Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on November 27, 2011 at 2:30am

Why would you think that it does not make evolutionary sense?  There isn't any particular reason to believe that it doesn't.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewal on November 27, 2011 at 8:47am

Well it doesn't "make evolutionary sense" because it doesn't serve a purpose. Evolutionary mutations are supposed to have a purpose. It would make more sense to people if it had a clear evolutionary purpose. If anything it only serves to cull population growth, so... not exactly useful to the survival of our species.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Peterson on November 27, 2011 at 9:19am

Well, some would argue that reducing the population is key to our species survival.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewal on November 27, 2011 at 2:08pm

Ha, I have secretly held that theory as my own for some time now. I know there's a lot of "overpopulation is a myth" nonsense out there, but the fact of the matter is while the planet may not become overpopulated, the cities (where most people live these days) undoubtedly, irrefutably, inevitably will, and that's going to affect our quality of life. And we're going to have to adapt to that. Whether or not we'd do so on a genetic level though... it's a hurdle.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Peterson on November 27, 2011 at 2:32pm

I've been doing some more reading about this topic this morning, it seems that in studies, increasing the population density of rat populations increased the frequency  of homosexuality amongst them.

Basically we are all creatures, and we like to get off? I need to read more into this, but it does seem that LGBT is more concentrated in populated areas... more to follow

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on November 27, 2011 at 2:42pm

That would be harder to track in current human populations.

• the actual incidence rate of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism are unknown
• metro areas tend to be more liberal and/ or diverse, making them easier places for people who live there to come out, and people who don't live there to relocate

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on November 27, 2011 at 2:14pm

Evolutionary traits are not supposed to serve a purpose.  Categorically, they aren't supposed to do anything.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lewal on November 27, 2011 at 3:33pm

I mean you'd expect them to. Given that most of them do. In the sense that they've contributed to our current state of being, categorically, human. My brain just told me that this is getting semantic and that I should stop before I turn into a douchetool. I'm inclined to heed the whims of brains.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on November 27, 2011 at 3:42pm

It's not just semantics.  It's simply not true that a given trait or expression must be beneficial in order to propagate or occur with a given frequency within a species.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on November 28, 2011 at 12:51pm

Sometimes, that "purpose" is not easily perceived.  You must remember that evolution deals with populations.  Also, genetic traits are not typically a la carte, but rather part of a larger batch of genes.  So, an inhereted allele might be evolutionary advantageous overall, while doing a disservice (in the evolutionary sense) to some individuals that carry it (think sickle cell anemia and malaria resistence).

 

The best hypothesis I have seen on homosexuality suggests that the genetics behind this preference has a greater evolutionary "purpose" in heterosexual female relatives of gay men by way of increased fertility.  If this is true, it easily explains why homosexuality persists in populations; because the overall genetic effect is advantageous.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by phillydrifter on November 27, 2011 at 4:43am

There's an Advisor response in a fairly recent Playboy where he -- being the advisor -- refers to one guy's theory that goes with a scale from 0-6 or 1-6. But Watch History of the world, it used to be socially acceptable to have sex with everyone, some of the questionably sick holidays that the RCC commandeered when they went full-retard, there were statues of penises everywhere around greek and roman empires it wasn't until the faux purity of enjoying and therefore encouraging sex.

 

Yeah I think it does, it makes perfect sense because between me and you I haven't gotten any sex in a fairly long time and it'd be nice if i could find some guy except i'm evolved to the point that i don't want to have sex with another dick... unless it's a woman's toy, which has been blatantly shown to me by more than one of my previous girlfriends. it was pretty cool. :-D

 

There's a lot of social conditioning going on. Animals have gay sex with each other when possible, dogs hump everything. it's a lot more socially acceptable for women to be bisexual because, well, who doesn't want to watch two lesbians make out? Except for those conservative clowns who think it's by choice and they're going to hell and all that religious bullshit, and they're scared.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by phillydrifter on November 27, 2011 at 4:47am

i mean the faux purity instilled by the catholic church being endorsed by ... Constantine, because they used guilt as a motivator. Don't have sex, dont have impure thoughts, and then as they rose out of the middle east spread into europe and mixes with *those* indiginous peoples, the proto germans, slavics, poles, italians, spanish/portuguese etc and they conquered by force and fear and repentence and giving your stuff for indulgences and for hundreds of years they defaced pantings of nude bodies, mona lisa was originally nude, so ... the time in history when religion ruled the known planet, we call that the dark ages. Set us back probably a thousand years in scientific research, which I guess didn't start til the 1700s maybe, with newton and stuff.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page