Evolutionary Reasons for Homosexuality?

peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Evolutionary Reasons for Homosexuality?

I was wondering if any of you had any theories about the "reasons" for homosexuality. Someone I talked to had the idea that it could be our way of "balancing" the population out (not everyone has kids), or maybe partly due to a gender imbalance.

What do you think?

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just a couple of comments,

Just a couple of comments, after skimming through this thread.

Single genes determining something as subtle as behaviour would be highly unusual.

It is much more absurd to suggest that our behaviour is quite independent of our genes, since our genes are such a essential part of determining that we are homo sapiens and not some other species. The basic urges and drives for food and reproduction are certainly 'built-in' to our brains, which means genetically determined, and so, to varying degrees, are other behavioural tendencies. The more you get away from the core charactersistics which are connected with basic survival and to our success in our particular 'niche', as a species capable of modifying our individual behaviour in complex ways in reacting to novel situations, rather than being 'locked-in' to an instinctual, pre-programmed set of reactions, the more environment can modify behaviour patterns. But our genes still 'determine' even that very flexibility in behaviour, which our species displays to such a high degree.

Genes most definitely do influence behaviour, but not normally in an absolutely determined way. Except in the case, for example, of extreme pathological mal-formed brains, behaviour is the result of complex interactions between our genetic makeup and our environment. We actually have way too few genes to determine every detail of our body, let alone our behaviour. Studies comparing large groups of both identical and non-identical twins are probably the best way to get estimates of the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors contributing to any particular aspect of behaviour.

For example, Michael Shermer (in "Why people believe wierd things", I think) referred to such a study which seemed to show that the tendency to attribute experiences such as internal "dialogues", as indicating talking to an actual external entity ('God') rather than as the mind attempting to resolve different sets of thoughts on something, as about 50% genetic and environmental. This helps to explain why some people appear so pre-disposed to believe in God.

As for homosexuality and evolution, many charactersitics will persist in a species which don't appear to contribute positively and directly to reproduction, either because they are a 'byproduct' of some particular combination of genes which does contribute to survival, or because they may be pre-disposed to some other behaviour which contributes to group success in other ways. They can persist as long as they do not significantly reduce the average reproductive success of the species.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Great explanation, Bob.

 Great explanation, Bob.  Thanks!

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:They can

BobSpence1 wrote:

They can persist as long as they do not significantly reduce the average reproductive success of the species.

Bob, I loved the input, except this little thing at the end. I don't see why the behavior or physical attributes should not persist, even if significantly reducing average reproductive success of the species. Being mortal, for example, significantly offsets our average reproductive success and indeed will probably be fatal for our species some time in the future. Yet we persist in being mortal Smiling

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 You're missing the point

 You're missing the point ZuS.  In a mathematical model of the human gene pool, a certain amount of non-reproduction is sustainable, regardless of the reason.  I'm not homosexual, but I'm also not reproducing, which makes me no different from a homosexual in terms of the math.

In other words, if homosexuality is a side effect of combinations of otherwise beneficial genes interacting in particular ways with the environment, that arrangement is sustainable so long as the number of homosexuals (who do not reproduce) does not rise above any of the various thresholds that would prove evolutionarily detrimental to the species as a whole.  The net effect of the genes is still positive even though certain combinations produce negative effects (from the reproductive standpoint).

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: You're

Hambydammit wrote:

 You're missing the point ZuS.  In a mathematical model of the human gene pool, a certain amount of non-reproduction is sustainable, regardless of the reason.  I'm not homosexual, but I'm also not reproducing, which makes me no different from a homosexual in terms of the math.

In other words, if homosexuality is a side effect of combinations of otherwise beneficial genes interacting in particular ways with the environment, that arrangement is sustainable so long as the number of homosexuals (who do not reproduce) does not rise above any of the various thresholds that would prove evolutionarily detrimental to the species as a whole.  The net effect of the genes is still positive even though certain combinations produce negative effects (from the reproductive standpoint).

 

 

Are ou kidding me? Adding our level of intelect, reasoning and technological sophistication to the biological machine called body, is like adding the fourth layer of neurons to an AI - if you didn't know what was going on before, you sure as shit can't predict it now (given we don't generate input, and in this case we don't). We are at a point where we can reproduce you, even without you knowing it. And we all would love to have many of you around.

Sexuality really is being phased out as a potential reason for extinction. Gay couples want to have kids - insamination, surrogate mothers, the whole deal. And what's this? They ARRANGE their relationship with kids ahead of time - no more unplanned pregnancies, no more "youg moms" on whatever crap channel. Gayness might be the thing that saves us from blowing ourselves up and get us blowing each other instead. In space-thongs.

Detrimental or not? Now there is just no way of telling, thus putting all of our personal eugenics departments in doubt. And all darwinists have a small eugenics department in their head. Don't deny it, I don't like discussing things I can't prove.

But I like Bob's other point - the gay/straight difference is so insignificant compared to the homogeneousness of our species otherwise, that it really is going to be hard as shit to make it an identifyable gene-thing.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:BobSpence1

ZuS wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

They can persist as long as they do not significantly reduce the average reproductive success of the species.

Bob, I loved the input, except this little thing at the end. I don't see why the behavior or physical attributes should not persist, even if significantly reducing average reproductive success of the species. Being mortal, for example, significantly offsets our average reproductive success and indeed will probably be fatal for our species some time in the future. Yet we persist in being mortal Smiling

As far as the species is concerned, simply extending the life span slows down the rate at which new generations replace old ones, thereby slowing the rate of evolution, so would be a negative, especially if genetic evolution was important to allow us to adapt to a changing environment.

Even if a longer life span was ultimately a benefit to rate of survival, it would take a long time to evolve, and would still contain a risk if conditions changed rapidly.

There is actually evidence of this relationship between the stability of the environment and average life-span, or more specifically generation time, in some species which have been heavily affected by human activities, in that they seem to reach reproductive age more rapidly than they did in earlier historical times. IOW those populations which reproduced faster were better able to evolve slightly different attributes which allowed them to adapt to the new conditions more quickly.

So long life span would only be evolutionarily successful in appropriately stable environments.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:As far as

BobSpence1 wrote:

As far as the species is concerned, simply extending the life span slows down the rate at which new generations replace old ones, thereby slowing the rate of evolution, so would be a negative, especially if genetic evolution was important to allow us to adapt to a changing environment.

Even if a longer life span was ultimately a benefit to rate of survival, it would take a long time to evolve, and would still contain a risk if conditions changed rapidly.

There is actually evidence of this relationship between the stability of the environment and average life-span, or more specifically generation time, in some species which have been heavily affected by human activities, in that they seem to reach reproductive age more rapidly. IOW those populations which reproduced faster were better able to evolve slightly different attributes which allowed them to adapt to the new conditions more quickly.

So long life span would only be evolutionarily successful in appropriately stable environments.

That's a great answer for a chiuaua. Does that apply to humans in same degree?

It's not like with rats - we do not exist on margins. This rat is doing marginally better, so with time this other rat is out of the picture - no. We are capable of emulating the "better rat", as well as collective suicide. We don't even know weather we would be around without the ability to adapt through reason and it might be our doom as well.

In the light of this, sexuality becomes a secondary issue for humanity. Right now we can reproduce without ever having sex - Christ's mom was probably a lesbian time-traveler looking for some good genes for her and her female spouse.

As for the chiuaua, if it had our mental capabilities, it wouldn't be pissing corners. It would probably be dead, 'cause humans don't like competition. So for a chiuaua, staying stupid is probably the best survival tactic at the moment. Very weird, huh? Nothing is beneficial, until the opposite proves to be leathal in the particular time and context.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:BobSpence1

ZuS wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

As far as the species is concerned, simply extending the life span slows down the rate at which new generations replace old ones, thereby slowing the rate of evolution, so would be a negative, especially if genetic evolution was important to allow us to adapt to a changing environment.

Even if a longer life span was ultimately a benefit to rate of survival, it would take a long time to evolve, and would still contain a risk if conditions changed rapidly.

There is actually evidence of this relationship between the stability of the environment and average life-span, or more specifically generation time, in some species which have been heavily affected by human activities, in that they seem to reach reproductive age more rapidly. IOW those populations which reproduced faster were better able to evolve slightly different attributes which allowed them to adapt to the new conditions more quickly.

So long life span would only be evolutionarily successful in appropriately stable environments.

That's a great answer for a chiuaua. Does that apply to humans in same degree?

It's not like with rats - we do not exist on margins. This rat is doing marginally better, so with time this other rat is out of the picture - no. We are capable of emulating the "better rat", as well as collective suicide. We don't even know weather we would be around without the ability to adapt through reason and it might be our doom as well.

In the light of this, sexuality becomes a secondary issue for humanity. Right now we can reproduce without ever having sex - Christ's mom was probably a lesbian time-traveler looking for some good genes for her and her female spouse.

As for the chiuaua, if it had our mental capabilities, it wouldn't be pissing corners. It would probably be dead, 'cause humans don't like competition. So for a chiuaua, staying stupid is probably the best survival tactic at the moment. Very weird, huh? Nothing is beneficial, until the opposite proves to be leathal in the particular time and context.

I actually broadly agree, in that our ability to adapt to changing environment is now considerably enhanced by our mental capacities, allowing social/cultural evolution and increased understanding to vastly outstrip our purely genetic evolution.

It was probably our greater ability to adapt via changing behaviour that allowed us to evolve the lifespans we have, which are longer than most mammals.

I was really addressing the effect of mortality strictly within the context of 'normal' Darwinian evolution.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:That's a great

 

Quote:
That's a great answer for a chiuaua. Does that apply to humans in same degree?

I wish people could get it out of their heads that there's anything special about humans.  Our intellect is as much an evolutionary adaptation as a tiger's claws or a chiuaua's.... um.... hmm.    Well, maybe chiuauas are a bad example since they are the result of man's artificial selection, and wouldn't do too well in the wild with no fat women to carry them to the mall.

Quote:
It's not like with rats - we do not exist on margins.

Seriously, you need to think about what you just said.  It's absurd.  Of course we exist on margins.  We have big margins.  Some animals have very small margins.  But they're still margins.

Quote:
We don't even know weather we would be around without the ability to adapt through reason and it might be our doom as well.

You keep putting the cart before the horse.  Had we not evolved into the intelligent beings we are, we would have evolved into something else, which might or might not exist now, depending on its fitness.  It's so basic it's almost a tautology.  Intelligence isn't magic.  It's just one way animals adapt.

Quote:
In the light of this, sexuality becomes a secondary issue for humanity. Right now we can reproduce without ever having sex

And you don't see this as a strong survival advantage?  There's no place evolution is supposed to go.  It just does what it does, without purpose.  We've stumbled onto some really effective survival adaptations which have increased our margins.  Our individual sexual preferences have far less effect on the population than they would if there were still only a hundred thousand of us or so in small bands.  That doesn't mean they have no effect, and it doesn't mean that somehow we've risen above evolution.  It means we're extremely well adapted.

Quote:
As for the chiuaua, if it had our mental capabilities, it wouldn't be pissing corners.

I saw a drunk human pissing on a car tire.  So what?

Quote:
It would probably be dead, 'cause humans don't like competition. So for a chiuaua, staying stupid is probably the best survival tactic at the moment. Very weird, huh? Nothing is beneficial, until the opposite proves to be leathal in the particular time and context.

I'm not trying to be condescending here.  I'm telling you a fact.  You've got some things backwards about how natural selection works.  You've also got some misconceptions about the evolutionary value of intelligence.  I get that you feel passionately about this, but more knowledge and less passion would probably help you get a little better grasp on it.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I was

BobSpence1 wrote:

I was really addressing the effect of mortality strictly within the context of 'normal' Darwinian evolution.

gotcha

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
That's a great answer for a chiuaua. Does that apply to humans in same degree?

I wish people could get it out of their heads that there's anything special about humans.  Our intellect is as much an evolutionary adaptation as a tiger's claws or a chiuaua's.... um.... hmm.    Well, maybe chiuauas are a bad example since they are the result of man's artificial selection, and wouldn't do too well in the wild with no fat women to carry them to the mall.

Excuse me - I can fly and I have no wings or any other immediate biological appandages or abilities that would warrant flight. That is pretty unique in the known flora and fauna. I know, gecko can stick to glass with physics the likes of which we have never seen, but that's the point - we can see them, understand them and already we are trying to emulate them. We are like the AIDS of the natural world - no virus is just like us and even we are not like ourselves tomorrow. You think we are? Remember how cellular phones were just omg-not-another-one-of-those in public transport 15 years ago? Today 50% of business in my country would shut down TOMORROW if cellular network was down. If our satelites got shot down, some regions of the wourld would become extinct. This might be not-so-special in your world, it's pretty special in mine.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
It's not like with rats - we do not exist on margins.

Seriously, you need to think about what you just said.  It's absurd.  Of course we exist on margins.  We have big margins.  Some animals have very small margins.  But they're still margins.

Technically speaking, yes. But a huge margin means that a lot of stuff that would have died otherwise, is now allowed. Maybe even great. Maybe it's just the thing we needed to survive. So evolution of man becomes so crazy sweet, that we have a huge multitude of stuff with unknowable potential to create and destroy, just being allowed to live. That is different than a rat, because the complexity excludes a posibility of saying stuff like: homosexuality is detrimental to our survival. For a rat - yea. But homosexuals are having babies now - with their own genes forwarded. And they give us amazing ppl.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
We don't even know weather we would be around without the ability to adapt through reason and it might be our doom as well.

You keep putting the cart before the horse.  Had we not evolved into the intelligent beings we are, we would have evolved into something else, which might or might not exist now, depending on its fitness.  It's so basic it's almost a tautology.  Intelligence isn't magic.  It's just one way animals adapt.

Agree fully. Which is why we have this situation, rather than some other situation. And if we are to deal with it constructively, we have to reckognize that we have huge short-term potential and that our responsibility and risk for long-term existance grows accordingly. We are not rats. We are rats with a jet-pacs and bazookas - that is different.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
In the light of this, sexuality becomes a secondary issue for humanity. Right now we can reproduce without ever having sex

And you don't see this as a strong survival advantage?  There's no place evolution is supposed to go.  It just does what it does, without purpose.  We've stumbled onto some really effective survival adaptations which have increased our margins.  Our individual sexual preferences have far less effect on the population than they would if there were still only a hundred thousand of us or so in small bands.  That doesn't mean they have no effect, and it doesn't mean that somehow we've risen above evolution.  It means we're extremely well adapted.

Ye, I agree. Which is why homosexuality is basically a non-issue for humans. Might even be beneficial.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
As for the chiuaua, if it had our mental capabilities, it wouldn't be pissing corners.

I saw a drunk human pissing on a car tire.  So what?

Chiuaua equivalent of a Nobel Prize winner at reception party pisses corners same as the drunk chiuaua. And they have no amazing wehicles that carry them around and, once discarded, are a good pissing target.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
It would probably be dead, 'cause humans don't like competition. So for a chiuaua, staying stupid is probably the best survival tactic at the moment. Very weird, huh? Nothing is beneficial, until the opposite proves to be leathal in the particular time and context.

I'm not trying to be condescending here.  I'm telling you a fact.  You've got some things backwards about how natural selection works.  You've also got some misconceptions about the evolutionary value of intelligence.  I get that you feel passionately about this, but more knowledge and less passion would probably help you get a little better grasp on it.

You are probably right, I feel stupid every time I hear the explanation. I have heard and read the history and science from far before Darwin and up to this day, there are things that just sound out of place and are generally fucking confusing. People saying that evolution is a fact, while natural selection is a theory - that just sounds backwards to me. I mean, technically yea - we can not predict shit with natural selection and we can't test it either, but it is as evident as can be - are you dead? Yes? Well, shit, you haven't been selected, have you? Shouldn't even be a theory or fact, just something we started the day with, like brushing our teeth - so that stuff we say doesn't stink.

With evolution I would take the argument of lacking falsifiability at least semi-seriously, just like have it in the back of our mind for fun. All the radio-active genes-watching, growing eyes on knees and all that - great, more power to it. But just like have a sense that any state of knowledge should aim to produce new knowledge. Relativity physicists are still looking for invisible objects that are supposed to make up 90% of our universe - straight out of a theory. They are also looking for small particles that behave differently than other particles and have ability to cross dimensions. I find that pretty whacky and would consider thinking the theory through once more. Not that I am worried, mind you, thinking out of the box is our specialty. Just takes longer if we stubbornly stick to a set of principles.

As to evolutionary value of intelligence - really remains to be seen, doesn't it? We were pretty close to nooking everyone back to stone age once and prominent people are saying we are about to live in a pressure cooker of our own making pretty soon.

This thing about passion - I don't know. Freud was into this frustration creating new ways of thinking by blowing through the Ego and Super-ego. I think I read a piece of a dissertation in economics lately, something about frustration being very good for getting new ideas for development of business. I like business and politics, they cut through all the scientific stuff and use only the stuff that works. Including very large bombs.

But yea, if you just dabble with it like I do, probably many things will sound weird. But I get that from my own field - I am a Phd student in computer science, and you would not believe bullshit our researchers come up with.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Wow, dude.  It's worse

 Wow, dude.  It's worse than I thought.  I'm just going to address one section because, well, you have too many things wrong to understand my responses to the rest.

Quote:
People saying that evolution is a fact, while natural selection is a theory - that just sounds backwards to me.

Evolution occurs.  It is as certain as gravity or electricity.  There is no doubt that evolution occurs.  (Of course, philosophers will point out that there is always some doubt but in the case of evolution, the amount of justifiable doubt is so infintesimally small as to be discounted completely.  To call it a technicality is giving it too much credit.)

The fact of evolution is explained by the theory of evolution.  By theory, we mean a set of principles which parsimoniously explain what we observe and allow us to make falsifiable predictions.

Quote:
I mean, technically yea - we can not predict shit with natural selection and we can't test it either, but it is as evident as can be - are you dead? Yes?

You've really read about natural selection?  Really?  We absolutely can make predictions, and we absolutely can test them.  That's what 90% of evolutionary biology is about.  How do you think we make drugs?  We don't just randomly guess until we find something that works.  We examine the bug we're trying to kill and attempt to find a particular aspect of it that is not present in humans.  Then we consult a database of proteins so that we can make a prediction about which one will negatively affect the bug without having serious effects on humans.

Furthermore, we can and do regularly make predictions using the theory of evolution in order to make better food, whether it is higher yield, drought tolerant, or what have you.

Furthermore, we can examine the genome of a fetus (in lots of different species) and make accurate predictions about various traits it will posess as an adult.

Furthermore, we can extrapolate from known phylogenetic data and predict the existence of certain intermediate fossils, and lo and behold, they're quite often found, exactly where we look for them.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that literally 90% or more of all biology (and medicine) rests on the fact that evolution lends itself readily to falsifiable predictions.  You're just dead wrong about this.

Quote:
Well, shit, you haven't been selected, have you?

If I am dead, but I have successfully reproduced before my death, then my genes are still quite alive.  If you've read about natural selection, you should know survival isn't the key variable.  Reproduction is.

Quote:
With evolution I would take the argument of lacking falsifiability at least semi-seriously, just like have it in the back of our mind for fun.

You would be ignorant at best and downright stupid at worse.

Quote:
As to evolutionary value of intelligence - really remains to be seen, doesn't it?

No.

Quote:
We were pretty close to nooking everyone back to stone age once and prominent people are saying we are about to live in a pressure cooker of our own making pretty soon.

If global warming is true, it will potentially be bad for humans and a lot of other complex organisms, but it won't be particularly bad for life itself.  Natural selection will motor on.  In fact, if there's a mass extinction from global warming, it will be the catalyst for an evolutionary explosion as new niches are opened.

Quote:
Freud was into this frustration creating new ways of thinking by blowing through the Ego and Super-ego.

Wow.  We need to get you away from Freud.  Talk about unfalsifiable.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Zus; One of the newer and

Zus;

 

One of the newer and more important concepts in evolutionary biology is called 'punctuated equilibrium'. It describes how organisms do not just change slowly as the aeons wheel by; rather, most changes are actually fairly rapid, spurred-on by severe environmental pressures as they arise.

Now, you're sort-of correct: humans, presently, aren't undergoing much change as a result of natural selection. Environmentally speaking, we're in a pretty cozy niche right now - there's no impetus for change. This does not mean that we are 'above' evolution or that change is not occurring to us; it only means that the changes that are being selected for are very subtle. If/when our environment changes to an extent that our machinery cannot compensate for and we become not so comfortable anymore, you'll find that homo sapiens are just as morphologically malleable as any other organism.

It is a mistake to consider our machines part of our biology (well, until they are a part of it, anyway); they are very much part of our environment - you can think of them as sort-of like an extra 'buffer' that we get against the depredations of our sometimes rather cruel universe. As Hamby said, we have much bigger margins than a rodent - but the margins are still there.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Well, KB, you're right and

 Well, KB, you're right and you're wrong.  It appears that humans are actually evolving remarkably quickly as of somewhere between four and six thousand years ago.  Once we realized that, it was sort of an "oh, yeah... duh... " moment, for existing theories in evolutionary biology predict just that.  Globalization and the population explosion have actually introduced lots of new selection pressure we didn't have while living on the African plains for a million years.

Punctuated equilibrium, however, does appear to take place.  We have to be careful, though.  There's been a lot of unnecessary hubbub over the last few decades, as lots of Gould fanboys (I use that term on purpose) misunderstood the nature of evolutionary "lulls."  During periods of relative evolutionary stasis, natural selection is still working at the same pace.  The thing is, when you're nearly perfectly adapted to your current stable environment, virtually all mutations are neutral or negative, and most surviving "mutant" organisms will be less well adapted to their environment, and will be filtered out.  So, it's not that there haven't been new variations of sharks, for instance.  It's that pretty much all the variant sharks have reproduced less well than the older models.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok, we are far the fuck off

Ok, we are far the fuck off track with the topic, but here we go.

Hambydammit wrote:

 Wow, dude.  It's worse than I thought.  I'm just going to address one section because, well, you have too many things wrong to understand my responses to the rest.

Quote:
People saying that evolution is a fact, while natural selection is a theory - that just sounds backwards to me.

Evolution occurs.  It is as certain as gravity or electricity.  There is no doubt that evolution occurs.  (Of course, philosophers will point out that there is always some doubt but in the case of evolution, the amount of justifiable doubt is so infintesimally small as to be discounted completely.  To call it a technicality is giving it too much credit.)

The fact of evolution is explained by the theory of evolution.  By theory, we mean a set of principles which parsimoniously explain what we observe and allow us to make falsifiable predictions.

We certainly are talking straight past each other. The process of evolution occurs, no doubt. The evolution as a theory and a set of principles has some fantastic claims which are held like the holy grail. Descent of all living stuff from a single cell organism - why? Why not 50? Or 5 billion? They found single cell organisms grouping in the ocean - it's an idicator, great, but why not more than one type coming to existance independantly? And why does it have to be simple to more complex, why not just have a shitload of garbage dna that can produce offshoots? Why not go complex to simple?

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
I mean, technically yea - we can not predict shit with natural selection and we can't test it either, but it is as evident as can be - are you dead? Yes?

You've really read about natural selection?  Really?  We absolutely can make predictions, and we absolutely can test them.  That's what 90% of evolutionary biology is about.  How do you think we make drugs?  We don't just randomly guess until we find something that works.  We examine the bug we're trying to kill and attempt to find a particular aspect of it that is not present in humans.  Then we consult a database of proteins so that we can make a prediction about which one will negatively affect the bug without having serious effects on humans.

Furthermore, we can and do regularly make predictions using the theory of evolution in order to make better food, whether it is higher yield, drought tolerant, or what have you.

Furthermore, we can examine the genome of a fetus (in lots of different species) and make accurate predictions about various traits it will posess as an adult.

Furthermore, we can extrapolate from known phylogenetic data and predict the existence of certain intermediate fossils, and lo and behold, they're quite often found, exactly where we look for them.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that literally 90% or more of all biology (and medicine) rests on the fact that evolution lends itself readily to falsifiable predictions.  You're just dead wrong about this.

When I said you could not predict stuff with it, it would be which species, not meddled by us in a laboratory, are going to get which traits and which species will loose which traits. This pertains again to being completely unable to rewind the clock to that first cell.

All you said about medicine is absolutely true and is already given. But in the light of what I said earlier, I am really interested in the stuff that, at least in my mind, is not even close to be proven. Like with Newton - we can build bridges, because the theory is APPROXIMATING reality. But with Newton we can't approximate the big bang, and for that we put Newton on the shelf. Same with making drugs - still doesn't tell me why it's a single cell that had to be the origin of all life on earth. Some aspects make it possible, but holding on to it like it's the word of God is silly.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Well, shit, you haven't been selected, have you?

If I am dead, but I have successfully reproduced before my death, then my genes are still quite alive.  If you've read about natural selection, you should know survival isn't the key variable.  Reproduction is.

If you are dead as a species, you are not reproducing any more or a trait is less common. I mean, this is the only really reasonable way we can verify natural selection - shit is dead and not reproducing - it has been deselected. Or a certain trait is less common - thus it not as essential for survival as some other traits, assuming the thing you are examining is reproducing just fine. I have no beef with natural selection, I think it works beautifully. It's not a theory, it's like saying day is not night - true by definition.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
With evolution I would take the argument of lacking falsifiability at least semi-seriously, just like have it in the back of our mind for fun.

You would be ignorant at best and downright stupid at worse.

Yea, again talking about single cell origin and other weird stuff we fight with theists about.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
As to evolutionary value of intelligence - really remains to be seen, doesn't it?

No.

This objection I don't understand. Assuming the goal is to last as long as possible, it's pretty crucial how long we last, isn't it? Also things like being able to produce artificial intelligent "life" would have some impact on the final grade.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
We were pretty close to nooking everyone back to stone age once and prominent people are saying we are about to live in a pressure cooker of our own making pretty soon.

If global warming is true, it will potentially be bad for humans and a lot of other complex organisms, but it won't be particularly bad for life itself.  Natural selection will motor on.  In fact, if there's a mass extinction from global warming, it will be the catalyst for an evolutionary explosion as new niches are opened.

Ok, so if we were to become extinct due to global warming, that would place intelligence and reasoning of the type we have had together with our biology at about -6 on the aforementioned scale - for all the possibilities we had, we commited suicide. We didn't quite hit -7, which is inability to eat. Or -9, which is lack of any urge to live.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Freud was into this frustration creating new ways of thinking by blowing through the Ego and Super-ego.

Wow.  We need to get you away from Freud.  Talk about unfalsifiable.

I know, he's not all that reliable, but hey, business people are using some of his theory, so I was willing to take another look. Newton didn't have to be 100% to build bridges and evolution doesn't have to start with a single cell to make medicine.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, KB, you're right

Quote:
Well, KB, you're right and you're wrong.  It appears that humans are actually evolving remarkably quickly as of somewhere between four and six thousand years ago.

I believe I said recently.

4 and 6 thousand years ago doesn't strike me as fitting within contemporary times. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 ZuS, I mean this in the

 ZuS, I mean this in the nicest sort of way.  I'm going to have to stop trying to explain this to you.  You need a total restart, and I don't have time to teach you the equivalent of an intro course in natural selection.  I'm going to be honest with you and tell you that I don't think you've read as much as you claim.  At least, I hope I'm right.  If you've gotten these ideas after reading the authors you claim, I despair for your reading comprehension skills.

Please, if you're just talking out your ass, realize that I'm not, and I can see through it.  If you really want to learn, please try grabbing a textbook, or a good book by a real scientist and give it a thorough read.  Why don't you look up E.O. Wilson, or maybe Trivers, or Hamilton, or even Ridley, if Dawkins' explanation didn't get it across.  (The thing is, Dawkins is pretty much the best writer of the bunch, regardless of anything else.  If you can't get it from him... that's not good.)  They've all written very good material on modern evolutionary biology.

Kevin Brown wrote:
4 and 6 thousand years ago doesn't strike me as fitting within contemporary times. Sticking out tongue

Care to rethink that?  At 30 year generations, that's 200 generations.  You know evolution works over tens of thousands of generations.  In evolutionary terms, the last six thousand years can only be described as contemporary.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Zus;

 

One of the newer and more important concepts in evolutionary biology is called 'punctuated equilibrium'. It describes how organisms do not just change slowly as the aeons wheel by; rather, most changes are actually fairly rapid, spurred-on by severe environmental pressures as they arise.

Now, you're sort-of correct: humans, presently, aren't undergoing much change as a result of natural selection. Environmentally speaking, we're in a pretty cozy niche right now - there's no impetus for change. This does not mean that we are 'above' evolution or that change is not occurring to us; it only means that the changes that are being selected for are very subtle. If/when our environment changes to an extent that our machinery cannot compensate for and we become not so comfortable anymore, you'll find that homo sapiens are just as morphologically malleable as any other organism.

It is a mistake to consider our machines part of our biology (well, until they are a part of it, anyway); they are very much part of our environment - you can think of them as sort-of like an extra 'buffer' that we get against the depredations of our sometimes rather cruel universe. As Hamby said, we have much bigger margins than a rodent - but the margins are still there.

Yea, a lot of us die with our powerlines. But the discussion is really about homosexuals and genetics. In this respect the buffer is different than whatever a rat can dish up, because it let's us have a range of stuff otherwise unmanagable in this brief moment. Precisely BECAUSE of the posibilities this buffer gives us, there is no way of telling weather homosexual is good or bad here - we created our own environment and can use it either to mince ourselves to death, survive stuff we otherwise could not, or just die even faster, when the environment we adapted to perfectly is taken away in one fell swoop. But homosexuality is no longer necessarily a detrimental trait, as it almost always will be for a rodent population.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: ZuS, I

Hambydammit wrote:

 ZuS, I mean this in the nicest sort of way.  I'm going to have to stop trying to explain this to you.  You need a total restart, and I don't have time to teach you the equivalent of an intro course in natural selection.  I'm going to be honest with you and tell you that I don't think you've read as much as you claim.  At least, I hope I'm right.  If you've gotten these ideas after reading the authors you claim, I despair for your reading comprehension skills.

Please, if you're just talking out your ass, realize that I'm not, and I can see through it.  If you really want to learn, please try grabbing a textbook, or a good book by a real scientist and give it a thorough read.  Why don't you look up E.O. Wilson, or maybe Trivers, or Hamilton, or even Ridley, if Dawkins' explanation didn't get it across.  (The thing is, Dawkins is pretty much the best writer of the bunch, regardless of anything else.  If you can't get it from him... that's not good.)  They've all written very good material on modern evolutionary biology.

You will give up on a heretic? Probably for the best at the moment, since yea, some of that stuff is pulled out of "my ass" from things I read ages ago. Most recent was a mathematical article calculating beneficial effect of cooperation in groups to oneself trying to explain altruism, got it from a colleague who was making some evolution-algorithms at the time, I was bored to tears reading it. Biology is my interest number gazillion, usually pulled in when I try defending someone's contribution to society. Usually it's theists, sometimes atheists, this time homosexuals, kindof unusual. At times I go off target with it, and that never ends good.

I must admit Dawkins' escapades with anti-theism were a lot funnier read than his selfish gene thing. I will go back to it and take it seriously for a while.

But I will be back on this topic, something is always wrong the moment anyone goes deterministic on a segment of population.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Evolutionary theory does not

Evolutionary theory does not say much about the actual origin of life. At most it assumes all life evolved from a closely related population of the simplest organism which could be recognized as such. Such populations would have contained possibly millions of individuals. All the way through the history of the development of life, there is a lot of evidence from genetic studies that genetic material has been exchanged horizontally between different lines of inheritance, This would have been direct in the case of primitive organisms; we still observe single-celled critters meeting to swap DNA. It presumably keeps happening because organisms which do this will mix up their genes more and thus evolve and adapt more rapidly.

So there would be no neat 'tree of life' all converging neatly to a single organism. More like a Banyan tree with many interconnected trunks.

There were probably many such populations occupying environments where the crucial basic chemicals had accumulated, whether the original idea of a 'warm pond', or perhaps the water around a deep ocean vent spewing warm chemical-rich water into the surrounding ocean.

Multi-celled organisms would occasionally achieve something like this by the occasionally successful mating between closely related but nominally separate species. There is explicit genetic evidence for this too.

There would not likely have been any identifiable 'magic' moment marking the transition to what would ultimately be the ancestral life-form to all current life on Earth.

I don't think any aspects of evolutionary theory could be characterised as 'fantastic'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


radnomad
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-03-11
User is offlineOffline
 I have a hard time

 I have a hard time picturing a distant wolf dad and overprotective wolf mom resulting in a gay wolf cub.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

 

Haven't seen reference to homosexuality in other than humans in this thread.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, other animals do

Well, other animals do exhibit homosexual behaviour.  If you read Hamby's posts in this thread (and I highly recommend you read everything he's written on this site) he does make it quite clear that there's no reason in particular to think that homosexuality would be a purely human phenomenon... and sure enough it's not.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 There are over1500 animals

 There are over1500 animals known to engage in homosexual activity.  

Quote:
The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's clo

ses relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."

 

But that's hardly all.  Lions, dolphins, crabs, worms, octopi... Four to five percent of geese and ducks are exclusively homosexual.  One in ten black-headed gull females is lesbian.  Male big horn sheep bond with each other through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation.  Giraffes have male orgies.  I could go on, but the point should be clear enough.  Homosexuality isn't even remotely limited to humans, nor are any particular activities.  Oral sex, anal sex, genital massage, cuddling, and even activities very akin to kissing are all represented outside of humans.  In the populations that have been the best documented, we also see the same kinds of pattern -- the population of homosexuals stays consistent from generation to generation.  

Really, I don't know why this is so hard for people to grasp.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Anonymous
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I was wondering if any of

I was wondering if any of you had any theories about the "reasons" for homosexuality

In my opinion, your approach is wrong.  You assume that evolutionary changes have "reasons".  They don't.

 

Land animals didn't develop lungs to be able to live on land...  No, they live on the land BECAUSE they developed lungs.

A bird didn't develop wings to be able to fly.  It flies BECAUSE it developed wings.

 

Talking about homosexuality and evolution in the same sentence is also somewhat ironic.  Evolution requires procreation in order to occur.  Homosexuals don't procreate. They don't pass on their genes.  They wouldn't be homosexuals if they did...

 

So to answer your question: there is no reason for homosexuality. And in evolution, there is no reason for any kind of change whatsoever.  Sometimes genes just mutate. The overwhelming majority of the time, this mutation is harmfull and will not be there to stay in later generations.  But every once in a while, a subtle change in genes gives an organism/creature exactly the right leverage for better chance of survival AND procreation then its counterparts.  Those genes do get spread through procreation. And so, after lots and lots of generations, those new genes become "standard" in every individual of the species.


lokipro
lokipro's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-12-16
User is offlineOffline
My son just came home last

My son just came home last Friday and talked to me about how he was taught that it's nature vs. nurture and his teacher brought up some idiotic example of twins... won't even go into the details, it's just too painful to recount.

::::palm to face::::

Thanks to the almight Hamby for his eloquent teachings on the subject. Smiling Helped my discussion with him... though for some reason he was embarassed I was talking about it in public.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Did you reprimand the

Did you reprimand the teacher?


lokipro
lokipro's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Did you

Thomathy wrote:

Did you reprimand the teacher?

Due to the 'second class' citizenship afforded to homosexuals here in the states, I am not in a poistion to do so. If I did, it could potentially threaten the financial security of my family.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Unfortunate that.

Unfortunate that. Sad