# Evolution, Natural Selection view of Homosexuality & Race



## VisionCasting (Mar 29, 2011)

I have a couple of honest questions for Atheists (not for Christians or ppl of traditional faiths, sorry folks).  Just trying to understand where y'all are coming from.  Thanks!

What is the traditional natural selection/macro evolution view of race and homosexuality?  Specifically (and feel free to address either, or both of these topics):

(1) Is h-s a natural aberration, similar to a birth defect?  Will this aberration eventually 'evolve' itself out of existence since it serves no benefit to natural selection? 

(2) What is your take on the Darwinian "race inferiority"?  Are there inferior races?  Which?  Assuming inferiority, which are superior?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> I have a couple of honest questions for Atheists (not for Christians or ppl of traditional faiths, sorry folks).  Just trying to understand where y'all are coming from.  Thanks!
> 
> What is the traditional natural selection/macro evolution view of race and homosexuality?  Specifically (and feel free to address either, or both of these topics):
> 
> ...



1.)  Nature vs. nurture?  The Gay Gene--fact or fiction?

I believe there is some "Nature" involved in  homosexuality.  I've seen some 5 year olds that are just gay.  They've got hetero parents and hetero siblings.  That's just the way they are.

It could be a response to overpopulation.  It's been around for a long, long time.

2.) Inferior in what way?  Intellectually?  Physically? What kind of Intellect?  In some situations, "Smallness" would be a superior trait to "Largeness".

In the same way that some body types are more frequent in certain groups, I would imagine that other traits are more or less prevalent as well.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> 1.)  Nature vs. nurture?  The Gay Gene--fact or fiction?
> 
> I believe there is some "Nature" involved in  homosexuality.  *I've seen some 5 year olds that are just gay.*  They've got hetero parents and hetero siblings.  That's just the way they are.
> 
> ...


----------



## VisionCasting (Mar 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> 2.) Inferior in what way?  Intellectually?  Physically? What kind of Intellect?  In some situations, "Smallness" would be a superior trait to "Largeness".
> 
> In the same way that some body types are more frequent in certain groups, I would imagine that other traits are more or less prevalent as well.



Good point.  Didn't Darwin infer that intellect was the key to the human race's dominance above other animals?  As I recall he also pointed to the superior intellect (or at least capacity) of some races?


----------



## Achilles Return (Mar 29, 2011)

From wikipedia:



> A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[3] According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity — including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[4] Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom.[5] A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.[6] Homosexuality is best known from social species.



Race, at least the way you're describing it, is a _social construct_. There is a discussion about phenotypes at a population level (people located in similar geographical areas), but it has nothing to do with intelligence, behavior, or culture. Anthropologists largely reject using the term 'race' at all, given its historical mis-characterizations. There is one biological race - Human.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Good point.  Didn't Darwin infer that intellect was the key to the human race's dominance above other animals?  As I recall he also pointed to the superior intellect (or at least capacity) of some races?



Again, intelligence may take many forms.  Darwin might have been referring to Western concepts of intelligence.


----------



## JFS (Mar 29, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> What is your take on the Darwinian "race inferiority"?



Natural selection may not align well with your views of superiority.  Many groups judged by others as inferior may be reproducing faster, giving them the last Darwinian laugh.


----------



## TTom (Mar 30, 2011)

Well we can not take Darwin's eugenics type beliefs all by themselves. When Darwin was writing eugenics was considered science. At that time 90% of the educated people in the western world believed in eugenics to one extent or another. 

So what we have is a man who believed in a predominant theory of his time. Just as we cannot fault Newton for not knowing that in very small particles, his laws would fall apart, we have to take Darwin as a product of his time.

It is an idea that has been placed into the scrap heap of flawed ideas where it belongs.


----------



## pnome (Mar 30, 2011)

1)  Who knows?  Maybe it's a survival benefit for large societies.  It's been around for a long long time though.  Long enough for me to accept it as part of the natural state of the human condition. Some people are gonna be gay. 

2) Interesting topic.  Also a bit of a minefield.  Currently, the racial differences humans have are not centered around intelligence potential.  Certain societies and cultures will select for intelligence while others for other traits as they serve to meet survival imperatives.  It is conceivable that one day the human species will split.  But I don't see that as very likely.  The current trend is towards homogenization I think.  As long as we're all the same species, no race can claim any real superiority over another.  Only maybe in a relative sense.


----------



## VisionCasting (Mar 30, 2011)

pnome said:


> It is conceivable that one day the human species will split.  But I don't see that as very likely.



That's curious to me. Won't the eventual 'homogeneous' species ultimate split?  I'd always assumed that was a given under natural selection.  A constant upward.  

PS - nice bird in the avatar.   Did you, by chance, get that up in the mountains near the bear hunting grounds?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> That's curious to me. Won't the eventual 'homogeneous' species ultimate split?  I'd always assumed that was a given under natural selection.  A constant upward.
> 
> PS - nice bird in the avatar.   Did you, by chance, get that up in the mountains near the bear hunting grounds?



I believe he meant (and I subscribe to the same projection) that the races will mix more and more creating a more homogeneous genetic make up.  At that point, divergence (splitting) will be less likely.  If populations were separated for a long time under very different conditions there might be divergence.  The way it is now, that we can travel the globe rather freely, divergence doesn't seem likely.


----------



## pnome (Mar 30, 2011)

> That's curious to me. Won't the eventual 'homogeneous' species ultimate split? I'd always assumed that was a given under natural selection. A constant upward.



Sort of.  No doubt humans will continue to evolve.  And we might one day say that the humans of the future are a new species than those of the past.  Much like modern humans vs. homo habilis.  But what is unlikely is that we'll have a situation like the Neanderthals vs. Cro-Magnon kind of split.  




VisionCasting said:


> PS - nice bird in the avatar.   Did you, by chance, get that up in the mountains near the bear hunting grounds?



Thanks!  Sure did.  That picture was taken @ the camp on 296.


----------



## pnome (Mar 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I believe he meant (and I subscribe to the same projection) that the races will mix more and more creating a more homogeneous genetic make up.  At that point, divergence (splitting) will be less likely.  If populations were separated for a long time under very different conditions there might be divergence.  The way it is now, that we can travel the globe rather freely, divergence doesn't seem likely.



Yes.  That's what I meant.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 30, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> That's curious to me. Won't the eventual 'homogeneous' species ultimate split?  I'd always assumed that was a given under natural selection.  A constant upward.
> 
> PS - nice bird in the avatar.   Did you, by chance, get that up in the mountains near the bear hunting grounds?



We will continue evolving but I'm not sure how a split occurs without some mechanism isolating different gene pools which is unlikely to happen for humans on this planet.


----------



## atlashunter (Mar 30, 2011)

You guys beat me to it. Should have read to the end of the thread before I posted.


----------



## Hoyt Mathews (Apr 28, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> I have a couple of honest questions for Atheists (not for Christians or ppl of traditional faiths, sorry folks).  Just trying to understand where y'all are coming from.  Thanks!
> 
> What is the traditional natural selection/macro evolution view of race and homosexuality?  Specifically (and feel free to address either, or both of these topics):
> 
> ...




1) Currently, there is not a "Gay Gene" to speak of. Testing for gayness in individuals is possible only through the study of identical twins - all else is ideology! It seems that if there were a "Gay Gene" it would have already diminshed and become extinct. We have lived under worldviews, which ironically, hold to the same type of moral codes we have devoloped naturally and under such worldviews it seems highly unlikely that the Gene would have survived. How could it? It is geared towards extinction anyway. The only way the gay gene could survive is by rape, or technology. Otherwise the homosexuals would have failed to reproduce, thus, becoming extinct. I doubt very seriously that the "Gay Gene", if it did survive, is responsible for the exponential growth of homosexual cultures in our day - Chalk it up to culture and trendy behavior patterns in weak minded youth.

2) It's always funny how the same people that argue for homosexuality being genetic refuse to think that intellegence is an inherited trait.



> Race, at least the way you're describing it, is a social construct. There is a discussion about phenotypes at a population level (people located in similar geographical areas), but it has nothing to do with intelligence, behavior, or culture. Anthropologists largely reject using the term 'race' at all, given its historical mis-characterizations. There is one biological race - Human.



Take "Achilles Return", for example. This old argument is simply Leftist dogma. Instead of "race" let's call it "breeds." So is there a difference in the breeds of humans along the lines mentioned, Yes! I once argued with a so-called anthropologist in college. I told him to go talk to the psychology department. He screamed," I don't care what they say in their journals. What you are saying is ugly!" I'm glad the hard sciences care little about Leftist dogma. I would start with _The Bell Curve_.


----------



## emusmacker (May 26, 2011)

Just curious, if we evolved then from what, and why aren't we still evolving?  I mean how long will it take till people start growing steel claws like Wolverine, or turning Blue like the beast?  Just wondering, and I want facts, not some man'e words that were written and "may have been manipulated".


----------



## bullethead (May 27, 2011)

emusmacker said:


> Just curious, if we evolved then from what, and why aren't we still evolving?  I mean how long will it take till people start growing steel claws like Wolverine, or turning Blue like the beast?  Just wondering, and I want facts, not some man'e words that were written and "may have been manipulated".



We are still evolving at a rate that your mind cannot comprehend. It takes millions of years to make a noticeable change and man as we know it has not been around that long. Steel claws and blue beasts are the made up things that you would find in a fictional book made up of some man's words and have been manipulated, like for instance...the bible.( Donkeys talk in there!)


----------



## pnome (May 27, 2011)

emusmacker said:


> Just curious, if we evolved then from what, and why aren't we still evolving?  I mean how long will it take till people start growing steel claws like Wolverine, or turning Blue like the beast?  Just wondering, and I want facts, not some man'e words that were written and "may have been manipulated".



We are.  But I don't think we are getting steel claws anytime soon.  Just look at the ideals of beauty that we have to get an idea of where we are going.   Keeping in mind that it's not the coolest traits that get passed on, only the one's that increase the likelihood of reproductive success.

So if some day we have a guy with a steel claw mutation, the chicks better think it's "hot", or it's going nowhere.


----------



## Capt Quirk (May 27, 2011)

JFS said:


> Natural selection may not align well with your views of superiority.  Many groups judged by others as inferior may be reproducing faster, giving them the last Darwinian laugh.


Yes, idiots breed much faster than smart people. Used to be, in the old days, they would wander off, fall off a cliff, or be eaten by wolves or bears. Now society coddles them and encourages them.


----------



## emusmacker (May 27, 2011)

pnome said:


> We are.  But I don't think we are getting steel claws anytime soon.  Just look at the ideals of beauty that we have to get an idea of where we are going.   Keeping in mind that it's not the coolest traits that get passed on, only the one's that increase the likelihood of reproductive success.
> 
> So if some day we have a guy with a steel claw mutation, the chicks better think it's "hot", or it's going nowhere.



Again, I ask what are we evolving from. Show me proof of where we evolved from.


----------



## atlashunter (May 27, 2011)

emusmacker said:


> Again, I ask what are we evolving from. Show me proof of where we evolved from.



http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence


----------



## applejuice (May 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence



I really enjoyed this site. Im gonna have to favorite and go back and check more out. 

I like the human history "family tree".


----------



## atlashunter (May 27, 2011)

emusmacker,

Perhaps the strongest evidence is contained in every cell of your body. Skip to the 2:45 minute mark if you're impatient.


----------



## ambush80 (May 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> emusmacker,
> 
> Perhaps the strongest evidence is contained in every cell of your body. Skip to the 2:45 minute mark if you're impatient.



Blah, blah, blah genome, centromere, tele-what-cha-ma-call-it.

God blew snot into the dirt and out popped people.


----------



## emusmacker (May 27, 2011)

The Bible said that man was created by GOD.  Never did it say man evolved or is evolving.

And atlas, how do you believe that, it could have been manipulated also?


----------



## atlashunter (May 27, 2011)

Sorry I don't understand what you are asking.


Now that you've seen the evidence that you asked for what do you have to say about it?


----------



## emusmacker (May 28, 2011)

RE READ my post S L O W L Y, the Bible NEVER said man evolved or is evolving.  Where is your proof?  And my first question was why would you use scripture to make a point when you don't believe the scripture?


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2011)

Did you look at the website and watch the video I posted? The proof is contained in every cell in your body. You have no idea how ignorant you make yourself sound.


----------

