Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You need to study more on evolution. The rise and decline of a species doesn't need an intelligent designer. For one, there's no evidence of a divine creator, two when a species reproduces so much that it has to many organisms in the environment it inhabits so that it is unable to get necessary things it needs for all the organisms to survive then the number of species begins to decline. This is where the weakest organisms die off and strongest organisms survive. This is part of how homosexuality helps to control the growth of the population. As the population is rising, homosexuality helps to control it more since homosexuals don't reproduce with their partners, unlike heterosexuals which reproduce to continue the survival of the species.
As far as I know, this is all just modern hypothesis - with no scientific basis to back it up. The decline of a species will not be because of genetic mutations (which in your scenario homosexuality would be), it will be because of some natural force such as an animal evolves above humans, or in the case of the dinosaurs an asteroid collision took them out. As of now, humans have everything they need. According to atheistic evolution, if nothing else wipes out human population, once the planet's resources are exhausted, the natural forces will control population as people will lack food, water, basic things needed to survive. Homosexuality being a product of evolution to control population is the absolute DUMBEST thing I've read on this forum.
You have studied genetics and evolution? I have a hard time believing that because your arguments don't hold any water according to the theories you are trying to use.
First, evolution would not cause/allow homosexuality to develop to help curb populations. The point of population control in survival of the fittest that you are declaring, is simply an under-eating/feeding mechanism that allows the weaker animals/species to die off because they don't have the nourishment to survive. No where in nature do we see animals developing homosexual behaviors in response to overcrowding. Name one species that has done this...there aren't any. The only species that routinely exhibits any homosexuality (aside from the deer in rut, but you don't even want to go there because that would mean that homosexuality is purely a form of hypersexuality) is the Bonobo monkey, a hypersexual species which spends an inordinant amount of time in sexual activites. Other than that, no species of animal has ever seen even a 2-3% population of homosexual members, do you know why, because it doesn't serve any natural purpose. It is not a population control mechanism.
Now on to the second point you made, if evolution did select for this gene, and there actally was a gene for homosexuality (maybe but also maybe not, but not the point here), how can homosexulaity be propogated through the species? As you rightly pointed out, homosexuality does not produce offspring, and thus there is no way to continue that genetic line. If you make the argument of incomplete pentrance and start talking about things like heterozygous and homozygous and x linked and mitochondrial inheritance patterns, then you are talking about either having a much larger population than you are postualting (heterozygous and homozygous traits still have 25-75% incidence in the population) or much lower (x linked and mitochondrial inheritances have much mch lower than 2-3% incidence, by magnitudes of several decimal places). So, given all the postulations you have made the only thing that would really make sense would be incomplete penetrance of one of the above, but it still wouldn't make sense for it to be a population control because incomplete penetrance can still show up as common as the parent genetic inheritance (i.e. heterozygous or homozygous) or not at all, and thus would have no bearing toward population control.
Your ideas simply don't make sense when given a little analysis.
However, if you can show me the reputable proof that Homosexuality is maped to the X chromosome as you have suggested, I would love to see it (I would think I would have heard about that one)...I suspect it doesn't exist or is purely a postualtion.
You know I was thinking about my last post and one thing screamed out at me. What natural purpose do we humans really serve here. I am debating the natural need or purpose of homosexuality when the real question is where do we as dwellers on this planet fit in a healthy and purposeful way. From where I am standing it seems for the most part we are nothing but an ever growing plague eating up the planet piece by piece. We as an organism really don't contribute anything back to the system other than maybe food for plants and bugs. We could possibly be more, but our way of life causes us to destroy rather than create. It seems I may have stumbled on a different line of thinking for the time being. I seem to have posed a more important question to myself. What do you all think?
I am glad you came to this realization, because you are right, it doesn't make sense that humans are not contributors to the grand natural scheme...isn't that odd, even when we were cavemen and did live with nature, it just doesn't seem we have much purpose does it.
Guess what, I know the answer. I know why we are alive. Do you want it, because it might shock you...we are God's creation and we were made to love God and be loved by God. He made this creation for our use, that is why we don't fit in it. the world is our accessory, not saying we shouldn't take care of it like a nice purse or a great pair of shoes or a nice car, but we are not part of the natural scheme. We were made in God's image, and we were made to use the earth and all that is in the earth for our benefit.
I agree, everything has a place, a wondrous place, and it all works so well, remarkably well. It is all a grand plan, and someday it will be revealed to all, but not yet, not yet...
I am glad you came to this realization, because you are right, it doesn't make sense that humans are not contributors to the grand natural scheme...isn't that odd, even when we were cavemen and did live with nature, it just doesn't seem we have much purpose does it.
Guess what, I know the answer. I know why we are alive. Do you want it, because it might shock you...we are God's creation and we were made to love God and be loved by God. He made this creation for our use, that is why we don't fit in it. the world is our accessory, not saying we shouldn't take care of it like a nice purse or a great pair of shoes or a nice car, but we are not part of the natural scheme. We were made in God's image, and we were made to use the earth and all that is in the earth for our benefit.
I agree, everything has a place, a wondrous place, and it all works so well, remarkably well. It is all a grand plan, and someday it will be revealed to all, but not yet, not yet...
I agree, we do most certainly have a purpose, we have just turned our backs on it. I was discussing this issue with my partner at work today and we came around to the opinion that our natural purpose here was to be the caretakers of this planet. To function with nature and help in situations where inanimate nature could not help itself. Our highly functional brain was to help us in solving problems and providing answers to problems of life. A brain which I believe has become sub par after many years of limited use. We are the caretakers turned destroyers and the only way to really save this beautiful planet is to get back into a natural way of thinking. And I believe the plan you speak of will be revealed to us much sooner than we think. It's just a feeling I and many others have. Like something is going to happen, and it's going to be big!
As far as I know, this is all just modern hypothesis - with no scientific basis to back it up. The decline of a species will not be because of genetic mutations (which in your scenario homosexuality would be), it will be because of some natural force such as an animal evolves above humans, or in the case of the dinosaurs an asteroid collision took them out. As of now, humans have everything they need. According to atheistic evolution, if nothing else wipes out human population, once the planet's resources are exhausted, the natural forces will control population as people will lack food, water, basic things needed to survive. Homosexuality being a product of evolution to control population is the absolute DUMBEST thing I've read on this forum.
The whole theory of homosexuality being a way to help control the population was more of a postulation put forth by evolutionary biologists, there are other ways they explain the growth and decline of species in nature. Also, I'd like to know what atheistic evolution is, if your referring to Darwinism, that's biological evolution. According to biological evolution, a species has a limited amount of offspring it can produce in the environment. When the species has reproduced for a long enough time span that the amount of resources in the area can't sustain the number of species, then natural selection occurs and the organisms that are strong enough survive and the organisms that are weaker die off. I'm not really sure that homosexuality is a genetic mutation. Genetic mutations have to do with DNA. DNA has pairs of nucleic acids. Adenine, thymine, Guanine and cytosine. Guanine pairs with cytosine and thymine pairs with adenine. Mutations happen something happens to the pairs of nucleic acids e.g. a guanine is missing a cytosine or an adenine is with a guanine. This mutations can be be positive, negative or neutral. Nuetral mutations don't affect the species either way. Positive benefit the species and negative affect the organism badly. A good example of genetic mutation is the english peppered moth. The english peppered moth comes in two colors-light and dark. Before the Industrial Revolution most of the moths were light colored, in the later stages of the Industrial Revolution, the moths were dark colored. Now with air quality being a major concern, the moths have turned light colored again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
