Evolution Is So Overrated

I do mean "evolution" only as a talking point is overrated.  You can never have too much of evolution, as in the concept itself.

I read this somewhere on the interwebs:  "Homosexuality is pro-evolution because it allows a community to control for overpopulation."  What?  That's bullshyte.  Being homosexual does not prevent the ability to produce children.  How many people are gay and still fathered or mothered children back in the days before they realized they were gay?  Answer:  a lot of them.

When the subject of state rights for married couples is brought up, a common conservative response is that the purpose of marriage is to produce children.  And the gay response is that infertile couples and elderly couples cannot produce children, so how come they are given state benefits.  I have to concur with that, that is a pretty good comeback.

But if this is true, then how exactly does being gay help with evolution?  Again, how does homosexuality align with evolution?  Answer:  it does not.  No, the most effective natural means of controlling for overpopulation is infertility.  You see both these facts mentioned everywhere, and yet gay right activists don't seem to be able to reconcile these two facts with each other.

Homosexuality is supposedly an answer to overpopulation?  This is a common gay activist answer any time anyone asks if homosexuality aligns with evolution.  But wait, what?  That's not true.  Back in ancient Greece and other long-ago cultures, they had gay people.  The earth was young and abundant, there was no lack of resources.

The point is, stop trying to justify everything in the name of evolution.  Not everything that happens on the planet is in line with evolution.  For god's sake, there are other fields of intellect.  Some examples are hormone and other protein production, art, string theory, economics, thermodynamics, classical music, and computational linguistics.  Stop knee-jerking with the stock response of "evolution."

Evolution as a sociopolitical defense argument is so overrated.

Then you have the other extreme.  There are the dumbasses, the armchair evolutionists that have probably never taken a biology class their whole entire lives, that say that evolution does not necessarily mean better, that evolution does not indicate any direction, that it does not mean improvement of any kind.

Bullshyte.  Of course it does, dummy.  That is the definition of evolution:  advancement, improvement.  Otherwise, why would we say that humans are more evolved than gorillas and other apes?  Why would we say that humans (multi-celled eukaryotes) are more evolved than single-celled eukaryotes?  And that single-celled eukaryotes (complex single-celled organisms such as protists) are more evolved than prokaryotes (bacteria, which are comparatively simple)?  Why would we say that evolutionary advantage gives some species fitness, better chance of survival, over other species?

Why would there be such a concept as an evolutionary advantage in the first place? If evolution were directionless and aimless, then it would just be called "mutations."

Then again, thinking about it a little more, I realize that I should not waste time being offended by their claims that evolution does not exist, or whatever.  In pretty much every sphere of discussion, you always see a few weird fringe, unhinged, screws-loose lunatics that are usually ill-informed.

You see violent crime apologists.  You see gang apologists.  You see rape apologists.  You have people that insist that all street drugs should be legalized.  You have people that insist that marriage is just a relationship that has been co-opted by the government and that they don't need a piece of paper to declare their love.  Or that marriage as an institution should be done away with completely.  You have people that insist that animals, as in non-humans, should be represented in government and in the democratic process.  Yes, I really, honestly have read this, but only on the internets, thank goodness.  So, ah well, just another day on the interwebz.

Getting back to "evolution" and how it is overrated.  Biology means biology -- the physical and natural science that can be observed conclusively and unequivocally.  Gene mutations result in a genotype of an organism different from the genotype that was present in the previous generation.  The genotype will be expressed as the phenotype, which is essentially what the organism looks like, although they do not always match exactly.  Phenotype is the physical growth and appearance of an organism -- protein structure, cell structure, organs, tissues, conditions of all parts (e.g., kidney function, any heart conditions).

Phenotype might not turn out exactly how the genotype had dictated in the current generation.  But with the genotype having changed due to a mutation, the groundwork is there for possible expression of the genotype as phenotype in future generations.  Let me repeat, all of that is evolutionary *biology.*

The people that call themselves evolutionary biologists but are in fact trying to apply biological principles to psychological whimsy, need to stop calling themselves scientists.

It is pure speculation that it is possible to justify abstract, odd, often baffling behaviors by using biological explanations.  There is no biological imperative for personalities, for character flaws, for unwanted behaviors.  Biology does not make anyone consciously *do* anything.  It does not manifest itself as actions taking place through time.

If you want to study biology, then study biology.  Don't study fantasy, legends, and opinions and then try to apply biological principles to them.  Those are fields that are by definition subject to flawed human interpretation.

You are not an evolutionist.  Get over it.

Gays vs. Rape vis-a-vis "evolution"

I think we need to reconcile a couple of heretofore-uncorrelated arguments.  We need to connect the dots, put two and two together, all that jazz.

If homosexuality is proof of evolution, then r-- is anti-evolution.  I will elaborate.  Rampant, uncontrolled unchecked reproduction of humans is bad, and according to the homosexuality-is-pro-evolution activists, this is why homosexuals exist.  Homosexuals, as regarded in this portion of evolutionary theory, would theoretically not reproduce.  The earth, mother nature, the universe, whatever you want to call it, has created homosexuals in order to prevent humans from reproducing at a rate that is not sustainable by the earth.  This is to prevent overpopulation from occurring.  That is the theory.

I would be perfectly fine with homosexuality still being in line with evolution -- if the people screeching this novelty were consistent and logical regarding other non-reproductive behaviors as being congruent with evolution.


Pro-gay evolutionists leap through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to justify homosexuality in the light of evolution.  They claim that evolution offers a community an advantage of sorts.  They say that in a closely connected community in which the members interact with each other on a regular basis, the strange hiccup of a small percentage of people within that community will offer the greater community better fitness if they end up not reproducing at all.

Many proponents of evolution display a skewed, warped understanding of evolution.  It is an inconsistent, hypocritical conclusion at which they have arrived.

However, like most hypocrites, they do not see where their own logic is contradictory.  If the greater good of the entire community should take precedence over the fitness of only one individual within said community, and this is seen as evolution, then this has to be true in all cases.  What is good for the overall community in one case cannot be bad for the community if it is coming from a different source.

If this is the case, then r-- is definitely anti-evolution, because r-- produces more unwanted humans that are not sustainable by the community.

Nature has certain cadences, speeds, and patterns, with ecological cycles of chemicals, of organic and inorganic metabolites, and organic living matter.  One example of this example is the water cycle.

Another example is a civilized human community.  The course of human evolution has a certain rhythm that it must follow, which must fit in with this.

By not reproducing with a r--ist, a woman is offering the greater community the best chance at surviving.  She is enacting the fittest behavior that produces the best hope of survival for herself, and for the greater community as a whole.

Someone that would turn to r-- as a means of reproduction is reproducing at a rate that is not desired by the community, and is in fact harming the greater community.  uncontrolled and unchecked.

The point of a female turning a male down is that two people are prevented from reproducing.  In the current vein of evolution with which homosexuality jives, this societal construct of a female turning down a male also fits in perfectly with that theory.

If they would be okay with applying this same brand of just-because-people-don't-reproduce-does-not-mean-they-are-anti-evolution towards women as well as towards gay people, then we can be in business.  If and only if the proponents of this idea would be consistent across the board, and apply these same slightly more complex, not so obvious or knee-jerk principles to all theories of "behavioral evolution," then this would be fine.  If they are okay with not having biological urges and yet somehow still being evolution-positive in one regard, then they better be okay with not following biological urges and still being evolution-positive in another regard.

This is conducive to the greater good of the community.  In this way, another human is not produced that would only serve as competition for the humans currently in existence.  If that human is not produced, then the community resources including food, water, shelter, safety can be dispensed around to the humans already living.

Not Quite So (Gay Folks)

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.