toldailytopic: If it was proved that homosexuality was genetic, would it then make it

[CabinetMaker]

Since homosexuals, by definition, don't reproduce genetically, at some point, a long time ago, the homo gene would have ceased to be carried.

If they choose to reproduce genetically then they prove that homosexuality is a choice.

Again, a false statement. If it were a receive gene it would easily be passed on. As noted, it is possible for a couple with four kids to have three kids that poses the gene. All three would be carriers though only two would be likely to pass it on as the third would most likely not reproduce.

 

[serpentdove]

People can be born defective (e.g. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Rosie O'Donnell, Lady Gaga, etc.). That does not make homosexuality righteous. :dizzy:

Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27). :vomit:

 

[Memento Mori]

Again, a false statement. If it were a receive gene it would easily be passed on. As noted, it is possible for a couple with four kids to have three kids that poses the gene. All three would be carriers though only two would be likely to pass it on as the third would most likely not reproduce.

And if the gene were much wider and much more went into it, we could all theoretically be carriers to some extent and we would have to perfectly pass on those genes for them to line up and form a homosexual. Which could make homosexually far less likely.

 

[alwight]

Natural selection imo can be very subtle and it's at least arguable that a certain amount of homosexuality could be selected for. lain:

 

[Stripe]

And you're always complaining about evolution... :think: K:

:think:

:idea:

I must be an evolutionist!

"Trolling" is a better word for what Stripe does here.

Now :granite: is complaining about trolls... :think:

A random mutation would account for the existence of such a gene.

And natural selection would eliminate it.

Natural selection imo can be very subtle and it's at least arguable that a certain amount of homosexuality could be selected for. lain:

"At least". :chuckle:

Evolution - a story for every occasion.

 

[Memento Mori]

Evolution - a story for every occasion.

That's what a unifying theory does.

 

[Stripe]

That's what a unifying theory does.

No, a unifying theory makes a series of testable and repeatable experiments, predictions and explanations available for us to utilise.

Stories are, most of the time, just science fiction.

 

[Memento Mori]

No, a unifying theory makes a series of testable and repeatable experiments and predictions available for us to utilise.

Stories are, most of the time, just science fiction.

No a unifying theory can explain multiple and separate sciences. As evolution gave an explanation for genetics, anthropology, zoology, psychology, biology, biochemistry, etc. It unifies these separate fields of study.

In the same way physicists are trying to unify Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Or the way in which Cell Theory unifies biology. Or the Theory of Plate Tectonics in geology.

What you described is the definition of scientific theory.

 

[CabinetMaker]

And if the gene were much wider and much more went into it, we could all theoretically be carriers to some extent and we would have to perfectly pass on those genes for them to line up and form a homosexual. Which could make homosexually far less likely.

Some of the recent studies I have seen indicate that researchers are thinking that it may be more related to hormones than genes. If the fetus is exposed to certain hormones while gestating there seems to be a higher likelihood that the person will be homosexual.

 

[CabinetMaker]

And natural selection would eliminate it.

No, it wouldn't. Do a search on genetic disorders. IF it were true that natural selection would eleminate "genetic disorders" then the list of such disorders would be short. It is not. That is because many genetic disorders are passed on without having any effect on the carrier. My daughter has a genetic disorder. Neither her mother nor I had any idea that we were carriers for this disorder she inherited.

 

[Memento Mori]

Some of the recent studies I have seen indicate that researchers are thinking that it may be more related to hormones than genes. If the fetus is exposed to certain hormones while gestating there seems to be a higher likelihood that the person will be homosexual.

Yes, I've also heard that. It has been observed that the likelihood of homosexuality increases as the number of male children increases.

But twin studies should give us the best idea.

 

[rexlunae]

No, a unifying theory makes a series of testable and repeatable experiments, predictions and explanations available for us to utilise.

Your problem, Stripe, is that you assume that every explanation related to evolution is an attempt to demonstrate evolution. It's not. We (most of us), know that evolution happened, so the question is not "how can we use homosexuality to prove evolution?" It's "how do we explain homosexuality given an evolutionary understanding?"

Stories are, most of the time, just science fiction.

If you think you can use homosexuality to disprove evolution, please lay that out.

 

[alwight]

And natural selection would eliminate it.

Just like nipples on men, ...oh err no wait that's not right.

"At least". :chuckle:

Evolution - a story for every occasion.

Just like Genesis then :idea:, ...err oh no that's not right either, I'm having a bad day. :nono:

 

[Stripe]

No a unifying theory can explain multiple and separate sciences. As evolution gave an explanation for genetics, anthropology, zoology, psychology, biology, biochemistry, etc. It unifies these separate fields of study.

In the same way physicists are trying to unify Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Or the way in which Cell Theory unifies biology. Or the Theory of Plate Tectonics in geology.

What you described is the definition of scientific theory.

So you've given up on the idea that story-telling is what a unifying theory does, right?

:thumb:

No, it wouldn't. Do a search on genetic disorders. IF it were true that natural selection would eleminate "genetic disorders" then the list of such disorders would be short. It is not. That is because many genetic disorders are passed on without having any effect on the carrier. My daughter has a genetic disorder. Neither her mother nor I had any idea that we were carriers for this disorder she inherited.

Who said anything about a "genetic disorder"? :idunno:

It's a mutation. Under your theory it has to be selectable in order to become established.

You're problem, Stripe

I am what? :AMR:

is that you assume that every explanation related to evolution is an attempt to demonstrate evolution.

"I don't like this tiger. He reads minds."

It's not. We (most of us), know that evolution happened, so the question is not "how can we use homosexuality to prove evolution?" It's "how do we explain homosexuality given an evolutionary understanding?"

And thus your inability to respond rationally to a valid challenge to that which you hold so close.

If you think you can use homosexuality to disprove evolution, please lay that out.

1. My proof is in the liquor cabinet.
2. The argument has been presented.
3. You're utterly convinced of evolution. Science won't work on you.

I'm having a bad day.

You're having a bad life... lain:

 

[alwight]

You're having a bad life... lain:

Tell me about it Stripe, but happily you're around to give me a laugh.

 

[Lighthouse]

"Darling, the most flaming f**s are the ones who complain loudest about flaming f**s."
-Freddie Mercury

Actually the ones who complain loudest about flaming fags are the fags [openly] who aren't flamers. Most fags who aren't flamers can't seem to stand the ones who are.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It's a mutation. Under your theory it has to be selectable in order to become established.

Untrue. Recessive genes are not generally selectable by natural selection. As in the case of my daughter, neither me, my wife nor our parents or sibling exhibited any of the symptoms of the disorder my daughter inherited. The trait is established. It is just the trait is not manifested until two carries of the trait reproduce and the off-spring inherits a receive gene from each parent. The trait is now visible.

That is the thing with recessive genes. They can easily be established in a population precisely because natural selection cannot work on traits that are hidden.

 

[Memento Mori]

So you've given up on the idea that story-telling is what a unifying theory does, right?

Actually, I was responding to your idea that evolution cannot explain certain situations in your point here:

(observation by alwight that natural selection can select for homosexuality)

Evolution - a story for every occasion.

Context added.

Evolution is a theory for every biological situation as it has to do with the basis of biology! Not that great of a mental leap, you see.

The fact that you decided to focus on the word "story" rather than the surrounding point that evolution is the best way in which to describe the natural world of biology, is a pedantic one to say the least.

But I would expect nothing better from you.

 

[rexlunae]

I am what?

Did I really just do that? :sigh:

:AMR:"I don't like this tiger. He reads minds."And thus your inability to respond rationally to a valid challenge to that which you hold so close.

No genuine challenge has been presented. If homosexuality were a genetic trait, it does seem likely that it would have been eliminated. Possible reasons that it has not been include that it isn't a genetic trait, that the trait has some other beneficial property, or that the mutation is exceptionally common. I tend to think the first of those is the most likely.

But saying "evolution is wrong" is a non-sequitur. It doesn't actually explain how, if homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals don't tend to reproduce, the trait continues to persist. Is it passed on to other people by some other mechanism?

1. My proof is in the liquor cabinet.

Not in your hand?

2. The argument has been presented.

Not much of one.

3. You're utterly convinced of evolution.

True. The evidence is staggering.

Science won't work on you.

You do have a sense of irony, I'll grant you that.

 

[Stripe]

That is the thing with recessive genes. They can easily be established in a population precisely because natural selection cannot work on traits that are hidden.

Yeah.

Actually, I was responding to your idea that evolution cannot explain certain situations in your point here:

A point I never made. There is an explanation, but it's just a story. Not a testable, falsifiable, observable thing we can use to do actual science on.

Evolution is a theory for every biological situation as it has to do with the basis of biology! Not that great of a mental leap, you see. The fact that you decided to focus on the word "story" rather than the surrounding point that evolution is the best way in which to describe the natural world of biology, is a pedantic one to say the least. But I would expect nothing better from you.

So you've given up on the idea that story-telling is what a unifying theory does, right?

Did I really just do that?

:chuckle:

I do it all the time. Rare that I point it out in others. You should feel honoured.

No genuine challenge has been presented.

That's nice. So how about you dismiss the fake one?

If homosexuality were a genetic trait, it does seem likely that it would have been eliminated. Possible reasons that it has not been include that it isn't a genetic trait, that the trait has some other beneficial property, or that the mutation is exceptionally common. I tend to think the first of those is the most likely.

Sounds like a serious set of responses to a "fake" challenge. :think:

But saying "evolution is wrong" is a non-sequitur. It doesn't actually explain how, if homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals don't tend to reproduce, the trait continues to persist. Is it passed on to other people by some other mechanism?

Who said evolution was wrong because of homosexuality? :idunno: