ninjakirby: ie: Link is a meme.

One can only wonder what the hell happened to Link between Adult Link in "Ocarina of Time" and the final Link. I think this is an obvious sign that evolution does not have goals or necessarily guarantee the survival of the best or fittest.

;)

/disclaimer: not being the most avid gamer, the last Zelda I played was Ocarina, so I don't know anything about the subsequent Links

ninjakirby: GeorgeBurns: As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

No.

Culture is completely separate from and independent of biology (beyond you know, genes that allow for speech and dexterous fingers that can write etc; but even that has been overcome by culture)

This is why Dawkins coined the term Meme, as a way of defining units of culture which are replicated and mutate within the 'space' they occupy*.

ie: Link is a meme.


Of course in some far off (or not so far off) future time, we may create people who are more genetically adapted to technology and such (say by genetically modifying a race of people who can live comfortably in .17 G

*I personally really dislike the way this concept has taken root in many peoples imaginations, with the 'mind virus' etc etc. IMO, they stretch the term far beyond its breaking point.

Well, if civilization lasts long enough to be "noticed" by evolution, then it will certainly effect our evolution. And if a single culture remained unchanged for a hundred thousand years or so, I'm sure you'd see some adaptations to the culture.

The thing is, civilization is only 8000 years old. It's ridiculously new in evolutionary terms for a species with our reproduction rate.

mamoru: ninjakirby: ie: Link is a meme.

One can only wonder what the hell happened to Link between Adult Link in "Ocarina of Time" and the final Link. I think this is an obvious sign that evolution does not have goals or necessarily guarantee the survival of the best or fittest.

;)

/disclaimer: not being the most avid gamer, the last Zelda I played was Ocarina, so I don't know anything about the subsequent Links

Oh man. . . you don't even want to know how convoluted and insane the Zelda timeline is. Really. You don't want to know.

ninjakirby: ie: Link is a meme.

Milhouse is also a meme.

GeorgeBurns:

As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution?

Halted, no. Altered, yes.

This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much???? I don't know - this is where the thing breaks down for me.......

The important thing is the number of surviving offspring. Americans and Japanese as well as Western Europeans have very high survival rates for children, so don't need to have more. By reducing the number of offspring, parents in wealthy nations ensure more resources per child, increasing their chances of survival and success within society and therefore increasing their chances of reproductive success. There's also the fact that reducing the overall number of humans reduces the strain on our collective resources, therefore increasing the chances for the survival of the species. Some people choose to remain childless, Genetic Altruism at work.

The strategy of reducing the number of offspring to increase individual survival rates only works for humans because of the society we have created. So we have very much altered the course of our own evolution.

RemyDuron: Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do.

That's sexual selection.

And whether man discovered artificial selection by accident makes no difference. Can man artificially select for traits? Yes. Does he? Yes. Even if the ability to do this is a product of evolution, it's hard to argue that there is not "design" in artificial selection.

Super Chronic: So, gorgor, what happened to your links? Why the copy and paste?

Forbidden subject is forbidden.

GeorgeBurns: As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution???

Our intelligence and altruism are evolved traits. Considering our essential dominance of the entire world, I would say both are amazing traits. Perhaps negative traits continue through the human population more than without those two traits, but all the same the environment seems to have selected and to continue to select despite the consequences. I merely know of little else with such obvious advantages with such obvious consequences, which is why we may appear to be outside the scope of evolution.

GeorgeBurns: If evolutionary theory (in the scientific sense) is true, then it must deal with this issue; As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

You've already attempted to reach your own conclusion by believing our altering of the environment to be artificial, thus I'll answer the question posed first and the inaccuracy of your statement after.

We do not necessarily need to adapt to a changing environment, but this is an eventual process provided that a minor advantageous adaption can occur. However, the adaptation is only advantageous if helping to raise the fitness of an organism The problem comes with inaccurately determining fitness of an organism. Organisms which run faster, which are stronger, which have better sight, etc., are not necessarily more fit than other organisms; the most fit organism is the one which is capable of producing the most fit offspring which is capable of producing the most fit offspring. Obviously, this is difficult to determine until after the fact when the branches of the tree become sheered, essentially.

The statement is problematic though because the environment is not artificial if we mean "as opposed to natural". We are natural, what we do is natural, our buildings are as natural as a bee hive or an ant colony or a beaver dam, we simply are not used to thinking this way until recently. We adapted by having developed the means to alter our environment to great extent.

GeorgeBurns: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much?

Reproducing more is not necessarily advantageous. Organisms often employ two reproduction strategies, the first being investing resources into fewer children to assure survival, and the second being reproducing a mass of children, many of whom will die, to assure a few will survive. Both are advantageous to certain extents and in certain situations.

Both have limitations as well in the handling of resources and amount of fitness. The biggest population possible isn't necessarily desirable while the largest, longest sustainable population is.

mamoru: /disclaimer: not being the most avid gamer, the last Zelda I played was Ocarina, so I don't know anything about the subsequent Links

Wind Waker was a soft cellshaded version for the Gamecube, before being restored to its rightful and brilliant glory in Twilight Princess for the Wii.

But why we still got monkeys?

ninjakirby: Wind Waker was a soft cellshaded version for the Gamecube, before being restored to its rightful and brilliant glory in Twilight Princess for the Wii.

And while everyone raved about Link, I was on my computer with Garrett about to blackjack him and throw his body to the spiders.

RemyDuron: mamoru: ninjakirby: ie: Link is a meme.

One can only wonder what the hell happened to Link between Adult Link in "Ocarina of Time" and the final Link. I think this is an obvious sign that evolution does not have goals or necessarily guarantee the survival of the best or fittest.

;)

/disclaimer: not being the most avid gamer, the last Zelda I played was Ocarina, so I don't know anything about the subsequent Links

Oh man. . . you don't even want to know how convoluted and insane the Zelda timeline is. Really. You don't want to know.

This.

To briefly sum up, each Link and each Zelda are iterations, i.e. they're not the same Link or the same Zelda in each game, but rather new individuals hundreds of years apart from their namesakes. Except in the case of direct sequels, like how Phantom Hourglass directly picks up where Wind Waker leaves off. Ganon, however, is generally considered to be the same individual.

There's significant argument over exactly which games go in which order.

VonAether: There's significant argument over exactly which games go in which order.

"Timeline theorists" - "Hylian Cosmology" - "Basmentalist Virgins"

Vangor: Our intelligence and altruism are evolved traits. Considering our essential dominance of the entire world, I would say both are amazing traits. Perhaps negative traits continue through the human population more than without those two traits, but all the same the environment seems to have selected and to continue to select despite the consequences. I merely know of little else with such obvious advantages with such obvious consequences, which is why we may appear to be outside the scope of evolution.

The negative traits are the most interesting of all to me. An extremely detrimental yet recessive gene will actually find an equilibrant level in a population. This might be the simple answer to questions like "Why is there altruism?" or "How can there be a genetic aspect to homosexuality?"

ninjakirby: "Timeline theorists" - "Hylian Cosmology" - "Basmentalist Virgins"

This is funny because it's true.

Timelines are admittedly an interest of mine, but in this case all I do is check that site every year or so to see if they've managed to put one together yet.

patrick767:
1) Those who know and know they know. They're in good shape obviously.
2) Those who know and don't know they know. They may just lack confidence. There's hope for them.
3) Those who don't know and know they don't know. They're ignorant and they know it. That's okay. We're all ignorant about many things. They can be taught.
4) Those who don't know and don't know they don't know. Yeah, they're farked and they'll fark up the rest of us given the chance.


Loo: And who are they?
Dr. Klahn: Refuse, found in waterfront bars.
Loo: Shanghaied?
Dr. Klahn: Just lost drunken men who don't know where they are and no longer care.
Prisoner #1: Where are we?
Prisoner #2: I don't care!
Loo: And these?
Dr. Klahn: These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink.
Prisoner #3: I don't know who I am!
Prisoner #4: Yeah, and I don't drink.
Dr. Klahn: Guards!
[moves prisoners]
Dr. Klahn: Do you care?
Prisoner #5: No.
Dr. Klahn: Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
Guard: What do you drink?
Prisoner #5: I don't care.

eraser8: RemyDuron: Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do.

That's sexual selection.

And whether man discovered artificial selection by accident makes no difference. Can man artificially select for traits? Yes. Does he? Yes. Even if the ability to do this is a product of evolution, it's hard to argue that there is not "design" in artificial selection.

It is sexual selection, that's true. My point was the line between "artificial" selection and "natural" selection is not all that clear. Sexual selection is natural selection, but it is also based on the preference of females (usually it's females). Humans altering their DNA due to their preferences thus wouldn't be something new, we'd just be doing it more efficiently.

I am, somewhat, playing devils advocate here, or rather merely raising points of contention because I think they are interesting to explore, but I do think the line between artificial and natural selection is complex and interesting, I just don't have the expertise to explore it. Sure, humanity directly manipulating DNA would be new, but we would be manipulating the DNA to match our preferences, which are the result of evolution, which gets back to evolution and its role in our behavior, which I find very fascinating.

People tend to give human actions special significance. We think we are the only ones with free will, that our choices are more meaningful, unlike animals which act on instinct. But really, the same process produced our brain as produced theirs. Our behavior was "created" by evolution. Although genetically engineering our children to be strong, healthy, tall and broad shouldered may be more direct and efficient than a peahen choosing the peacock with the largest tail feathers, they both seek to achieve the same goal for the same reason. So how "artificial" is it? That is, if you believe there is no god and is no soul or anything like that that make humans special.

I'm really just sort of brainstorming, I could be missing something obvious. I'm not a biologist, my area is physics, but I have a layman's interest in evolution and specifically evolutionary psychology.

suraimu: patrick767:
1) Those who know and know they know. They're in good shape obviously.
2) Those who know and don't know they know. They may just lack confidence. There's hope for them.
3) Those who don't know and know they don't know. They're ignorant and they know it. That's okay. We're all ignorant about many things. They can be taught.
4) Those who don't know and don't know they don't know. Yeah, they're farked and they'll fark up the rest of us given the chance.


Loo: And who are they?
Dr. Klahn: Refuse, found in waterfront bars.
Loo: Shanghaied?
Dr. Klahn: Just lost drunken men who don't know where they are and no longer care.
Prisoner #1: Where are we?
Prisoner #2: I don't care!
Loo: And these?
Dr. Klahn: These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink.
Prisoner #3: I don't know who I am!
Prisoner #4: Yeah, and I don't drink.
Dr. Klahn: Guards!
[moves prisoners]
Dr. Klahn: Do you care?
Prisoner #5: No.
Dr. Klahn: Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
Guard: What do you drink?
Prisoner #5: I don't care.

I had to look up what that was from, and now I have to see that movie. That's delightful.

mamoru: One can only wonder what the hell happened to Link between Adult Link in "Ocarina of Time" and the final Link.

It's called "Final Fantasy."

letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species. Men do not come from apes.

The only thing that natural selection does is ensure survival of the fittest.


Excuse me, kind sir, but I was wondering... what might your surname be?

RemyDuron: I had to look up what that was from, and now I have to see that movie.

Yes.

Yes, you do.

Loo: And who are they?
Dr. Klahn: Refuse, found in waterfront bars.
Loo: Shanghaied?
Dr. Klahn: Just lost drunken men who don't know where they are and no longer care.
Prisoner #1: Where are we?
Prisoner #2: I don't care!
Loo: And these?
Dr. Klahn: These are lost drunken men who don't know where they are, but do care! And these are men who know where they are and care, but don't drink.
Prisoner #3: I don't know who I am!
Prisoner #4: Yeah, and I don't drink.
Dr. Klahn: Guards!
[moves prisoners]
Dr. Klahn: Do you care?
Prisoner #5: No.
Dr. Klahn: Put this man in cell #1, and give him a drink.
Guard: What do you drink?
Prisoner #5: I don't care.

This is not a chawade... we need total concentrashan

GeorgeBurns: As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution??? Not just by creating an artificial appearence of good health and fertility (boob jobs, etc) but by technologies like laser eye surgery (you can no longer know if you are avoiding people with poor eye health,) medicine that enables the unhealthy or unfit members to continue to contribute to the gene pool (maybe in lower apes those individuals die out without speading traits that are unproductive, or even dangerous,) etc.

Simply put? No, we haven't. This is a common misconception and you'll even see some biologists uttering it but it couldn't be further from the truth. Have we changed our fitness landscape with modern medicine and all that? Certainly. But there is still natural selection going on, we have just managed to alter those selective constraints. One could actually argue that because of modern medicine we now have more raw material for evolution in the human population. Genetic variants that would have been lethal 50 years ago (killed you before you reproduced) may not be now, this allows humans, as a population, to explore deeper "fitness valleys". Compensatory mutations may then turn these negative traits into net positives down the road, we really can't predict anything about the path evolution will take.

So no, all we have done is altered what is important and visible to natural selection through our ingenuity and shifted the emphasis of natural selection, not removed it from the picture.

joethebastard: People_are_Idiots: Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough,

No, evolution is a "theory" because every scientific model is "just a theory". There's no such thing as a scientific proof.

Oh, so gravity is a theory? How bout motion? They were theories before they became law. :) Don't worry, I do believe evolution explains the how.

RemyDuron: WhyteRaven74: People_are_Idiots: evolution is a theory,

Evolution is a biological process. It can not be a theory, it either is or it isn't. Now the theory of evolution, is a theory.

Well, that's kind of confusing. I'd say it like this:

It's a fact that evolution occurs. Mutations occur, mutations of positive value can occur, therefor evolution occurs. This is pretty much undeniable unless you don't believe in DNA and genetic mutations.

The theory of evolution is that the wide variety of species on Earth can be explained by this mechanism.

Similarly, gravity is a fact. You put two masses next to each other, they attract each other with a force proportional to their massive and inverse proportional to the square of the distance between them. Newton's theory of universal gravitation said that this mechanism explained the movement of heavenly bodies and held in the entire universe. And actually, he was kind of wrong, and Newton's theory of universal gravitation was replaced with Einstein's theories on gravity. Which have not yet been resolved with the quantum mechanical theory of gravity.

Hmmm, funny, I was taught gravity as a law, as was laws of motion, energy, and so on, yet evolution is a theory and not a law (mainly because we're still studying it, as possibly a way to explain it further and further back in time). Still is a good reason on mutation and selection (maybe even explains how one brand of human got wiped out while the other stayed).

gaspode:
kerpal32: Yeah well, the same exact thing can be said about PZ Meyers. sheesh.

understanding and belief in evolutionary theory != atheism


Not really. One can argue that PZ is wrong, and many do, but one cannot argue that he does not understand the topic or that he lacks knowledge of it, you can only argue with his conclusions and logic. Ignorance is not a viable accusation in a case like that.

People_are_Idiots: Oh, so gravity is a theory? How bout motion? They were theories before they became law. :) Don't worry, I do believe evolution explains the how.

And, even though you agree with us we are still going to correct your flawed understanding of science. Its a shame that so many schools and bad teachers have taught it this way. There is no Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law progression in science. As a matter of fact it is the Theory of Gravity.

Scientific Law: A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always applies under the same conditions. Unlike a theory a scientific law is an observation, it contains no model or explanation of the phenomenon.

So there is Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation but there is also the Theory of Gravity. There are laws that are part of the theory of evolution, which would cover things like inheritance of traits but the theory as a whole is a model that explains those observations.

There never was a progression where you study some phenomenon and propose a theory that then becomes law. In fact scientific laws tend to precede theories. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation preceded the modern Theory of Gravity for instance.

The entire debate comes down to two issues: 1) creationists rejecting anything scientific that appears to conflict with what they believe, and 2) creationists being extremely uncomfortable with scientific theories that appear to explain giant mysteries without a clear need for a divine origin.

Evolution threatens creationist views in two ways. It threatens young-earth creationism by describing a far longer timescale. More generally, it provides an explanation for complex organisms developing according to natural laws, without an obvious need for divine intervention at any stage.

Related to this, although evolution does not pretend to explain the actual origin of life, it does comport with scientific theories that do, meaning that the origin of life also has no obvious need for divine intervention.

Intelligent Design is a notion that essentially says that God is responsible for evolution. That's romantic, but unnecessary. More to the point, it's unscientific, which is why it doesn't belong in classrooms. But that does not also mean that it's untrue.

Many people of great faith don't understand that science is not anti-religious, but irreligious. That is, science doesn't expressly discount the divine (even though many scientists may do so individually on a personal level), nor validate anything divine (even though many scientists are deeply faithful). The precepts of science are about testable physical evidence. By definition, divinity cannot be tested scientifically. Science therefore cannot prove or disprove divinity, and so cannot dismiss it -- NOR validate it, for the same reasons. Science can show that a skull is four million years old, but cannot say that proves there is or is not any divine power involved in that testable piece of evidence.

The fact that some scientific findings appear to conflict with some religious teachings may be disappointing or frustrating to some people, but from a scientific perspective, it's irrelevant. The testable evidence of religious theories is rarely sufficient to counter scientific ones. Moreover, the fact that science is limited to verifiable physical evidence means that science does not explain everything, and so cannot effectively prove or disprove many religious notions. The origin of matter and energy (the universe), for example, remains unexplained scientifically; but the fact that (many conflicting) religious theories of this origin exist does not suggest that science is more likely to be wrong on this or any other subject. It is as fair to ask why any given religious theory should be assumed to be more likely than any other, given that testable physical evidence for any of them is sorely lacking.

In empirical terms, much of reality is clearly validated by science. Anyone who takes a plane or uses the Internet must accept the evidence that certain theories readily prove themselves every day. To date, divine flight or telecommunication absent any agent available in natural law has yet to be clearly demonstrated. Even some mind-bending scientific theories have been verified by demonstrable experiments. Just as one example, atomic clocks placed on long-distance, high-altitude flights verified that time does go slower at a greater distance from a gravity well, validating Einstein's model of gravitational distortion of space-time.

So it's not that science 'proves' the Bible is wrong. It doesn't, and can't. But it does show that certain interpretations of that text do not comport with apparent reality. That also doesn't prove that God's a cheeky bastard who's having a go at us by making us 'discover' crazy 'evidence,' or planting 'ancient' bones as some sort of cosmic practical joke. What it does show is that one certain way of understanding reality, science, is commonly inconsistent with certain forms of divine understanding of the same reality.

From a scientific perspective, religion is unprovable. Which is not the same as saying that it's incorrect (nonfactual) or wrong (immoral or ill-reasoned). Even in scientific terms, it's entirely possible that everything is divine, and science is only one way of looking at a massively complex reality, like the blind man who feels only the elephant's massive back leg, and so does not reveal the whole picture, and may only provide an accurate but inadequate perspective.

That said, science has done a spectacular job so far not only of explaining the reality we perceive, but also posing new ways of exploring it, leading to even greater understanding. While it's had many stumbles along the way, it's also self-critical and thus self-correcting (a distinct difference from many though not all religious methods), and is responsible for the vast majority of all our modern knowledge and works.

Rationally, then, it is not science that needs to accommodate unprovable notions. Rather, some religious notions should perhaps be reconsidered. Many modern religions enfold provable science without dismissing divinity, thus finding no conflict.

Religion really only gets into these disputes when it purports to explain the physical mechanisms of nature. Where it does not, no conflict exists. There's nothing in science to say that natural laws are not of divine origin, only that they work in certain provable ways.

I wish I could remember who it was who said that science explains WHAT and HOW, and religion explains WHY. Contrary to the personal sensibilities of many religious and scientific people, these are not incompatible perspectives.

GeorgeBurns: If evolutionary theory (in the scientific sense) is true, then it must deal with this issue; As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

Selection operates not only at the level of individual, but groups of individuals.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Related to this, although evolution does not pretend to explain the actual origin of life, it does comport with scientific theories that do, meaning that the origin of life also has no obvious need for divine intervention.

Just because I feel like nitpicking, I always find this explanation a little wanting, mostly because it isn't quite true. While in general the theory of evolution doesn't require a particular explanation for the origin of life I would argue that the various hypotheses for abiogenesis are actually now under the umbrella of the theory of evolution. Its just that the transition from chemical to biological evolution is a little fuzzy. After all it is primarily people who would describe themselves as evolutionary biologists or molecular evolutionists who are primarily interested in that area of research.

I guess I am pedantic but I think that the pat "evolution != abiogenesis" rebuttal is a little well, incomplete. :)

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: I wish I could remember who it was who said that science explains WHAT and HOW, and religion explains WHY. Contrary to the personal sensibilities of many religious and scientific people, these are not incompatible perspectives.

True, although some of us would just question whether the Why is even a meaningful question. Obviously for some people it is, for many of us it probably isn't.

gorgor: Forbidden subject is forbidden.

Those curious why it is forbidden should re-read the posting rules. (Of course, everyone should re-read the posting rules, even if they aren't curious.)

RemyDuron: My point was the line between "artificial" selection and "natural" selection is not all that clear.

Mainly because "artifice" is poorly defined.

abb3w: Oh, and I suppose it's time to drag this out again....


8) Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organism's offspring that are able to reproduce in turn, tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.


How about homosexuality? If it is an inherited trait, why is it not rare?

entropic_existence: While in general the theory of evolution doesn't require a particular explanation for the origin of life I would argue that the various hypotheses for abiogenesis are actually now under the umbrella of the theory of evolution.

In the broadest sense of evolution as "change via the second law of thermodynamics".

Persnickety: How about homosexuality? If it is an inherited trait, why is it not rare?

Well, an upper bound of 10% of the population expressing it would seem to be "rare".
That aside, a mechanism similar to the Grandmother effect would allow for it.

Actually, that ought not be hard to model computationally....

abb3w: Persnickety: How about homosexuality? If it is an inherited trait, why is it not rare?

Well, an upper bound of 10% of the population expressing it would seem to be "rare".
That aside, a mechanism similar to the Grandmother effect would allow for it.

Actually, that ought not be hard to model computationally...

Pretty much, and of course it is likely controlled by multiple genetic elements and so is an emergent property. Some of those genes may enhance fertility for instance. It is when you get the combination all at once that it is expressed as homosexuality.

entropic_existence: abb3w: Persnickety: How about homosexuality? If it is an inherited trait, why is it not rare?

Well, an upper bound of 10% of the population expressing it would seem to be "rare".

Over thousands of generations of people with the trait not mating, 10% seems extremely high.


That aside, a mechanism similar to the Grandmother effect would allow for it.

Replace would with could. You linked to an unproven hypothesis.


Actually, that ought not be hard to model computationally...

Pretty much, and of course it is likely controlled by multiple genetic elements and so is an emergent property. Some of those genes may enhance fertility for instance. It is when you get the combination all at once that it is expressed as homosexuality.

Another hypothesis - and a complicated and tenuous one at that. How about this then: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait. As supporting evidence, I point to the complex nature of human sexuality where an individual's sexual response to everything from leather to chubby chasing to hentai to furries is generally understand to be learned and not inherited.

Persnickety: Another hypothesis - and a complicated and tenuous one at that. How about this then: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait. As supporting evidence, I point to the complex nature of human sexuality where an individual's sexual response to everything from leather to chubby chasing to hentai to furries is generally understand to be learned and not inherited.

We can point to a)the ubiquity of same-sex sexual activity throughout the animal kingdom and b) existence of some genes that effect this behaviour in other animals to say that there is definitely a genetic component to homosexuality.

Nothing in biology and human behaviour is an either or proposition, virtually all of it is a combination of genetics, environment, and experience but there are certainly strong genetic predispositions at work in both human gender identity and sexual preferences.

Eh, evolution is pretty simple and obviously true, but why can it not coexist with religion? Maybe it's because I'm not religious, but why is it so difficult to imagine that evolution is happening and God is in charge of it? Young Earth creationists (who are a tiny majority) aside, this isn't out of line with any biblical beliefs.

entropic_existence: I guess I am pedantic but I think that the pat "evolution != abiogenesis" rebuttal is a little well, incomplete. :)

I disagree strongly. Evolution is merely a theory to explain the progression of life (a simple concept) while abiogenesis attempts to answer the big question of how life actually started, which is far more complicated.

Persnickety: Over thousands of generations of people with the trait not mating, 10% seems extremely high.

Sickle-cell anemia runs 30% carrier, implying about 10% with a double dose and who thus are unlikely to live long enough to mate. So, no, not really.

Perhaps you're trying to ask why it isn't rarer?

Persnickety: Replace would with could. You linked to an unproven hypothesis.

No, keep "would", because I paired it with the verb "allow", not "prove".

IIR, the existence of the phenomenon is fairly well established, in that a maternal grandmother substantially improves odds of survival from birth to end of adolescence. [EG; feel free to search Google Scholar for a better link] The question remains as to what the mechanism is, but a similar mechanism is gay uncles/aunts would allow a similar result.

The observation doesn't prove a similar mechanism indeed underlies homosexuality, nor any genetic link; it just reduces the expected surprise of such a mechanism/link turning up.

Persnickety: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait.

Ignores "In a similar search restricted to the X chromosome, brothers concordant for the trait of homosexual orientation showed significant excess allele sharing (33 out of 40 cases) in the region Xq28, suggesting the involvement of a genetic factor influencing at least the particular subtype of homosexuality studied", along with around a half century of other peer reviewed results.

You're not interesting enough for me to enjoy the time required to insult you with the precision you deserve, so I'll leave that to others.

Cromar: Eh, evolution is pretty simple and obviously true, but why can it not coexist with religion?

Depends whether you're talking in terms of philosophy or anthropology, along with whether you care about whether your logic is on a non-trivial lattice.

Cromar: Maybe it's because I'm not religious, but why is it so difficult to imagine that evolution is happening and God is in charge of it?

"Imagine" is different from "infer as probable".

Cromar: Young Earth creationists (who are a tiny majority)

33% of the US population assert scriptural inerrancy. This seems neither "tiny" nor "majority".

Cromar: Evolution is merely a theory

Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.

Cromar: abiogenesis attempts to answer the big question of how life actually started, which is far more complicated

The big question is defining "life". Since life is possible, "how life got started" just gets reduced to the statistical mechanics expression of the second law of thermodynamics, along with a few details of chemistry.

entropic_existence: Persnickety: Another hypothesis - and a complicated and tenuous one at that. How about this then: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait. As supporting evidence, I point to the complex nature of human sexuality where an individual's sexual response to everything from leather to chubby chasing to hentai to furries is generally understand to be learned and not inherited.

We can point to a)the ubiquity of same-sex sexual activity throughout the animal kingdom

While there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal kingdom, most those same animals or clones are also willing to engage in opposite-sex sexual activity when exposed to different environmental conditions. At best that points to bisexuality, not homosexuality in the strictist sense. It also suggests that same-sex activity is a learned behavior.


and b) existence of some genes that effect this behaviour in other animals to say that there is definitely a genetic component to homosexuality.

Nothing in biology and human behaviour is an either or proposition, virtually all of it is a combination of genetics, environment, and experience but there are certainly strong genetic predispositions at work in both human gender identity and sexual preferences.

If there are strong genetic predispositions for sexual preference, we are again back with #8 being a problem: Such strong predispositions should become more and more rare with each generation until only weak predispositions are left - unless it's like Sickle Cell Anemia where the trait has a proven link to some other factor that aids in passing along the trait.

Mamoru and TheyCallThisWork win the prize for the best answers. NinjaKirby wins worst place, as usual.

One more example of humans 'affecting the course' of evolution; once upon a time, squirel predetors ran on 4 legs who could zig zag and were deliberate. Now, a lot of squirels are killed by a 'preditor'on 4 wheels who is unthinking and moves in generally straight lines. The squirrel who uses the old math to dodge the 4 wheeled predetor and tries to dodge with zig zags gets smooshed. The squirel who runs straight across the road quickly lives to pass on their genes. Due to urban sprawl, one day all squirels will use straight running to avoid being killed. When humans go extinct, so will squirels because they'll try to escape the foxes bu running straight, and that won't work for shiat.

GeorgeBurns: NinjaKirby wins worst place, as usual.

Cromar: Eh, evolution is pretty simple and obviously true, but why can it not coexist with religion? Maybe it's because I'm not religious, but why is it so difficult to imagine that evolution is happening and God is in charge of it? Young Earth creationists (who are a tiny majority) aside, this isn't out of line with any biblical beliefs.

It depends what you mean by "in charge of it." If you mean in charge as in micromanaging, directing, or in any way controlling the process of evolution then that would conflict quite drastically with what we know. If on the other hand you mean more along the lines of what most Catholics believe (Theistic Evolution) which is that God simply created Evolution by designing the physical laws of the Universe then it doesn't necessarily have to conflict no.

Cromar: I disagree strongly. Evolution is merely a theory to explain the progression of life (a simple concept) while abiogenesis attempts to answer the big question of how life actually started, which is far more complicated.

I think you missed my point. I would also disagree on the relative complicatedness of the origins of life versus the evolution of life once it existed. The more we study the more they entertwine, with one being a natural outgrowth of the other. The same basic principles that exist at the heart of how life evolved are also at play in our hypotheses about how life originated. The line between the evolution of self-replicating chemicals and self-replicating life is a fuzzy one, probably because there is no good definition for exactly what life is.

While the theory of evolution does not depend on any particular mechanism for the origin of life, the origin of life is without a doubt a question of great interest (and being worked on) by evolutionary biologists, particularly Molecular Evolutionists (which is the field I am in). Thats the great thing about scientific theories, individual peices within them can be unclear or change radically without the whole being wrong. Abiogenesis, certainly as a research program and certainly the currently best supported hypotheses, all fall within the broader theory of evolution.

Persnickety: If there are strong genetic predispositions for sexual preference, we are again back with #8 being a problem: Such strong predispositions should become more and more rare with each generation until only weak predispositions are left - unless it's like Sickle Cell Anemia where the trait has a proven link to some other factor that aids in passing along the trait.

You might want to do some reading on complex multi-locus genetic traits then. It isn't straight forward or clear cut and is much more complex then relatively simple traits like Sickle Cell where carriers have a significant enough advantage.

Persnickety: While there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal kingdom, most those same animals or clones are also willing to engage in opposite-sex sexual activity when exposed to different environmental conditions. At best that points to bisexuality, not homosexuality in the strictist sense. It also suggests that same-sex activity is a learned behavior.

Bisexual behaviour is very prevalent in the animal kingdom but I was referring to strictly homosexual behaviour. I am aware of at least two very well done studies in both Drosophila and Sheep studying males with an exclusive preference for other males. With drosophila you put them all together and they form conga lines of male flies attempting to mate with other males. These males will totally ignore females, same goes with the sheep. Both of these studies contributed to a whole "gay gene" controversy several years ago when someone suggested that it could lead to a "cure" for homosexuality.

And BTW, even if the majority of studies were limited to bisexual behaviour (which they aren't) it doesn't actually suggest that it is learned versus acquired behaviour.

And again we get into whole different ball games when we start talking about animals that live in complex social groups like humans do. Which is where things like the Grandmother Hypothesis and various ideas that account for how sociality impacts evolution, come in to play.

GeorgeBurns: One more example of humans 'affecting the course' of evolution; once upon a time, squirel predetors ran on 4 legs who could zig zag and were deliberate. Now, a lot of squirels are killed by a 'preditor'on 4 wheels who is unthinking and moves in generally straight lines. The squirrel who uses the old math to dodge the 4 wheeled predetor and tries to dodge with zig zags gets smooshed. The squirel who runs straight across the road quickly lives to pass on their genes. Due to urban sprawl, one day all squirels will use straight running to avoid being killed. When humans go extinct, so will squirels because they'll try to escape the foxes bu running straight, and that won't work for shiat.

Humans, being a part of nature, effect evolution of course. I think it is the "course of evolution" ninjakirby had issues with. There is no course because evolution is absolutely dependent on historical contingency and takes place on a fitness landscape that is constantly shifting and changing because everything is dynamic. No one is denying that humans have a large impact on the selective pressures and fitness of other organisms on this planet, including our own.

Persnickety: entropic_existence: Persnickety: Another hypothesis - and a complicated and tenuous one at that. How about this then: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait. As supporting evidence, I point to the complex nature of human sexuality where an individual's sexual response to everything from leather to chubby chasing to hentai to furries is generally understand to be learned and not inherited.

We can point to a)the ubiquity of same-sex sexual activity throughout the animal kingdom

While there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal kingdom, most those same animals or clones are also willing to engage in opposite-sex sexual activity when exposed to different environmental conditions. At best that points to bisexuality, not homosexuality in the strictist sense. It also suggests that same-sex activity is a learned behavior.


and b) existence of some genes that effect this behaviour in other animals to say that there is definitely a genetic component to homosexuality.

Nothing in biology and human behaviour is an either or proposition, virtually all of it is a combination of genetics, environment, and experience but there are certainly strong genetic predispositions at work in both human gender identity and sexual preferences.

If there are strong genetic predispositions for sexual preference, we are again back with #8 being a problem: Such strong predispositions should become more and more rare with each generation until only weak predispositions are left - unless it's like Sickle Cell Anemia where the trait has a proven link to some other factor that aids in passing along the trait.

Your problem is that you are assuming that homosexuality, like sickle cell anemia, is controlled by a single gene. This is almost certainly not the case. The best current understanding of the genetics of human sexuality is that it is multigenomic, and homosexual tendencies are expressed only when the correct set of genes is present in the individual.

The thing is, we also know that it is virtually unheard of for a gene to do only one thing, so all those genes that influence the presence or absence of homosexual behaviors in humans also have other effects. As long as the net benefit of those other effects is positive, then the genes will be conserved.

And even that's an oversimplification. It ignores drift, and gene sequence conservation (i.e. when a gene is conserved because it overlaps or is adjacent to a critical gene on the chromosome).

Frankly, the tenor of your arguments (which are old conservative talking points, btw) demonstrates either profound ignorance of the subject or else definite bias. For now I am willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt, and suggest you go do the background reading to learn the details of the outline of the topic that abb3w and e_e have provided and that I have added to.

And if I am wrong, and you are looking for excuses to condemn homosexuality because it is a 'choice' which you can therefore categorize as immoral, let me ask you this, then: When did you choose to be heterosexual? Can you choose to be attracted to your own sex, even as an experiment? If you can't, why do you assume others can?

Sylvia_Bandersnatch:

Many people of great faith don't understand that science is not anti-religious, but irreligious.

The exact same observation can be made about 95% to 99% of the Fark atheists regularly post.

KiltedBastich: Your problem is that you are assuming that homosexuality, like sickle cell anemia, is controlled by a single gene. This is almost certainly not the case. The best current understanding of the genetics of human sexuality is that it is multigenomic, and homosexual tendencies are expressed only when the correct set of genes is present in the individual.

The thing is, we also know that it is virtually unheard of for a gene to do only one thing, so all those genes that influence the presence or absence of homosexual behaviors in humans also have other effects. As long as the net benefit of those other effects is positive, then the genes will be conserved.


I don't understand why it (sexual preference) can't be any or all or the following depending on the individual
- genetic
- multi-genetic
- learned behaviour
- conditional / environmental
- personal preference
- biochemically influenced
- other factor(s)

abb3w: Sickle-cell anemia runs 30% carrier, implying about 10% with a double dose and who thus are unlikely to live long enough to mate. So, no, not really.

Perhaps you're trying to ask why it isn't rarer?

The Sickle-cell trait provides a proven resistance to malaria and as such aids in the survival of the individual so that the individual is likely to pass on the trait. There is no correspondingly proven beneficial effect for the homosexual trait.


IIR, the existence of the phenomenon is fairly well established, in that a maternal grandmother substantially improves odds of survival from birth to end of adolescence. [EG; feel free to search Google Scholar for a better link] The question remains as to what the mechanism is, but a similar mechanism is gay uncles/aunts would allow a similar result.

The observation doesn't prove a similar mechanism indeed underlies homosexuality, nor any genetic link; it just reduces the expected surprise of such a mechanism/link turning up.

Of course there could be a link, but that doesn't mean there is one. In a similar vein, I can claim that there is a well known connection between one's environment and what stimulates sexual attraction. Some well documented environmental factors: Polynesian culture finds overweight people attractive. In China men were turned on by a woman who has very small feet. Ugandans prefer their women large but their men extremely thin. In Japan, well, let's leave them out this! Perhaps homosexuality has a similar environmental factor.

My point is: it is unscientific to claim one way or the other is correct until we know for sure. My guess: same-sex sexual attraction is a mixture of both environment and genetics.


Persnickety: Homosexuality is largely an environmentally learned trait, and not much of an inherited trait.

Ignores "In a similar search restricted to the X chromosome, brothers concordant for the trait of homosexual orientation showed significant excess allele sharing (33 out of 40 cases) in the region Xq28, suggesting the involvement of a genetic factor influencing at least the particular subtype of homosexuality studied", along with around a half century of other peer reviewed results.

And this clashes somewhat with Bailey & Pillards 1991 study of twins that found only a 52% concordance amongst identical twins for sexual orientation. This strongly suggests an environmental factor at work.


You're not interesting enough for me to enjoy the time required to insult you with the precision you deserve, so I'll leave that to others.

*sigh* So much for civil discourse. If you feel you must resort to insults, please just do go away.