Is albinism natural?
is it really that common considering 6.7 billion humans? what percentage of humans on this planet would you estimate are gay? I don't thinkthere is any statistical evidence to support such a figure.
You keep reiterating this. So what exactly are you suggesting?
This is a theory, the truth is no one knows why homosexuality is so common.....Hamilton's rule doesn't only apply to Social insects. It applies to any situation where there isn't an obvious fitness gain to the individual. I also said homosexuality may just be a spill-over from normal animal sexuality. Animal don't have the restrictions we do. These are only theories to counter the overly simplistic.Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Anton...dog...comon...Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by Master Zik
As far as your view on homosexuality, think what you like. I've always figured if you're born gay there must be some gay gene or like you think some type of defect/mutation in their biological make up or they're just consciously or subconsciously choosing to be homosexual.
Spoiler [+]
Again cause people missed my point about why homosexuality can confer genetic fitness. In an environment where there are limited resources according to (Hamilton's equation) it may be more beneficial to help you kin raise their kids than you having your own with little chance of survival.
You have kids=they all die
Your sis has kids but raises them alone=some survive
You forgo having kids and help your sister raise kids=they all live
In this scenario homosexual and according to Hamiltons rule (look it up), altruistic behavior may offer higher genetic fitness. Don't get me wrong this is a theory, but it is an explanation of how homosexuality can be beneficial. A lot of this doesn't apply to humans because of technology. But they are vestigial behaviors from our ancestors and shared by out closest relatives in nature.
I'm pretty sure we're both liberal individuals who would like nothing better than for homosexuals to receive equal societal treatment...but YOU KNOW and I KNOW because we're both SCIENCE people, that Homosexuality is "unnatural" from a biological and evolutionary standpoint...YOU KNOW THIS...I really can't see why you're debating...
And as for Hamilton's rule--that ishh only really works well with SOCIAL INSECTS. I know this because I've taken a class called SOCIAL INSECTS which was taught by my research advisor who studies Ants.
You cannot apply this "rule" to "us" for the mere fact that we humans are way more complex than SOCIAL INSECTS...
...
Actually it's not common as you may think it is...Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
This is a theory, the truth is no one knows why homosexuality is so common.....Hamilton's rule doesn't only apply to Social insects. It applies to any situation where there isn't an obvious fitness gain to the individual. I also said homosexuality may just be a spill-over from normal animal sexuality. Animal don't have the restrictions we do. These are only theories to counter the overly simplistic.Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Anton...dog...comon...Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by Master Zik
As far as your view on homosexuality, think what you like. I've always figured if you're born gay there must be some gay gene or like you think some type of defect/mutation in their biological make up or they're just consciously or subconsciously choosing to be homosexual.
Spoiler [+]
Again cause people missed my point about why homosexuality can confer genetic fitness. In an environment where there are limited resources according to (Hamilton's equation) it may be more beneficial to help you kin raise their kids than you having your own with little chance of survival.
You have kids=they all die
Your sis has kids but raises them alone=some survive
You forgo having kids and help your sister raise kids=they all live
In this scenario homosexual and according to Hamiltons rule (look it up), altruistic behavior may offer higher genetic fitness. Don't get me wrong this is a theory, but it is an explanation of how homosexuality can be beneficial. A lot of this doesn't apply to humans because of technology. But they are vestigial behaviors from our ancestors and shared by out closest relatives in nature.
I'm pretty sure we're both liberal individuals who would like nothing better than for homosexuals to receive equal societal treatment...but YOU KNOW and I KNOW because we're both SCIENCE people, that Homosexuality is "unnatural" from a biological and evolutionary standpoint...YOU KNOW THIS...I really can't see why you're debating...
And as for Hamilton's rule--that ishh only really works well with SOCIAL INSECTS. I know this because I've taken a class called SOCIAL INSECTS which was taught by my research advisor who studies Ants.
You cannot apply this "rule" to "us" for the mere fact that we humans are way more complex than SOCIAL INSECTS...
...
Can't have kids=abnormal, not fit
Again, homosexuality is WAAAAY TOOO COMMON to be a meer aberration.
Actually it's not common as you may think it is...Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
This is a theory, the truth is no one knows why homosexuality is so common.....Hamilton's rule doesn't only apply to Social insects. It applies to any situation where there isn't an obvious fitness gain to the individual. I also said homosexuality may just be a spill-over from normal animal sexuality. Animal don't have the restrictions we do. These are only theories to counter the overly simplistic.Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Anton...dog...comon...Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by Master Zik
As far as your view on homosexuality, think what you like. I've always figured if you're born gay there must be some gay gene or like you think some type of defect/mutation in their biological make up or they're just consciously or subconsciously choosing to be homosexual.
Spoiler [+]
Again cause people missed my point about why homosexuality can confer genetic fitness. In an environment where there are limited resources according to (Hamilton's equation) it may be more beneficial to help you kin raise their kids than you having your own with little chance of survival.
You have kids=they all die
Your sis has kids but raises them alone=some survive
You forgo having kids and help your sister raise kids=they all live
In this scenario homosexual and according to Hamiltons rule (look it up), altruistic behavior may offer higher genetic fitness. Don't get me wrong this is a theory, but it is an explanation of how homosexuality can be beneficial. A lot of this doesn't apply to humans because of technology. But they are vestigial behaviors from our ancestors and shared by out closest relatives in nature.
I'm pretty sure we're both liberal individuals who would like nothing better than for homosexuals to receive equal societal treatment...but YOU KNOW and I KNOW because we're both SCIENCE people, that Homosexuality is "unnatural" from a biological and evolutionary standpoint...YOU KNOW THIS...I really can't see why you're debating...
And as for Hamilton's rule--that ishh only really works well with SOCIAL INSECTS. I know this because I've taken a class called SOCIAL INSECTS which was taught by my research advisor who studies Ants.
You cannot apply this "rule" to "us" for the mere fact that we humans are way more complex than SOCIAL INSECTS...
...
Can't have kids=abnormal, not fit
Again, homosexuality is WAAAAY TOOO COMMON to be a meer aberration.
QFE
i agree
Am I the only one that didn't get the connection he was trying to make here?
LOL I never said heterosexuality wasn't the "norm"....I said it was very common is mammals. It is more common than a mere aberration or mutation such as 3 legged cows. Oh by the way, Bonobos are OD gay. As are Dolphins. Lions. Horses.....basically any mammalian species has that potential. Some more than others.
I only brought up heterosexuality as a point of comparison. I mean, anyone can state that homosexuality is common--but relative to what. There hasto be a point of comparison in order to accurately determine just how "common" it is--as you claim it to be. And from my p.o.v, it only seems fair tojuxtapose it to heterosexuality simply because these two complexes from a mutual dynamic.
Now considering your statement "... homosexuality is WAAAAY TOOO COMMON to be a meer aberration..." incontext and in relation to Heterosexuality, it is more than clear that homosexuality IS NOT COMMON...because in nature, HETEROSEXUALITY> HOMOSEXUALITY...
What does this mean--well in those few instances where scientist THINK (because the only way one can be sure is to actually speak bonobo) they saw evidence ofhomosexuality, they could have simply witnessed aberrations of some sort.
Also one thing you should consider which I doubt you do--in those animal groups where scientists think they witnessed homosexuality, there is often times adominance hierarchy with the dominant male securing all the mating rights while inferior males are left with blue balls. Now granted a few of these males maysneak matings, the reality is, the majority do not. And what happens when a sexually primed male cannot secure a female--guess what's the next best thing.
In nature, there is never an instance where a sexually dominant male with access to females will go after males to mate with. THAT'S A FACT. The males thatengage in "homosexual" acts do so because they lack access to female mates and the only way for them to have sex is to get a bromance going on...
Now in the case of females, "homosexual" tendencies are simply tactics used to reinforce female bonds while keeping persistent males at bay. This isthe case with female bonobos. Even so, during mating season, the majority of these females, if not all of them, that are sexually mature will submit to thedominant male and mate with him--a clear reversion to Heterosexuality. Interestingly enough however, bonobos also exhibit monogamy--where one female coupleswith one male...no homosexual tendencies here. So in the end, all these accounts of homosexuality in nature, are not even really "homosexual" in thesense of the word. Furthermore, you have to realize that there is no way for me or you to accurately state that a certain behavior occuring between same sexorganisms constitutes homosexuality simply because we're not members of that particular animal group...
In nature, "homosexuality" is not the norm or is it natural in the context of evolutionary processes.
...
...
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
I called him out on it and his response didn't make sense so I decided no to pursue it.
