Science: Sperm, Homosexuality and Primordial Soup

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Epoetker:
The 'kin selection' theory of homosexuality was always a form of far too special pleading for me. I happen to like the chimeric theory:

http://www.welmer.org/2008/07/14/the-chimera-hypothesis-homosexuality-and-plural-pregnancy/

This one handily explains homosexuality, its variants, its differing expression in man and woman, and why it remains impervious to evolution-because it's NOT 'genetic' so much as what happens when a man's female twin gets genetically absorbed into the developing brain. This absorption, of course, happens all the time:

http://multiples.about.com/cs/medicalissues/a/vanishingtwin.htm

I'm guessing, however, that it's not as scientifically 'sexy' because it involves the unspoken assumption of: 'You're gay? KILL THE GAY GUY HE ATE HIS SISTER IN THE WOMB!!!'

However, since it both jibes with twin studies and handily explains why it would be evolutionarily selected for (i.e., a woman who has more twins is more evolutionarily successful, but more likely to have gay children occasionally,) I submit it whenever I hear about this silly photogenic family-and-marketing-friendly 'kin selection' business. Truths are usually ugly, harsh and disturbing, thank you very much.

Thanks for the link - reading it now. It's fascinating.

Lauren Admire:

Epoetker:
The 'kin selection' theory of homosexuality was always a form of far too special pleading for me. I happen to like the chimeric theory:

http://www.welmer.org/2008/07/14/the-chimera-hypothesis-homosexuality-and-plural-pregnancy/

This one handily explains homosexuality, its variants, its differing expression in man and woman, and why it remains impervious to evolution-because it's NOT 'genetic' so much as what happens when a man's female twin gets genetically absorbed into the developing brain. This absorption, of course, happens all the time:

http://multiples.about.com/cs/medicalissues/a/vanishingtwin.htm

I'm guessing, however, that it's not as scientifically 'sexy' because it involves the unspoken assumption of: 'You're gay? KILL THE GAY GUY HE ATE HIS SISTER IN THE WOMB!!!'

However, since it both jibes with twin studies and handily explains why it would be evolutionarily selected for (i.e., a woman who has more twins is more evolutionarily successful, but more likely to have gay children occasionally,) I submit it whenever I hear about this silly photogenic family-and-marketing-friendly 'kin selection' business. Truths are usually ugly, harsh and disturbing, thank you very much.

Thanks for the link - reading it now. It's fascinating.

I don't see it, frankly.

My field being communication, I have no problem accepting a multiple origin for homosexuality. All taste is culturally reinforced while having evolutionary roots. We like sweets because our body needs sugar, but how much each individual likes sweets is something very variable and is altered by a number of environmental and biological influences. There are areas where wine is more popular than beer and viceversa. Stuff like that.

Sexual preference is likely to work in a similar way. Most people are heterosexual, which makes evolutionary sense and is probably coded into the brain. Some people, however, are homosexual. Some cultures and societies can encourage homosexuality more than others, but it's likely that the trend will always be to have a majority of heterosexuals and at least some homosexuals, no matter how much they are repressed.

If we had assigned a moral value to liking fish we would be making these same questions. Why do people like fish? Why don't some people like fish? Liking fish seems like an evolutionary advantage, since it increases the variety and amount of available food, so what sense does it make for some people to not like fish? Is it a chemical imbalance? Is it a deformity of the brain? Do people choose to like fish or are they born fish-eaters? Can you teach somebody to like fish?

We have assigned this moral charge randomly (well, not randomly, sex is a pretty common taboo which, again, makes evolutionary sense for biological reasons but does not apply to 100% of the population), and the research we make on it is morally tinted, even if it's not anti-gay. The best move that can be done is moving the concern out of the spotlight until it is normalized. Let people in 200 years who don't pay much attention at sexual tendencies research how sexual drive and preference is originated. And why we like fish.

(the article makes no mention of female homosexuality)

There are no problems with it because it is HAWT.

Seriously, though, great article. I'm not sure what future researches will have to tell us about homosexuality, and I'd heard that theory before, but it seems more like a way for evolution to counterbalance the fact that the person is homosexual rather than an explanation of it, since all in all just having the children is a much simpler way to carry on your genes.

First life actually evolving from non-life sounds pretty awesome. Strange that nowadays scientists find life in those very vents and are all like 'wow, life can actually happen here!'

The quantum plants just shows nature is much weirder than we thought.

...so what, homosexuals are the suckers of evolution? Raising someone else's kids to pass on someone else's genes?

Female homosexuality is a choice. Male homosexuality is an orientation. See 'Why Lesbians aren't Gay:'

http://www.isteve.com/lesvsgay.htm

Don't forget that plants, like a vast majority of things in this universe follows the Fibonacci sequence. That is, 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55 etc etc, plants especially with their petals, and flowers. That's why the center of flowers have these awesome spiral patterns.

Explaining the world, human nature and everything in between via a theory that has never been proven (and cannot currently logically exist). And evolutionists HONESTLY call others ignorant and closed minded? Science Daily and the like obviously have nothing to do with Science, just stupid assumptions based on their own warped point of views.
Not only that, but they try to justify the whole existance of something (in this case male Homosexuality) by one example. True Science!

So you have here a whole article (and a whole website) that is bases itself on opinion that comes from an unconfirmed theory, then creates a one-sided article based on one situation (which for all we know could be anomaly).

I think a new word needs to be created for 'science' since this one has obvious lost all meaning amongst all the non-science. Because opinionated BS like this is far from what the originating/true Sciencists intented.

Explaining the world, human nature and everything in between via a theory that has never been proven (and cannot currently logically exist). And evolutionists HONESTLY call others ignorant and closed minded? Science Daily and the like obviously have nothing to do with Science, just stupid assumptions based on their own warped point of views.

You've got it wrong. Evolution is like big-C Capitalism: It's always a factor, but many people seek to make it the be-all and end-all philosophy of its field.

For instance, I could read an explanation that The Invisible Hand Of The Market was responsible for the outbreak of World War 1 and probably not be too disturbed(depending on my knowledge of WW1, of course,) but if you tell me that it was responsible for the creation of America and the American system, I'd probably beg very much to differ, and start pleading intelligent design. There was NO purely economic pathway to victory in the creation of America, where unpaid militiamen fought against regulars, rich men staked their entire fortunes on the success of the enterprise, and the entire financial system almost collapsed several times.

Similarly, I can read any number of ill-to-well-informed explanations on how Random Mutation and Natural Selection was responsible for certain features of life as we know it today, but when you throw it in as an explanation for the origin of life, I tend to go with Francis Crick and say naw, it's probably intelligent design.

In both cases, one of the prime evidences for this beyond the ridiculous levels of complexity for the initial processes (which are ALL eventually predictable) to overcome is the fact that the created system is specifically set up to take advantage of the process-the Constitution and its organization of government in America, the increasing hydrophobicity effect and probably several more undiscovered core biological processes specifically meant to take advantage of intrinsic mutation rates.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here