Can someone explain how homosexuality is compatible with evolution?

Evolution states that random mutations which do not benefit the survival of the species get weeded out. If the “born this way” argument is correct and homosexuality is a genetic creation, then why does it continue to occur? A mutation that causes the species not to procreate should theoretically be weeded out of existence in the first generation. Yet we are not seeing a diminishing of homosexuality. If anything, it appears to be growing. Anyone care to explain this?

 

There a quite a few genetic mutations that occur in nature and continue to propagate themselves past the first generation.

Oh snap.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggl5ZGaJFFM"]Homosexuality In Nature - YouTube[/ame]

 

Evolution never stands still, it is constantly probing, presenting new characteristics to the process of natural selection. Homosexuality is nature`s way of saying "oops, stop the bus, not going there".

 

So theoretically it should disappear eventually, correct?

Rather odd that it would have been around this long already, though, considering that it is not a new phenomenon and the only way to pass it on genetically would be to transgress the mutation by heterosexual mating.

 

Not odd at all, I didn`t say that homosexuals could breed, quite the opposite. It`s nature`s "cancel experiment" button. Every living thing on the planet is a unique genetic experiment, varying slightly with each generation, natural selection takes carte of the rest. Homosexuality is simply nature`s way of ending selected "experiments", no big deal.

Homosexuals, are just people whom nature has stopped from breeding, at least they don`t add to the massive human overpopulation problem.

 

No, I get that part. What I meant was that this particular mutation has been around for quite some time in human history and it still seems to be frequently occurring. Not sure how long it would typically take such a mutation to weed itself out, but considering the fact that this particular mutation causes lack of reproduction, it seems like one that would be weeded out quite quickly since it is considerably less likely to be passed on hereditarily through a recessive gene. Thus the predominant way for it to occur would have to be through independent mutation in new individuals.

 

Is the point your trying to make that homosexuality is a choice rather than biological?

 

I was actually having this same conversation with a biology/genetics major the other day. He basically theorized (along with alot of other stuff that goes WAY over my head) that the homosexuality "gene" could be activated as a form of population control. He said nature has a tenacity to try to correct itself.

He also went on to say that stress while in the womb can release a certain type of hormone into the fetus that can make one more prone to being homosexual.

So basically: Either nature is trying to stop us from reproducing so quickly or our pregnant women are stressed either by environmental factors (pollution, genetically modified food, preservatives in food) or stressed by external factors (work, stress, spouse, finances, ect)

He did go on to say that the vast majority of his class (and his two professors) believed that homosexuality is not a decision made by the individual and thus cannot be "treated".
It's really strange how we know so much about human physiology but we know almost nothing about human sexuality. Everything is just a theory.

 

Why do other birth oddities happen? Why are people still born with or without things? Mutations are random.

 

Homosexuality is just a natural control device, limiting evolutionary genetic exploration within viable boundaries. We know that all life forms on the planet are constantly exploring new options, this is the corner stone of evolution. Nature has simply provided a desexing solution to terminate selected bloodlines. It`s a natural safety device, it`s embeded in all complex life forms.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19217058/Homosexuality-Evolutionary-Cul-de-Sac

 

Correct me if I'm wrong...but aren't heterosexuals giving birth to homosexuals?

Makes sense then that homosexuality could be evolutions natural population control device.

 

I've always thought this. I don't believe it's genetic per se, but I believe there are biological/womb-based reasons. For example, studies have shown that the more boys a woman gives birth to, the more likely they are to be gay.

 

After all, overpopulation can be almost as threatenening to a species/ecosystems as underpopulation. A small yet proportional number of homosexuals in a population would be a fairly effective way of controlling it.

 

No. In fact, I've gone on record several times on this forum stating that homosexuality cannot be a choice because no attraction is a choice. But that does not necessarily make it genetic either since some attractions can be triggered or conditioned. And if the argument is to be made that homosexuality is genetic, I was curious how it works in conjunction with evolution since at first glance, the two seem to contradict one another.

 

I've considered this as well, and it definitely makes sense on one level. But what is curious is that HIV, while by no means exclusive to homosexuals, is more prevalent in the homosexual community because it is most easily spread through common homosexual activity. Seems a little odd that if homosexuality was nature's idea of population control that it would also create a virus that would put this population control experiment in a higher risk bracket for extinction than the general heterosexual population. Seems counterproductive.

 

Nature isn't "aware" that many gay people have anal sex, the biggest risk factor for HIV (whether between men or women). And HIV would help, not hinder the goal of population control if you think about it.

 

I disagree. Nature designed them as homosexual, not asexual or genderless. Had they been born without sex organs, that would be one thing. But the sexual component is still there. The attraction is simply toward the same sex. So obviously nature knows that sexual behavior will occur.

 

I would understand this logic if it only effected homosexuals but it does not, HIV also affects more African Americans than it does white homosexuals. The reason it is more prevalent in the gay community is because the lack of potential pregnancy (the main reason heterosexuals use condoms). It is also much easier for a gay man to go out and find a one night stand than it is for a heterosexual man; could you imagine if all women were as horny (and physically arousable instead of emotionally) as men? We would have a population in the trillions!

 

See that would seem a contradiction till you mull it over more.

HIV evolved to fit into its niche better. In other words it has evolved to be spread through fluids, sexual or blood. Seeing as homosexual couples don't have to worry about pregnancy, they are less likely to use protection. Sadly that has lead to a very rapid spread of the disease.

 

Possibly a few reasons.

One is that maybe most homosexuals were actually bisexual. Because they were seen as homosexual by the men of the tribe they were left to defend the women because they could be trusted to be alone with them since they were homosexual. WRONG! When the hunters were away the bisexuals would play.


Another is that maybe homosexuality is a modern thing (not modern as in today, but not found in very prehistoric times often). Due to modern influences a gene which did something in the past now makes you homosexual if it gets expressed with modern influences.


And another is that it created men who was still men (strong, etc) but were not competition to your others sons and thus helped them in their survival, like how worker ants and bees don't breed but they still help out and are selected for.

 

Blind watchmaker.

 

What shows this report about the homosexuality of animals? I would say: "nothing". I'm convinced that no animal would allow another animal to misuse the intestinal tract for anal sex. And if we speak about human [homo-]sexuality then we do normaly not think about mistakes or the normal tenderness between men or between woman. And tenderness between men and women is also not automatically sex.

Two simple reasons why homsexuality under human beings could exist: (1) homosexuals have children or (2) in every human being is existing a hidden disposition for homosexual behavior what could become activated from social cues.

http://youtu.be/R_I-ZDv9IMA

 

Homosexuality is not a mutation, it is a chemical imbalance. Evolution would not have any more effect on it than it would the imbalance that causes other mental abnormalities.

 

You cannot prove the above.

 

You can't prove that it's not either.....But there have been several studies that suggest that it is....So it's a sound theory.