• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

I have a theory about homosexuality.

I thought it was simply a result of an error in reproduction which would indicate to me it takes place rather quickly
Click to expand...
short story... many tiny errors add up. think millions of generations. longer story:
NSFW:
DNA is a strand of genes, genes are strands of nucleotides (of four possible types... basically, a chemical hard-drive, where each "bit" has four possible values, rather than 2 like a computer). when a DNA strand replicates, there is a chance a mistake will occur at a nucleotide spot. if such an accident occurs, usually either nothing will happen (it's just one nucleotide), or the organism will be seriously defective and die.

very very rarely, just the right mistake happens, e.g. the offspring may now have a streak of white fur down its back (which just so happens to seriously confuse the predators in that organism's habitat) due to the accidental new piece of DNA. once a "good mistake" happens, it has to spread to the rest of the population -- this takes many generations.

species differentiation takes place when one part of the population becomes isolated from the rest (genetically speaking, e.g. maybe a group of organisms wandered off and now they're all alone, with their own genes, in a new environment--there you have species differentiation).
 
B9 said:
I thought it was simply a result of an error in reproduction which would indicate to me it takes place rather quickly
Click to expand...

Genetic mutations that cause new traits to arise happen instantaneously, but since advantageous mutations are very very rare, they take a long time to actually appear in a gene pool. So in a sense, they do happen rather slowly.

Also, a lot of traits are polygenic, so a number of mutations have to occur before the trait arises. Sometimes, these individual polygenes don't have advantages in themselves, so multiple mutations have to spontaneously arise in concert. Which makes them a super duper statistical anomaly.
 
I hate it when people abuse the word "theory" by attaching it to meager concepts that do not lay claim to a datum that could even hint at the possibility that one's hypothesis can even be remotely arguable enough to be considered a theory. Further, I hate it when people with hardly any experience or education in the topic of discussion, suddenly feel that they can write axiomatic revelations based on conclusions they have jumped to while they are stoned. Now, let's see how your hypothesis/uneducated-guess falls apart (with minimal effort mind you) Mr(s). OP.

1) As everyone has mentioned, homosexuality is not unique to humans, and is not unique to urban life.

2) DNA doesn't mutate universally. If humans living in urban conditions in one part of the globe are starving while humans also living in urban conditions in another part of the globe aren't starving, the starving humans that are procreating will not pass on a disproportionate amount of gay genes while the well-fed humans do. The more probable genetic mutation would be for the humans living on less calories to create future generations of humans of a smaller size, and the humans living on more calories to create future generations of humans of a larger size.

3) Overpopulation is a modern phenomenon that has developed over the course of a small amount of time. Genetic mutations of a species that lead to recurrent predictable traits within said species occurs over a long period of time.
 
If homosexuality has 'evolved', in this case to cut what you regard as an overpopulation, then it must be genetic. However, this is contrary to evolution itself since homosexuality is evidently the worst way of passing on ones genes as it is plainly impossible. Additionally, it is a huge leap of faith to assume that it's function is to cut down the population. This is needless to say an impossible function for the aforementioned problem with genetics, and evolution through natural selection refers to a species ability to adapt and successfully reproduce in a given environment. A mutation would never serve a function to cut the population of a specific species unless one invokes, and I hate to say this, a 'designer' for that specific purpose.

Basically, success is measured in how well you spread your gene-pool. This requires reproduction. And in addition, evolution is not a guided process which at a given point can spontaneously produce mutations in several individuals of a species to achieve one pre-determined goal (in this case cutting population).

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom as well. I am not too sure on the peer-reviewed consensus, though I recall having read that in species such as lions and bonobos, homosexuality serves a social/bonding function.

Now this theory of yours is of course not a theory in the scientific sense of the world. A proposition is the least I can make of it, and I disagree with it on the basis that it appears to me to be impossible given the above reasons.
 
tommy34 said:
So here if my theory, as a result of evolution more and more people will be born gay. I believe that this is a way to effectively cut the human population therefore reducing the harm done to earth that will otherwise see the end of the human race. What do you think about that idea?
Click to expand...

Evolution is not a 'pulling' force and there is no end goal, so in that sense, your theory is incorrect.
 
i have thought this same thing before, and actually discussed the idea with my best friend who is gay. he agrees with the notion, and actually (like the queen he is) likes to consider the homosexual population as more evolved human beings, lol. but the reason i was first inclined to consider homosexuality as "nature's population control" is due to how it seems that there are more gays in today's age than ever before. yes, homosexuality has always existed, not just in our species alone, but it truly seems like more people consider themselves as either bi or gay now than in the past.
well, obviously there are a lot of reasons for this, primarily increased tolerance and the fact that it has only become completely socially acceptable for a person to be openly gay in recent times. clearly there's that issue, but even after disregarding the unavoidable discrepancy in numbers from the past, it still seems likely that as the population is increasing, the gay population is effectively spiking.

idk, but this is def something i'd like to do some research on, or find out if someone already has. it'd be very interesting to just see how the percentage of the population that identifies themselves as homosexual over the past and future years to come has changed, and that data would obviously be a great indicator of the plausibility of such a theory. but it seems like a perfectly beautiful plan to me. just another example of how awesome and intricate our universe is (or could be, lol)

me interesa muchooo :)
 
Last edited:
Traits do not magically appear, they must be selected for. I do believe that certain genetic groups have latent socially activated recessive genes; and that certain families, cultures, races, that evolved in more socially dense areas historically, have a propensity for homosexual tendencies that may be environmentally triggered or turned on genetically, as it were, just like an even spread of male and female offspring must be balanced in the genetic code of the group, so too must heterosexuals have to carry latent homosexual genes, individuals with homosexual siblings or ones in their family. This has to do with the theory of r/K selection typing, with K types having the latent homosexual genes for more social network ease and cooperation and less blunt competition.

However, the ultimate cure to this need of 'down regulation' of the human type propagation which wouldn't leave any human out of the gene-pool game would be to genetically engineer three sexes; it would also diversify the genetic variegation of the human race at each single generation. We could have 'the female' who supplies the mitochondrial DNA (and maybe a portion of the autosome) and the uterus for gestation, 'the ovum male' who implants the egg with an X (or Y?) chromosome and some of the autosome, and a 'spermatozoon male' who implants the spermatozoon (as like all current human males do) to fertilize the egg of the other male in the female, with either X or Y chromosome.... Two "Y"s, as it were, to make one form of male, X & Y for the other, and two Xs for the female.

This would create many benefits in modern society; it would not take away the sexual intimacy and innate social closeness given in sexual relations just by making humans all test tube babies for one. Secondly, the female would no longer require a menstrual cycle. Further yet, unwanted impregnation, because of the requirement of two partners (each of different effective sexes within a closed amount of time), would be cut to nigh never. Allowing for intelligent selection of mates for actual creation of vessels of linage. Such would become much more manageable, and an extra partner in the interest of a genetic legacy of a new human life would give a greater social scale of civilized interaction with the world and increased care available to the child.

Truncation of some of the genetic switches for what kind of proteins are produced as stem cells in what would become roughly 50% of males, to make for ovum rather than sperm, and genetically render all woman to a state of non-functioning ovaries. Having a test population to oversee any other difficulties, I think we could improve the human race thusly for everyone.
 
tommy34 said:
I not sure if this is the best place for this so can mods please move it if it's wrong.
Okay so first off I just want to make it clear that I am a firm believer in evolution and that I believe gay people are born gay with no choice of their own. So here if my theory, as a result of evolution more and more people will be born gay. I believe that this is a way to effectively cut the human population therefore reducing the harm done to earth that will otherwise see the end of the human race. What do you think about that idea?
Click to expand...

I think along the same lines. However, there were people who were homosexual far before the population got out of control. Moreover, with the rate of people who are having children in vitro and other methods, I don't think we'll see too much of a change in the beginning. After a hundred years, it might be more significant.
 
Nagelfar said:
If we consider genetic bottlenecks of population pockets surviving in Europe during the last glacial maximum, 'out of control' could be a few hundred in a small community.
Click to expand...

"Out of control" is to consider the number of people that can eco-systematically live off the Earth. :P At any point in time.

Don't forget; people were killed for "hurting the evolution of the human race" up until recently (yeah, they kind of still are).

Today, it is increasingly seen as being "okay", therefore, more people are coming out as being bi and gay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top