Why are some humans evolving faster than others?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't know how you possibly could have misread my post so badly as to come to that conclusion. Nobody "becomes straight," but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who fake it really well for the sake of fitting in with a society that would otherwise reject them. Look at all the married with children politicians being caught in homosexual, extramarital relationships...they just have to go through the mechanics of the process enough times to have a kid while otherwise living with your opposite-sexed "roommate" who is nothing more than a friend to you. You also seem to have ENTIRELY overlooked the more important points, which were the first two in my list...recessive alleles and multiple allelic traits. If there is, for example, a recessive gene for homosexuality, and a heterozygous male, as a completely hypothetical example since we don't know what genes might be involved, either shows no effect of the gene, or if there is incomplete penetrance of the gene such that the heterozygous male is perhaps a more nurturing father than one who is homozygous for the "straight" allele, then there is even a chance there's a selection FOR that gene. More likely, it's a whole bunch of different genes, which means anyone of them can get passed along with little or no effect, and only when several of them wind up expressed in one individual do you have an effect on sexual preference.

If you set up a model with societal factors, homosexuality would be removed from the gene pool fairly rapidly. Thus my point. Even with a multitude of factors, given enough time they would be self terminating. And there doesn't seem to be any reason for these genes to exist in the first place. I'd be tempted to say that it's a bit of a coincidence that several favourable genes could all come together to produce homosexuality when there are millions of more viable models in the animal kingdom, which is why I tend to dismiss that idea.

Yes of course it's a whole lot of factors and apologies for missing your point, but it still doesn't really explain anything.

There was some suggestion that uncles may have a supportive roll on the families but this was ruled out by studies because it found gay uncles were no more likely to be good uncles than straight uncles.

I'm sure you know enough about the subject to see how deeply flawed your model is.

I don't think there is enough prevalence of heterosexuality amongst the gay population, either in history or today to explain it still existing because of the societal influences, it just doesn't make any sense. I mean you could of said bisexuality, helps to preserve the genes. You could of said they were an evolutionary throw back, that still has some success. After all homosexuality exists in most animals from fruit flies to the great apes. You could of said that woman who have gay siblings have more children, in other words that the genes are expressed on the sex chromosomes by both men and women, and by some quirk of fate they increase population fitness. I don't think they are too far fetched unlike the societal pressure hypothesis. Or the idea that randomly fit genes come together and create homosexuality. I think that's a bit of a lazy idea/cop out, what is important is to suggest why the model explains human sexuality in terms of evolution in humans.

I think the answer is partly genetics, and partly psychosocial. But most likely it would not happen without the genes being present. I suppose it remains to explain why they exist at all given evolution.

 

[tribdog]

Is there a species of mammals that doesn't show some homosexuality behaviors? It hasn't been breed out of any of them. I don't know for sure but I think there are also homosexual birds and fish and reptiles.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Is there a species of mammals that doesn't show some homosexuality behaviors? It hasn't been breed out of any of them. I don't know for sure but I think there are also homosexual birds and fish and reptiles.

Yeah I think you'd be hard pressed to find an mammal in the animal kingdom that does not exhibit homosexual behaviour. As for lower orders I think most of them do too. I know flies do.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you set up a model with societal factors, homosexuality would be removed from the gene pool fairly rapidly. Thus my point. Even with a multitude of factors, given enough time they would be self terminating.

This is not necessarily true. It is an oversimplication of the process. It is not simply a matter of heteros having a hetero gene, which they pass to their offspring, and homosexuals having a homosexual gene, which is not passed to their offspring.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

This is not necessarily true. It is an oversimplication of the process. It is not simply a matter of heteros having a hetero gene, which they pass to their offspring, and homosexuals having a homosexual gene, which is not passed to their offspring.

I never said it was. I don't think without a genetic component it would be as common as it is though. Unless there was a societal reason for homosexuality. I think it's a combination of nature , and nurture.

So any theory would have to explain both why it exists at all genetically, if we say it has some sort of genetic component and why it is expressed. I don't think saying it's a coincidence or that it just so happens that when several factors come together you get someone who is more likely to be gay, I don't really think holistically that explains anything.

 

[tribdog]

They say everyone has at least one homosexual experience in their life. What's yours Schrodinger's dog?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

They say everyone has at least one homosexual experience in their life. What's yours Schrodinger's dog?

I kissed my brothers mate on the lips once, as a joke. I haven't done anything more than that though. Since one of my best friends is bisexual and one is gay, I probably would have by now, if I felt that way inclined. I wouldn't care if I had the sort of feelings that made me want to have sex with guys, I don't have any issues with it. But unfortunately I can't force myself to be other than how I was born and raised.

 

[tribdog]

Want to make out?

 

[DaveC426913]

I've never had one, but my best friend had me convinced for several decades that he had had one. When he finally told me he'd been pulling my leg, I nearly belted him.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy" is on tonight.

It took me 20 minutes to figure out what the movie was called because I couldn't remember Lukes name.

Anyways, I was freakin because I thought it was some kind of autobiographical dream.

everything seemed a bit too real.

 

[ONON]

Question: Why aren't humans evolving? I know this might sound stupid, and I can see the progression from caveman to common day man, but we have lived, looking kind of the same, for sooo many years?(please correct me if I'm wrong

Are the people who have scientific mysteries with their bodies the ones who are evolving?

what do you mean by "the people with scientifc mysteries with their bodies"?

what about the idea the idea that people in sun drenched environment have evolved darker skin as a result of the chemcial that helps protect them from solar rays. Those who left (were forced out) of the relatively friendly environent towards colder climates, lost that pigment (how many more lighter skinned people have generated the ideas that have altered society. Fredriche Nietzche states (history is a genealogy of geniuses).