Darwinists: How Did Homosexuality Evolve?

reply to post by Liberal1984


I'm going to assume you're one of those Creationist types because you use the defunct term Darwinism.

Second of all scientists do not have all the answers but lacking knowledge about something is no excuse to slap a "God did it" label on. They follow the evidence and right now their is insufficient evidence to make a definitive call on the origins of homosexuality in animal behavior.

Social bonding may indeed play a part in the development of homosexual behaviors meaning that sex became not just for reproduction but also for relieving aggression and finding acceptance in the community.

I don't think that evolution is a way to explain racial differences in humans, race is, after all, genetically insignificant. In some cases two people of entirely different races can share more genes in common with each other than two people of the same race. It would have taken hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of years of separation for those races to become separate species and even then the environments were likely similar enough to keep that from happening altogether.

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.

Isn't this post based entirely on an Evolutionist explaining why homosexuality might have evolved? Besides, how, if we're looking at fossil evidence, will we ever determine when it emerged? We cannot judge whether an animal was capable of homosexuality based on fossil evidence can we? It might very well have existed within the first organisms to ever reproduce sexually, but how would scientists prove that definitively? If you're so interested in the subject why don't you get yourself a degree and dedicate your life to discovering the origins of homosexuality.

Evolution has been proven. The genetic similarities of many known animals prove their ancestry while the fossil record further proves the gradual change of one animal into another. There is no other explanation for our genetic, behavioral and physical similarities to the Apes, we are clearly related to them and there is no other biological mechanism by which this could take place. If there is a separate answer than where is it? The fact that we don't yet have a definitive answer on where homosexuality originated and how it became common in nature does not weaken the overwhelming evidence in favor of Evolution and the complete and total lack of evidence of alternatives like Creationism.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by ashanu90
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

Evolution is a force applied on a species genetics which determines it will have in the next generation. Sexual attraction is genetic. Were born that way. As with how we deal our sexuality, as in how we express it, that is a choice. I ask people when they think its a choice, "when did you chose to be right handed? Or have a fear of falling thats natual for all mammals? To chose to be identified as gay, more traumatic when your young, that will cause some people to hate you, makes no sense. They don't need to know any thing else about you. And many don't want to, they may loose concentration and actually forget to hate you, for a moment.

And hostility comes from many parts of society. It's not limited to one group, like Republicans hating Democrats. Hostility to some degree, comes from every level of society. Religion is high on the list. Why do I know this? Because I'm one of them! Givin the crap I went through a good part of my life as a result, I would have prefered to be a potted plant. So don't tell me people chose to be gay or straight.

reply to post by arbiture


Sorry. This is on the same subject, but is in response to a different post.That view on that post being: "homosexuality is a choice"

reply to post by arbiture


Sorry. This is on the same subject, but is in response to a different post.That view on that post being: "homosexuality is a choice"

reply to post by arbiture


there is actually alot of information that directly opposes your statement of "sexual attraction is genetic". most of it is based on brain chemistry. where a gay guy will have his brain chemistry change from that of "normal" (which i define here as what the great majority is born with) straight males, to one that is similar to a females. the opposite is true of lesbians, where their brain chemistry changes to a "male-like" state. its a marked change in brain chemistry based on choice.

there are simple physical observations that generally mark such a change. a higher-pitched voice in males, a more "girly" personality. women who are lesbians can get deeper voices and start to grow facial hair.

i edit to add: seeing as you seem to be homosexual yourself, this article has much of the relevent scientific information showing that a homosexual male's brain changes over time to become more like a female's brain. actual physical changes. it goes over how the media only reported the bit about differences, and inferred it was genetic, and that there was no choice. the article proves otherwise.

www.narth.com...

btw, i love gay people but i disagree with the lifestyle.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by Bob Sholtz]

reply to post by arbiture


homosexuality is indeed a choice but can be influenced by genetics, you could have the gay genetic make up but you could deny it, forget about it and you would be straight

as for how it evolved? perhaps just some genetics in the wrong place, no one said evolution is perfect, it sometimes messes up but it also fixes itself, so what if the world is going gay?
there will still be straight people maybe gays are a good thing, they help us stop overpopulation dont they?

Originally posted by arbiture
don't tell me people chose to be gay or straight.

...some people do choose... some people are born into a culture that chooses for them and whether thats a good or bad thing depends upon your perception of how you're treated... some people believe they came out of the shoot with their sexual preference already determined - some believe the opposite... its a great big old world and there has never been just one right way...

Originally posted by ashanu90
reply to post by arbiture

 

homosexuality is indeed a choice but can be influenced by genetics, you could have the gay genetic make up but you could deny it, forget about it and you would be straight

as for how it evolved? perhaps just some genetics in the wrong place, no one said evolution is perfect, it sometimes messes up but it also fixes itself, so what if the world is going gay?
there will still be straight people maybe gays are a good thing, they help us stop overpopulation dont they?

so are you saying that some may feel a stronger compulsion to be gay over straight? i think i disagree, based on what i've read about brain chemistry. it seems to be more of a mix between choice and environment.

genetics in the WRONG place?! can it be inferred from your statement that you believe a right and wrong placement of genes can come from random mutations? it seems so.

evolution fixes itself? you are ascribing intelligence and reason, not to mention a linked awareness over what it is, to a non-being. i don't mean to mock you in any way, but i see many evolutionists do this, and i have a theory as to why. i think we're hard wired to accept a higher being, (a god-shaped hole, perhapse?). just don't call it god! it scares the atheists. lol. i've also seen this in other forms reguarding "nature". like "this is natures way of blah blah blah..." well to that i say

"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"

and the overpopulation theory? you're suggesting that random mutations are "aware" enough to take into account the number of the species, and then decide that some humans get a "gay gene" to reduce the population?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I was a bit stunned by your response to my stating I lived with knowing I was born gay After all, I've been there all along. Your telling me I'm wrong? That must mean I'm lying. Or delusional. If it is a choice, what would be the point? Thats like saying I choose to like apples, but not oranges. Or me saying I'm white and was born that way, and your saying I'm wrong. The people who think sexual preference is a choice need to ask a question; Assuming it is a choice, why choose to be gay in the first place? And woulden't that choice be based on who someone was attracted to in the first place? The idea that culture determines which sex were attracted to is simplistic. It determines how someone's attraction is expressed. It might be a guy is gay, but marries a women because thats what society expects him to do. What's natural is not based on what society, culture, religion, says it is it's based on what nature says it is. We often hear people say something is against nature, as if we understand the product of the mechanisum that we observe in what we call nature. I look at nature not as much as a thing, but a manifistation of a process. If being gay was destructive, that trait would have vanished long ago. People ask with in a species, what purpose is there in being gay? (If there's an advantage, I haven't found it) The idea of population control, does't fit. You would think the percentage born gay in a high density environment would be above statitical norms. I've not heard of this being observed. China has a much higher percentage of men then women. The frustration this produce's has predictable result's. For some gay behaviour, it's not what people prefer, it's the best they can get.

Looking at it from a different point of view, I think being gay most likely, is not an intentional trait in and of it's self. It could be the random consequence of the interaction of contributing factors including; genetic's, neurobiology, and develomental factors (exposure to certain chemicals in the womb). I think different personalities in a human society, help society to adapt and function as one entity. Certain types of people are more or less acceptable in different societies.

If people hate gay people because it's against "the natural order of things", indead of trying to convince us were not who we think we are, just say "I hate gay people". At least it's honest,

Trying not to be politically incorrect.

Brain characteristics of homosexuals do no necessarily represent a genetic relationship. The brain is ever changing. Patients who were blindfolded for multiple days showed increased size and activity of the temporal lobe and other areas of the brain controlling hearing, taste, and touch. Decreased activity in the occipital lobe was also seen. Blind people, those without birth defects too, have reduced occipital lobes (associated with site). So assuming homosexuals are socially and culturally different than heterosexuals it would makes sense that changes in the Brain would occur to increase or reduce activities accordingly.

Homosexuality if genetic could be passed down. According to a simple dual genotype situation (AA, Aa, aa) it is always impossible to completely remove the homozygous recessive (aa representing homosexuality) because the reproduction of two possessing the heterozygous gene (Aa), which codes for heterosexuality, could produce a homozygous recessive.

Populations containing an equal male:female sex ratio are quite common for species where there is no sex-determination due to incubation temperature and similar female sex-determination mechanisms. In humans there is a XX and an XY if those reproduce it has a 25% chance to produce a XX, XX, XY, or XY. This is similar in other species where the genes determine sex.

Homosexuality...if genetic could have evolved from chance or been selected by because of the environment. Its hard to tell because you can't tell from archeological evidence if an organism is homosexual.

Homosexual bugs???

In other news it could be our water. Kolpin et al. 2008 found that there are high amounts of estrogens, caffeine, and other chemicals in water systems across America. One study found that fish below a waste water treatment plant that did not filter estrogenic compounds changes male female sex ratios to increased levels of females. The fish also had increased amounts of dual sex i(hermaphrodites) and messed up ovarian cycles. We drink the stuff. There is a lot of nasty stuff in small quantities in our water we don't filter out and drink daily.



[edit on 25-4-2010 by Grant123]

Lots of interesting reading for me as a gay man.
Well, as has all been mentioned gay men do have kids, otherwise the trait would die out (at least genetically - the exclusively gay person may disappear, but homosexuality occurs amongst all males at some point).
Perhaps monks, Catholic priests, nuns and spinsters will also become extinct, since they don't breed and thus threaten our survival. Perhaps our religious gene that stops men from having polygamy will also die out.
Homosexuality genetically explained is that the sister of a gay brother is more fruitful than average women, and men who live as females provide extra strength for the gatherers when they are under animal or tribal attack. Well, that's my take:
Here's a video of a banned ad (nothing objectionable shown) from U-tube, just for the creationists:

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 26-4-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by halfoldman
As has all been mentioned gay men do have kids, otherwise the trait would die out.

Not necessarily. As the poster above you pointed out, the gene could be recessive, and only owners of two recessive copies (one from Father, one from Mother) may actually be gay. Males with one copy of the recessive form and one of the dominant would be heterosexual.

reply to post by Grant123


It is true that plasticity has been found to exist in the cortices of adults. However, the way this works is by forming new synapses between neurons. The actual structure of the brain does not change. A person has the same number of neurons, they are simply wired in a different way. This however does not explain the differences seen in heterosexuals and homosexuals. Between these two groups there is a distinct difference in the very structure of the amygdala. This could not be explained in any way other than being genetic or the some environmental stimuli within the womb. This is due to the fact that by the time we are born most of the major structures of the brain are already fully formed. The only thing this isn't true for it the cerebral cortex, which continues to develop until one is in their 20s. Therefore, it is completely impossible for a person's amygdala to change its very structure after birth, thus meaning that homosexuality is not a choice.

We are both explaining the mechanism. However the physical structure and and function does change. As neuro cells are re-wiring the structure and size changes within these areas of the brain in accordance. Glial cells are increasing and mylenation is changing the structure as well with neurogenesis. The brain is not fully developed at birth (A child's head is much smaller than a grown up). Nuerogenesis has been documented after birth. The brain is plastic after childhood.

You are severely misinformed. Please at least look at wikipedia before you make any "educated" judgments.

Heres the link to Nueroplasticity.
Neural development would also be a good think to look at too.

en.wikipedia.org...

I will ask my neuroscience advisor about neuroplasticity of the amygdala and get back a bit more information. But given that the amygdala is involved with emotions and it is part of the brain I would imagine that like the rest of the brain it is plastic too.

So assuming that homosexuals have differing emotions that are responding to a different lifestyle than heterosexuals I would think the amygdala would change in accordance to differing emotions and functions.

reply to post by arbiture


i'm sorry. i don't mean to be offensive, or to tell you that you are lying. but the change occurrs after birth with your brain chemistry. i'm not sure anyone can tell what chemicals are in their brains. sorry dude, but the research done says the opposite of what you're saying.

reply to post by Grant123


The amygdala is fully developed by the time a baby is born. It is then through the continuing development of the prefrontal cortex that allows children to learn the proper responses to various emotions. I've done plenty of research on neuroplasticity and never have I come across a study that caused a change in the gross anatomy of the brain. Hubel & Wiesel's work caused a change in the somatosensory cortex. Taub's work once again only caused changes in the somatosensory cortex. Merzenich's work, while widespread only caused remapping in various areas of the cortex. Schwartz's work while not exactly remapping, only changed the way certain neurons fire together. I can keep going, but I think this should illustrate the limitations of plasticity as these are the leaders in the field. I have never seen any studies that have shown plasticity anywhere other than the cortex and even then these only cause changes in a few millimeters of the brain. They do not cause the growth or shrinking in the gross anatomy of the brain, especially in areas that are fully developed before birth.

reply to post by Grant123


If you are politically incorrect, take a backbone out of petty cash...

Of course the point that genetics, and how it's expressed both at the physical and behavioural level, and how it controls peronality, is though major, only one fractor. As mentioned neonatal exposure to cetain substances can have considerable effect on all aspects of developement. If if it happens early in gestation, the impact on genetic structure is more likely. Later in gestation exposure to the effects of a given substance, the fetus will react in a way to how one responds to a drug. That is with a drug the "cause and effect" we observe is at the biochemical level.

Your comment about the plasticity of the brain is of course correct. We need to adapt to events much faster during our lifetime. We have our own personalized genetic "basic package" when were born. We need a faster ability to deal with a challenge, or something we have previously not experienced. An example. Trying to solve a highly complex mathamatical problem, where some might expect you "add it up and get the result", requires you to see the problem creatively. Though it's math, you need to look at the problem abstractly. If I change this, how does it effect that. If the nature of an experience is strange enough, we have no frame of reference, we have a much more enhanced neurological response. We know when we try to solve problems, are exposed to novel events, our intelligence as
in our abity to process information, and expand our perspective of how it affects us, is increased. Since the pattern of neurological activity in some areas, is being modified all the time, perhaps when we experience that "ah ha!, now I get it" feeling, is the result of a new configuration being experienced. To me when I think I understand something because of how it connects with everything else, or it's important due to it's implications, thats a religous experience.

But the when the politcally correct crowd call's someone a heratic because they feel any discussion they are "invested in" goes against the party line, they make themselves vulnerable to the very mind set they fear. Someone is considered pollitically incorrect, when don't accept the perspective of the politically correct. To me the concept of politically correct or not, is judged by complying with ritualized manners. Behaviour that's judged on that, driven by a "write and wrong way to act based on what other people see ", does not see true intenstions, or event's. Acting politically correct does not reveal true motivations. Like in a country club, people follow the ritual to fit in. On the surface to casual observer, they see what their supposed to see. But what's really going on maybe business deals, plots, mind games.

I'm not politically correct. I'm not interested if I follow a party line. Most important? Is it right or wrong.? Usually thats based on how it affects others. I don't have a formula to figure that out. To quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Steven's, "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it".

Originally posted by wrathchild
sexual preferences and evolution dont make sense...

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

Yep ask richard dawkins and his rubbish pink elephants. I can imagine him part of the secret society network, what a plank of wood, and if you are here reading this richard, your a plank.

reply to post by Liberal1984


I have some answers for you so try not to get offended. Homosexuality exists in the animal world, and also in humans (since we are animals too). The reason it exists is because of variations in male/ female populations as well as environmental factors which inhibit certain hormones thereby altering brain chemistry. Reproductive behavior is built into the genome of all living organisms. It would seem that the drive for such behavior is stronger than the need to select a partner of the opposite sex. In Hawaiian native culture, there was 5-10% more men than women. It was accepted that some men in the tribe would live as women and partner with other men in the tribe. In this way they were able to achieve balance, which is what nature is struggling for at all times.
I thought I should add that it is widely accepted that black people evolved from white people. Melanin in the skin and the tightly curled hair of Blacks is a new step in evolution from light skinned, people . It has nothing to do with suntanning in case you are confused.

In my opinion, a good twin study helps in genetics questions.
According to a news article on the Bailey study:

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers," said J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, "which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on." By "unrelated," Dr. Bailey was referring to brothers by adoption.

www.nytimes.com...