Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Homosexuality does not exist

Many people do not understand that homosexuality does not exist. We know it does not exist because it can't exist. And we know it can't exist because Natural Selection precludes it.

According to Wikipedia, which commenters on this blog such as Singring frequently quote as authoritative, "Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

The general idea is that a trait that facilitates reproduction gets passed on and survives while traits that do not facilitate reproduction go away. This is what I was taught in school.

Now you'd think this would be fairly clear cut. In homosexuality, you have a clear cut case of a trait that does not facilitate reproduction. In fact, it's a paradigm case of a tendency that does not get passed along. In light of this very clear cut case, we (and by "we" I mean all of us people who mindlessly rely upon scientists to tell us what to think without actually knowing the actual, like, science ourselves) could conclude very simply that there is no such thing as a homosexual.
[A]s an evolutionary biologist," says Jeremy Yoder, "I have to admit that my sexual orientation is a puzzle ... Gene variants, or alleles, associated with an 80 percent decrease in reproductive fitness should be naturally selected out of the population pretty quickly. So why aren't all humans heterosexual?
What is this? What have scientists done? How do they stand up for their theory in the face of this problem? What have they concluded in light of this all powerful theory they have relied upon for 150 years? They have faced this problem squarely and concluded ... "Natural Selection isn't all powerful," says P. Z. Myers, commenting on the article.

Oh c'mon folks: stand your ground. Don't give up. Acquit yourselves like men. Acquit your ground. Stand on your men. You get the idea. In short, make up your mind. Are you going to be intellectually consistent, or continue to believe in something your theory clearly precludes?

Up until now, people like atheist science blogger Myers have fought the good fight and rejected things like creationism because they obviously conflict with Darwinian belief. But now they are wavering. They reject creationism and Intelligent Design because they conflict with Darwinism, but they accept homosexuality despite the same problem.

How does Myers justify this apparent inconsistency? "I haven't seen any good data," says the now weak-kneed Myers, "to show that homosexuals actually have a reduced reproductive success."

...

Um, yo, P. Z., can we talk?

We can't get into the details here, since this is a family blog. But we suggest you get out a standard biology textbook, look in the section on reproduction, and take careful note of the process by which humans are fruitful and multiply.

The article in Scientific American takes all those things we've been told about Natural Selection and how it works, turns them upside down, shakes them around, stretches them beyond recognition, ... and then reminds us how undeniable they are. The contortions Yoder has to employ to account for homosexuality would try a gymnast.

Look guys, we're going to have to keep this simple. The explanation of Natural Selection we've been using for years has always had the benefit of simplicity and rationality. We can't start fudging now and messing up what before was a straightforward process. It's just bad PR.

If we're not careful it's going to start looking like we're rationalizing. People are going to accuse us of justifying our pet political beliefs in the face of the evidence. They're going to charge that we're just making it up as we're going along, only admitting evidence that confirms our theory and ignoring evidence that would falsify it.

They'll point to our own rhetoric about science always being subject to falsification and say that, in fact, we just ignore obviously disconfirming cases. Like homosexuality.

We've got to be firm on this evolution thing. Either that or question the claims that homosexuality has a scientific basis.

And we can't do that.

17 comments:

Singring said...

So you went to school. Odd. Because apparently you lack basic reading skills:

'"Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."'

More or less common.

More - or less - common.

'The general idea is that a trait that facilitates reproduction gets passed on and survives while traits that do not facilitate reproduction go away. This is what I was taught in school.'

Maybe your school wasn't all that good.

Yes - many traits that are disadvantageous are selected out of the gene pool. But not all.

Take the classic example of sickle cell anaemia, for example. If someone is homozygous for sickle cell anaemie (i.e. they have two alleles for it), they are likely to have severe health problems and die earlier than those who do not have alleles for this disease.

However, people with sickle blood cells are more resistant to malaria. In countries in which malaria prevalence is high, people who have one allele for sickle cell anaemie and one for healthy blood cells therefore have an advantage over those who only have alleles for healthy blood cells and are favoured by natural selection.

Therefore, sickle cell anaemia persists even though in homozygous form it is detrimental and should be removed from the gene pool eventually.

A similar thing may be happening on teh genetic level with homosexuals (I am not for a moment suggesting that homosexuality is a 'disease'): It may be the phenotypical expression of a combination of genes that are all favoured by natural selection because individually, they are advantageous.

Some traits may take very long to disappear - why do we have appendices, why do we have muslces on our hair follicles, why do men have nipples???

Finally, the most glaring objection to your complete mangling of evolution is a very obvious one that I think anyone with basic biological training can think of:

Social insects.

In social insects, thousands if not millions of individuals that cannot sexually reproduce persist. This may be due to kin selection, but there are other factors floating around.

Humans are also social animals. It is very possibly that a homosexual individual - because may not not conceive on its own - will take care of siblings that may share some of the genes that code for homosexual traits. Thus, natural selection would favour such traits to a degree.

Think these issues through, Martin, before making a mess of the science and your credibility.

Singring said...

Sorry, meant to say 'hypotheses' where I said 'factors'.

Singring said...

In fact, I see that Jeremy Yoder extensively explains how we can explain homosexuality in an evolutionary context (making some of the same points I have made above but far more eloquently and with teh data to support them) and that the phrase you cite was merely a rhetorical device that you have lifted out of context. But who cares, right?

Scientific ignorance appears to be the primary currency here at VR, so we can't expect you to actually investigate the issues and read the articles you cite.

ozziejoe said...

Um, yo Martin, can we talk?

I can't go into all the details on your family blog, but homosexuals can indeed reproduce. I searched for "outed gay church leader who has children" and found Jim Swilley.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/10/29/Megachurch_Pastor_Jim_Swilley_Comes_Out

Jim Swilley, 52, founded Rockdale County’s Church in the Now 25 years ago. His wife, Debye, was the associate pastor, and together they had four children.

Swilley says he’s known that he’s gay since he was a boy, and his wife knew when they got married. Jim and Debye are now divorced, but they kept his secret for more than 21 years. Earlier this year, Swilley says, Debye told him she thought it was time he stop living a lie.


So Christian homosexuals can indeed marry and reproduce.

I have a shaky hypothesis which I would like to share with you. I have zero qualifications in biology, genetics, evolutionary theory, theology or modern Christianity but like yourself I read a lot so I kinda know what I am talking about.


Ozziejoe's hypothesis of the homosexual reproduction and survival.

Since Christian homosexuals marry and reproduce, while athiest homosexuals form barren same-sex unions, then natural selection will result in Christian homosexuals surviving while atheist homosexuals eventually become extinct.

One day all homosexuals will be Christian.



But that is only my untested hypothesis.

Anyway, as always enjoy your work, keep it up.

One Brow said...

One of the current thought is that some male homosexualtiy is attributable to sexually antagonistic selection, which would be that some feature making female more fecund has a side effect of maing a percentage of the extra male children homosexual. Such a trait would be moderately encouraged by natural selection.

Lee said...

Out of curiosity, what benefit does sex offer in terms of survivability?

If we accept evolution as gospel, then at some point sex evolved into existence. Single-cell creatures proliferate via fission. Certain other simpler creatures are hermaphroditic. (E.g., hydras, if my forty-year-old memories of high school biology are reliable. Snails too.) And other creatures can multiply via parthenogenesis (again, if memory serves, aphids -- but aphids can also reproduce sexually, which is confusing as to why if they have one, they need the other...?)

But sexual reproduction seems, well, unnecessary, strictly from a survivability perspective.

Lee said...

If homosexuality is genetic, why would the incidences of homosexuality appear to increase or decrease depending on the surrounding culture?

Societies that are more polygynistic than others seem to have a higher degree of homosexuality than societies that have less tolerance for polygyny.

Also, in microcosm, there is the prison culture, where men turn to homosexuality because of the absence of women. Men who wouldn't think of having sex with another man outside of prison often seem fine with such a union behind bars, and then revert again to heterosexuality when released.

Singring said...

'Out of curiosity, what benefit does sex offer in terms of survivability?'

Good question, Lee. Many biologists are investigating just this. The vast majority of animals and plants are obligate sexual reproducers - that means they ust have sex to reproduce. So the question is: How come natural selection has by and large favoured these sexual reproduction.

The currently accepted idea is that sexual reproduction enhances genetic variation and thereby increases the likelihood of survival in a changing environment. If environment on earth were 100% stable, then no sexual reproduction would be required - all you would have to do is reproduce asexually via clones - all offspring would be identical, but that wouldn't be a problem because the environment stays the same and they are already capable of surviving in it just as the parent has.

If, however, the environment is constantly changing, then there has to be constant variation in each new generation to assure that at least some of that offspring will have a combination of genes that will allow it to survive and reproduce in an environemnt slightly different from the one the parents live in. Sexual reproduction entails the mixing and recombination of genetic material and therefore is favoured in changing environemnts.

There are still plenty of facultative (optionally) hermaphroditic or clonal organisms. Snails, for example, can reproduce asexually, but they also mate if they can find a partner. Very few organisms are fully asexual - and those usually produce vast numbers of offspring so that random mutation might just be enough to produce sufficient variation.

Look up some primary literature on the internet, there's tons of it. It is one of the most active fields in evolutionary biology as far as I'm aware.

Singring said...

'If homosexuality is genetic, why would the incidences of homosexuality appear to increase or decrease depending on the surrounding culture?'

Because some societies are more accepting of 'outed' gays than others, thus creating the appearance of homosoexuality iteslf being influenced by social surroundings.

Homosexuality in Iran may appear to be very low, while it may appear to be very high in Scandinavia, say. But I would wager that that is simply due to teh fact that homosexuals in Iran will not come out for fear of being killed, whereas homosexuals in Scandianvia, where society is very liberal in general, have very little to fear and therefore are much more apparent.

I might be wrong - but I'm not aware of any study that links the occurrence of homosexuality to the social environment that is corrected for such factors. I'm not saying that there aren't social components that might contribute - but I doubt they are sufficient. Also, I am not aware of any studies that have found a direct genetic cause for homosexuality.

One Brow said...

Lee said...
Also, in microcosm, there is the prison culture, where men turn to homosexuality because of the absence of women. Men who wouldn't think of having sex with another man outside of prison often seem fine with such a union behind bars, and then revert again to heterosexuality when released.

I've head it is similar on submarines. The best answer is that sexual orientation is 1) a preference, and 2) a matter of degree. Many men in prison avoid homosexual behavior, some some men with a strong hererosexul preference are nonetheless bisexual enoungh that they find homosexual encounters an acceptable substitute.

Also, we should not confuse homosexual behavior with the "mounting" behavior among males seen in many primates. Forcing someone through physical dominance is not sex, but an expression of status.

Seamus said...

"Some traits may take very long to disappear - why do we have appendices, why do we have muslces on our hair follicles, why do men have nipples???"

Uh, because they, unlike homosexuality, have little or no impact on the likelihood of their possessors' passing on the genes for those traits?

Singring said...

'Uh, because they, unlike homosexuality, have little or no impact on the likelihood of their possessors' passing on the genes for those traits?'

Of course - but the point is that these traits have persisted for millions of years - so even if a trait has a more significant impact on reproductive success, I would not expect it to disappear within a couple of generations - especially if it is the result of complex genetic interactions that can result in mitigating circumstances that lessen these impacts.

BeingItself said...

Look up the concept 'spandrel' in order to flesh out your understanding of selection.

You raise good questions. But these questions have been answered for decades for those who care to look.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry i liked where you were going with this but i think it does exist because if their are too people who are the same-sex and they are dating (they are girls lets say) wouldn't that just mean that they are "guys" because of "Natural Selection precludes it"? I am just curious because I have to write a research paper and just for the record i LOVE homosexuals even if there is no such thing as homosexuality they are cool and funny:D my best friend is one:DD

Anonymous said...

I love to see this! This is so funny! You are right. However you are also wrong. You see there is no such thing as someone who is purely homosexual... there is only such a thing as people who have been homosexual.

This activity goes back to ancient times, a way to have sex without the bother of reproduction.

However, just because someone is attracted to a member of the same sex, doesn't mean they aren't also attracted to the opposite sex.

In other words, good old fashioned nymphomaniacs. This is something that people aren't admitting to.

I find the gay rights people very fishy. They make things worse as opposed to better. They cause bullying. For instance, girls who enjoy sports will get called a lesbian, or boys whose voice hasn't changed yet will be called gay, because they want "rights" when they have rights if they keep their mouth shut. The girl might be good at sports but she's still attracted to men, and the boy's voice will change eventually and he'll still love women.

I've thought that perhaps the gay rights people could be undercover hustlers. There just isn't enough homosexuality as a whole for gays to need rights.

However it is interesting, that gay used to mean happy, and now, no one wants to be happy, because it means homosexual.

I've always thought it was somehow related to the war on drugs. Nobody is happy, they're homosexual, like the guy in the musical hair.

But remember, he's not homosexual, he just has long beautiful hair!

Anonymous said...

another thing people don't understand is that even though there's another person there, homosexuality is merely fancy masturbation.

No one wants to masturbate forever, even with another person. It's much easier to masturbate if you have someone helping you, it's true, but really any homosexuality is a phase that people outgrow, when they actually want to create something with the opposite sex.

Anonymous said...

Damn there are some quacks on the internet.