Homosexuality and Evolution

[Flippypie]

Hi all!
I'm really sorry if this is in the wrong place, because i'm new to this website.
Let me just get to the point then...

I think that if homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait, like most people believe, then it might be a major point against evolution. Of course, it might not be at all (which is why I wan't to debate about it).

I also think that if evolution is real (please don't tell me to stop being so ignorant, because I know that I am) then it might disprove the fact that homosexuality is genetically inherited and instead a choice someone makes (sue me).

My point is, if you agree with evolution and believe that homosexuality is genetically inherited, explain to me how they could work in tandem.


Please don't call me names like "Homophobe" (I'm not at all scared or disgusted by gay people) "Bigot" (I really want to hear your opinion) or "Ignorant" (I've covered that already). I won't call you names, you won't call me names. []YES []NO

P.S. Please don't insult what I believe in either. I just want to have a friendly conversation.

 

[SomeRandom]

How would a trait which (for a lack of a better word) affects roughly 3-5% of the population do anything to reduce or increase the survivability of the human species?
If anything the effect would be rather indifferent in the long run.
Not every single solitary trait in the animal kingdom fall perfectly into either the "advantageous" or "detrimental" camp. Some things just exist and that's all.

I mean one could argue that Wisdom Teeth are far more detrimental. Because they stop people from eating solid food until they get said teeth pulled. If it weren't for dentists, how many people would have died or become weaker due to wisdom teeth over the years?
No one is claiming that Wisdom Teeth are "against" evolution, though.

I'm not very versed in genetics, but isn't it a sort of pool thing? Like if your aunt is gay so therefore they give you the "gene" through their blood sibling or something? It's all very complicated, so I can't help you there.

 

[Flippypie]

How would a trait which (for a lack of a better word) affects roughly 3-5% of the population do anything to reduce or increase the survivability of the human species?
If anything the effect would be rather indifferent in the long run.
Not every single solitary trait in the animal kingdom fall perfectly into either the "advantageous" or "detrimental" camp. Some things just exist and that's all.

I mean one could argue that Wisdom Teeth are far more detrimental. Because they stop people from eating solid food until they get said teeth pulled. If it weren't for dentists, how many people would have died or become weaker due to wisdom teeth over the years?
No one is claiming that Wisdom Teeth are "against" evolution, though.

Of course, homosexuality doesn't affect the survivability of the human species. What I'm wondering is how genes which cause someone to be gay could ever last, because homosexuality usually means that those genes won't be passed on.

 

[SomeRandom]

Of course, homosexuality doesn't affect the survivability of the human species. What I'm wondering is how genes which cause someone to be gay could ever last, because homosexuality usually means that those genes won't be passed on.

Not really. Being gay doesn't magically turn off the instinct to reproduce.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Of course, homosexuality doesn't affect the survivability of the human species. What I'm wondering is how genes which cause someone to be gay could ever last, because homosexuality usually means that those genes won't be passed on.

Hi obviously the gene is default present in the dna , so is a trigger ?

 

[Corthos]

Hi all!
I'm really sorry if this is in the wrong place, because i'm new to this website.
Let me just get to the point then...

I think that if homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait, like most people believe, then it might be a major point against evolution. Of course, it might not be at all (which is why I wan't to debate about it).

I also think that if evolution is real (please don't tell me to stop being so ignorant, because I know that I am) then it might disprove the fact that homosexuality is genetically inherited and instead a choice someone makes (sue me).

My point is, if you agree with evolution and believe that homosexuality is genetically inherited, explain to me how they could work in tandem.


Please don't call me names like "Homophobe" (I'm not at all scared or disgusted by gay people) "Bigot" (I really want to hear your opinion) or "Ignorant" (I've covered that already). I won't call you names, you won't call me names. []YES []NO

P.S. Please don't insult what I believe in either. I just want to have a friendly conversation.

Firstly, I'd like to say Ushta, and welcome to the forums! =)

Now for my opinion, please keep in mind that I am ignorant as well. I grew up in a Christian setting, and had to educate myself as best as I could about evolution (Christian homeschooling only really taught creationism).

There are several theories out there on the subject that others will be very knowledgeable about as far as homosexuality and evolution is concerned, but first I'd like to address something... It seems that you are under the impression that necessary traits are the only ones passed down via evolution. Now, I'd argue that homosexuality must have some evolutionary use/advantage (as it's observed in a wide array of animals as well as humans with great frequency), but even if it didn't, that doesn't mean it isn't part of someone's genetic makeup. =)

There are several parts of the human body that are genetic leftovers of evolution; parts that were useful at one time, but aren't any more (which we still have). Our wisdom teeth, third eyelid (plica semilunaris), and appendix come to mind. When things are no longer useful to evolutionary progression, they don't always just go away... Sometimes they stick around.

I'm wondering, though... Do you feel that homosexuality is a direct genetic trait that's passed on, similar to something like high blood pressure or diabetes? I can't say I've ever heard of families being more or less likely to be homosexual, as it seems to manifest randomly (as it does with animals in nature).

 

[Flippypie]

Not really. Being gay doesn't magically turn off the instinct to reproduce.

But it definitely does damper it. That's why I said usually. There has been a long history of closet gays forcing themselves to marry the opposite gender due to the world's aversion to homosexuality, and that would definitely continue on the gene.

Now that I think about it, maybe that's the reason homosexuality is still around. Is it possible that as more and more people come out and it becomes more prevalent, the need to force themselves to be heterosexual will also diminish, actually leading to a decrease in homosexuality?

 

[Flippypie]

I'm wondering, though... Do you feel that homosexuality is a direct genetic trait that's passed on, similar to something like high blood pressure or diabetes? I can't say I've ever heard of families being more or less likely to be homosexual, as it seems to manifest randomly (as it does with animals in nature).

Personally I have no idea. I lean towards the side of it being a choice, though, due to my beliefs (he didn't make us hardwired to oppose him, he made us hardwired to have the ability to oppose him). The other side is definitely plausible though.

 

[SomeRandom]

But it definitely does damper it. That's why I said usually. There has been a long history of closet gays forcing themselves to marry the opposite gender due to the world's aversion to homosexuality, and that would definitely continue on the gene.

Now that I think about it, maybe that's the reason homosexuality is still around. Is it possible that as more and more people come out and it becomes more prevalent, the need to force themselves to be heterosexual will also diminish, actually leading to a decrease in homosexuality?

Well first off, you don't need to have gay parents to be born gay. I mean the vast majority of gay people are born to heterosexual parents. But the genes could be present in their family trees regardless. From aunts, uncles and the like, which is shared by their heterosexual siblings who then pass it onto their progeny. The so called "gay gene" is a product of many different genetic factors, which can be passed on indirectly. If you get me?
Secondly, the amount of gay people has stayed roughly the same. This is in spite of many different cultures with a varying range of "acceptability" towards gay people. So I don't see it "dying out" anytime soon.
And thirdly, surrogacy has existed for thousands of years. It's not unreasonable to assume that gay people have fathered or mothered children directly and do so to this day, whether or not they have done so out of familiar/societal pressure is another story.

But like I said, I'm not very well versed in genetics. But not everything in nature has to be beneficial or detrimental. I mean I am "double jointed." Which is essentially a useless trait in evolution.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Homosexuality of course has a arguable clear benefit within evolution, and that's the taking in and rearing of children without parents, or whose parents are otherwise unable. This is an evolutionary benefit, but consider that things in evolution do not need a benefit. Evolution is quite a blind process as regards an intelligent force, as a theist might hold is behind everything.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I think there can be little doubt that homosexuality arises naturally within the evolutionary process when you consider that it occurs in virtually every mammalian species. It occurs in every primate species, including our own.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Of course, homosexuality doesn't affect the survivability of the human species. What I'm wondering is how genes which cause someone to be gay could ever last, because homosexuality usually means that those genes won't be passed on.

Have you considered that it could be a way in which the genes from the mother and father go together into the new person? There are gay siblings, that is- documented cases were more than one of the children are homosexual. This suggests something pertaining to the parents.

 

[Flippypie]

Well first off, you don't need to have gay parents to be born gay. I mean the vast majority of gay people are born to heterosexual parents. But the genes could be present in their family trees. From aunts, uncles and the like, which is shared by their heterosexual siblings who pass it onto their progeny. The so called "gay gene" is a product of many different genetic factors, which can be passed on indirectly. If you get me?
Secondly, the amount of gay people has stayed roughly the same.

The amount of gay people has definitely stayed the same, but given what I said earlier isn't it possible that homosexuality will decline?

After multiple generations without homosexuality showing up in a family tree, won't the chance of a gay child being born to heterosexual parents decline? Of course it would take a lot of time, but that's just evolution right?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The amount of gay people has definitely stayed the same, but given what I said earlier isn't it possible that homosexuality will decline?

After multiple generations without homosexuality showing up in a family tree, won't the chance of a gay child being born to heterosexual parents decline? Of course it would take a lot of time, but that's just evolution right?

You seem to presume that homosexuality is able to be narrowed down to a single gene, rather than being the result of one's entire makeup. Who knows? It may even be that homosexuality is a vestigial trait going so far back we're talking microscopic lifeforms, before there was gender in more complex life.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

My wisdom teeth perfect working order great for smashing nuts , third eyelid , carries the tear ducts like a headlight washer system and stops stuff getting round the back , my dog can get things in his eye , a grass seed or some other bits bothers me more than him , fckn really super clever random mutations to make an eye that's actually works , then to randomly connect to the brain , and time makes it possible an if you ask me evolution a broken science anyway with all the damn nuclear radiation floating about a zero dose is to much ,damn this monster evolution has the power of god why did evolution take form when it could of chosen not to, what was there to see ?
Appendix still in there as well full of Good bacteria

 

[Flippypie]

I think there can be little doubt that homosexuality arises naturally within the evolutionary process when you consider that it occurs in virtually every mammalian species. It occurs in every primate species, including our own.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Bisexuality is what most reported cases of animal homosexual relations are. Monkey species have usually have homosexual relations to induce pleasure, or because there aren't any females around. There's a ton of other cases as well. In fact, in these species homosexual relations are (almost always) a social norm only. When they really get down to business they work to preserve the species by producing offspring by mating with the opposite gender.

 

[SomeRandom]

The amount of gay people has definitely stayed the same, but given what I said earlier isn't it possible that homosexuality will decline?

After multiple generations without homosexuality showing up in a family tree, won't the chance of a gay child being born to heterosexual parents decline? Of course it would take a lot of time, but that's just evolution right?

If it's down to a single gene, maybe. I don't think it is. I mean epigenetics and all that, right?
There are all sorts of genetic factors that make up homosexuality, right? So even if some of them start to dissipate among the species, you still have other factors hanging around anyway. So I don't think there will be much of a change to the overall population of gay people.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Bisexuality is what most reported cases of animal homosexual relations are. Monkey species have usually have homosexual relations to induce pleasure, or because there aren't any females around. There's a ton of other cases as well. In fact, in these species homosexual relations are (almost always) a social norm only. When they really get down to business they work to preserve the species by producing offspring by mating with the opposite gender.

Actually birds have a high rate of homosexual (exclusive) behavior. Even have gay parenting.
Bonobos are completely bisexual and are a matriarchal (female led) species. They sort out fights with sex rather than violence. So you could argue that they do better than our heterosexual preferring species.
And homosexuality might actually be a beneficial survival strategy in order to protect the children.
Like having a bunch of back up mums and dads should anything happen to the biological parents. Therefore homosexuality would actually be something that preserves the species by promoting the protection and nurturing of the offspring.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Homosexuality being genetic and it being a choice aren't the only two options. Science doesn't know why people are attracted to whatever/whoever they're attracted to. You can't choose who you're attracted to, but I highly doubt that homosexuality is genetic. Genes probably play some sort of part, but sexuality is way more complicated and nebulous than that.

 

[Flippypie]

I'm incredibly not knowledgable about genetics, so forgive me if what I'm about to say is completely false

Traits that do not help the survival of the species will dissipate given enough time. The pancreas, wisdom teeth, and third eyelid do not help the survival of the species, so why are they still present?

They haven't been given enough time.

I understand that homosexuality can benefit species in certain cases, but given enough time won't it dissipate as well like the above mentioned body parts? This also allows for the understanding that homosexuality is a combo of different genes, because given enough time couldn't they all disappear?