It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why homosexuality can't be genetics

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
First let me start off by saying I'm not against homosexuality but I have a problem with people saying it could be caused by genetics. The laws of natural selection would never let something like homosexuality to occur in a creature's DNA. If a person was born with a gene that made it unwilling to reproduce it wouldn't be able to pass it on to it's offspring. While I admit the gene could be recessive in some people it would have eventually died out.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
It is improbable that a 'gay gene' could have been passed on enough to account for all the homosexual people in the world. This leads me to believe homosexuality is a result of nurture, not nature.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Recessive genes occur with a frequency of 12.5%, approximately the same as the percentage of homosexuals. Homosexual individuals have historically tended to reproduce due to social conventions.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
This leads me to believe homosexuality is a result of nurture, not nature.


Care to explain why all the animal species in nature that have been observed to display homosexuality have been nurtured into it?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


So you're saying genes are only recessive 12% of the time? That would support my claims, I think you're confused. Besides the gene would have started as a random genetic mutation in one person and the chances of it becoming so widespread are very slim.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by polarwarrior
 


Exactly which animal species are you talking about? Post some links.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by polarwarrior
 


Exactly which animal species are you talking about? Post some links.




It's out there.

And most famously the bonobos, very freaky animals



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


I still think it's nurture over nature even in the animal kingdom. With animals you can't use the argument that they are culturally pressured to reproduce. If an animal has a gene that makes it unwilling to reproduce it isn't going to get together with an animal of the opposite sex to make the animals around it happy.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
If you think about it homosexuality is good for a destructive species. It limits the population growth of said animal... Yes, by the way, we are animals. Gays are population control... and good for them, too many of us to begin with.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
First let me start off by saying I'm not against homosexuality but I have a problem with people saying it could be caused by genetics. The laws of natural selection would never let something like homosexuality to occur in a creature's DNA. If a person was born with a gene that made it unwilling to reproduce it wouldn't be able to pass it on to it's offspring. While I admit the gene could be recessive in some people it would have eventually died out.


Good attempt at approaching this from a scientific approach. However, it is more complex than you laid out.

For one, it might have been an advantage for a family group (back when humans were primitive, and maybe even now) to have a childless aunt/uncle to be around to help out. This would lead to the children having a selective advantage getting them to adulthood and reproducing. What you need to know, is that aunts and uncles share 25% of their genes w/ their blood nephews and nieces. So, inadvertently, the homosexual in this scenario IS enabling that trait (and others shared) to be passed into the next, and subsequent generations.

Other research equates homosexuality w/ sickle cell anemia. Do some research on sickle-cell genetics, and you will see that this seemingly deadly disease provides a selective advantage (protection against malaria) if one had one healthy gene from one parent, and one sickle cell gene from the other. So, no sickle=susceptible to malaria, 2 sickle genes=anemia disease, and 1 of each=healthy (carrier) protected against malaria. As for homosexuality, maybe women were attracted to men that had some typically 'effeminate' traits, or something like that. Do you see the parallel??

These are but 2 examples of how seemingly disadvantageous traits may actually be beneficial when looking at mechanisms and outcomes not readily apparent.

Best,
Skunknuts


[edit on 4/14/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
First let me start off by saying I'm not against homosexuality but I have a problem with people saying it could be caused by genetics. The laws of natural selection would never let something like homosexuality to occur in a creature's DNA. If a person was born with a gene that made it unwilling to reproduce it wouldn't be able to pass it on to it's offspring. While I admit the gene could be recessive in some people it would have eventually died out.

I reviewed a best selling book here...
The BRAIN that Changes Itself.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this Norman Doidge MD explains that pleasure and the activity that produces it become associated in the brain map...
...suggesting that 'gayness' has its roots in experience.

He also suggests that the 'brain map' is more plastic than anyone has previously thought...
...so that associations can be changed...
...so that people can become 'ungay'...
...its all a matter of changing to another pleasure/association and doing it long enough to change the brain map.

So self-identity as gay may be the only real thing holding people in this behaviour.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a lot of good that has done.....gays are very small percentage of the population.....not even 10% over-all.

you cant say they are population control...if they are....they doing a VERY bad job.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
furthermore.....i view homosexuality as a cleansing process......gay people have horribel genes.....so they dont get 'passed' on.

really i think gay people must have something wrong with there genes......what better way to insure it does not get passed on to the next generation then to make the person not sexually attracted to the opposit sex...you know...the normal staple part of our society.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by Nosred
First let me start off by saying I'm not against homosexuality but I have a problem with people saying it could be caused by genetics. The laws of natural selection would never let something like homosexuality to occur in a creature's DNA. If a person was born with a gene that made it unwilling to reproduce it wouldn't be able to pass it on to it's offspring. While I admit the gene could be recessive in some people it would have eventually died out.

I reviewed a best selling book here...
The BRAIN that Changes Itself.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this Norman Doidge MD explains that pleasure and the activity that produces it become associated in the brain map...
...suggesting that 'gayness' has its roots in experience.

He also suggests that the 'brain map' is more plastic than anyone has previously thought...
...so that associations can be changed...
...so that people can become 'ungay'...
...its all a matter of changing to another pleasure/association and doing it long enough to change the brain map.

So self-identity as gay may be the only real thing holding people in this behaviour.



LOL, Palin has a 'best selling book.' That don't make it credible. The stuff you cite is totally baseless, and leads to sad confused cases like Ted Haggard.

I'm a straight clinical psychologist, and the thought of being able to change my sexuality is utterly insane. I remember playing doctor as a kid (and I had experimented w/ boys in the typical experimenting, touching, looking manner too), but when I 'operated' on a naked neighbor girl (when I was 6), it was just over. That was probably one of the most intense experiences I remember at that age. Sexuality is ingrained, and any 'straight' guy that says sexuality is malleable is, well, very a-typical.

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 4/14/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 

Is it true that people become clinical psychologist to solve their own abberations?



[edit on 14/4/10 by troubleshooter]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by skunknuts
 

Is it true that people become clinical psychologist to solve their own abberations?



[edit on 14/4/10 by troubleshooter]


Sometimes, for sure. Maybe even often.

Best,
Skunknuts

P.S. For me, my dad was always supportive 'do what you love' EXCEPT don't become a psychologist (he is a shrink too). Well, I showed him, lol!

[edit on 4/14/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by skunknuts

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by skunknuts
 

Is it true that people become clinical psychologist to solve their own abberations?



[edit on 14/4/10 by troubleshooter]


Sometimes, for sure. Maybe even often.

Best,
Skunknuts

I did 12 years with multi-national Pharma...
...Psych conferences always had lots of guys who looked like Freud...
...just like in Orthopaedic conferences most were built like front-row forwards.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DEMONcrats
furthermore.....i view homosexuality as a cleansing process......gay people have horribel genes.....so they dont get 'passed' on.

really i think gay people must have something wrong with there genes......what better way to insure it does not get passed on to the next generation then to make the person not sexually attracted to the opposit sex...you know...the normal staple part of our society.



It's good that we have a resident geneticist here at ATS. For you to have achieved such a high stature, you must have the best of genes. Hitler would like your style


Best,
Skunknuts

P.S. Good thing spelling and the ability to be articulate must not be indicative of a lacking intelligence and poor genes, because that might mean your defensive vitriol says more about you than those inferior gays.

[edit on 4/14/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter

Originally posted by skunknuts

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by skunknuts
 

Is it true that people become clinical psychologist to solve their own abberations?



[edit on 14/4/10 by troubleshooter]


Sometimes, for sure. Maybe even often.

Best,
Skunknuts

I did 12 years with multi-national Pharma...
...Psych conferences always had lots of guys who looked like Freud...
...just like in Orthopaedic conferences most were built like front-row forwards.



Yeah, lol. My dad definitely is from that generation. I look more like an orthopedist, apparently, though. We'll see how I age though, lol.

Speaking of Freud, it is fascinating how many of his concepts are being tested empirically with modern brain imaging and other advanced models....

Best,
SN

P.S. By the way, you are totally right that the field of neuropsychology absolutely has shown that the brain is much more plastic than ever thought. This area intrigues me immensely. However, I have yet to see, as I stated, empirical validation that one's sexuality is malleable in the sense of it being a 'thought pattern.'

[edit on 4/15/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
First let me start off by saying I'm not against homosexuality but I have a problem with people saying it could be caused by genetics. The laws of natural selection would never let something like homosexuality to occur in a creature's DNA. If a person was born with a gene that made it unwilling to reproduce it wouldn't be able to pass it on to it's offspring. While I admit the gene could be recessive in some people it would have eventually died out.


Why do people assume that gay people can't procreate, or don't want to procreate.

What a strange thought. We have the same junk and the same instinctual drive to reproduce. I'm gay and I found a way to have a child that was from me. Now I have 4.

A recessive gene could do something like that, there are a million other gene sequences that could lead to the brain producing chemicals which lead to same sex attraction.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of possible different reasons, other than genetics even that would explain homosexuality. Currently there's no extremely well peer reviewed, flat out right for what we know science, that can explain it.

Making decisions about a subject that we don't have the capabilities to completely understand is foolish.

~Keeper

[edit on 4/15/2010 by tothetenthpower]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join