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.

 

Darwinists: How Did Homosexuality Evolve?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
It reduces the number of parents by 10%, and (through bi-sexuality) spreads sexually transmitted diseases to both homosexuals, and heterosexual’s. It increases jealously (within the group), and jealously can lead to complex tensions, possibly even murders.

So I read this article about how evolutionists think it is supposed to have happened
evolution-101.blogspot.com...

The author puts forward the following reasons…
1. "Homosexuality occurs in these organisms to placate the male aggression that is left over after competition for females.”

But why are half of (natural chicken breeds) male, yet you only need one male for 20 hens? Evolutionists say it’s because the aggression (fighting to the death) encourages only the fittest to reproduce. Makes sense!!! But wait a bit… Chickens have homosexuals too!!!
Even in humans; especially the primitive ones (incapable of applying justice) we were throughout most evolutionary history, murder over (heterosexual) sex should be good for the species, because whoever murders most successfully (in the group), should also asserts their genes most dominantly. Doesn’t (much) matter when the mating season is either as: dead competition, remains dead competition.

2. "Consider the social benefits of a population in which all members can share the close bonds of a sexual relationship, not just males and females."

Social bonding is obviously good for group survival. But extra sex also creates: Social tensions like. More significantly (in evolutionary terms) extra sex, means extra disease transmission, infertility and (if untreated in “the wild”) extra deaths too!!!

In addition: Surely homosexuality should nly occur in only social animals? I thought insects have it too. So do (quite mindless insect) homosexuals really help each other out because they recognise each other, and therefore realise the value of their homosexual relationship? I doubt it. And (due to their short life cycles) evolutionary pressure on insects to shed homosexuality should be greater than in mammals. Yet somehow it remains.

Finally: Why haven’t we evolved members of the same family to enjoy the “extra social, benefits of having sex”? Incest deformities could be avoided by selective infertility-miscarriages (i.e. you wouldn’t be capable of having a child with your brother because the sperm would either be killed by the sisters immune system, or the baby would be aborted in early pregnancy).

3. “Scientific research out of Toronto has shown that the more older male siblings a man has, the more likely he is to be a homosexual. The hypothesis is that the mothers becomes immunologically sensitized to the successive male fetuses within her, since they contain male proteins that she is not used to.”

So mothers developing an (as yet unproven) anti-male, immune reaction.
Well would be a remarkable theory (especially if there was more proof!!!). Even then, this “explanation” is actually just a complete rephrase of the “how did homosexuality evolve” question. After all, why can’t that this anti-male, immune system reaction, be evolved out?

4. “A recent study from Italy showed that the maternal relatives of homosexual men have more children than the maternal relatives of heterosexual men”

At last evolution is being considered in our question (addressed to evolution!!!) However it’s another non-explanation: Because this link does nothing to explain how homosexuality is assisting the higher birth rate.
In fact could (just as simply be) that: the higher birth rate (in families with more homosexuality) is a direct response to the lack of births, caused by homosexuality. After all less children in the tribe, means extra space for more children in the tribe.

CONCLUSION…
Evolution is supposed to be why white people evolved from black people (i.e. so that we would save a few calories on pigment production, and loose a little less heat during the last ice age). Whilst I'm sure this all saved quite a few lives, are rational people really to believe it’s more than the 10% plus lost to fertility, and extra losses to diseases, and rivalry?

Functional, homosexual, relationships (in mentally sophisticated creatures like humans) will be of some benefit.
But surely just the time spent thinking about homosexual sex, and dangers faced by a homosexual trying to obtain it, are a far greater cost to the tribe?
Pity evolutionists are too timid to face up to the homosexuality question. Because it’s a whole in science, and a whole in science is a whole in mankind’s potential, to solve our own problems. And surely children learning evolution in schools, should be allowed to consider homosexuality as a serious flaw. Of course this threatens to provide a “real education” and there is no way, our government will want this!

P.S To doubt those who say homosexuality is mostly down to sociology: Brain scanners show homosexuals have the brains of normal people, but of the opposite sex: news.bbc.co.uk...

I’ve long thought to myself that various friends don’t just have a brain of the opposite sex, but the actual skull of the opposite sex too. For some reason it really seems to stick out with lesbians (well, depending on how much long, hair is in the way, of course!!!).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]




posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
sexual preferences and evolution dont make sense...

How does a rubber fetish have anything to do with evolution??

I could go on with all the different sexual preferences of people forever.

I think we have evolved to out-smart evolution.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

I’ve long thought to myself that various friends don’t just have a brain of the opposite sex, but the actual skull of the opposite sex too. For some reason it really seems to stick out with lesbians (well, depending on how much long, hair is in the way, of course!!!).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]
Do the mullets traditionally worn by lesbians inhibit or enhance your ability to pick them out in a crowd?
Is there some sort of chart that might help others identify homosexual head shapes?
It's harder to breed the trait out if you can't tell which ones are bisexual or worse, passing as heterosexual.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I think homosexuality is natures way of curving the population, but that`s just my personal speculation.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
It may not be politically correct to call homosexuality a malfunction, and I certainly believe they have every right to the equality that everyone else enjoys, but it is in fact a malfunction. It doesn't evolve, it's just something that can happen during development of the fetus. There is no "gay gene." The very concept of a gay gene goes against everything the Theory of Evolution teaches us about the way we were created, because you're right: it would have been selected against. The diseases that are passed down through the genes can exist because they don't inhibit the carrier from procreating. Homosexuality, by definition, does.

[edit on 4/18/2010 by LiquidLight]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Are you suggesting that homosexuality may or may not be hereditary?

homosexuals passing on the genes to future homosexuals using heterosexual hosts?

At any rate here is my take, from my perspective, of homosexuality.

I am a man.
I am attracted to the opposite sex. But this doesn't mean i lack empathy for members of my race that are the same sex. I'm just not physically attracted to other men.

For those who think it is a choice, i would say this:
I'm pretty sure even if i had every gun on the planet aimed at me, i still couldn't "choose" to be attracted to another man sexually.

Therefore, the only way someone can say it is a choice,. and retain any integrity in their point, is if their basis for reference is what they know of themselves.

therefore anyone who says its a choice and they are right, is if they have at one time or another looked at a person of the same sex and thought to themselves "Maybe ...."

If someone says they know it is a choice, then they had to make a choice. And that is what makes them right in their assumption that it is a choice.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I like where this thread is going.

There is no evolutionary advantage from homosexuality.
So logically...homosexuality is proof that there is a creator...Let's e-mail the Vatican!


Tho determine if there is a link between evolution and homosexuality, we would need to know if the population of children of homosexuals (who came out of the closet after starting a family) have a significantly higher percentage of homosexuality themselves.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 
It's the 21st Century...not the 19th. 'Darwinist' is like an opening admission that the user has a book phobia. In most circles there isn't a term for people that accept the Theory of Evolution...perhaps you could use 'educated' or 'informed?'


Cool. Your thread would now read 'Educated people: How Did Homosexuality Evolve?

So I put into Google "Evolution homosexuality." First hit...


Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.
Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality

If you read the article, it gives a lot of explanations and ultimately accepts that we don't know 100% why. But hey, that's science. It doesn't have all the answers and doesn't claim to?



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Originally posted 23 refugee

Do the mullets traditionally worn by lesbians inhibit or enhance your ability to pick them out in a crowd?

I don’t think so. I just know I’m talented for picking people out of crowds, be them intellectuals, crooks or homosexuals or anything else I care to measure. I used to stack shelves in Wines & Spirits at Tesco, and before they brought in the bottle tags I’d always make our security seem inefficient. It’s because I would spot like 4 (but once even 12 people) in a single day. But on that day 3 dedicated men, only caught 5!!!

Originally posted by ruthschild

How does a rubber fetish have anything to do with evolution??

It can’t, so maybe the cause is demonic? I never used to think so, but now I wonder (long story)


I think we have evolved to out-smart evolution.


Sounds interesting, but how does that work? For what incentive? Through which mechanism? If people have really evolved to defy evolution, it should be because they’re using their brain against their body. But why then do we have brain differences, caused by early fetile development, linked to homosexurality?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Are you suggesting that homosexuality may or may not be hereditary?


My personal opinion is that it’s some kind of hereditary mutation (probably early on in the pool of life). But instead of being made rare by evolution, it is (for reasons unknown) being protected by evolution.
And as I said before, if evolution can develop a new skin colour, thickness ect, for a weather climate, then why the hell doesn’t it act to extend it’s population by 10 percent?

It would be great to think evolution (somehow) tried to limit our numbers, but why not limit them with sexual violence-death (since this at least, ensures a more robust next generation)? It’s hardly unlike evolution needs to develop this method, it’s in us all, never mind other animals. I don’t know the answer to these questions, and until I do, I’ll remain convinced that giant discoveries are missing from our present understanding of evolutionary theory.

Kandinsky

Educated people: How Did Homosexuality Evolve?


Someone invented the word "Darwinist" but not everyone is blind enough to believe, that whatever they believe, is right. Surely under your logic the English language should be shrunk, to just have: "true" "false" and (maybe) "probably" as all the descriptive words on certainities?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Answer me this question.....Why are the Bonobos monkeys exclusively bi-sexual?

Humans are animals. So no trite answers.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I am a male. I'm sexually attracted to females...

Petite females, athletic and brunette.

Shall I put myself in a special group of people..??

Some males find other males attractive.

Some people find animals and objects attractive.


you get my point....."what ever turns your screw"

nothing to do with evolution...just our large brains acting funny.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
What is this? Yahoo Answers?
Do some learning



Two evolutionary psychologists, Paul Vasey and Doug VanderLaan of the University of Lethbridge, Canada tested this idea for the past several years on the Pacific island of Samoa. They chose Samoa because males who prefer men as sexual partners are widely recognized and accepted there as a distinct gender category—called fa'afafine—neither man nor woman.

The fa'afafine tend to be effeminate, and exclusively attracted to adult men as sexual partners. This clear demarcation makes it easier to identify a sample for study. Past research has shown that the fa'afafine are much more altruistically inclined toward their nieces and nephews than either Samoan women or heterosexual men. They are willing to babysit a lot, tutor their nieces and nephews in art and music, and help out financially—paying for medical care and education and so forth.

In a new study, the scientists set out to unravel the psychology of the fa'afafine, to see if their altruism is targeted specifically at kin rather than kids in general. They recruited a large sample of fa'afafine, and comparable samples of women and heterosexual men. They gave them all a series of questionnaires, measuring their willingness to help their nieces and nephews in various ways—caretaking, gifts, teaching—and also their willingness to do these things for other, unrelated kids. The findings, reported on-line this week in the journal Psychological Science, lend strong support to the kin selection idea. Compared to Samoan women and heterosexual men, the fa'afafine showed a much weaker link between their avuncular - or uncle like - behavior and their altruism toward kids generally. This cognitive dissociation, the scientists argue, allows the fa'afafine to allocate their resources more efficiently and precisely to their kin—and thus enhance their own evolutionary prospects.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


ugh. i hate when people say something like that. its totally illogical. you sir, are now ascribing intelligence and reason to a non-being. if you are an evolutionist, shame on you! treating nature like a higher intelligence to promote atheism is absurd! you are affirming the existance of a over-arching, intelligent, guiding hand to support a philosophy that denies such beings! does no one but me see the hypocrasy?!

of course, i don't mean to make fun of you, or be derogatory, but it bugs me!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


the only problem is, evolution does not have an answer for random acts of kindness either! altruism is counter-evolutionary. why should i hold the door open for someone at the grocery store when they might be the ones who get the last bag of my favorite chips?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dorfl
I like where this thread is going.

There is no evolutionary advantage from homosexuality.
So logically...homosexuality is proof that there is a creator...Let's e-mail the Vatican!


Tho determine if there is a link between evolution and homosexuality, we would need to know if the population of children of homosexuals (who came out of the closet after starting a family) have a significantly higher percentage of homosexuality themselves.




LMAO what a turn of events indeed! in order for the church to convince the world that there is a God, they must accept homosexuals! the minute they all believe in a god and turn down their promiscuous ways is the same minute evolution becomes viable as a philosophy again! what a twist



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
homosexuality is a lifestyle choice nothing more, it has nothing to do with evolution

asking how did homosexuality evolve is like asking how did politicians evolve, it's a pointless question



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
What is this? Yahoo Answers?
Do some learning


It's certainly an interesting hypothesis and on the face of it it does appear to have some degree of sense to it. Gay people would still have parental instincts, but would in most cases use those skills to look after other people's children, and potentially aid the survival of the group.

However, this research still looks rather speculative to me, and is far from a definitive answer to the OP's question.
The research cocentrarting on one group of gay people in Samoa is potentially flawed as it is confined to one particular culture in a small group of islands, and the findings could equally be due to cultural factors as it is to do with genetic factors. Has similar research been done in other parts of the world ?

Would having non-reproducing offspring that looked after other children really be that advantageous a trait in comparison to having reproducing offspring that took care of their own children ?



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Cool. Your thread would now read 'Educated people: How Did Homosexuality Evolve?


I think this a bit harsh. I think that the theory of evolution is the most likely explanation, but I respect a person's right to disagree with it - for whatever reason - without assuming that they do so due to a lack of education.

This is a site that prides itself on intelligent discourse of conspiracies and alternative topics, so I wouldn't automatically assume that someone's rejection of a mainstream theory or popular concept was down to them lacking an adequate education on the subject matter.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by wrathchild
 


If it makes no sense, then why do they exist? If you look at human behaviour, like other life, the greater the variability of a species, the more they are able to adapt and survive. Personality is determined by genetics. A desire for a certain stimulas is a reaction to a desire to change perception, emotion, or craving. One reason we engage in certain activity is to produce pleasure, physical and emotional. For this, different people have to push different buttons to achive a similar result. We know people can be thrill seekers, which usually involves physical activity that requires a skill. The more extreme a trill seeker the more dangerous and unpredictable the outcome. Social structures, which can inhibit some behaviour, or have the opposite effect, experience,and personality, affect how an environment is staged. Perhaps this need for different kinds of stimulas is why different people like different kinds of music, and and prefer songs over others with in that type.

When we feel we don't have control over a situation, our frustration has to go some where. How many guys have had an experience like their wife was in the hospital to give birth. Things were dragging on. Then she said to you, "will you please leave, your driving me crazy". The guy goes home and cleans out the garage, then mows the lawn, which he did yesterday. You get the point. As far as I know, we can't yet associate activity in the brain with a specific personality. We can identify certain activity in the brain that deal with our perceptions and some emotions. I've heard people who are compelled to do what most of us would call "strange" things, when asked why most answer "I don't know".



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
who cares if someone is gay? Gay people are awesome, they are super peaceful and just want to be left alone. I would rather be friends with a gay guy than a straight guy. The world would be a better place if everyone were gay! No more humans left to destroy the world, woohooo!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join