homosexuality disproves evolution

[_The Dude]

I personally haven't seen anything to convince me it's genetic,

See:

http://www.plosone.org/article/information:doi ... ne.0002282
http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/

You think homosexuality cannot be genetic because it would not persist in the human population.

I don't think that.

Please elaborate on your statement "evolution could prove homosexuality not genetic or otherwise inborn." How do you think evolution could prove this? I guess I assumed too much about your reasoning.

It certainly can be a recurring abberation.

Yes, it could also be a recurring aberration, in some cases, but there is also genetic evidence.

...but it does not matter if it is or not [genetic] because of Ether 12:27.

I agree with you that the LDS view of homosexuality is based on scriptural dogma.

[_John Larsen]

If evolution were true, then all predators would be perfectly evolved to catch their prey and all prey would be perfectly evolved to escape. This is not the case. Therefore evolution is false.

[_Mercury]

Because of "ether 12:27"? What a hokey way of looking at life.

You're in the wrong business if you expect LDS to not use answers based in scripture.

Circular reasoning seems like something a logical individual would steer away from.

Serves me right for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[_ajax18]

Here is the problem:

You think homosexuality cannot be genetic because it would not persist in the human population. But the same genes that would seem bad for reproduction when present in homosexuals of one gender could enhance reproduction when present in heterosexuals of the opposite gender. The sum effect determines how well a gene persists in the population. There is evidence for heritable androphilia that affects homosexual behavior in males but enhances child bearing in females.

Dude do you believe that the majority of gay people have no attraction for the opposite gender? What percent of them have strictly same gender attraction?

I'm not knocking your theory. I believe that's possible, but what's wrong with the hypothesis that gay people continue to reproduce because they have opposite gender attraction in addition to same gender attraction? It seems to me that this mechanism could be at work even more than the mechanism you outlined above.

[_The Dude]

Dude do you believe that the majority of gay people have no attraction for the opposite gender? What percent of them have strictly same gender attraction?

In this day and age, if someone comes out of the closet as a homosexual, with all the prejudice that's arrayed against them, it is probably because they really prefer the same sex. Who knows how much they are still attracted to the opposite sex. It probably varies from 0-50%. Yet all of them adopt the homosexual life because it is very important to them. I just don't see how a fraction of residual attraction to the opposite sex can support the preservation of a "gay gene", especially when you consider that they are in competition with heterosexuals who don't have this reproductive difficulty.

...but what's wrong with the hypothesis that gay people continue to reproduce because they have opposite gender attraction in addition to same gender attraction?

The problem is that they prefer the same gender. As such, they cannot win the reproduction competition against people who prefer relationships that produce children.

[_Sethbag]

The problem is that they prefer the same gender. As such, they cannot win the reproduction competition against people who prefer relationships that produce children.

Or perhaps they can win this competition, only just a minority of the time, sort of like the left-hand tail of some distribution of competition results. Would a small minority of gay "wins" in this reproductive competition be enough to sustain a population with maybe 3% gays in it? I don't know, but it's a good question.

I tend more toward the theory you proposed earlier though - that there is something about the gay gene/genes that results in a sum total benefit that exceeds its detriments, and thus it survives.

One thing to think about is that in a lot of species only a small minority of males mate anyhow. Think of the bucks duking it out in the spring time over who gets to mate with the does, or the alpha male lions or wolves or whatever. Or think of beehives, where only an exceedingly small proportion of bees born ever mate at all. In human terms, gay people still contribute to the success of the population by working and contributing to the support of the population. Do they really have to breed in order to justify their existence, from a genetic point of view?

[_The Dude]

I tend more toward the theory you proposed earlier though - that there is something about the gay gene/genes that results in a sum total benefit that exceeds its detriments, and thus it survives.

I think so too. Like the gene for sickle cell anemia also protects from malaria in people who have just one copy. Genes for homosexuality probably have give a benefit in some context, which keeps them stable in the population.

One thing to think about is that in a lot of species only a small minority of males mate anyhow. Think of the bucks duking it out in the spring time over who gets to mate with the does, or the alpha male lions or wolves or whatever. Or think of beehives, where only an exceedingly small proportion of bees born ever mate at all. In human terms, gay people still contribute to the success of the population by working and contributing to the support of the population. Do they really have to breed in order to justify their existence, from a genetic point of view?

That's more of a hand wave, in my opinion, but I have used the ant example in other threads. There could be something to it. Maybe we have more and better marriages because of talented gay wedding planners. Who knows?

[_ajax18]

...but what's wrong with the hypothesis that gay people continue to reproduce because they have opposite gender attraction in addition to same gender attraction?

The problem is that they prefer the same gender. As such, they cannot win the reproduction competition against people who prefer relationships that produce children.

But are we still sort of speaking in absolutes. I'm just trying to get percentages. Won or lost the competition, what does that mean? 51% or 80% of homosexuals find a way to reproduce. Wouldn't you agree that very few things are 100% in biology?

[_ajax18]

Do they really have to breed in order to justify their existence, from a genetic point of view?

Evolutionary fitness is based on viability. For instance Huntington's disease continues to exist in spite of how debilitating it is, yet many other malignant genetic mutations are so short lived we probably don't even name them.

Dude's mechanism is well thought out and probably happens, but how much? I have a hard time believing that this accounts for 90% of homosexuality and homosexuals engaging in heterosexual sex accounts for a very small amount of the gay genes obvious ubiquitous existence. At the very least it appears that we don't know the percentages. I think it's very tempting to choose a mechanism that jives with social and moral thought as opposed to what is actually happening.

[_Danna]

If evolution were true, then all predators would be perfectly evolved to catch their prey and all prey would be perfectly evolved to escape. This is not the case. Therefore evolution is false.