It sounds so happy and sunny and cheerful, and I wish it were so. Bright and pink with puppies and rainbows and cottony clouds and sunshine and candy for everyone. This is Re: that gay people could help with procuring resources such as food and water. And they would supposedly contribute to the well-being of an entire society, altruistically sacrificing their own genetic fitness.
But what possible evidence can you cite to support this hypothesis, if any? Just because some members of a population are gay, this does not automatically mean they would selflessly devote all their time and energy to raising the breeders' offspring. A scientist cannot assume that just because a person is homosexual, this immediately means that he or she would have any sort of drive to help raise other people's kids.
Someone might try to come back at that with the notion that in a civilized society, people would always help raise others' kids. They might try to use my own argument that it is cooperation and interaction, not sheer brute force or biological dominance, that determines evolution.
Well, the reply is that that is true -- but it is hardly limited to only gay people. Plenty of members of society help raise each others' kids. Teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers, truant officers -- all are helping raise other people's kids. Just the same as how their own kids are being raised, at least to some extent, by other members of society. Yes, that part is true. A truly evolved, civilized society does have its members rely and depend on each other. Cooperation, interaction, helping each other out, all that good stuff, no question.
But what is also truth is that, as far as the "selfless altruistic saintly gay," there is no evolutionary-biological basis for any of this. It is again, speculation and wishful thinking. It sounds like a desperate ploy, like gay activists are clamoring, frantically grasping for any way to justify homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint.
Supposedly, lack of resources has led to the necessity of a percentage of a population to not be able to reproduce. However, several facts fly in the face of this claim. One, the earth does not lack resources for the human population. I am well aware that we hear chicken-little stories daily about how our energy sources are nonrenewable and that we are draining the earth's sources. However, those are all matters of sustaining advanced technology such as cars, nuclear reactors, power demands of large buildings, and the like. That is not a matter of sustaining human life.
Two, there is NOT a lack of food available. The world does in fact produce more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet. This includes human-made resources such as farming and agriculture. The fact that this food does not make its way to poverty-stricken populations, especially women and children, is a matter of politics and power. It is not a matter of production or lack of resources to grow that food.
Although, the fact is that politics and power prevent this readily available, existing food from getting to the people that need it. And that is far worse.
Three, there is enough land area for everyone on the planet to live comfortably. This land is able to be cultivated for farming, for crops, etc., although historically, this land has not been cultivated. People simply have not ventured out enough from metropolises, centers of industrial activity, and monetary power to go and cultivate this land.
Thousands of years ago, when the world population was only a fraction of what it is now, there certainly was not any overpopulation-driven necessity for gays to exist back then. And yet they existed anyway. Homosexuality is not a matter of evolution. This is not, however, to say that it is unnatural. Just because it is not supported from an evolutionary standpoint does not mean it is not medically, scientifically ingrained into the person. It's simply that homosexuality has no impact on evolution, and evolution has no impact on it. One does not have anything to do with the other.
And therein lies a fourth fact that does not support evolutionary basis for homosexuality. Many gay people still do have the biological urge to want to have children, same as heteros. Furthermore, they are fully capable of biologically producing children. It's just that with a homosexual couple, the biological parents are not likely to be a committed couple that share one household with each other.
Now, as a simple matter of human rights, I do agree with GLBT activists that violent crimes are violent crimes. Homosexuals deserve human rights same as anyone else. But to try to make the claim that homosexuality is supported by evolutionary trends, is merely conjecture. Not to mention juvenile and argumentative.
And keep in mind that not being in line with evolution is not necessarily the same thing as not being natural. It has been observed that exposure to certain hormones as a fetus can affect the sexual orientation of said fetus once it grows into a full human being.
One small note: it irritates me when I see people, especially nonscientific people declare that sexual orientation is due to "genetics." Yes, It is hardwired into the individual, it cannot be changed, it is a matter of natural biological processes, it is as ingrained as race or sex. But no, it is not "genetic."
Stop ignorantly using the word "genetics" when you have no clue what it means. Furthermore, you have not read much research on the biology of sexual orientation. Don't try to cover the whole entire, huge, vast field of biology by claiming that absolutely everything and its grandma are a matter of "genetics." This is a fallacy on the fact that most message board commentators are scientifically illiterate. Genetics is only a very small fraction of biology. You also have cell biology, plant biology, animal biology, physiology, biochemistry, ecology, evolution.
Quit already using the word "genetics." There are a great many wonders of the natural world that fall outside of the one topic of genetics.
If you have actually read the research on this theory, you would know that there is a small area of the brain that can be studied as evidence of whether someone is gay or straight. Just as certain lobes of the cerebrum are responsible for spatial reasoning, arithmetic, language and communication. It's just that to try to prove homosexuality in the light of evolution is a silly non-issue. *There is a region of the brain that is a similar size between straight men and lesbians. And that same region of the brain is a smaller size, but similar between straight women and gay men.
To be honest, infertility throughout a person's lifetime is a far better method of population control. As is infertility after a certain age.
Menopause as documented in women is an example of this. Men experience severe decrease in quality, number, and motility of sperm. We don't yet have a medical expression for men because they are too insecure to admit that after middle age they can no longer reproduce. And by the way, would this happen to be a cooperative gene, NOT a selfish gene?
If a cooperative gene can be used to explain homosexuality, then a cooperative gene can also be used to explain why r-- is NOT an evolutionary advantage. R-- forces a woman to carry undesirable genes to term. Scientific disciplines have established that a female's investment of energy and resources into offspring well-being is enormous. Therefore she would be very discriminatory when choosing a male to help reproduce. If she chooses not to perpetuate a male's genes, she is practicing evolutionary fitness.
Evolution does not mean everyone all across the board, all inclusive, no discernment, free-for-all everyone-throw-in-your-hats gets to reproduce. Evolution means that only desirable genes get to reproduce.
But what possible evidence can you cite to support this hypothesis, if any? Just because some members of a population are gay, this does not automatically mean they would selflessly devote all their time and energy to raising the breeders' offspring. A scientist cannot assume that just because a person is homosexual, this immediately means that he or she would have any sort of drive to help raise other people's kids.
Someone might try to come back at that with the notion that in a civilized society, people would always help raise others' kids. They might try to use my own argument that it is cooperation and interaction, not sheer brute force or biological dominance, that determines evolution.
Well, the reply is that that is true -- but it is hardly limited to only gay people. Plenty of members of society help raise each others' kids. Teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers, truant officers -- all are helping raise other people's kids. Just the same as how their own kids are being raised, at least to some extent, by other members of society. Yes, that part is true. A truly evolved, civilized society does have its members rely and depend on each other. Cooperation, interaction, helping each other out, all that good stuff, no question.
But what is also truth is that, as far as the "selfless altruistic saintly gay," there is no evolutionary-biological basis for any of this. It is again, speculation and wishful thinking. It sounds like a desperate ploy, like gay activists are clamoring, frantically grasping for any way to justify homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint.
Supposedly, lack of resources has led to the necessity of a percentage of a population to not be able to reproduce. However, several facts fly in the face of this claim. One, the earth does not lack resources for the human population. I am well aware that we hear chicken-little stories daily about how our energy sources are nonrenewable and that we are draining the earth's sources. However, those are all matters of sustaining advanced technology such as cars, nuclear reactors, power demands of large buildings, and the like. That is not a matter of sustaining human life.
Two, there is NOT a lack of food available. The world does in fact produce more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet. This includes human-made resources such as farming and agriculture. The fact that this food does not make its way to poverty-stricken populations, especially women and children, is a matter of politics and power. It is not a matter of production or lack of resources to grow that food.
Although, the fact is that politics and power prevent this readily available, existing food from getting to the people that need it. And that is far worse.
Three, there is enough land area for everyone on the planet to live comfortably. This land is able to be cultivated for farming, for crops, etc., although historically, this land has not been cultivated. People simply have not ventured out enough from metropolises, centers of industrial activity, and monetary power to go and cultivate this land.
Thousands of years ago, when the world population was only a fraction of what it is now, there certainly was not any overpopulation-driven necessity for gays to exist back then. And yet they existed anyway. Homosexuality is not a matter of evolution. This is not, however, to say that it is unnatural. Just because it is not supported from an evolutionary standpoint does not mean it is not medically, scientifically ingrained into the person. It's simply that homosexuality has no impact on evolution, and evolution has no impact on it. One does not have anything to do with the other.
And therein lies a fourth fact that does not support evolutionary basis for homosexuality. Many gay people still do have the biological urge to want to have children, same as heteros. Furthermore, they are fully capable of biologically producing children. It's just that with a homosexual couple, the biological parents are not likely to be a committed couple that share one household with each other.
Now, as a simple matter of human rights, I do agree with GLBT activists that violent crimes are violent crimes. Homosexuals deserve human rights same as anyone else. But to try to make the claim that homosexuality is supported by evolutionary trends, is merely conjecture. Not to mention juvenile and argumentative.
And keep in mind that not being in line with evolution is not necessarily the same thing as not being natural. It has been observed that exposure to certain hormones as a fetus can affect the sexual orientation of said fetus once it grows into a full human being.
One small note: it irritates me when I see people, especially nonscientific people declare that sexual orientation is due to "genetics." Yes, It is hardwired into the individual, it cannot be changed, it is a matter of natural biological processes, it is as ingrained as race or sex. But no, it is not "genetic."
Stop ignorantly using the word "genetics" when you have no clue what it means. Furthermore, you have not read much research on the biology of sexual orientation. Don't try to cover the whole entire, huge, vast field of biology by claiming that absolutely everything and its grandma are a matter of "genetics." This is a fallacy on the fact that most message board commentators are scientifically illiterate. Genetics is only a very small fraction of biology. You also have cell biology, plant biology, animal biology, physiology, biochemistry, ecology, evolution.
Quit already using the word "genetics." There are a great many wonders of the natural world that fall outside of the one topic of genetics.
If you have actually read the research on this theory, you would know that there is a small area of the brain that can be studied as evidence of whether someone is gay or straight. Just as certain lobes of the cerebrum are responsible for spatial reasoning, arithmetic, language and communication. It's just that to try to prove homosexuality in the light of evolution is a silly non-issue. *There is a region of the brain that is a similar size between straight men and lesbians. And that same region of the brain is a smaller size, but similar between straight women and gay men.
To be honest, infertility throughout a person's lifetime is a far better method of population control. As is infertility after a certain age.
Menopause as documented in women is an example of this. Men experience severe decrease in quality, number, and motility of sperm. We don't yet have a medical expression for men because they are too insecure to admit that after middle age they can no longer reproduce. And by the way, would this happen to be a cooperative gene, NOT a selfish gene?
If a cooperative gene can be used to explain homosexuality, then a cooperative gene can also be used to explain why r-- is NOT an evolutionary advantage. R-- forces a woman to carry undesirable genes to term. Scientific disciplines have established that a female's investment of energy and resources into offspring well-being is enormous. Therefore she would be very discriminatory when choosing a male to help reproduce. If she chooses not to perpetuate a male's genes, she is practicing evolutionary fitness.
Evolution does not mean everyone all across the board, all inclusive, no discernment, free-for-all everyone-throw-in-your-hats gets to reproduce. Evolution means that only desirable genes get to reproduce.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment