Can someone explain how homosexuality is compatible with evolution?

I stopped reading here, since it's obvious you know about as much about the actual process of evolution as most visitors to the Creation "science" Museum.

By your absurd misrepresentation of evolution, males should no longer have nipples by now.

 

There does not necessarily need to be a "Gay Gene". There are also theories on how it may be an immune response to testosterone (men with many older brothers are more likely to be gay). Of course this is not to say that it still isn't an evolutionary trait, especially when combined with the "Super Uncle" theory as seen in Panzerkampfwagen's quote.

Maybe humans have adapted so that when a woman has many children of the same sex, her body changes so that the chances of a child being gay increases, thus giving her grandchildren an advantage of having an unattached uncle/aunt to help rear them. As you can see, no gene needs to be directly involved in a person being gay, but a gene may be indirectly involved by influencing hormones in the womb.

If this is the case, we will never be able the genetically identify if someone is gay. Of course this raises all kinds of ethical issues since if the chances of your child being gay is caused by the right mix of hormones, then it would be possible for medical science to control those conditions and thus influence a baby's sexual preference either way.

Boy, what a can of worms that would be.

 

Even if it is entirely genetic it's not necessarily heritable. That's not the only option. It could be a minor set of mutations coupled with an environmental trigger. If it were as simple as you propose we would be able to track it like the ability to roll one's tongue.

 

Redheads and geniuses are also aberrations from the norm. But unless you're going to sit in judgement over them as well you should really pick a better argument.

 

While it would be convenient from an argumentative perspective if it turned out to be genetic if it is it's not going to be an easy explanation. That's already been searched for without success. But you're right, I think there is hope that it will turn out to be genetic.

Which is why the other side keeps yelling that it's a choice. They can't very well sit in judgement over the way god chose to make someone, can they? But if it's just a choice, well, we all have to make difficult choices sometimes. I had to sit next to three of them at Bennigans once and I chose not to set them on fire.

 

I knew I was going to like girls when I saw my uncles wife. I was six.
If gender orientation is partly genetic then if must be genes that have
some other funciton but also occasionaly produce homosexuality.
Take sickel cell anemia in Africa for instance. If you get one copy of the gene you are immune to malaria. If you get a copy from both parents you die.
The problem of malaria in Africa is rampant enough that about a 5% prevalance of the sickel cell gene provides enough of an advantage to keep it going.
If the prevelance of sickle genes where miraculously to suddenly become 75%, the trait would rapidly thin it'self out till again the relative advantage of preventing malaria was greater than the danger of getting two copies of the gene.
It could well be something similar is going on with homosexual genetics, assuming there are "homosexual" genes.
Oh, and I'm a guy for any of you wise a*ses out there.

 

There are a fair number of homsexual males in the pro-white dissident movement, even though most straights in our dissident movement detest homosexuality.
I feel it coud well be that homosexuals are in our movement becasue not having families they have time to be political activist.
Not having families, or jobs is why you see a higher percentage of retirees in our movement.
This pretty much dove tails with your "worker bee" theory.

 

Old news, but important nonetheless.

 

Not all forms of human societies suppressed themselves as much as the Judeo\Christian tradition ,In this tradition which I am a unwilling participant,Homosexuality is an issue still!

Sexual orientation determining anything Politically and socially is 'SOCIALLY INAPPROIATE"children in 2012 ,so whats keeping this Human Ignorance of Once upon a time ,CAPITIALISM and its moral decay mainly in the form of TAX EXEMPT CHURCH.And sexually Suppressed God nutters that think the fairy tail that is the Sodom and Ghomorah Fable as having some relivance today.

and we wonder why these morrally backward and decadent fools are bringing their GODS into such disrepute!

 

Or maybe its becuse we are social[as in Socialist by character] primates, that value all its members and don't need money nor god to do it and because we are from Primates ,who are extreme in their SOCIAL behaviours they passed that SURVIVAL trait onto all the sexualities of humanity Inclusive united in the struggle for survival ones anyway ,those "Capitialist Individualist" idiots exist contrary to Human evolution they contain genetic mutation if anyone!.

Hey as we are, presently existing as the most successful form of life on this Planet like for ever" Mamalia untied will never be defeated."[hey ,it was us that kicked dinosuar arse ]F...U reptilia ,thought you had it so good bully Mamalia matey watch out ..And here comes the Homosexual,Bisexual,Hetrosexual HUMAN incusive Social "Community "=UNICULTURAL!

Not that putrid multi-Culturalism and his stinker Fascist monoCulutralist Mate!

 

None of that makes the slightest bit of sense.

 

Maybe, homosexuality, with it's inability to procreate endlessly is PRECISELY what will save the world from overcrowding and destroying itself!

Maybe LIMITING procreation in a "natural" way, such as homosexuality is the best proof of evolution!

We can now achieve with just one machine more than what it took 100 men to accomplish in the past. We do not need to continue to increase our population level. . .and the fact that SOME people (both heterosexual and homosexual couples) choose NOT to have large family may be the best step toward a more balance world population.

 

Many people do not understand the subtleties in evolution.

Sometimes caring for a few children instead of producing as many children as possible will lead to the survival of more children, better able to themselves reproduce and survive. If simply reproducing as much as possible was all this was about, then humans would be more like insects.... breeding and laying thousands of eggs. There is more than one model of reproduction that has taken form over the course of evolution. You can read more about this here, in the concept of "r selected vs K selected species:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

There is also a misconception that there are never tradeoffs in evolution... that evolution is always "progressing". Evolution is not a constant progression towards improvement. It's adaptation to the demands of your given environment, and often involves tradeoffs, or even backwards-movement when the demands for "stronger" traits are diminished. For example, the genetic disease Sickle Cell Anemia is usually considered maladaptive... bad for you, something that should be breed out during the course of evolution. But this disease actually gives protection against Malaria, increasing the likelihood that those with mild forms of Sickle Cell will survive and reproduce.

The trade-offs for homosexuality are pretty mild (from an evolutionary stand point)... Women, traditionally speaking, had little choice in when and with whom they would reproduce.... their sexuality was irrelevant. Even today, women are considered more bisexual than not, so there is generally not a concern for them not reproducing. As for men, men do not produce babies... If you take a population of 50 women and 50 men, and said that 10 of the men would not reproduce.... there would be almost no negative impact on the number of children produced in the next generation. But if 10 women were taken out of the reproduction equation, there would be a direct decline in the number of children produced. The sexuality of men is largely irrelevant, evolutionarily. Further, going back to the "K vs r" selected species theory, having extra men available to provide for the children of their brothers and sisters provides a K-type advantage to those children, giving them an increased chance of survival. The reproductive success of a homosexual's brother's and sisters correspondingly passes on the genes of that homosexual, because at ~50% of the genes the homosexual has are shared with his/her siblings.

Evolution is a complex topic, so it's easy to understand why many are commonly trapped and confused by misconceptions about the topic.

 

Some have suggested it is part of human evolution, to prevent the less fit or lower status males from passing on their genes to the next generation.
The Nature and Causes of Homosexuality: A Philosophic and Scientific Inquiry, Noretta Koertge

 

Indeed, that's one possibility as well. Another theory is that a woman's immune system becomes more effective at "fighting" the male fetus the more male children that they have, sometimes resulting in homosexuality. Indeed there's been studies showing that the more older brothers someone has, the more likely the younger brother will be gay... but the number of older sisters is irrelevant. This wouldn't be directly genetic, but instead a biological process.... in particular, this biological process is not necessarily one that would be breed out because (as explained in my prior post), the reproduction of males is largely irrelevant to population growth. If something doesn't help or hurt a species evolutionarily, it evolutionary processes won't necessarily breed them out.

In any event, the point is that evolution is often over-simplified and misunderstood. There's nothing inherently incompatible with infertility and other disorders with evolution. Evolution has tradeoffs, evolution can often do weird things when an attribute is not inherently damaging or helpful. This produces much of the diversity we see today.

 

I find that hard to believe.
How do you explain the rather important percentage of straight men with homosexual experiences/relationships? Are they all less fit to pass on their genes?

Plus, if you look at gay men, gay culture: it's all about the fit attractive body and their extremely alpha male behaviour can hardly be explained as 'lower status males'. On the contrary.

 

Why (over time) has homosexuality NOT been filtered-out of the human race?

 

This is really the pressing question. If homosexuality is actually a detrimental "disease", it would be the most prevelent genetic disease in the human species. This seems unlikely. There are probably an evolutionary reason, or reasons, for homosexuality, but it is not known with any certainty exactly what these reasons are, although there are many hypotheses.
Another theory is that selective sexual attraction, that can properly differentiate between genders, is such a complicated psychlogical thing that it is difficult for it be completely regulated by a single difference in sexual chromosomes. In other words, males and females are very similar in genetic programing, yet that programing has to tell the individual to be attracted to the opposite sex. In other species, the programming is much more simple because of pheromones, but in humans it involves complex brain differences, and possibly experiences, that are not fully understood. It may be difficult for this programing to always avoid mistakes.

 

There is evidence in the animal kingdom of 1500 different animals of all types that engage in homosexual behavior. Lets just look at whales. For large whales to mate it requires the female be held in position from below. Sometimes bulls will also hold the cow in position from the sides. This means it may take up to 4 bulls to mount one cow. This takes coordination by a group and there is only a limited time the cow is fertile. Bulls have been observed to practice, and they don't practice on a female. Now ask yourself....how could whales evolve to be giant creatures of the sea without homosexual behavior being a vital component. Why would one bull volunteer to be the one to practice on if it didn't feel good or he wasn't driven to do so naturally.

In human population..doesn't it make sense when there is over crowding and low resources that more would be born gay? Isn't that exactly what would help control the population for the group as a whole?

 

This is fairly simple stuff people.

One doesn't have to be a homosexual to pass on the trait. Just like one doesn't have to be a red head to have a red headed child.

Some traits are recessive and only show up when conditions are right, i.e. both parents are carriers of the gene, but neither has the combined genes to activate the trait.

Which does indeed explain how the trait is passed from generation to generation among heterosexual couples who give rise to homosexual offspring.

Furthermore, homosexual do indeed procreate, albeit at a lesser extent.

 

homosexuality ( which could be interpreted as 'non productive') could be the step in evolution designed to bring the human experiment to it's end. There is no reason that I can think of for a species to produce, at such large numbers, members that prefer not to procreate, unless nature has decided that humans were no longer necessary. On to something new and better maybe. Let the species die out. What other reason could there be for homosexuals to exist?

 

Homosexuality is not compatible with evolution. It is a population control mechanism if it is genetic. Thus, the debate as to whether the majority of homosexuality is genetically or environmentally derived. That being said, who said it was compatible with evolution?

 

Various species of insects and ants produce a much, much greater (nearly 100%) proportion of non-reproductive offspring. Reproducing is not the only mechanism by which you can support the passing on of your genetic material, and non-reproductive males (in particular) have almost 0 impact on the reproductive rate of the species overall.... it's female fertility which determins the rate of reproduction.

 

A) Humans aren't insects. B) the insects that do procreate, produce offspring in the thousands at a time. Which compensates for non reproducing members of their species.

 

The question was if non-reproduction was incompatable with evolution, while asking whether or not it is common in mammals is another question, as is asking if it is damaging to the species.The fact that it is uncommon has nothing to do with it being incompatable with evolution. The fact that ants create lots of offspring has little to do with it as well, as this has nothing to do with how genetic material is passed by infertile or non-reproductive offspring. humans reproduce less but have a much higher survival rate. Both of which are different evolutionary strategies, but neither of which have anything to do with how the infertile pass on their geneics. Homosexuality has little to no impact on reproduction rates, as the reproduction of males does not impact said rates, and females have (had) little say in who or when they reproduce... And are less picky in gender than men in general.

And , just to be clear, this strategy is no unique to humans and insects. It is found I any sočal selectors that packs with its own kin. Only do much reproduction is healthy or necessary of a species, and evolutionary strategies that focus in the survival of the offspring rather than the quantity are just as potent.Worst case scenario, homosexuality is a neutral characteristic.