How come gays are born defective?

[The Colonel]

In order for natural selection to work two things have to happen.

Firstly, there has to a replicator. Something that is capable of being replicated usually but always perfectly. If replication were perfect there would be no variation for nature to select against. This the genotype.

Secondly, the variations produced must have an impact on the ability of the replicator to be replicated. They must increase (or decrease) the replicators chance of being copied. This is the phenotype.


Genes are the replicators. The get themselves copied (with occasional mutations) and through their effect on the development of the embryo they produce a body that interacts with the environment successfully or not. Success determined by whether that underpin become more common or not and not success as determined by whether the individual actually has offspring themselves or not.

Survival of the fittest by natural selection means that those most fitted (best adapted) to the environment survive. Survival of the fittest works at the level of genes (not individuals – who are merely carriers of genes, or species – which are merely groups of individuals with similar genes).

Therefore the fact that homosexuality in humans exists means either one of two things. Either there is a gene (or a group of genes) for homosexuality and that those genes continue to be passed on and are therefore fit (adapted) to their environment or there is no gene for homosexuality and it’s learned or random behaviour.

Conversely, those replicators that are persistent must have a degree of fitness. By definition, if they have consistently made it into the next generation they must have some adaptive advantage.

My personal view is that genes that work well with genes that code for homosexuality gain a Dutch Uncle benefit. Of ten offspring with similar genes (say for blue eyes) one will tend not to have offspring themselves and will poor resources into supporting blue eyed nieces and thus crowd out resources from their brown eyed rivals.

Or you could argue that you get a better expression of the phenotype for some useful specialisms when you combine the genotype for that specialism with the genotype for homosexuality. It’s a special case of the Dutch Uncle and I don’t buy it myself.

GM

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

[Fred75]

In order for natural selection to work two things have to happen.

Firstly, there has to a replicator. Something that is capable of being replicated usually but always perfectly. If replication were perfect there would be no variation for nature to select against. This the genotype.

Secondly, the variations produced must have an impact on the ability of the replicator to be replicated. They must increase (or decrease) the replicators chance of being copied. This is the phenotype.


Genes are the replicators. The get themselves copied (with occasional mutations) and through their effect on the development of the embryo they produce a body that interacts with the environment successfully or not. Success determined by whether that underpin become more common or not and not success as determined by whether the individual actually has offspring themselves or not.

Survival of the fittest by natural selection means that those most fitted (best adapted) to the environment survive. Survival of the fittest works at the level of genes (not individuals – who are merely carriers of genes, or species – which are merely groups of individuals with similar genes).

Therefore the fact that homosexuality in humans exists means either one of two things. Either there is a gene (or a group of genes) for homosexuality and that those genes continue to be passed on and are therefore fit (adapted) to their environment or there is no gene for homosexuality and it’s learned or random behaviour.

Conversely, those replicators that are persistent must have a degree of fitness. By definition, if they have consistently made it into the next generation they must have some adaptive advantage.

My personal view is that genes that work well with genes that code for homosexuality gain a Dutch Uncle benefit. Of ten offspring with similar genes (say for blue eyes) one will tend not to have offspring themselves and will poor resources into supporting blue eyed nieces and thus crowd out resources from their brown eyed rivals.

Or you could argue that you get a better expression of the phenotype for some useful specialisms when you combine the genotype for that specialism with the genotype for homosexuality. It’s a special case of the Dutch Uncle and I don’t buy it myself.

GM

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

I think it's by no means a stretch of the imagination that if you left liberal gay men on an island with boys the gay men would seduce the boys.

[Fred75]

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

Many animals, male cats for instance, eat the young not theirs.
What are we supposed to learn from that and relate to man?

[Gibbous Moon]

It’s probably less of stretch of the imagination that a group of heterosexual men left alone on an island with girls would seduce them. Although one would hope that both sexualities would respect the rights of the minor to be left alone until they had reached the age of consent.

I suppose it’s too much to ask that a group of lesbian women be left alone on an island.

GM

[The Colonel]

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

Many animals, male cats for instance, eat the young not theirs.
What are we supposed to learn from that and relate to man?

That is infanticide - not applicable.

[Fred75]

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

Many animals, male cats for instance, eat the young not theirs.
What are we supposed to learn from that and relate to man?

And might I add Colonel... that animals BREED when they BLEED!
Are you now saying a 12 year old girl starting her period is now ripe for the picking?

[The Colonel]

In order for natural selection to work two things have to happen.

Firstly, there has to a replicator. Something that is capable of being replicated usually but always perfectly. If replication were perfect there would be no variation for nature to select against. This the genotype.

Secondly, the variations produced must have an impact on the ability of the replicator to be replicated. They must increase (or decrease) the replicators chance of being copied. This is the phenotype.


Genes are the replicators. The get themselves copied (with occasional mutations) and through their effect on the development of the embryo they produce a body that interacts with the environment successfully or not. Success determined by whether that underpin become more common or not and not success as determined by whether the individual actually has offspring themselves or not.

Survival of the fittest by natural selection means that those most fitted (best adapted) to the environment survive. Survival of the fittest works at the level of genes (not individuals – who are merely carriers of genes, or species – which are merely groups of individuals with similar genes).

Therefore the fact that homosexuality in humans exists means either one of two things. Either there is a gene (or a group of genes) for homosexuality and that those genes continue to be passed on and are therefore fit (adapted) to their environment or there is no gene for homosexuality and it’s learned or random behaviour.

Conversely, those replicators that are persistent must have a degree of fitness. By definition, if they have consistently made it into the next generation they must have some adaptive advantage.

My personal view is that genes that work well with genes that code for homosexuality gain a Dutch Uncle benefit. Of ten offspring with similar genes (say for blue eyes) one will tend not to have offspring themselves and will poor resources into supporting blue eyed nieces and thus crowd out resources from their brown eyed rivals.

Or you could argue that you get a better expression of the phenotype for some useful specialisms when you combine the genotype for that specialism with the genotype for homosexuality. It’s a special case of the Dutch Uncle and I don’t buy it myself.

GM

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

I think it's by no means a stretch of the imagination that if you left liberal gay men on an island with boys the gay men would seduce the boys.

Rubbish.

[Gibbous Moon]

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

Many animals, male cats for instance, eat the young not theirs.
What are we supposed to learn from that and relate to man?

A minute ago your argument was that as homosexuality appeared to run counter to the principles of natural selection it must therefore be unnatural and homosexuals therefore unfit and therefore immoral. A “What is Natural is Moral” argument.

Now that people have demonstrated that in order to exist at all homosexuality must have some adaptive fitness (and therefore be natural) you appear to be arguing that some things that are the product of natural selection are immoral, a “What is Natural is not necessarily Moral” argument.

What would you like Natural = Moral or Natural is Morally Neutral?

GM

[Fred75]

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

Many animals, male cats for instance, eat the young not theirs.
What are we supposed to learn from that and relate to man?

That is infanticide - not applicable.

So then... we ignore everything animals do BUT homosexuality????
Sounds like your point is LOGICAL!

NOT!

[The Colonel]

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

Many animals, male cats for instance, eat the young not theirs.
What are we supposed to learn from that and relate to man?

That is infanticide - not applicable.

So then... we ignore everything animals do BUT homosexuality????
Sounds like your point is LOGICAL!

NOT!

Infanticide is not pedophillia. The latter does not exist in the animal world, thus it is not natural.

Homosexuality and infanticide occur in human and animal societies. Thus, they are natural.

To determine whether something is natural one must:

Find it across time, cultures and species.

Homosexuality - yes.
Infanticide - yes.
Pedophillia - no.

[Bobin]

Therefore the fact that homosexuality in humans exists means either one of two things. Either there is a gene (or a group of genes) for homosexuality and that those genes continue to be passed on and are therefore fit (adapted) to their environment or there is no gene for homosexuality and it’s learned or random behaviour.

All valid points. With the above, we must consider another possibility. Genotype and phenotype are not always directly correlated. The three possibilities are:

1. Expression of the trait purely due to genetic factors. Applied to homosexuality, this would incur no choice whatsoever on the part of the individual, much like someone cannot changes their eye color.

2. Genetic predisposition to the trait. In this case, the genetics exist to support the trait, but an environmental factor must also be present for the trait to be expressed. Many mental disorders, autoimmune disease, allergies, certain types of heart disease, etc., all fall into this category.

3. Non-genetic basis. Purely a learned behavior.

I have a tendancy to lean toward #2. Evidence supporting this view is the ability of a person to change their sexual orientation.

[mogadishu]

Well... thinking about something is not illegal.
The ACT is.

If you're feeling a little disorientated it's because you got lost on your way to the 1950's.

[Gibbous Moon]

Therefore the fact that homosexuality in humans exists means either one of two things. Either there is a gene (or a group of genes) for homosexuality and that those genes continue to be passed on and are therefore fit (adapted) to their environment or there is no gene for homosexuality and it’s learned or random behaviour.

All valid points. With the above, we must consider another possibility. Genotype and phenotype are not always directly correlated. The three possibilities are:

1. Expression of the trait purely due to genetic factors. Applied to homosexuality, this would incur no choice whatsoever on the part of the individual, much like someone cannot changes their eye color.

2. Genetic predisposition to the trait. In this case, the genetics exist to support the trait, but an environmental factor must also be present for the trait to be expressed. Many mental disorders, autoimmune disease, allergies, certain types of heart disease, etc., all fall into this category.

3. Non-genetic basis. Purely a learned behavior.

I have a tendancy to lean toward #2. Evidence supporting this view is the ability of a person to change their sexual orientation.

Or it could be that homosexuality is the effect (determistic or disposition as you will) of many different genes each of which is individually slightly better adapted then its allele but which in consort have the (probably) disadvantageous phenotype of homosexuality.

That way the individual genes would prosper in the gene pool and only when they meet up do they have the counter-productive effect of making their carrier less likely to pass them on.

We are after all a work in progress.

GM

[Fred75]

If it's genetic...it's a genetic DEFECT!
Because of the fact they are born with HETEROSEXUAL reproductive organs!

[Fred75]

Homosexuality has been found in many species.

Pedophillia in other species has not been found.

Fred's comments are once again innane. I suppose liberal television converted monkey's and penguins did it Fred?

You are the highest degree of arsehole possible.

Many animals, male cats for instance, eat the young not theirs.
What are we supposed to learn from that and relate to man?

That is infanticide - not applicable.

So then... we ignore everything animals do BUT homosexuality????
Sounds like your point is LOGICAL!

NOT!

Infanticide is not pedophillia. The latter does not exist in the animal world, thus it is not natural.

Homosexuality and infanticide occur in human and animal societies. Thus, they are natural.

To determine whether something is natural one must:

Find it across time, cultures and species.

Homosexuality - yes.
Infanticide - yes.
Pedophillia - no.

So then you think girls having periods at 12 should be allowed to have sex with 40 year old men?

Because that's what happens in the animal kingdom equivalent!

So... explain to me again what were supposed to follow and not supposed to follow from the animals?