Random Question About Genetic Traits

[All-In Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I "got" it from years of studying paleoanthropology in college and teaching genetics and evolutionary theory. Where do your ideas come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

My 'ideas', which if you actually look are in fact questions, come from curiosity. Every post you've made in this thread and the other has asked me to simply accept your (self-asserted) authority unquestioningly - can you please just take it as read that I don't?

So when I ask 'where are you getting this?' I am not asking for a resume, or what you do for a living. I am asking you what studies you can cite that unequivocally show (or even strongly imply) that the ideas you set forth actually exist in the real world. You have yet to do this - you have yet to even attempt this. And please accept that I'm not hostile to evidence - just lack of it. You're convinced of homosexuality's fitness and claim authority - you are in fact a teacher. Teach me!

[ QUOTE ]
We don't think of the genome and how it evolves in terms of individuals, but in terms of populations. One of the most positive forces for selective fitness, is controlling the number of individuals in the population because production and reproduction are so intertwined as to be almost indistinguishable from one another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this - are you arguing for gayness as a population-size regulator? Very difficult to accept without resorting to group-selectionism. And if you're not arguing that, what exactly do you mean?

[ QUOTE ]
Ejecting gay persons from our families and communities is counter to reproductive success for the population as a whole.



Not anymore, by your own lights.


I have no idea what this means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find that hard to believe. I mean that even if what you say is true of our primitive ancestors, the same does not hold true today. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the disappearance tomorrow of all forms of homosexuality would in any way reduce our reproductive fitness, not by any model presented - even if that model is valid. And your very argument is that gayness contributed at least at one time to reproductive fitness. Pretty basic, and it was just a comment. I only felt the need to re-iterate homophobia's moral repugnance because I am very sure many people here - you included - suspect me of some unstated anti-gay agenda. The (deleted) part of your first repsonse about 'minding my own business' made that pretty clear.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
So when I ask 'where are you getting this?' I am not asking for a resume, or what you do for a living. I am asking you what studies you can cite that unequivocally show (or even strongly imply) that the ideas you set forth actually exist in the real world. You have yet to do this - you have yet to even attempt this. And please accept that I'm not hostile to evidence - just lack of it. You're convinced of homosexuality's fitness and claim authority - you are in fact a teacher. Teach me!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, how do you want to pay? Or, if you live near a university or really good library, hie ye forth and learn.

I wasn't arguing for anything, I was discussing a topic. I am posting on a message board - not lecturing or debating.

This ain't Oxford, it's a poker forum.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
Find that hard to believe. I mean that even if what you say is true of our primitive ancestors, the same does not hold true today. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the disappearance tomorrow of all forms of homosexuality would in any way reduce our reproductive fitness, not by any model presented - even if that model is valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Absolutely no reason..?" OK, do you know the difference between "reproductive firness" and "Darwinian fitness?" In Darwinian fitness the "fittest" individual is the one who survives to have the most offspring that have the most offspring.

Studies (easy to find in that library you are going to visit) show that in rat populatiuons, same sex behaviors increase dramatically when poulation increases and space and food resources diminish.

As to modern Western culture: gay people reproduce, quite frequently. I have no studies, just have known a lot of gay folks. HOWEVER-

Neither you nor I know the imapact of 10-18% of the population suddenly becoming "straight." If even half of these people formed couples and produced 2.6 children in the next ten years, ... well, you do the math. What impact do you think there would be?

[All-In Flynn]

Do yourself a favour and never mention your profession in discussion if it's just something to lend a whiff of authority to your unsubstantiated claims. What you end up saying is that at least your armchair has a big shiny plaque on it - big deal.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Now I realise that it may be true that, say, the majority of male apes do not reproduce. Do we then see that such apes as are observed to practice something like homosexuality (can't remember which specific ones, something like 'Barber apes' but I can't quite remember it)are given responsibility for the care of the group's young? And is this role assigned to gays of both genders?

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC the Bonobo chimp (what you seem to be talking about) aren't known for practicing exclusively homosexual relationships. The Bonobo are know for orgy type situations where individuals will have sex pretty much indiscriminately with either sex. These orgies take place during times of stress or conflict between members and are generally viewed as ways to ease that tension and reaffirm and strengthen bonds between individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
Vertebrates tend to invest far more in one batch or litter (to varying degrees) - primates more than most vetebrates, and humans more than any other primate

[/ QUOTE ]

Its still well under 50% of mammals that manage to reproduce.

I would also simply say that there are innumerable possibilities as the environment is constantly in flux. What might be a slight detriment under certain conditions could end up being a major benefit during a severe event (like a drought). These things aren't always obvious since they are not the normal conditions we observe the animals under.