2521339

I don't think there is such a thing as straight up gays(pun intended, I guess?) or heterosexual people.

We are all bisexual. Sure, the focus in on the opposite sex because that what allows for procreation but by nature humans aren't homophobic, that's for sure, it's a purely cultural matter.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:29:39 2011 No.2521342 >>2521331 Yeah, and? Again, citation please of your study which shows an evolutionary fitness value of gayness.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:30:39 2011 No.2521344 >>2521335 A naive view is that gay people are less likely to replicate their genes, kind of defeating the whole "purpose" of evolution by natural selection.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:31:39 2011 No.2521348

>>2520993

there is evidence of this in many bird species who adopt other offspring, even offspring outside of their family, the trend they follow is they treat offspring better based primarily on how close to them they are in the family tree, and secondarily how similar to them they look

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:33:39 2011 No.2521357 >>2521348 Indeed. Pinker talks about it in that video linked else-thread. He says the evidence suggests this does not happen in humans. Do you have any citations of studies which show that this does happen in humans?

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:34:39 2011 No.2521358

>>2521319
>There are no machinations available to your genes to say "Only reproduction feels good".

Yes, they do. That's why, when you fap, you simulate a vagina. Try rubbing your dick when you're flaccid and not horny. Surprise, you won't orgasm.
It's just that our bodies have no way of discerning between the real thing or fapping or doing the real thing but with protection.

Now, if homosexuality had
a) Darwinian value, we'd all do it or at least we'd have a lot more homos.
b) is a "misfiring", again, almost everyone would do it (like fapping or fucking even with protection).

In reality, homosexuals are a very tiny minority - 0.7% of American men say they're gay (Bisexuals not included), compared to ~%5 pedos, for example.

This leads me to the conclusion that homosexuality is some kind of disorder, either genetical (like being retarded or having pectus excavatum or something), psychological (abuse in childhood or something) or environmental (exposure to poisons or other pernicious stimuli in the womb).

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:35:39 2011 No.2521362 >>2521358 You're comparing homosexuality to being mentally retarded? Thanks.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:36:39 2011 No.2521365

>>2521358

>a) Darwinian value, we'd all do it or at least we'd have a lot more homos.

Not if the social bias is so strong that it negates some of that effect.

After all culture and social relations influence our behaviour much more directly than just genes.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:37:39 2011 No.2521366

>>2521335
- More likely to get STDs
- Less likely to have offspring
- Every society ever was homophobic from a modern point of view

>>2521344
>A naive view is that gay people are less likely to replicate their genes

So thinking that a dude who fucks dudes exclusively is less likely to make babies than a dude who fucks chicks exclusively is naive? I wanna hear the reasoning behind that one.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:38:39 2011 No.2521368

>>2521362
thats a bit of a jump, although it would be better to say that he was claiming its ok to be a paedophile, hmmm as soon as redheads start dieing out they will be called a disorder too, same with the gene that stops people from having a heart attack etc,

Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:39:39 2011 No.2521372

>>2521358
Please read that again and realize how retarded you are. You just said:
>Our genes can make our brain so that only reproduction feels good.
>Well, we can also make that misfire and feel good through that mechanism without reproducing.

Seriously man. Seriously. Congrats on missing the entire fucking point.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:41:39 2011 No.2521376

>>2521305
Over population leads to starvation and death for the species.
Having inherent homosexual tendencies improves quality of life (sex for pleasure not solely for reproduction), it also tightens social structures within a species and so individuals live for longer, and actually live, rather than mearly existing to eat fuck and sleep then die.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:41:39 2011 No.2521377 Homosexuals can pass on their genes. It's called a turkey-baster.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:41:39 2011 No.2521378

>>2521362
Possibly. I also compared having PE to being retarded. Don't get your panties in a bunch, fagmeister.

>>2521365
If homosexuality had a beneficial effect, there wouldn't be such a global, culture-spanning animosity towards gays (Keep in mind that even ancient Greece was pretty homophobic from a modern point of view). In fact, we would have a very pro-homo society probably, since stuff like having more kids survive into adulthood would have been a very big advantage in any time before the 20th century. The homo cultures would've overran the homophobic cultures.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:42:39 2011 No.2521380

>>2521366
>- More likely to get STDs
Bullshit.

>- Every society ever was homophobic from a modern point of view
Even more bullshit.

>So thinking that a dude who fucks dudes exclusively is less likely to make babies than a dude who fucks chicks exclusively is naive? I wanna hear the reasoning behind that one.
Sorry. Perhaps "simple" would be a better term. It seems apparent that gays reproduce less often, but given that it occurs in a lot of animal species, one should be careful about dismissing any possible survival value, especially when we're unable to locate this hypothetical original behavior which had survival value which is misfiring to produce gay people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:42:39 2011 No.2521382 >>2521378 I'm wearing a thong, actually.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:43:39 2011 No.2521384

>>2521378
>If homosexuality had a beneficial effect, there wouldn't be such a global, culture-spanning animosity towards gays
You're wrong in so many ways.

For starters, you're conflating "beneficial to the person" with "beneficial to society" with "beneficial to the genes". These are all very distinct concepts.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:44:39 2011 No.2521388
File: 221 KB, 1000x800, 1265524828392.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

There is no evolutionary advantage, at least not easily calculable.

However, sexual attraction is fairly binary. It's pretty easy to conceive that a variety of easily mutated genes would reverse this attraction.

Appropriately given captcha: tideless probability

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:44:39 2011 No.2521392 >>2520978 The same as the evolutionary bonus for having left-handedness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:45:39 2011 No.2521393 >>2521378 Dude, read up on less advanced societies. Or even currently existing tribes from places like New Guinea. They are not homophobic. And there are tons of examples like that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:47:39 2011 No.2521401 >>2521388 It's not binary. At most you can say it has bulges at either end.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:48:39 2011 No.2521404

>>2521372
Nope, you miss the point.
You said "I wonder why I can orgasm even if I have a condom on."
I answered "The body doesn't know the difference, that's why."

I'm still wondering why you compared using condoms to homosexuality, since you can choose not to wear a condom. However, there are no homos who can simply choose to fuck a woman, unless you count bisexuals among them.

>>2521376
>Over population leads to starvation and death for the species.
>Having inherent homosexual tendencies improves quality of life (sex for pleasure not solely for reproduction),

Then why don't we have more homos? The handful of gays neither raise the quality of life, nor do they do much against overpopulation.

>it also tightens social structures within a species

Actually, it's the opposite, since most cultures were homophobic.

>and so individuals live for longer, and actually live, rather than mearly existing to eat fuck and sleep then die.

Evolution has nothing to do with philosophy.

>>2521377
>implying we had turkey basters in 2000 BC.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:49:39 2011 No.2521408 I love how rude and crude /sci/ can be while discussing complex matters and exchanging reasonable and well structured arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:50:39 2011 No.2521410 >>2521376 Forgot to add that this means you don't need to reproduce as much for the species to survive and so food/space etc won't run out as quick

Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:51:39 2011 No.2521411

>>2521404
>If homosexuality had a beneficial effect, there wouldn't be such a global, culture-spanning animosity towards gays
No I didn't you numbnuts. I specifically described the evolutionary basis for why rubbing yourself in a certain way is pleasurable. It's a rule of thumb that makes it more likely to have sex to replicate your genes. It doesn't always accomplish this goal. Sometimes it makes you perform behaviors that are not good for your genes, such as masturbation.

You really understand nothing of English comprehension nor evolution by natural selection.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:51:39 2011 No.2521414

>>2521410
>Forgot to add that this means you don't need to reproduce as much for the species to survive and so food/space etc won't run out as quick
This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution. I strongly suggest that you read Dawkins' book The Greatest Show On Earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:51:39 2011 No.2521415 To bi or not to bi, that's the question.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:52:39 2011 No.2521417

>>2521368
Depending on your definition of pedophilia, it's actually very natural, since younger (i.e. jailbait) wives are more fertile than older wives. But that's a different subject.

>>2521393
Pretty much every society we have sources on was homophobic. That's simple fact.
Sure, there may be some tribes in the middle of nowhere who have no problems with it, but they're the exception, not the rule.

Also, if you're talking about the Sambia of New Guinea, they're bisexual, and they have rules about whom they can and can't fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:53:39 2011 No.2521420 >>2521378 Ancient Egypt/Babylon, probably India too were relaxed about homosexuals doing their thing.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:53:39 2011 No.2521423

>>2521404

Homosexuality is not a serious impediment to reproduction.

There have been gay people forever, in every society and in every time. They would marry a woman/man for heirs and see men/women for love. It was common for people to marry for heirs and have affairs for love. And the causal link between sex and pregnancy has been long established, so people throughout history knew what they had to do to have heirs.

At the most you can say that homosexuality has, historically, had a moderating effect on fecundity.

Most cultures were not as homophobic as modern bigots would have us believe. There was always an expectation that you should have children, true, but that was not a problem. Most cultures throughout history were at least tacitly okay with child abuse, incest and pedophilia, as well, but that does not invalidate arguments against these acts.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:54:39 2011 No.2521424

>>2521417
>Pretty much every society we have sources on was homophobic. That's simple fact.
Ancient Greeks you fucker! The male teachers would often sex up the young male students, hitting both gay and pedo all at once. In fact, in some segments of ancient Greek culture, gay relationships were viewed as somehow "better" than the lustful hetereo relationships.

Shut up and stop embarrassing yourself.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 07:56:39 2011 No.2521426

>>2521423
>Homosexuality is not a serious impediment to reproduction.
>There have been gay people forever, in every society and in every time. They would marry a woman/man for heirs and see men/women for love. It was common for people to marry for heirs and have affairs for love. And the causal link between sex and pregnancy has been long established, so people throughout history knew what they had to do to have heirs.
I don't see how adopted children pass on the gay guy's genes. That's what we mean by an impediment to reproduction, specifically the reproduction of the selfish genes of the gay guy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:56:39 2011 No.2521427 >>2521411 Masturbation doesn't mean you cannot impregnate some skank, so it's at worst a waste of energy. It's of no consequence, evolutionary speaking. Condoms are not "misfiring", since condoms are not natural.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 07:58:39 2011 No.2521433

>>2521417

>Pretty much every society we have sources on was homophobic. That's simple fact.

I don't know nearly enough about human history to make that judgment but I'll trust you.

But that does not affect my argument. As I said, cultural evolution is much much faster than biological one. We could still be bisexual by nature and almost strictly heterosexual by culture. Maybe you could call that vestigial sexuality?

Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:01:39 2011 No.2521440

>>2521427
You really don't understand the term misfire do you.

Our genes contain the instructions to construct our brains. These instructions give us sexual lust. We can explain this from the perspective of evolution by natural selection. Those that had sexual lust were more likely to reproduce their genes, and so they out competed those without sexual lust. That is Darwinian survival value.

When someone uses a condom, they defeat the Darwinian survival value of the behavior. The behavior is now wasteful, which is negative Darwinian survival value. This is by definition a "misfiring". It has nothing to do with whether condoms are "natural" - whatever the fuck that means.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:01:39 2011 No.2521441

>>2521426

I never mentioned adoption. Homosexuality is not a serious impediment to reproduction, except in cultures where it is expected that you only have children with a person you are truly in love with, such as ours. Historically, this was not the case.

Orientation is probably more similar to handedness. A set of switches that can go off or not during development, a side-effect of the plasticity of our mate-selection or object-manipulation systems. The positive effect of having this plasticity far outweighs any minor negative effects of an abnormal orientation or handedness.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:02:39 2011 No.2521442

>>2521145
You're an eyesore on /sci/.

google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=brain+development+homosexuality+th
e+womb+hormones&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=7432e0008f2c487d

Why don't you stop being such a pig headed narrow minded pseudo-intellectual?

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:03:39 2011 No.2521445

>>2521420
>implying we have sources about homos in ancient Egypt and Babylon

Indians didn't like them, due to religious reasons.

>>2521424
>Ancient Greeks
>Had strict rules whom you could fuck: You could only fuck slaves and kids, and if you were bottom, you would be ostracized
>Even fucking your pupils was frowned upon, hence the term "Platonic Relationship"

Homophile? Yeah, no.

>>2521426
>Bisexual behaviour
>totally homosexual

What's next? Pulling out the "But animals do it in nature!", when said animals do it to show their dominance?

Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:04:39 2011 No.2521446

>>2521441
>Homosexuality is not a serious impediment to reproduction,
What? If you are a man with sexual lust for women, you will take every opportunity to sex up women, thereby greatly increasing the odds of replicating your genes.

The gay guy without this urge to replicate his genes is far less likely to actually replicate his genes.

>except in cultures where it is expected that you only have children with a person you are truly in love with, such as ours. Historically, this was not the case.
Hell, arguably, this is the exact opposite. Where you can have kids with anyone, those with sexual lust are the ones who are more likely to reproduce. When you stifle sexual lust, such as in our society, that's the more plausible scenario for gays having sex with women (or in vitrio or whatever).

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:05:39 2011 No.2521450 >>2521445 Are you making a massive generalisation about homosexuality in every single species that does it? You should avoid idiotic claims like that.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:05:39 2011 No.2521448 >>2521442 I'm pig headed, narrow minded, and pseudo-intellectual for asking for citations? Fuck off.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:05:39 2011 No.2521449

>>2521441
Except handedness has a very tangible benefit, or at least had it in premodern times.
Ever fought a southpaw?

Southpaws are harder to fight, meaning they have more chance at surviving a premodern battle situation, meaning they have more chances to propagate their genes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:07:39 2011 No.2521455 >>2521449 Why the hell does being left handed make someone harder to fight?

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:10:39 2011 No.2521463

>>2521446

This is only true when there is no established causal link between sex and pregnancy. There is, and gay people are aware of it.

Besides, it is not genetic in the way you mean. The plasticity of the mate-selection systems in the brain is genetic, certainly, but the targets this system selects is not.

I really think handedness is the best comparison to orientation. Both occur in the same percentage of the population, with a similar amount of overlap, grades of ambidexterity and bisexuality in between; both are more developmental than genetic, both are determined early on, we know of no way to prevent either from occurring, neither can be changed effectively once set; both have been historically reviled as morally wrong; but neither one is intrinsically detrimental to the individual.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:11:39 2011 No.2521467 >>2521449 Handedness is not genetic. The plasticity of the systems which determine handedness is.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:11:39 2011 No.2521469

A recent study showed that siblings of people who identify as predominantly gay are, on average, more fertile than siblings of people who identify as predominantly straight. So there's your evolutionary advantage. It's an advantage for a gene, not for an individual... and that's what's important.

(And it's not a disorder, nor even abnormal. FFS, /sci/, I thought you were better than this. No, wait. I didn't.)

Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:12:39 2011 No.2521474

>>2521463
>This is only true when there is no established causal link between sex and pregnancy. There is, and gay people are aware of it.
Come again? You have a lust for sex. You have a much smaller lust to gain kids. If you lack the appropriate sexual lust to procreate, then you will have less kids. It doesn't matter if you can logically conclude thus. It's a matter of motivation. Gay people are less motivated to have sex that can result in children, and so they will have less children. What's so controversial or hard about this idea?

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:13:39 2011 No.2521475 >>2521469 Citations please? That sounds plausible.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:16:39 2011 No.2521480

>>2521474

What I'm saying is that we know how to make heirs. We know what causes it. Whether we are married to a person we don't love, or a member of a gender we aren't attracted to, we know that to have heirs we have to have sex at least a few times with this person we don't want to have sex with.

There is nothing controversial about the idea that gay people will want to have sex less with members of the opposite gender. My point is that historically this has not been an impediment to reproduction. I'm not talking about an animal in nature here, whose only motivation to sex is the base lust drive. I'm talking about thinking human beings.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:20:39 2011 No.2521493

>>2521480
You know that most kids are accidental pregnancies right? (At least, I think so. Sorry no citation offhand.)

Even if not, there must be a significant portion of kids which were accidents, especially before the advent of the pill, condoms, and abortions.

You seem to be arguing either that sexual lust doesn't lead to kids on its own because nearly everyone controls it (which is laughable, especially in our ancestors), or that uhh, I don't even know. You are wrong. I'm not even sure what you're arguing though. Again: let me try it like this.

1- Those people who have more sexual lust for hetero sex will have more hetero sex.
2- Those who have more hetero sex will have more children, statistically speaking.
3- Those who have more children pass on their genes more than those without children.
4- Evolution by natural selection favors those who pass on their genes more often.
Thus
5- evolution favors those who have more sexual lust for hetero sex than not.

Which step are you disagreeing with here?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:24:39 2011 No.2521498 >>2521493 I would think it is absurdly obvious he is pointing to the ancient practice of screwing women for babies and screwing men for fun.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:25:39 2011 No.2521504 >>2521498 I don't follow. I think he's trying to argue that gay people have as many genetic offspring as straight people, which I think is laughable.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:29:39 2011 No.2521519

>>2521493
>1- Those people who have more sexual lust for hetero sex will have more hetero sex.
Given. They will want it more, they will seek it out more, and they will have it more.
>2- Those who have more hetero sex will have more children, statistically speaking.
Partially given. They will have more pregnancies. Illegitimate children were very likely to be killed at birth. Before effective contraception and abortion, infanticide was a disturbingly common way to manage family size. So given, but not as statistically significant as you imply.
>3- Those who have more children pass on their genes more than those without children.
Given, obviously.
>4- Evolution by natural selection favors those who pass on their genes more often.
And given.
>Thus
>5- evolution favors those who have more sexual lust for hetero sex than not.
This is where it has to be ungiven. It assumes that a wholly genetic basis for homosexuality exists. My point from the start is that it is more like handedness than it is like eye color. Meaning, the systems which determine it are genetically determined, but the trait itself is not. It is more useful to be flexible in your orientation/handedness than it is to be inflexible. This is what is selected for.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:31:39 2011 No.2521525 Homosexuality increases in animal populations when they exceed a certain number. It's a population regulation mechanism.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:31:39 2011 No.2521528

>>2521519
>This is where it has to be ungiven. It assumes that a wholly genetic basis for homosexuality exists. My point from the start is that it is more like handedness than it is like eye color. Meaning, the systems which determine it are genetically determined, but the trait itself is not. It is more useful to be flexible in your orientation/handedness than it is to be inflexible. This is what is selected for.
Can you give me some citations on handedness please?

Also, unlike handedness which seems pretty neutral to me concerning Darwinian survival value, there seems an apparently large hit to being gay, which suggests that evolution by natural selection would "fix" that very quickly.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:32:39 2011 No.2521530

>>2521525
>Homosexuality increases in animal populations when they exceed a certain number. It's a population regulation mechanism.
This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution. I strongly suggest that you read Dawkins' book The Greatest Show On Earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:37:39 2011 No.2521543 >>2521530 Doesnt surprise me. Darwin and Dawkins didn't understand empathy's role either.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:39:39 2011 No.2521548

>>2521530

Species survive because of natural selection. If a species happens to become over-abundant, it will only survive if it is lucky enough to have some sort of mechanism against this. I'm not entirely sure, however, of how it knows when to "kick-in".

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:40:39 2011 No.2521549

>>2521528

What kind of citations would you like? I would just have to google it and post links.

>an apparently large hit to being gay, which suggests that evolution by natural selection would "fix" that very quickly.

But I assume that the fact that distribution of orientations has been fairly stable throughout human history indicates there is a boon to fitness that is as yet unconfirmed? I mean, there is no evidence that it is going away, or becoming more common, so a few percent gay IS advantageous, logically. We can at least agree that it is evolutionarily neutral.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:45:39 2011 No.2521559

>>2521549
>But I assume that the fact that distribution of orientations has been fairly stable throughout human history indicates there is a boon to fitness that is as yet unconfirmed? I mean, there is no evidence that it is going away, or becoming more common, so a few percent gay IS advantageous, logically. We can at least agree that it is evolutionarily neutral.
Maybe. As I've been trying to describe else-thread repeatedly, there are two options:

1- Gayness offers some Darwinian survival value for the genes.
2- Gayness is a misfiring of a behavior that in other contexts would give Darwinian survival value, but doesn't in this case.

As such, Gayness could have survival value through kin selection, such as the niece and nephew hypothesis.

Or it could be a misfiring. An example is that straight siblings of gay people are more fertile as a result of the genes, and that gene just expressed itself poorly in the gay kid. The increased fertility of the straight kids however could overcome the penalty of the gay kids.

Alternatively, it could have survival value again through kin selection. Straight kids when raised with gay kids go on to becoming more fertile, and this fertility increase is stronger than the gay penalty.

You are right that as there are gay individuals in a large variety of species, and throughout recorded human history, it's likely that there is something going on. You are wrong to conclude that there is some survival value to gayness. It could also be a misfiring of a behavior which has Darwinian survival value in other contexts, but gayness is a misfiring.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:48:39 2011 No.2521564 Well it's certainly not affecting survival negatively.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:50:39 2011 No.2521570

>>2521564
>Well it's certainly not affecting survival negatively.
Well, maybe. To me at least, it seems likely that it negatively affects gene replication. It might not - I have no particularly good evidence either way, but a naive look at the evidence suggests that gay genes get passed on less frequently. Which of course can't be, because the gay genes persist. Thus gayness is a misfiring, or there is some survival value which I don't see.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 08:54:39 2011 No.2521578 >>2521559 My gut feeling is that it is a misfiring of the mate-selection systems, not something selected for due to kin-selection. I don't ascribe any more moral character to orientation than I do to handedness.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 08:56:39 2011 No.2521583

>>2521570
Err, that came out wrong. It is one of the two, or some mix of the two:

1- Gayness has some Darwinian survival value. Likely kin selection, but not necessarily. In this case, the genes get passed on from the expressed behavior of gayness.

2- Gayness has negative Darwinian survival value. It's a misfiring of a behavior which in other contexts has Darwinian survival value. In this case, the gay genes get passed on /despite/ the expressed behavior of gayness. Possibly because that individual expresses other behavior to offset it (unlikely [?]), or because other individuals with the same gene express different behavior which compensates for the bad behavior expression of gayness in the gay individuals.

Either way, the genes do express behavior which is beneficial to their survival overall. The question is whether gayness helps the genes replicate or negatively affects gene survival.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 09:00:39 2011 No.2521590 >>2521583 Well it could be that gayness increases the chance of other genes replicating than those of the gay person.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 09:01:39 2011 No.2521594 >>2521590 Not exactly sure what you're saying. Presumably I covered it though. Do you think I missed it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 09:05:39 2011 No.2521596 >>2521594 Yeah. It may benefit the population generally if some members are gay. The gay peoples genes don't have to be the ones to benefit.

Scientist Sat Feb 12 09:07:39 2011 No.2521603

>>2521596
>Yeah. It may benefit the population generally if some members are gay. The gay peoples genes don't have to be the ones to benefit.
And you would be wrong. This is not how evolution by natural selection works.

/Maybe/ if you could give some reciprocal altruism reasons, but group selection is totally - like - been disproven for the last 30 (?) years, ever since Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 09:10:39 2011 No.2521612

>>2521475
Citation granted.
3.Corna, F., A. Camperio-Ciani and C. Capiluppi, 2004. Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 271: 2217-2221.

There are some follow-up papers floating around, too, but this is the (heh heh) seminal one.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 09:12:39 2011 No.2521615 >>2521596 Also, please read The Greatest Show On Earth by Dawkins to dispel your misconceptions about evolution.

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 09:28:39 2011 No.2521654
File: 73 KB, 400x541, aww shit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>homosexuality, not genetic

>shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Problem GodFags?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 09:37:39 2011 No.2521675 >>2521603 Read about evolution of empathy.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 09:39:39 2011 No.2521680 >>2521675 Yes. It's called reciprocal altruism. You have yet to demonstrate any conceivable reciprocal favor exchanging by being gay that results in the gay person having more offspring. That's my problem here.

>>	Scientist Sat Feb 12 09:41:39 2011 No.2521684 >>2521680 Unfortunately, I'm going to bed. I really do suggest that you buy and read Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 09:44:39 2011 No.2521689 >>2521680 I'm saying others may increase offspring, not gay people themselves. Reciprocal behaviour could be either in the form of reduced competition for straight people, or something like gay people looking after kids and being generally more caring.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 10:00:39 2011 No.2521711 Female sibling of homosexuls have more children, can't remember where i read it, but it show the genes propagate through increased female reproduction rather than been weeded out though natural selection as you would expect

Colin !!GWicPmfSgsD Sat Feb 12 10:05:39 2011 No.2521721

>>2520978
P1 generation has 5 breeder children, each has 2 children that survive to adulthood, 10 total grandchildren.

P1 generation has 4 breeder children and a non-breeder.
Attention from the non-breeder means each breeder has 3 children that survive to adulthood, totaling 12 children.

/thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 12 10:15:39 2011 No.2521744 >>2521721 Define 'attention.'

Anonymous Sat Feb 12 10:17:39 2011 No.2521752

I think everyone in this conversation needs to take a giant fucking step back. 90% of the posts in this thread are obviously from straight people. That right there is a problem, as you (no offense) automatically have prejudice against us. Secondly, I'd say that more than half of you are skimming Wikipedia articles about Darwinism and posting the bits you like.

Not to mention that the few posts made by people who actually claim to be gay are ignored entirely.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math