homosexuality disproves evolution

[_The Dude]

But are we still sort of speaking in absolutes.

You brought up the absolutes, not me:

"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 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?

I don't know the exact numbers and it doesn't really matter. A gene that reduces the reproductive success of its carriers will shrink and vanish. The more it reduces, the faster it disappears. (All other things being equal.) You can dither about 5% or 50% of homosexuals having the same reproductive success as the average heterosexual, but if you multiply that number (whatever it is) over all the generations since the Roman bathhouses I expect we wouldn't still be at 3% homosexuality. That's why a mechanism like the one I mentioned earlier is necessary.

I think it's very tempting to choose a mechanism that jives with social and moral thought as opposed to what is actually happening.

Was that supposed to sound condescending? *So why don't you tell us why you have a hard time believing what I'm saying, and why you are so tempted to stick with your mechanism?* Also, you might want to look at the paper I linked for BCspace in an earlier post, because I'm not making this up myself. There is evidence for it.

[_Danna]

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.

Given the Dude's mechanism (best name I have heard for it yet) the gay people themselves need not breed at all. But their sisters breed a lot.

Right now my oldest child (known as The Pest) is spending a few days with his gay uncle. Everybody's favorite uncle as he has heaps of time and resources to give to his nephews and nieces. From an evolutionary point of view, a matrilocal hunter/gatherer family with very fertile females, would benefit from producing a certain percentage of non-reproducing males who assist in the support of their sister's children. This ties in well with what we know about gay males being more likely to be younger sons in large families.

[_ajax18]

You brought up the absolutes, not me:

Fair enough, I'm not trying to win an argument, it was just a doubt I had about the assertion.

A gene that reduces the reproductive success of its carriers will shrink and vanish.

So wouldn't the gay mechanism you proposed be in competition with the commonly known heterosexual mechanism? Why wouldn't all people eventually end up a little gay or not gay at all. How do you explain people who have no same gender attraction?

And just to be clear for the record. This mechanism maintains that all gay people are the result of sisters reproducing a lot. Little to none of the gay people around today are due to gays engaging in heterosexual sex, correct? My question then is why do gays engage in heterosexual sex? Why is it that prison or the military seems to incite homosexual behavior in individuals who otherwise would not engage in such behavior? Why do gays have such a desire to pass on their own genes if they're in fact genetically cut out for caring for relatives?

Was that supposed to sound condescending?

No it wasn't. I was just stating a potential motive to skew the interpretation of the reserach.

One other quick question. Is there a genetic link to homophobia. For instance, if a man were to approach me, I would probably get irate as a knee jerk reflex. By most definition, I would be a homophobe. I personally believe this is a genetic linked reaction. I don't believe it to be environmental. Wouldn't being tolerant of homosexual behavior increase human survival? So why aren't people naturally tolerant?

[_The Dude]

Why wouldn't all people eventually end up a little gay or not gay at all. How do you explain people who have no same gender attraction?

Why don't all people carry the gene for sickle cell anemia, since it protects from malaria? Well, because it also has a downside. Therefore, it persists in a sort of equilibrium with both benefits and detriments depending on the context. Same for the hypothetical gay gene(s).

And just to be clear for the record. This mechanism maintains that all gay people are the result of sisters reproducing a lot.

All? Not necessarily. It's not a theory for all gayness. There could be other mechanisms, especially sociological triggers, but the mechanism you are suggesting doesn't seem to have the right features to even work on paper, i.e. it doesn't provide an "up side" to keep the gay genes from dwindling to nothing over generations.

I'm not saying homosexuals don't have children, because of course they sometimes do. Especially it happens before they appreciate the homosexual aspect of themselves.

My question then is why do gays engage in heterosexual sex?

It's not a theory for all gayness.

Why is it that prison or the military seems to incite homosexual behavior in individuals who otherwise would not engage in such behavior?

It's not a theory for all gayness.

Why do gays have such a desire to pass on their own genes if they're in fact genetically cut out for caring for relatives?

I don't understand your question, and anyway, it's not a theory for all gayness.

Listen, just because some peripheral questions are left unanswered doesn't mean a hypothesis or theory is necessarily wrong.

One other quick question. Is there a genetic link to homophobia....

I think homophobia is poorly defined, and maybe not even a real thing.

[_ajax18]

I appreciate your response Dude. It's nice to have a resident brilliant biochemist. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Honestly I meant no disrespect. Sometimes arguing with a smarter person is a very quick and dirty way to learn and I appreciate you tolerating that for my benefit.

The sickle cell phenomena seemed amazing to me. Do you think the gay gene would have a heterozygous effect just like Ss (S being normal shape, s being sickle) in sickle cell anemia makes one more resistant to malaria than SS, while ss individuals aren't viable because they die before age 5.

Many people assume they understand because they probably had insomnia at some point as well and mistakenly assume that all insomnia is of the same severity and of the same etiology. "You brought it on yourself." The same can be said for allergies. We've all had allergies once in a while, but how bad and how long?

So how much of homosexual behavior is a choice, what are the different etiologies of homosexuality, what are the different types of gayness and how do they differ? I think we have a tendency to look at your well thought out and more than likely true theory and assume that means it applies to all types of gayness and every person who engages in homosexual behavior. Wouldn't it be wise to apply the disclaimer that this doesn't explain all types of gayness?