DISQUS

Andrew Yates · 1 year ago

I like how homosexuality is threatening to Darwinian evolutionary models, but traits conducive to civilization: education, wealth, and intelligence, aren't considered threatening despite an obvious inverse correlation with reproductive success.

Oh liberal academic politics. Why do you try so hard to rationalize the gays?

Josh Hill · 1 year ago

Well, it's only somewaht recently that wealthier and more educated people had fewer children. Especially in Asian countries, the upper classes had more children. Modern societies are really relatively recent on the human timeline, and such a slight variation in reproduction won't make much of a difference in that short of period. Also, education and wealth aren't really tied to genetics; particularly in the United States, many people who are now wealthy had grandparents that were poor and uneducated. The opposite is also true.

Steve · 1 year ago

"I like how homosexuality is threatening to Darwinian evolutionary models, but traits conducive to civilization: education, wealth, and intelligence, aren’t considered threatening despite an obvious inverse correlation with reproductive success."

Yeah because dumber animals are less likely to do something stupid that gets them killed. People with wealth are more likely to run out of resources and die and educated people are less likely to be able to build up resources and rear a family. You are obviously horribly blinded by your own agenda and know nothing about evolutionary process. Having fewer offspring does not necessarily mean your reproductive success is worse if they are healthier, happier and have more resources they are more likely to survive.

Andrew Yates · 1 year ago

Steve,

Better educated, more socially productive people have fewer children later (if any). The survival of children, while applicable to other species and perhaps in human ancient history, is no longer relevant in modern civilization.

My original tongue-in-cheek comment is because:

1) Evolution isn't a perfect system, and "less reproductively fit" organisms can be and are sometimes successful, sometimes for reasons entirely unrelated to fitness. (for example, natural disasters or ordinary chance) There is no "objective" in evolution, and while "fitness" affects the probabilities of what traits will be perpetuated, it's not a goal nor an axiom.

2) Sometimes, traits aren't selectable because biological systems are extremely complex. In this study, the suggestion was that female fecundity and male homosexuality are genetically linked, but it's possible that homosexuality is simply an emergent attribute of a complex, chaotic biological system.

3) The "gay gene" gets special research attention because it's a sensitive political issue, and that amuses me.

Brian · 1 year ago

Andrew and Steve, while there may be a difference in the number of children produced by wealthy and poor people, just because you produce fewer children doesn't mean you are less fit. Ultimately it is about how many grandchildren you produce. Poor people may have more children, but those children are also more likely to die for many different reason (hunger, malnutrition, increased likelihood of disease, etc.). So the likely hood that poor children survive to reproduce is much smaller compared to rich children who are almost guaranteed a chance to survive to reproduce.

Traits aren't selectable? I am not sure what that means. There may be traits which aren't selected upon because they have no reproductive value, but that doesn't mean that they aren't correlated with other traits, nor does it mean that it can't be selected on in the future. The reason why homosexuality is so interesting biologically is because being gay is an evolutionary dead end. Gay men can't reproduce if they are exclusively homosexual. If the genes that contribute to homosexuality don't get passed on, they are selected against using purely evolutionary mechanisms. Yet we still see it in human populations.

The problem is not with the science. The problem is with reporters and the general public who are trying to use value systems to interpret scienctific evidence and arguments. Saying homosexuality is purely a result of a choatic system is naive and probably more dangerous than saying there is a genetic component to homosexuality. Reporters and the general public who are using a value system to interpret the scientific results are more likely to do harm with "choatic systems" than with "genetic homosexuality" in their writings. Science isn't supposed to be interpreted with a value system.

Andrew Yates · 1 year ago

> Poor people may have more children, but those children are also more likely to die for many different reason (hunger, malnutrition, increased likelihood of disease, etc.). So the likely hood that poor children survive to reproduce is much smaller compared to rich children who are almost guaranteed a chance to survive to reproduce.

Not relevant until well after reproductive years virtually everywhere.

> Gay men can’t reproduce if they are exclusively homosexual. If the genes that contribute to homosexuality don’t get passed on, they are selected against using purely evolutionary mechanisms. Yet we still see it in human populations.

Neither can the celibate, yet we still have priests and Unix gurus.

> The problem is not with the science. The problem is with reporters and the general public who are trying to use value systems to interpret scienctific evidence and arguments.

Yes.

John C · 1 year ago

This subject is also addressed in Scientific American Mind, June/July 2008,p68 and it titled: "Bisexual Species", by Emily Driscoll. Amongst discussion of other animals, the author quotes a researcher in saying that humans should be regarded as bisexual.

David Winer · 1 year ago

1. Darwin had absolutely no clue about DNA or cells because he was born too long before we had this knowledge. Scientists have proven that species cannot produce other species! They can mutate within and make subtle changes, but a fish cannot eventually produce a man. The reason it is called the Theory of Evoluation, simply, is because it had never been proved!!!
2. If homosexuality was truly spread by DNA, then, since true homosexuals would not marry and have children, since they can not, then homosexuality would die out.
3. Suggestion to homosexuals (like an alcoholic who wouldn't get a job in a bar or sell liquor in a liquor store) don't sleep with anyone of the same sex. Don't hang around with others who have the same disposition to homosexuality. Don't take your clothes off in the presence of another person of the same sex. STAY AWAY FROM THIS INFLUENCE! Let's see what our creator says...
The author or all creation, God, says this in the Old Testament; Leviticus 18:12 The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities.
In the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 6:9 it says "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
In short, do everything you can to stay away from this violation of God's plan for us. Peace!

Josh Hill · 1 year ago

David, you clearly misunderstand Darwin's theory of evolution. First point in that it's a "theory"...so is the "theory" of gravity.

To the contrary of what you say, scientists HAVE proven that new species can evolve from current species. An example is a recently published paper where bacteria were observed to evolve a gene to metabolize citrate, which is a speciation event http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn1409....

Furthermore, if you had actually read any of Darwin's works, you would see that he argues that species is arbitrary and a man-made concept. He uses the term "variety", which I feel is more accurate. Over time, a population of organisms changes, and we call these different populations species.

Homosexuals are perfectly capable of having children; there is nothing physically preventing them from doing so. What do you say then about heterosexual individuals who are infertile? Must this also not be inherited? If you had the faintest idea of how genetics works, then you would have understood the post and made a logical comment.

Lastly, hate to break this to you, but the bible was NOT written by god, but rather was written by MEN. In fact, many books, especially in the old Testament, were written by multiple men. Go find a biblical scholar who will argue the contrary. And while we're on this topic, you should also read Deuteronomy 22:11 says "You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together." Do you work on the Sabbath? I think you should go back and read the bible and see what else you're missing...

Andrew Yates · 1 year ago

Josh, David Winer was talking about "Evoluation," which clearly has nothing to do with its common misspelling, "Evolution." I guess there is only so much one can learn during a university molecular biology bachelor's of science. Maybe it would be academically responsible for you to review a Bible sometime and supplement your understanding of Evoluation.

Hk Fashion · 1 month ago

So the likely hood that poor children survive to reproduce is much smaller compared to rich children who are almost guaranteed a chance to survive to reproduce.

Etude House · 4 weeks ago

This subject is also addressed in Scientific American Mind, June/July 2008,p68 and it titled: "Bisexual Species", by Emily Driscoll. Amongst discussion of other animals, the author quotes a researcher in saying that humans should be regarded as bisexual.

เครื่องสำอางเกาหลี · 2 weeks ago

I like how homosexuality is threatening to Darwinian evolutionary models, but traits conducive to civilization: education, wealth, and intelligence, aren't considered threatening despite an obvious inverse correlation with reproductive success.

Oh liberal academic politics. Why do you try so hard to rationalize the gays?

cheap life insurance quotes · 2 weeks ago

All this ant-gay stuff is really creepy. It's indicative of someone who has a enormous investment in keeping their own repressed homosexuality ...well, repressed. I am a Christian and I don't practice this kind of hate and judgement. It's anti-Christian. It's in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It's really unnatural to be this obsessive about judging other people. It's like mental illness, and spiritual sickness combined.. all this judgement of others as if somebody thought the right to judge like they were God.

Wholesale Clothing · 1 week ago

Josh, David Winer was talking about "Evoluation," which clearly has nothing to do with its common misspelling, "Evolution." I guess there is only so much one can learn during a university molecular biology bachelor's of science. Maybe it would be academically responsible for you to review a Bible sometime and supplement your understanding of Evoluation.

Wholesale Clothing · 1 week ago

So the likely hood that poor children survive to reproduce is much smaller compared to rich children who are almost guaranteed a chance to survive to reproduce.

Printable Address Labels · 1 week ago

Well, it's only somewaht recently that wealthier and more educated people had fewer children. Especially in Asian countries, the upper classes had more children. Modern societies are really relatively recent on the human timeline, and such a slight variation in reproduction won't make much of a difference in that short of period. Also, education and wealth aren't really tied to genetics; particularly in the United States, many people who are now wealthy had grandparents that were poor and uneducated. The opposite is also true.