Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Of H*m*s*xuality


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#1 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 October 2007 - 03:32 PM

If H*m*s*xuality is "in our genes", how do you explain its evolution? In order for natural selection to work, the trait has to favor reproductive success. If NDT is operational, then shouldn't 100% of the male population by flaming heterosexual?

#2 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 24 October 2007 - 03:42 PM

"flaming heterosexual" ?? isn't that an oxymoron? lol

Good question though! Surely Evo's don't want to call H*m*sexuals "defective" that wouldn't be PC.

#3 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 October 2007 - 08:37 PM

"flaming heterosexual" ?? isn't that an oxymoron? lol

Good question though!  Surely Evo's don't want to call H*m*sexuals "defective" that wouldn't be PC.

View Post

Defective or not, for H*m*s*xuality to evolve, it needs to be preferentially reproduced... and it obviously can't be. Evolution would demand that it would disappear from the population by natural selection. This is an interesting dilemma for an evolutionist who thinks it's "in our genes" to answer.

#4 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 24 October 2007 - 08:58 PM

Defective or not, for H*m*s*xuality to evolve, it needs to be preferentially reproduced... and it obviously can't be.  Evolution would demand that it would disappear from the population by natural selection.  This is an interesting dilemma for an evolutionist who thinks it's "in our genes" to answer.

View Post


It is fairly certain from twin studies that sexuality has a genetic component. If some or all of the genes responsible for H*m*s*xuality in some people do other things then the genes could be selected for because of their alternate function. For example, it's been found that there is a gene that correlates both with increased fertility in women, and H*m*s*xuality in men. The gene would be preserved due to the reproductive advantage in women, not because it contributed to H*m*s*xuality in men.

#5 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 25 October 2007 - 05:06 AM

It is fairly certain from twin studies that sexuality has a genetic component.  If some or all of the genes responsible for H*m*s*xuality in some people do other things then the genes could be selected for because of their alternate function.  For example, it's been found that there is a gene that correlates both with increased fertility in women, and H*m*s*xuality in men.  The gene would be preserved due to the reproductive advantage in women, not because it contributed to H*m*s*xuality in men.

View Post

Do you have any documentation of this? Do you have any evidence that mothers of h*mosexual males have more children than average?

#6 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 25 October 2007 - 06:15 AM

Do you have any documentation of this?  Do you have any evidence that mothers of h*mosexual males have more children than average?

View Post


http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/3735668.stm

They looked at 98 h*mosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall.

The female relatives on the mother's side of the h*mosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side


#7 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 25 October 2007 - 07:14 AM

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/3735668.stm

They looked at 98 h*mosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall.

The female relatives on the mother's side of the h*mosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side

View Post


The article you referenced offers no scientific evidence... only conclusions which sound subjective. Why don't they publish the actual results of the study? They don't even provide references. Until you can come up with something concrete, that sort of "research" remains worthless.

#8 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 25 October 2007 - 09:46 AM

ditto what springer said, the evidence linking H*m*s*xuality to DNA is very shabby ...

Also how does it tie into evolution?

#9 Countic16

Countic16

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 25 October 2007 - 02:44 PM

If H*m*s*xuality is "in our genes", how do you explain its evolution?  In order for natural selection to work, the trait has to favor reproductive success.  If NDT is operational, then shouldn't 100% of the male population by flaming heterosexual?

View Post


I've never really had conflict with whether male hom*s*xuality was genetic or not. The reason being is that genetic or not, we are still accountable to the Word of God.

The data from the link provided seems to be a little bit revealing, and I personally do not see a strong problem for evolution if male hom*s*xuality were, infact, genetic. It does not crush the staples of evolution. The reason for that is because in any population, for that population to grow there needs to be a larger number of females to reproduce, yet only one male. If 75 out of every 100 males died, it would not inhibit reproduction. The other 25 males could still reproduce with the full 100 females. Thus, its not exactly "an evolution killer" if male hom*s*xuality were genetic.

On the other hand, female hom*s*xuality can have devastating results to evolutionary theory if it is found to be genetic. Un-reproductive females = death to a lineage. If the hom*s*xuality gene were carried on by women, as that study specifically suggests, then the gene has absolutely no chance of survival...and we should not be seeing female hom*s*xuals....which we do. To me, this is a MUCH more convincing argument that evolution isn't what evolutionists think it is.

#10 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 25 October 2007 - 03:00 PM

I've never really had conflict with whether male hom*s*xuality was genetic or not.  The reason being is that genetic or not, we are still accountable to the Word of God. 

  The data from the link provided seems to be a little bit revealing, and I personally do not see a strong problem for evolution if male hom*s*xuality were, infact, genetic.  It does not crush the staples of evolution.  The reason for that is because in any population, for that population to grow there needs to be a larger number of females to reproduce, yet only one male.  If 75 out of every 100 males died, it would not inhibit reproduction.  The other 25 males could still reproduce with the full 100 females.  Thus, its not exactly "an evolution killer" if male hom*s*xuality were genetic.

The way natural selection supposedly works is by miniscule reproductive advantages insuring perpetuation of the species. In this way, I think it would be very logical to predict that male H*m*s*xuality would disappear because the male h*mosexual carries the gene and he would therefore not reproduce offspring. The only counter to that is if the gene supposedly causing male H*m*s*xuality is in reality linked to increased fertility in females. I would love to see real data on that rather than subjective conclusions.

On the other hand, female hom*s*xuality can have devastating results to evolutionary theory if it is found to be genetic.  Un-reproductive females = death to a lineage.  If the hom*s*xuality gene were carried on by women, as that study specifically suggests, then the gene has absolutely no chance of survival...and we should not be seeing female hom*s*xuals....which we do.  To me, this is a MUCH more convincing argument that evolution isn't what evolutionists think it is.

View Post


You bring up a good point. I haven't heard anything about whether or not lesbianism is believed to be genetic.

#11 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 25 October 2007 - 04:28 PM

The article you referenced offers no scientific evidence... only conclusions which sound subjective.  Why don't they publish the actual results of the study?  They don't even provide references.  Until you can come up with something concrete, that sort of "research" remains worthless.

View Post


I found the full paper. It can be read here. pdf link

#12 Countic16

Countic16

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:40 AM

[quote name='Springer' date='Oct 25 2007, 03:00 PM']
The only counter to that is if the gene supposedly causing male H*m*s*xuality is in reality linked to increased fertility in females. [quote]

Well, the article stated it links the gene is found on the female genes, not males. I went strictly by the article, which may not be an accurate piece of literature. Is there another source you had in mind when stating your thoughts of it being on the male genes?

#13 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 01 November 2007 - 07:46 AM

Defective or not, for H*m*s*xuality to evolve, it needs to be preferentially reproduced... and it obviously can't be.  Evolution would demand that it would disappear from the population by natural selection.  This is an interesting dilemma for an evolutionist who thinks it's "in our genes" to answer.

View Post


Mmmm, I don't really know what you are arguing here.

First of all on preferential reproduction: If H*m*s*xuality (is it forbidden to write it, here?) was preferentially reproduced, then all people would be h*mosexual, which we obviously are not. However, since H*m*sexuals are not unable to reproduce (they may just not enjoy the process much), and it does not otherwise hamper their survival, it is not incompatible with evolution that a minority can carry the gene.

So I don't see any evolutionist dilemma. Even if it is eventually proven (as I understand it, there is still some doubt) that H*m*s*xuality is genetic, it can be held within the ToE, with no problems. In fact, i would think it would be more of aproblem for at least some creationists, because they would then have to acknowledge that God apparantly created some people g*y.

Hans

#14 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 01 November 2007 - 08:08 AM

because they would then have to acknowledge that God apparantly created some people g*y.

View Post



I'm going off topic a little here, sorry.


Even though I have no doubt that H*m*s*xuality is not genetic. God still allows humans to go thier own ways and get traps in thier own devices. Also all of us are saved at different points in our lives. There are actually a bunch of ex-g*y christians. Same as there are ex-alcoholic christians, or christians who are working on controlling thier anger, even ex-P*rn star christians, ex-pimp christians, ex-drug addict christians, etc etc etc.

God seems to be a key component in delivery from all this vices, not the originator.

#15 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 01 November 2007 - 10:37 AM

Interesting discussion. But, I think the premise starts off wrong. That's because there really is no such thing as a type of human called "h*mosexual."

A h*mosexual is merely someone who has given himself over to sinful behavior, a particular kind of sinful behavior. Talk of H*m*s*xuality in regard to evolution is as relevant as talking about the "evolution" of people addicted to gambling, or murderers, or alcoholics, or atheists. Is there an atheist gene? You get my point?

It's only in modern times that the h*mosexual agenda has advanced the notion that they are a people somehow apart from others. Sinful behavior, even h*mosexual behavior, has been with us from the beginning. Nothing new there, but nothing special either.

Just my 2 cents.

Dave

#16 PansyLad

PansyLad

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 November 2007 - 12:38 PM

Two questions:

Have there been any studies on the genetic properties of bisexuals?

Do h*mosexual males still produce sperm?

#17 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 01 November 2007 - 01:21 PM

Have there been any studies on the genetic properties of bisexuals?


I'm going to venture to say no. the studies we do have are pretty limited and generally on h*mosexual Males.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain, no.


Do h*mosexual males still produce sperm?

View Post


interested to see where you'll go with that.



Welcome to the boards.

#18 PansyLad

PansyLad

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Connecticut

Posted 01 November 2007 - 06:27 PM

I'm going to venture to say no.  the studies we do have are pretty limited and generally on h*mosexual Males.


I may be wrong, but I'm pretty certain, no.

View Post


At first I thought that bisexuality as a genetic trait would be a detriment to Biblical doctrine, but then I got to thinking and I figured that might not be the case. Whether or not bisexuals inherit a gene, I suppose they still have a choice of whether they want to be intimate with a man or woman. H*m*s*xuality, on the other hand, is a different matter.

interested to see where you'll go with that.

View Post


Correct me if I'm wrong, but why would h*mosexual men be able to manufacture sperm if they aren't genetically driven to bond with women?

Welcome to the boards.

View Post


Thank you very much :). It's nice to come to a forum were both sides argue peacefully, even when there are more Creationists. I've never been to a forum where atheists/agnostics/evolutionists act so patiently with questions. Keep it up!

#19 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 02 November 2007 - 02:51 AM

I'm going off topic a little here, sorry.
*snip*
God seems to be a key component in delivery from all this vices, not the originator.

View Post

I don't think it is off topic. For H*m*s*xuality to be relevant to evolution at all, it must be genetic, so discussion of whether it is that is within the scope of the thread.

Hans

#20 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 02 November 2007 - 02:54 AM

Interesting discussion. But, I think the premise starts off wrong. That's because there really is no such thing as a type of human called "h*mosexual."

A h*mosexual is merely someone who has given himself over to sinful behavior, a particular kind of sinful behavior. Talk of H*m*s*xuality in regard to evolution is as relevant as talking about the "evolution" of people addicted to gambling, or murderers, or alcoholics, or atheists. Is there an atheist gene? You get my point?

It's only in modern times that the h*mosexual agenda has advanced the notion that they are a people somehow apart from others. Sinful behavior, even h*mosexual behavior, has been with us from the beginning. Nothing new there, but nothing special either.

Just my 2 cents.

Dave

View Post

Well, that is your opinion. The fact is that certain research seems to indicate that there is at least a genetic vector in S@xual orientation. Actually, there are also things that point in the direction that some people are mire likely to become drug addicts, etc.

Hans




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users