NS debate split from LBGT INTP

[Kormak]

All pure speculation, of course. Call my lawyer for details.

Well yeah. Idk why you don't understand, you just said it yourself.

Sexually deviant individuals themselves can not be the carriers of the genes if any exist, because they don't reproduce unless circumstances force them to.

So the genes if any have to be in the heterosexual population or its a developmental issue either something related to brain development or psychological in nature.

Whatever the cause its not a set of traits that benefits the carriers themselves.. which is my entire point. Leave them be and nature will sort itself out.

 

[Marbles]

Looks like we two can actually get somewhere. You don't disagree that homosexuality is heritable, but you question that it is transferred by the gay individuals themselves?

I'm not sure that it is, but I suspect the answer isn't either gay or hetero carriers transfer, but rather a bit of both. My guess is that most gay individuals would reproduce in an environment without pregnancy prevention, though. Anecdotally, even apparently straight men engage in gay sex in an environment without the opposite sex, like prison.

I found this article, presenting a study from Yale, interesting: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/gay-bisexual-homosexual-species-animals-evolution-science-yale-study-darwin-paradox-a9209601.html?amp
It suggests another mechanism which could make homosexuality beneficial, which none of us have thought of yet. It makes sense, many animals have very unsophisticated ways of categorizing information in their environment. A simple pattern might set them off to believe an object is their egg, for instance.

So the next time you meet a woman with a large Adam's apple in a bar, hit that trap, boyz.

 

[redbaron]

It's not that it can't be partially genetic in origin at all but what we do know is that if it is, it isn't like selective genetic traits with a simple origin the way that natural selection is typically discussed.

The phenomena appears in individuals with great variation in genetic, physiological and neurological makeup and encompasses a huge spectrum of different behavioural outputs and self-reported attraction even in individuals that are similar in one or more of these ways.

The point being that it can occur regardless of whether or not it provides an 'advantage' because it doesn't work the way a typical selective trait does. I.e. reducing a complex phenomena like homosexuality to a simple selective trait is not accurate in the first place and isn't consistent with current scientific reaearch on the issue.

 

[redbaron]

Or just to keep me cackling maniacally at your arrogant idiocy, please do tell me your definition of natural selection if you aren't up to taking on the big bad universities who are in no position to teach people how evolution works!

Any argument pertaining to traits in humans should start with sexual selection. Most self-proclaimed experts in evolution are not even aware of this concept and how it differs from environmental selection. Most of such people base their reasoning exclusively on the latter, thus lagging about 50 years behind current understanding of evolution of the human species. In light of this the claim that traits develop as selection pressures vis a vis resource acquisition is just flat out wrong or misguided at best.

I read a manosphere blog once too.

 

[Marbles]

I think we all largely agree. Homosexuality is like all human behaviour subject to both genetic and environmental influence. Like most human psychological traits, it is influenced by a plethora of genes, and could also be influenced by interaction between certain genes.

Since it is heritable, it is interesting to speculate what the advantages of homosexuality could be, for the individual, or for the tribe (s)he belongs to (like the Yale scientists above were doing).

@Polaris I just read the post on your blog; an impressive piece - I wish you had shared it here. It certainly elaborates on the topics we have discussed. I do not believe it is in conflict with anything expressed by redbaron or myself. Once again I stress that this has been the premise of discussion:

1. Homosexuality is heritable (that does not mean all trait variance is caused by genetics. In fact, I have never heard of a trait with a heritability of 1. Such a trait would be impossible.) https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/inheritance/heritability
2. Since it is heritable and widespread, it is interesting to consider whether there could be advantages to homosexuality, and what these might be.

Some members seem to have much stricter standards for how this topic should be discussed, than how other topics on the forum should be discussed. In my short history on this forum, I have not seen a topic discussed with more citations of science. I could have supplied many more links myself, but have chosen not to, as I thought too rigorous form could dissuade people from contributing to the conversation. I have consistently tried to describe the research I refer to with enough detail that people can find it with a quick google search. I am surprised that is necessary, as the contention "homosexuality is heritable" should be entirely uncontroversial to anyone who knows what heritable means.

I understand that this is a sensitive topic. When I have discussed it with homosexuals and transsexuals (two of which are people who have meant a lot to me) in the past, they have seemed appreciative of the idea that homosexuality could be evolutionarily beneficial. Not based on ideology, but on the best of my rationality, I believe there is usually a good reason for the diversity in humanity. This notion has been welcomed by homosexuals I have conversed with, and they have said they will remember it for future discussions with homophobes.

Rigor in discussion ensures clarity, but too much rigor kills conversation (and would indeed kill most scientific fields). This conversation has been exceedingly rigorous by forum standards. If a topic is so politically sensitive that someone thinks it should be treated with extra caution and precision, I think an emotional appeal rather than epistemological criticism would be constructive.

If someone has further complaints about the scientific merit of the views I have expressed in this debate, the burden is on you to show that in spite of all the research presented here, homosexuality is not heritable. Polaris, since you have written an over 3000 words long essay on how this discussion lacks rigor, I think it is fair to direct this paragraph to you.

If i have offended anyone, I am sorry for that. I hope my behaviour on this forum has made it abundantly clear that I have nothing against gay people.

 

[Polaris]

@Marbles - I'm actually quite impressed the way this thread has evolved, and therefore chosen to stay out of it. I think people are doing a fine job.

Hence my decision to post my own musings in the Polarish thread - people don't necessarily want to have to plough through all that information, so it's kind of more for those with a special interest.

In terms of agreeing or not - I don't see it that way. The aim is not to come to agreement - it is to get closer to truth - whatever that may be. I hope this is clear. If, by chance it happens that closer to truth is the point at which people agree, then I guess it's a bonus but it's not how I work - it's irrelevant to me as long as we're getting closer to the core of the issue. Without disagreements, there will not be progress in science.

But of course, it does affect how science in general is received, and thus communicated.

What I have written is not directed at anyone in particular - it's a commentary on trends that I have observed over the years. And it is by no means the full picture of my ideas - there's plenty more where it came from but I am limited by time. I may post more elaborations later because my thoughts are incomplete.

In terms of political correctness - I don't really care for it. I did not choose the topic because I regard it as more sensitive than others. I chose it because it's a topic that often tends to go off the rails with speculation. There are plenty of threads I could have addressed this way - and I therefore wrote the intro so that the concept of my post is obvious (hopefully).

As far as I personally am concerned, all topics are sensitive. And by that I don't mean sensitive in terms of who or what could potentially get hurt - I mean sensitive in terms of how I personally find common misconceptions to be a real problem for a lot of different fields.

What lies closest to my bleeding heart is getting closer to truth. That is all I care about - and I am sensitive to misconceptions of any kind, whether it concerns sparrows, petroleum, the grain size and shape of sand, shark fin soup or gays.

As far as holding people to certain standards, I don't have any expectations. My post is a thought provokation to consider for potential individuals who may not have thought about it in that way before. If someone tries a little bit harder because of it, it's a bonus, but I certainly don't expect people to write like scientists - that's just silly.

I hold myself to those standards, which is why I tend to not post very often. It is time consuming and sometimes exhausting because I am never quite happy with my posts - it's a curse, feeling like I have never quite covered all ground, and a reason why I sometimes/often neglect to sleep, eat and piss.

It is unrealistic of me to expect this from other people, but it is great to see a discussion like this being lifted just a tad in terms of effort that people put in. We are all capable of it, but at the same time - yes, it's just a forum.

However, I do think I have a modicum of responsibility to at least try to stick to recent facts when they are freely available. And if anyone is capable of digging up interesting research, it's NTs.

I may post more stuff in my thread when I have recharged.

 

[Marbles]

I appreciate your perspective, and strongly relate to it. Still, I wish you would have taken another opportunity to bring this up if you agree that this specific discussion has not been lacking in scientific rigor, by forum standards.

 

[Polaris]

I appreciate your perspective, and strongly relate to it. Still, I wish you would have taken another opportunity to bring this up if you agree that this specific discussion has not been lacking in scientific rigor, by forum standards.

Of course - this is why I made the above post. By the time I had finished Love and War you guys had pulled it nicely together

 

[Marbles]

Hehe, I got you. Keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Kormak]

So the next time you meet a woman with a large Adam's apple in a bar, hit that trap, boyz.

^^; I can't lmao, that is disgusting. Jill is enough if there are no women around. e_e most men smell bad, completely different from most women who smell gr8 even unwashed and sweaty af.

 

[Thurlor]

I may be a bit late to all of this but here goes.

No one seems to have mentioned bisexual individuals (maybe I missed it) and the possible role they could play in the heritability of homosexuality.

Other than a search for truth, does it matter? What I mean is that this search for truth can only lead to an answer of what is, not what should be done (if anything at all).


@Kormak

• Do you also consider bisexuals to be sexual deviants?
• How do you define sexual deviant? I only ask because in my experience that term implies some sort of moral judgement.
• Is deviancy limited to humans?
• Homosexuality occurs in other animals. Why hasn't nature sorted them out?

If we really want to know why homosexuality occurs in humans I think it would be best to start by looking at why it occurs in other animals. At the very least it will lessen the amount of religious and political baggage heaped onto the issue.

 

[Marbles]

Other than a search for truth, does it matter? What I mean is that this search for truth can only lead to an answer of what is, not what should be done (if anything at all).

The INTJ in me applauds the appeal to search knowledge with a greater goal than knowledge in mind, but insight is all I have been after in this conversation. I do not believe anything has to be done about homosexuals. If nothing else, they offer a fresh perspective, and have been punching above their weight class in music, literature and science (I'm not sure about in sicence, but scientists like Alan Turing, Florence Nightingale and DaVinci come to mind. The two latter are probably controversial.)

I have read that homosexuals score higher on openness to experience than heterosexuals, which seems relevant to their contributions. Also, "evolutionarily novel behavior" has been shown to correlate with smarts in some studies. Things like drug use, staying up late, being atheist all correlate with IQ. Perhaps homosexuality does, too. Of course, homosexuality is not evolutionarily novel, but what if we instead talk of behavior of an individual which challenges that individual's instincts? It seems like such a phenomenon would overlap with "evolutionarily novel behaviour". Let's call it instinct-defying behavior. An example of such behavior is something as simple as drinking coffee. Coffee is bitter, which is often an indication of poisonousness in nature. To develop a liking for it, you will have to suppress the instinct to spit something potentially poisonous out (interestingly, liking bitter things also correlates with psychopathy, probably because psychopaths enjoy a sense of danger, rather than because they are particularly open to experience).

Is homosexuality evolutionarily novel? Clearly not, but if we imagine everyone on a hetero-gay spectrum, a majority of people would be swayed towards homosexual behavior by instinct-defying behavior, simply because most people are closer to straight than gay. So openness to experience and IQ correlate with instinct-defying behavior, and instinct defying behavior correlates with homosexuality. That could be why homosexuals are more open and intelligent than average, and explain their cultural and scientific contributions.

This is all conjecture. I will not continue to make waivers of complete objectivity and empiricism in every future post I make. I believe my level of confidence in an assertion tends to be clear from context, but if there is uncertainty, I would be happy to clear things up at a polite request.

If we really want to know why homosexuality occurs in humans I think it would be best to start by looking at why it occurs in other animals. At the very least it will lessen the amount of religious and political baggage heaped onto the issue.

Yeah... I have received a couple of videos of "monkey business" since this thread started, lol :P

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Or just to keep me cackling maniacally at your arrogant idiocy, please do tell me your definition of natural selection if you aren't up to taking on the big bad universities who are in no position to teach people how evolution works!

Any argument pertaining to traits in humans should start with sexual selection. Most self-proclaimed experts in evolution are not even aware of this concept and how it differs from environmental selection. Most of such people base their reasoning exclusively on the latter, thus lagging about 50 years behind current understanding of evolution of the human species. In light of this the claim that traits develop as selection pressures vis a vis resource acquisition is just flat out wrong or misguided at best.

I read a manosphere blog once too.

why do you keep writing these vindictive little dipshit posts? They're a waste of space.

 

[Marbles]

Yeah, you do come off very hostile, rb. Stuff like that can poison a community.

 

[Rolling Cattle]

There are recurring questions in this topic: "Why does homosexuality exist? What are it's advantages?" The first question is vague and invokes more than one answer depending on how it's framed. If you assume there has to be a reason because evolution has a goal, the question reads as "what was evolution's goal when it made homosexuality?". A different way to frame the question is not goal-driven, "what circumstances caused homosexuality as an effect?"

In the second question, we don't know what it's advantages are but we speculate. The researchers in the yale article quoted by Marbles write that they believe it might be cost-neutral, (it wasn't detrimental to survival). We could grant it advantages, but I don't think homosexuality can only exist because it has advantages. I don't think evolution cares about perfection.

I'm posting a video of a lecture from a scientist/prof named Nathan H. Lents. It starts halfway through the video where he starts giving examples of how messy biology, the genome, and evolution is. He doesn't say anything about homosexuality but he gives some good examples why no sane designer would create life as it is. It's a series of accidents and mutations, and it's by no means perfect.

Spoiler: Nathan Vid

 

[Kormak]

• Do you also consider bisexuals to be sexual deviants?
• How do you define sexual deviant? I only ask because in my experience that term implies some sort of moral judgement.
• Is deviancy limited to humans?
• Homosexuality occurs in other animals. Why hasn't nature sorted them out?

Yes bisexuals are sexual deviants imo. The faliure rate for procration can be 50%.

Any variation of sexual attraction that isn't heterosexual, where the act itself cannot potentially lead to procreation and the passing on of genetic information.

Deviancy occurs in animals as well.

This is purely specualtion, but imo sexual deviancy is linked to brain development and not genetic or psychology. We have discovered for example that female homosexuals have male brains and male homosexual have female brains. This can also potantially explain trans people as female brain stuck in a man's body for example. Its possible this occurs during gestation, when the fetus is developing. Since it occurs regularly in all animals It cannot be random mutation as its too specific.

We can speculate that it is either something the mother's body does to the fetus and there are reasons why, example some benefit to the other kids she gave birth to by having one or several that will most likely not procreate or its a defect that occurs under a specific set of conditions with no benefit for the child or other family members.

I find it extreamly easy to spot trans & gay people for example, because their bodylanguage & fascial expressions match that of the opposite sex. A gay man for example with have minor and major body language & fascial patterns that are female. They can't help themselves, because its how their brain is wired. Its subconscious. Maybe its just me tho, i'm extremely good at reading non verbal cues & manipulatiing people.

why do you keep writing these vindictive little dipshit posts? They're a waste of space.

Because he is right? Feelzies are irrelevant if he is.

 

[redbaron]

Or just to keep me cackling maniacally at your arrogant idiocy, please do tell me your definition of natural selection if you aren't up to taking on the big bad universities who are in no position to teach people how evolution works!

Any argument pertaining to traits in humans should start with sexual selection. Most self-proclaimed experts in evolution are not even aware of this concept and how it differs from environmental selection. Most of such people base their reasoning exclusively on the latter, thus lagging about 50 years behind current understanding of evolution of the human species. In light of this the claim that traits develop as selection pressures vis a vis resource acquisition is just flat out wrong or misguided at best.

I read a manosphere blog once too.

why do you keep writing these vindictive little dipshit posts? They're a waste of space.

Just playing the cards you're dealing =)

Because you're inexplicably arrogant about something you're clearly incorrect and uninformed about.

Remember that my point here is that there need not be an NS-related advantage to homosexuality for the phenomenon to continue to occur. And here you make two ignorant arguments in two posts. One that fails to understand what NS actually is, and one that fails to understand the relevance of NS in the context of this discussion.

- Firstly, you asserted that resource competition is not relevant to natural selection. This has been definitely proven to be false, and multiple citations have been made that it is not simply relevant to NS, but actually considered one of the 4 processes of NS.

- Secondly, you asserted that any argument pertaining to traits in humans should pertain to sexual selection, and not natural selection. What you have obviously failed to realise here is that nothing I've said contests this: I actually entered this discussion stating that an advantage as it pertains to NS should not be considered a relevant factor in the discussion of the homosexuality phenomena and its continued occurrence in the population.

However I should make it clear that I didn't make this argument because I believe sexual selection and advantage is the reason for its continuance, but rather that current scientific research shows homosexuality to be a far more complex phenomena than one which simply passes from generation to generation in the simple manner that selective traits do. It's not something that can accurately be referred to as a 'trait' in the first place and research seems to point to the fact that were homosexuals to stop breeding, the phenomena would still occur.

Maybe if you yourself weren't so focused on being a vindictive little dipshit, you wouldn't embarrass yourself with your blatantly wrong assertions about NS, while also failing to understand the discussion going on?

 

[Marbles]

There are recurring questions in this topic: "Why does homosexuality exist? What are it's advantages?" The first question is vague and invokes more than one answer depending on how it's framed. If you assume there has to be a reason because evolution has a goal, the question reads as "what was evolution's goal when it made homosexuality?". A different way to frame the question is not goal-driven, "what circumstances caused homosexuality as an effect?"

The recurring question is: why does homosexuality exist. Does it have advantages, or is there another reason? It is deliberately vague to not exclude valid explanations, and to accommodate debate in different directions. There was an appeal to the community to keep questions more open ended, a while back.

Several theories have been presented, already. Usually, when an apparently detrimental trait is widespread in not only a single, but many species, it carries some sort of advantage. That of course does not mean that it is more advantageous than the alternative trait, but that it is circumstantially advantageous.

In the second question, we don't know what it's advantages are but we speculate. The researchers in the yale article quoted by Marbles write that they believe it might be cost-neutral, (it wasn't detrimental to survival).

That is not right, you should have another look at the article.

We could grant it advantages, but I don't think homosexuality can only exist because it has advantages. I don't think evolution cares about perfection.

We could have avoided a lot of unnecessary debate by assuming that everyone involved has basic understanding of evolution. Several alternatives to homosexuality existing because it confers advantages have been presented, and it was meant to be implicit in the original question. The original question was a little vague. I am sorry about that. The preface "there is probably a good reason" was meant to imply that the whole statement was a hypothesis for discussion.

I'm posting a video of a lecture from a scientist/prof named Nathan H. Lents. It starts halfway through the video where he starts giving examples of how messy biology, the genome, and evolution is. He doesn't say anything about homosexuality but he gives some good examples why no sane designer would create life as it is. It's a series of accidents and mutations, and it's by no means perfect.

I will have a look at the video, thanks for sharing, but what do you hope to contribute through it? People keep repeating how messy evolution is. What gives the impression that anyone here doesn't realize that?

In a conversation, have a look at the knowledge participants display before you give explanations of rudiments. That is not specifically directed at you, RC. When I briefly discussed evolution in another thread, I suggested the first principle: "that which is stable or "lucky" endures."

My temper is getting a little short. The way rb instigated this conversation should make that understandable. I have spent a lot more time having vague epistemological debates and reassuring people that I do not have the understanding of evolution equivalent to that of a 7 year old creationist's, than I have discussing the subject matter. It is getting tedious.

 

[Black Rose]

.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@redbaron let's not complicate things. You started this discussion by (arrogantly) saying "that's not how natural selection works" and then proceeded to say that natural selection is about resource acquisition. Then when I pointed out that this is incorrect you went ape shit and started posting random links about Darwin and calling me arrogant.

also, calling those links "citations" is a good joke, it made me laugh lol

 

[redbaron]

@redbaron let's not complicate things. You started this discussion by (arrogantly) saying "that's not how natural selection works" and then proceeded to say that natural selection is about resource acquisition. Then when I pointed out that this is incorrect you went ape shit and started posting random links about Darwin and calling me arrogant.

also, calling those links "citations" is a good joke, it made me laugh lol

You mean the biology faculties of university websites outlining the basic processes by which NS functions?

So I guess this is the part where you go into full reality denial mode?

 

[Marbles]

I don't think Serac's objection is primarily to you understanding of evolution, but rather to how aggressive you have been. It makes conversation unpleasant.

 

[Marbles]

Because he is right? Feelzies are irrelevant if he is.

Who isn't right? The problem about this whole debate is that it has turned into an epistemological pissing contest, everyone competing to be Mr. Socrates "The more you know, the more you realize you don’t know"'s poster boy. Fine, evolution is complicated. We ALL get it. We got it from the get go. Now start being specific. Which hypotheses can be disregarded because they are in conflict with known principles of evolution. What other hypotheses are there?

You are being clear on what your views are, I appreciate that. I also appreciate that Serac is objecting to rb's aggression (and I really think that is the extent of his agenda here, but I could be wrong), because it is relevant. It stifles debate, and everything he has said so far has been redundant.

 

[redbaron]

Correcting inaccurate information is never redundant.

And on the contrary, the debates in this thread have been some of the most extensive the forum has seen lately and has even brought actual trained scientists out of the woodwork to comment!

It's anything but stifled.

 

[Marbles]

What information was inaccurate?

 

[redbaron]

So should we take it from the initial post you made that I quote at the beginning of this thread, or do we skip that part?

 

[Marbles]

The original hypothesis was prefaced by "There is probably", which was supposed to make it clear that homosexuality does not necessarily carry any benefit. If there is "probably" a good reason, and a benefit would be a good reason, it follows that there is not necessarily a benefit. Since several people have been confused, I should have been clearer. We have already been over that, so yes, we can skip it.

 

[redbaron]

great, so next we're left with whether or not people may think it's accurate to consider homosexuality's continued occurrence as something determined by selection.

a thing that was in contention for a while and something we still aren't quite clear on, but outcome of your specific belief isn't what i'm interested in. there's plenty of information as to why this isn't a very tenable line of inquiry now, and that's a good thing.

 

[Marbles]

Well, again, that homosexuality is not necessarily beneficial and brought forth by selection has been understood throughout our conversation. That it is so prevalent has been reason enough for researchers like the ones from Yale, above, to study it. Hopefully it is good enough for the INTPf.

If you think there is strong evidence that our hypothesis isn't tenable, that is highly relevant. Please share.

I will be going back and forth, here, so if you could make a list of points I have made that are inaccurate/incorrect, that would be convenient.

 

[Black Rose]

I have presented the theory that genes used in mate attraction are used in the opposite way they are meant to. If I am gay I will not use my sex's sexual preferences. A gay male will use the genes that already exist in females. No new mechanisms are necessary.

No new gens need exist just the repurposing of current mechanisms in mate selection.

Gayness provides no new selective advances. The hormones have been switched in the attraction mechanism.

That is my theory (no new genes, the sexual mechanism is switched).

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@redbaron let's not complicate things. You started this discussion by (arrogantly) saying "that's not how natural selection works" and then proceeded to say that natural selection is about resource acquisition. Then when I pointed out that this is incorrect you went ape shit and started posting random links about Darwin and calling me arrogant.

also, calling those links "citations" is a good joke, it made me laugh lol

You mean the biology faculties of university websites outlining the basic processes by which NS functions?

So I guess this is the part where you go into full reality denial mode?

None of those wow-super-authority-website links even made one mention of sexual selection, is that why you think they support your view and contradict mine? I mean, the fact that you suppose you can indiscriminately quote Darwinian theory on natural selection and conclude basis that just shows how primitive your understanding of these things are.

 

[Minuend]

I have no idea whether homosexuality is due to NS or not, and I don't think it matters in how we behave towards it. I mean even if you treat it as genetic/ hereditary, why would that influence your opinion or behavior? It's only influenced if you already have some opinion on whether it's good or bad, whether we should react strongly to it or not.

The judgment and opinion is usually highly emotional.

To me it seems homosexuality is a natural "side effect" of how humans function. Just like drugs can be appealing, whether destructive or beneficial. Drugs' positive or appealing effect isn't due to some weird survival trait in the tribe, or even have a evolutional benefit. It just have appealing effects due to how the human mind functions, how it feels reward etc. In before people accuse me of equating drugs to homosexuality, that's not my point. My point is some things turns out to feel good or bad, to exist or not, due to how we function. Regardless of evolution or what is beneficial to the tribe

I can't really see humans existing without homosexuality. It seems like a logical and expected outcome considering how humans function.

I don't have a strong opinion to which it is, though, as I haven't' really read into it. I guess it doesn't really matter to me, either. I mean, why would it?

 

[Marbles]

I don't have a strong opinion to which it is, though, as I haven't' really read into it. I guess it doesn't really matter to me, either. I mean, why would it?

To me, it matters just because of curiosity. I have no further agenda with it. Well, maybe to learn a bit more about evolution.

Sometimes I see something I can't explain, and I wonder why it exists. Most of the time, I can't find a reason, so I file it away, in case I learn more relevant information. As a kid I wondered about the appendix. It wasn't that I didn't buy into the idea that it is vestigial, but I figured the body still had to literally work around it. Could you just remove it, without consequence? I couldn't answer that, so I filed it away and decided to keep my eyes open for new information. Later I learned that lewy bodies (toxic aggregations of protein involved in neuro degenerative diseases) are linked to the area. This year, a study of 62,000,000 patients found that an appendectomy more than tripled your odds of developing Parkinson's.

I still believe the appendix is vestigial, yet our body has not yet made itself independent of it. It might appear irrelevant to our survival, but it could be very important. I think it is interesting to consider whether homosexuality could be important for our survival.

And if any of you have removed your appendixes, dont worry. Your risk of developing parkinson's is still very low.


I agree with you that homosexuality is probably a side effect, but I'd be willing to bet nature has made good use of that side effect. That is just intuition, though.

I used to play a ship builder game called The Last Leviathan, which was set in a fantasy medieval world. It contained some glitches, which I found interesting, and made note of. Eventually I had accumulated enough glitches to abuse that I could make a controllable aircraft. I bet evolution does the same thing. Any glitch can potentially be used as tomorrow's feature.

 

[redbaron]

@redbaron let's not complicate things. You started this discussion by (arrogantly) saying "that's not how natural selection works" and then proceeded to say that natural selection is about resource acquisition. Then when I pointed out that this is incorrect you went ape shit and started posting random links about Darwin and calling me arrogant.

also, calling those links "citations" is a good joke, it made me laugh lol

You mean the biology faculties of university websites outlining the basic processes by which NS functions?

So I guess this is the part where you go into full reality denial mode?

None of those wow-super-authority-website links even made one mention of sexual selection, is that why you think they support your view and contradict mine? I mean, the fact that you suppose you can indiscriminately quote Darwinian theory on natural selection and conclude basis that just shows how primitive your understanding of these things are.

Ah I see you're still failing to understand both this discussion and natural selection.

Do feel free to point out what you seem to think I'm concluding here, since you're building a nice little strawman apparently.

 

[sushi]

i dont have anything against them but i think you only choose your sex after a certain age or reach a certain stage of adulthood. Desmond the amazing creeps me out.