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

[Stripe]

Untrue. Recessive genes are not generally selectable by natural selection.

Recessive or not, a gene has to be selectable in order to become established in a population.

If an individual has a mutation upon a recessive gene that will be a disadvantage upon expression, evolutionary theory says it will not be selected for.

If evolution is true, the genetic component to homosexuality would never have developed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Recessive or not, a gene has to be selectable in order to become established in a population.

Wrong. Recessive genes do not produce a phenotype that natural selection can act on unless there are two recessive genes together.

If an individual has a mutation upon a recessive gene that will be a disadvantage upon expression, evolutionary theory says it will not be selected for.

The key phrase here is "upon expression". If a recessive gene is not expressed it can still be passed on. It will ONLY be selected against when it is expressed. If it is never expressed it can and will be passed on.

If evolution is true, the genetic component to homosexuality would never have developed.

Yes, it could have developed. Just like any other recessive trait, homosexuality is possible.

 

[Memento Mori]

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.

I specifically pointed out where you made that point with context:

Evolution - a story for every occasion.

Also, evolution is falsifiable. It would have been quite easy to falsify it. All you need to find is a crocoduck, a bunny in the Precambrian, a gerbil giving birth to a platypus, a species suddenly appearing from thin air, etc. It is also testable and has made numerous predictions. Such as transitional fossils of land animals evolving into sea-faring creatures like the whale from Pakicetus. We've observed finches rising to the occasion in the Galapagos and bacteria becoming resistant to disinfectants.

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

Pay attention. I never said a unifying theory tells stories. I was contesting your use of the word "story." Evolution is the best explanation to date which unifies separate fields of study and best explains how species arose. It encompasses every field of natural study in biology.

 

[Stripe]

Wrong. Recessive genes do not produce a phenotype that natural selection can act on unless there are two recessive genes together.

Not wrong. If the trait is expressed, it will be selected against. Thus the trait will never become established.

Homos, however, are well entrenched.

The key phrase here is "upon expression". If a recessive gene is not expressed it can still be passed on. It will ONLY be selected against when it is expressed. If it is never expressed it can and will be passed on.

Thus it will only ever be selected against. It will never be selected for. From non-existing, it will never become established in a population.

Yes, it could have developed. Just like any other recessive trait, homosexuality is possible.

No, it couldn't. Homosexuality is possible because God created us as sexual beings and with the ability to choose against His best.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Not wrong. If the trait is expressed, it will be selected against. Thus the trait will never become established.

Homos, however, are well entrenched.

Yes, you are still wrong. Do you know how recessive traits work? If you have a dominate (X) and recessive(x) gene then the phenotype for the recessive gene will not be expressed when you XX, Xx or xX combination. Only when you have xx will you see a phenotype. BUT, and this is the key, the Xx and xX combinations are carriers and will pass on the recessive gene to subsequent generations. This allows the recessive form of the gene to become well established in a population while the actual phenotype of the gene is expressed with considerably less frequency.

Thus it will only ever be selected against. It will never be selected for. From non-existing, it will never become established in a population.

The phenotype is selected against, not the recessive form of the gene. The recessive form of the gene will remain in the population.

No, it couldn't. Homosexuality is possible because God created us as sexual beings and with the ability to choose against His best.

Ever ask a homosexual when they chose to become homosexual? For that matter, when did you choose to become a heterosexual? Can you point to a date or did you just always know you were?

 

[Stripe]

I specifically pointed out where you made that point with context:

And I specifically didn't say what you said I said. :idunno:

Also, evolution is falsifiable. It would have been quite easy to falsify it. All you need to find is a crocoduck, a bunny in the Precambrian, a gerbil giving birth to a platypus, a species suddenly appearing from thin air, etc.

Nice straw man.

I never claimed evolutionary theory to be unfalsifiable. I said there has been a story vaguely referred to that is not falsifiable, testable or predictive.

Pay attention. I never said a unifying theory tells stories.

Sure, you did. I said "Evolution - a story for every situation". You said "That's what a unifying theory does". Now, when I hear the word "story" I regard that as something told us for explanatory or entertainment purposes. It's a rather inappropriate word, I believe, to use as the qualifier for a unifying theory.

So now that you understand the perfectly reasonable way I was using the English language, you'll be prepared to concede that story-telling is not what a unifying theory does, right?

Evolution is the best explanation to date which unifies separate fields of study and best explains how species arose. It encompasses every field of natural study in biology.

That's nice.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, you are still wrong. Do you know how recessive traits work? If you have a dominate (X) and recessive(x) gene then the phenotype for the recessive gene will not be expressed when you XX, Xx or xX combination. Only when you have xx will you see a phenotype. BUT, and this is the key, the Xx and xX combinations are carriers and will pass on the recessive gene to subsequent generations. This allows the recessive form of the gene to become well established in a population while the actual phenotype of the gene is expressed with considerably less frequency.

No, it doesn't. Like you say, every time it is expressed, it can be selected against. Evolutionary theory is said to work by natural selection for. Without selection for, you have no evolution.

But feel free to rewrite evolutionary theory how you see fit. That's what all good evolutionists do. :thumb:

The phenotype is selected against, not the recessive form of the gene. The recessive form of the gene will remain in the population.

A recessive, non-advantageous trait will never be established from zero in a population.

Homos are entrenched.

This is why evolutionists must dream about ad hoc stories to explain homosexuality or else deny that there is a genetic component.

Ever ask a homosexual when they chose to become homosexual? For that matter, when did you choose to become a heterosexual? Can you point to a date or did you just always know you were?

:AMR:

What does this have to do with anything?

A homosexual chooses to be a homosexual when they choose to engage in sexual activity with a person of the same gender. They can stop being a homo by choosing to stop that behaviour. Otherwise, the normal categorisation for people should apply.

We need not justify the fact that we are normal, you weirdo.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, it doesn't. Like you say, every time it is expressed, it can be selected against. Evolutionary theory is said to work by natural selection for. Without selection for, you have no evolution.

But feel free to rewrite evolutionary theory how you see fit. That's what all good evolutionists do. :thumb:

Your willful ignorance of genetics is daunting. What happens for the 75% of the times that it is not expressed? Does the recessive gene simply cease to exist?

A recessive, non-advantageous trait will never be established from zero in a population.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. If this was true there would be no genetic disorders. Have you searched for genetic disorders yet?

Homos are entrenched.

As a percentage of the population, they are actually a very small, albeit vociferate, population.

This is why evolutionists must dream about ad hoc stories to explain homosexuality or else deny that there is a genetic component.
:AMR:

Nobody here, including me, has claimed that there is an evolutionary or genetic link to homosexuality. At this time it is not known. What I am talking to you about is your rather appealing ignorance regarding genetics.

What does this have to do with anything?

Quite a bit actually...

A homosexual chooses to be a homosexual when they choose to engage in sexual activity with a person of the same gender. They can stop being a homo by choosing to stop that behaviour. Otherwise, the normal categorisation for people should apply.

We need not justify the fact that we are normal, you weirdo.

The point is WHY we choose the partners we do. As a boy turning into a young man there was no question I was attracted to females. There was no choice involved, it was just a simple fact. Having talked to some homosexuals they experienced the same thing. As they matured there was no choice they ever made, they simply always knew they were attracted to the same sex.

There are cases where children have been raised in Christian families where homosexuality is loudly and constantly proclaimed as wrong an evil yet children still emerge as homosexuals from these homes. All their lives they were taught it is evil yet they are homosexual. Is it genetic? Is it hormonal? We don't know but something more than a simple choice seems to be at work.

 

[rexlunae]

Your willful ignorance of genetics is daunting. What happens for the 75% of the times that it is not expressed? Does the recessive gene simply cease to exist?

He is partially correct. It's true that a recessive trait experiences selective pressures. Giving birth to evolutionary "dead-end" offspring, even just once in a while, is a cost to the parents that reduces their own survival fitness over the long term.

Where he's wrong is in failing to recognize the probabilistic nature of selection. There's actually a non-zero chance that deleterious traits can end up becoming widespread and entrenched. This is more likely in smaller populations than in larger ones, but the chance is always there. I think homosexual behavior is too widespread to really be explained this way, but it's possible.

 

[Stripe]

Your willful ignorance of genetics is daunting. What happens for the 75% of the times that it is not expressed? Does the recessive gene simply cease to exist?

It will not be selected for. Selection for is half the theory of evolution which is random mutations and natural selection. Without natural selection for a trait, it will not become entrenched.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. If this was true there would be no genetic disorders. Have you searched for genetic disorders yet?

Evolutionists - assuming the truth of their precious ideas since 1886.

As a percentage of the population, they are actually a very small, albeit vociferate, population.

And natural selection has no effect on this percentage. That it remains is evidence from the evolutionary viewpoint that there is no genetic component to homosexuality.

Nobody here, including me, has claimed that there is an evolutionary or genetic link to homosexuality.

That's nice. But you do seem to be arguing with me after I said evolutionary theory rejects the idea of a genetic component to homosexuality. :think:

The point is WHY we choose the partners we do.

It's quite clear that, from an evolutionary perspective, choice is all that is involved. Any genetic component would never have gotten established.

He is partially correct.

The law of averages meant it had to happen sooner or later.

Where he's wrong is in failing to recognize the probabilistic nature of selection. There's actually a non-zero chance that deleterious traits can end up becoming widespread and entrenched. This is more likely in smaller populations than in larger ones, but the chance is always there. I think homosexual behavior is too widespread to really be explained this way, but it's possible.

Right. The genetic component should rightly be said to not exist under evolutionary theory. Unless you have a very compelling ad hoc explanation.

 

[alwight]

Evolutionists - assuming the truth of their precious ideas since 1886.

Typical Stripe to misrepresent what is believed to be the most likely explanation, given the evidence, with a stupid assertion that a truth has simply been assumed since 1886.
Particularly so in a response to genetic disorders since molecular genetics only began in the 1950's.

 

[Stripe]

...given the evidence...

Feel free to actually share some of that evidence anytime you like. :thumb:

Particularly so in a response to genetic disorders since molecular genetics only began in the 1950's

Or, conversely, just keep ranting like a moron. :AMR:

Choose well.

 

[alwight]

Feel free to actually share some of that evidence anytime you like. :thumb:

Or, conversely, just keep ranting like a moron. :AMR:

Choose well.

I think perhaps far too many pearls have already been cast before you Stripe.

 

[rexlunae]

It's quite clear that, from an evolutionary perspective, choice is all that is involved. Any genetic component would never have gotten established.

That just doesn't follow. It's not true that the only choices are genetics or choice. Quite a bit of our development has a random component, which is no more chosen than the patterns of our fingerprints.

Right. The genetic component should rightly be said to not exist under evolutionary theory. Unless you have a very compelling ad hoc explanation.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It will not be selected for. Selection for is half the theory of evolution which is random mutations and natural selection. Without natural selection for a trait, it will not become entrenched.

True only for an expressed phenotype. If no phenotype is expressed natural selection cannot act. Thus, unexpressed traits carried on recessive genes are propagated into the larger population.

Evolutionists - assuming the truth of their precious ideas since 1886.

SO you do not have the intellectual honesty to do a simple Google search to see if your assertions are true.

And natural selection has no effect on this percentage. That it remains is evidence from the evolutionary viewpoint that there is no genetic component to homosexuality.

Inconclusive at best. Again, I notice that you have not told us the exact date you decided to become a homosexual, that moment of realization that made you decide you prefer women.

That's nice. But you do seem to be arguing with me after I said evolutionary theory rejects the idea of a genetic component to homosexuality. :think:

Only because your understanding of genetics is so abysmal. You seem unable to grasp the simplest concepts of genetics. Why do you deny genetics?

It's quite clear that, from an evolutionary perspective, choice is all that is involved. Any genetic component would never have gotten established.

Still missing the significance of a recessive gene. Tell us, upon what does natural selection or even sexual selection operate - expressed phenotypes or unexpressed phenotypes?

The law of averages meant it had to happen sooner or later.

Right. The genetic component should rightly be said to not exist under evolutionary theory. Unless you have a very compelling ad hoc explanation.

The fact is that there are a number of genetic disorders that never would have gotten established if what you assert is true. How do you explain these?

Dictionary of Genetic Disorders Depending on your ancestry and family medical history, you may want to consider testing for one or more of the genetic disorders listed below. While these diseases occur in all ethnic groups, some of them are far more common in certain populations than in others. For and more information on a specific disease, including carrier frequencies, click on its name below. All ethnic groups Cystic Fibrosis Fragile X Syndrome Spinal Muscular Atrophy African American Beta-Thalassemia Sickle Cell Anemia Asian Alpha-Thalassemia Beta-Thalassemia Ashkenazi Jewish The Ashkenazi Jewish Genetic Panel (AJGP) screens for all these diseases, plus Cystic Fibrosis. The chance that someone of 100% Ashkenazi descent will be a carrier of one of the diseases in the panel is 1 in 5. Bloom Syndrome Canavan Disease Familial Dysautonomia Familial Hyperinsulinism Fanconi Anemia Gaucher Disease (Type I) Glycogen Storage Disease 1a Joubert Syndrome 2 Lipoamide Dehydrogenase Deficiency (E3) Maple Syrup Urine Disease Mucolipidosis Type IV Nemaline Myopathy Niemann-Pick Type A Tay-Sachs Disease (also more frequent among French Canadians, Cajuns, and people of Irish/British descent) Usher Syndrome Walker-Warburg Syndrome Hispanic, Southern European, Middle Eastern, Indian, Sephardi Jewish Beta-Thalassemia

And this is by no means a complete list. Expressed phenotypes of these disorders are commonly selected against yet they persist in the population. Why?

 

[Stripe]

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Strange that since you just got finished agreeing with me. :idunno:

True only for an expressed phenotype. If no phenotype is expressed natural selection cannot act. Thus, unexpressed traits carried on recessive genes are propagated into the larger population.

No trait is unexpressed. In order to become established, it must be selected for else it will disappear.

SO you do not have the intellectual honesty to do a simple Google search to see if your assertions are true.

Not interested in assuming the truth of evolutionary theory in order to support evolution.

Inconclusive at best. Again, I notice that you have not told us the exact date you decided to become a homosexual, that moment of realization that made you decide you prefer women.

Fag. :flamer:

Only because your understanding of genetics is so abysmal. You seem unable to grasp the simplest concepts of genetics. Why do you deny genetics?

:blabla:

Still missing the significance of a recessive gene. Tell us, upon what does natural selection or even sexual selection operate - expressed phenotypes or unexpressed phenotypes?

Expressed. Every time a trait is expressed that provides a disadvantage, it will be selected against - according to evolution.

Thus there is no mechanism whereby homosexuality could become entrenched in a population. The random mutations you appeal to in order to create it will just as quickly destroy it unless it is being actively selected for.

Learn the theory you hold to so dearly. :thumb:

The fact is that there are a number of genetic disorders that never would have gotten established if what you assert is true

Or else evolution does not work and there is an alternative explanation for illnesses.

Pays not to assume the truth of that which you're hoping to provide evidence for. It's called begging the question and is a logical fallacy popular among evolutionists.

 

[rexlunae]

And this is by no means a complete list. Expressed phenotypes of these disorders are commonly selected against yet they persist in the population. Why?

Founder effects, for one. Especially in populations like the Ashkenazi Jews, who historically tended not to interbreed with outsiders, traits that would have otherwise been eliminated by selection can be greatly amplified despite the selective pressure that may exist against them, even if they are not carried by recessive genes.

Genetic drift can allow less advantageous traits to exist and spread as long as selection is not too strong against it. Also, some of the traits you listed, like sickle cell trait, can have a selective advantage in certain circumstances, which allows them to be selected for where those circumstances arise.

 

[rexlunae]

Strange that since you just got finished agreeing with me. :idunno:

Sorry, I think I mistook what you meant. I thought you were making a larger point beyond homosexuality.

 

[Stripe]

Sorry, I think I mistook what you meant. I thought you were making a larger point beyond homosexuality.

If evolutionary theory is true, homosexuality cannot have a genetic component.

Unless you've got a very convincing ad hoc explanation for the emergence and establishment of a trait that works fiercely against reproduction.

 

[rexlunae]

If evolutionary theory is true, homosexuality cannot have a genetic component.

I don't think we can quite draw that conclusion. Evolution does not perfect, it culls. I've listed a few specific cases above that allow disadvantageous traits to survive and become widespread.

That said, my personal (and based on limited evidence and a casual knowledge base) inclination is that homosexuality is too widespread to be directly cause by some genetic trait.

And it could well be that there is some genetic contribution to homosexuality, especially if the trait had other, more advantageous implications as well.

Unless you've got a very convincing ad hoc explanation for the emergence and establishment of a trait that works fiercely against reproduction.

I think we need pretty strong evidence to rule out an entire category of explanations. I don't think we're quite there yet.