Forums

Darwin And Homosexuality

Page:   1 2 3 4 5
 
 

Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
June 25, 2008, 12:21

unfortunately this article is like many about research…..ie….in academicspeak. πŸ˜₯


Sandy…….can you translate this into everyday language for us please. πŸ˜€


Darwin And Homosexuality

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/darwin-and-homo.html


24 Jun 2008 09:28 am


Another new study finding – surprise! – some genetic clues to the persistence of homosexual orientation among humans. This study finds a connection between homosexuality and female fecundity. The abstract:


β€œThere is a long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality because the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction according to which natural selection should progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness. Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217–2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one. This suggested that genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals.


Since then, new data have emerged suggesting not only an increase in maternal fecundity but also larger paternal family sizes for homosexuals. These results are partly conflicting and indicate the need for a replication on a wider sample with a larger geographic distribution. This study examined the family trees of 250 male probands, of which 152 were homosexuals. The results confirmed the study of Camperio Ciani et al. (2004). We observed a significant fecundity increase even in primiparous mothers, which was not evident in the previous study. No evidence of increased paternal fecundity was found; thus, our data confirmed a sexually antagonistic inheritance partly linked to the X-chromosome that promotes fecundity in females and a homosexual sexual orientation in males.”



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 25, 2008, 13:03

Darwin And Homosexuality


Darwin is a silly old man. Coloquial enough for you? πŸ˜†


Ok but seriously… here goes *deep breath*


This study finds a connection between homosexuality and the reproductive abilities of the female gender.


Darwinist theories have been used in the past to rebuke a genetic causation of homosexuality because homosexual people can not naturally have children and therefore do not have any real benifit to the population (from a social Darwinism perspective) – they are the weakest link.


However, a whole bunch of people, (who funnily enough all have surnames starting with C) found that women related to homosexuals from the maternal line (ie: biologically related through a female decendant) have higher rates of reproductive sucsess. This is not true for those related through the paternal line, or in other words, through a male decendant.


The C researches have decided that homosexuality does not in fact refute the accuracy of Darwins theories because homosexuality in males (genetically linked, in part to the X-Chromosome) increases reproductive sucsess in females and it is therefore reproductivly useful to have gay males in the family (oh aren’t I lucky?) so they will not die out.


Later studies suggest that the link between the reproductive sucess, of non-homosexual women related to homosexual men is more prevalant in the paternal line than perveiously thought (does this mean the first study could be, oh my goodnesss, like…. wrong?!!). These results tend to contradict each other a little bit because the first study says the correlation between reproductive sucsess and being related to a homosexual was only through the maternal line and the second study says its through both. So, in order to find out more reseaarchers will need to do further studies using more people over a wider geographical area.


The reseachers of this particular study, studied the family trees of 250 families, of which, 152 familes had a homosexual male/s in the ranks. The results confimed the findings of all the C researches in the first study (that having a gay male in the family increases reproductive sucsess through the maternal line). The study in question adds to the previous reseach by finding that reproduction is more sucsesful even in mothers who are pregnant for the first time or only have one child. The study found no link between being related to a gay male and reproductive sucsess through the paternal line.


So while male homosexuality is reproductivly hostile (ie: gay males can’t biologically have children) the gentic component in the X chrosome that creates homosexuality (in part) premotes redroductive sucsess in females.


Sandy’s notes: the implication here is it could work both ways. If all the women related to you through a female decendant have high rates of reproduction you have more likelihood of being gay.


Interesting that it doesn’t include lesbianism…. How Queen Victoria of them.


So just to tie it all up, the study is really trying to say that the continued prevalance of male homosexuality does not negate the validity of Darwins theories of evolution or survival of the fittest because male homosexuals serve a useful purpose in pro-creation even if they themselves are not doing the pro-creating. Doesn’t it just make you guys feel all warm and fuzzy inside, knowing you have done your bit for humanity? πŸ˜†


Maybe no one else here is as much of a nerd as I am, but I have the two other studies in my archives somewhere at home. I think they might be in storage… I can send them to you if anyone wants them… but you have to want them alot and be very, very greatful because its going to take alot of manpower to find them. πŸ˜† This is what I get for being old fashioned and having paper copies insted of saving everything digitally.


Oh and sorry about the spelling mistakes…



Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
June 25, 2008, 16:32

so is this like the study that found homosexuality more prevalent through the mothers line of the family than the the fathers.


I thought that is what they were talking about actually.



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
June 25, 2008, 17:40

So in Aussie terms, you’re gay(male) thru your Mum? because Dad shoots blanks in relation to being a carrier?



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 25, 2008, 20:13

so is this like the study that found homosexuality more prevalent through the mothers line of the family than the the fathers


It uses similar methods of study yes, but the central theme of this particular study is to correlate the prevelance of homosexuality positivly to Darwin’s theories. This is actually more of a big deal than it sounds. A strong argument to refute Darwin in the past has been the continued occurance of homosexuality… and there are many claims that homosexuality can not be biological because it does not fit into evolutionary patterns. It all gets very scientific and its not really my field of expertise but its a significant argument none the less.


Yes studies have found homosexuality more prevalent through the maternal line, which makes sense if the ‘gay gene’ is carried in the X-Chrosome since women have an XX combination and men have an XY combination. If you read the whole study, it mentions previous research to confirm findings that homosexuality is more prevalant through the maternal line. The focus of this study is the impact homosexuality has on the reproductive sucsess of women related to homosexual men through the maternal line… similar but not the same thing.


So in Aussie terms, you’re gay(male) thru your Mum? because Dad shoots blanks in relation to being a carrier?


That is the general concensus Maggie. Because whatever biological component (aledgedly) creates homosexuality is found in the X chromosome and women have an XX combination as opposed to the male XY it makes more sense that homosexuality would be passed prodominantly through the maternal line… there may even be something about the Y chromsome that prevents homosexuality being passed on, since it is almost non-existant through the paternal line. The studies are not conclusive however.


However, please take note that this isn’t what this particular study is about! πŸ˜† πŸ˜† This study is saying that homosexual men serve a useful purpose in procreation and that is why they have not died out through natural selection in accordance with Darwins theories on evolution.



Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
June 25, 2008, 21:38

well I got it completely wrong….so much for academic speak.



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 25, 2008, 22:08

Well you were close… kind of πŸ˜†


Thats why you have me, and remember that I do this professionally so don’t feel bad, we all love you anyway.



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
June 26, 2008, 07:45

So does that mean more Gay men are found on the Galapogos islands? awaiting natural selection? 😯 8)



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
June 26, 2008, 10:47

Well… Darwin is the father of evolution right? And evolution says that we adapt to our changing environments. So we evolved from apes slowly over time into creatures that have a better chance of survival, each sucsessive generation is a little more sophisticated than the rest. So we go from little amobeas floating around in space to apes, to cavemen to civilised human beings with a whole lot of stages in between. Its a scientific explanation of why humans exist. Because the world has changed over time, and what becomes necsessary for suvrival changes so do human beings.


There is a sub theory that fits into this and it has three names all basically meaning the same thing, social Darwinism, survival of the fittest and natural selection. Natural selection is basically a theory that says the weakest link dies. If an animal is born deformed or weaker then it will die sooner because it is not as sophisticated as the rest of the animals and can not keep the chain of evolution moving forward. Nature ‘naturally selects’ those that will keep the chain alive. When applied to real life circumstances it is called social Darwinism. For example, people applied social Darwinism to the Aboriginines when they rounded them up in reserves. Aborigines were seen as biological inferior to white men (apparently they had ape like brains) and so it was assumed they would just die out.


Applied to homosexual men the theory goes that they can not continue the process of evolution and they have no real biological function because they can not reporduce so they are the weakest link and will eventually die out. This is why I said Darwin was a silly old man, people usually claim to believe evolution without really knowing what it is. However, its still a significant and widely reciognised theory and homosexuality has confounded Darwinists for decades. So now this study is saying that homosexual men strengthen the chain of evolution because being related to them makes women in the maternal line likely to have more healthy babies, so in fact, they do serve some useful biological purpose.


Its all scientific, evolving over hundreds of thousands of years. It’s not like Darwinists claim that gay people will drop dead tomorrow… more like the biological component in the X-Chromozone will evolve away or evolve into something else because it serves no useful evolutionary purpose… as far as we know to date.


I’ll probably get a million replies telling me I have this evolution thing wrong and if so I appoligise in advance, science is not my forte and I only have a very basic understanding.



Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
June 26, 2008, 11:19

Well you were close… kind of πŸ˜†


Thats why you have me, and remember that I do this professionally so don’t feel bad, we all love you anyway.


yep….that is why I asked.


Page:   1 2 3 4 5
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.088 seconds.