Here is a quote from a paper by a group of evolutionary psychologist.

". One class of limitations pertains to phenomena that are truly puzzling from an evolutionary perspective, such as those that appear to reduce an individual’s reproductive success, and cannot be explained by mismatches with, or hijacking of, our psychological mechanisms by modern day novel environmental inputs. The most obvious example is homosexual orientation, which has been called “the Darwinian paradox.” Exclusive homosexual orientation seems to defy evolutionary logic since it presumably fails to increase an individual’s reproductive success. Although Evolutionary hypotheses have been proposed for homosexuality, as discussed earlier, none have received empirical support thus far (e.g., Bobrow & Bailey, 2001).
Another puzzling phenomenon is suicide.
In the United States, more than 30,000 individuals intentionally take their own lives each year (Gibbons, Hur, Bhaumik, &
Mann, 2005)"

http://www.dianafleischman.com/epap.pdf

It seems like Evolutionary psychology is trying to be deterministic and predict what behaviours we ought to automatically exhibit. So that all behaviour must subsume under an evolutionary paradox even if there is no plausible reason linking it to whatever model of evolution they are using.

Heterosexuality is not explained yet it is taken for granted because of it obvious benefits to gene transmission/reproduction.

In "Meaning Purpose and Intelligence" (1944) Kenneth Walker quotes Julian Huxley.

"The purpose manifested in evolution, whether in adaption, specialisation, or apparent progress, is only an apparent purpose. It is just as much a progress of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides, It is we who have read purpose into evolution, as earlier men projected will and emotion into inorganic phenomena like storm or earthquake."

Walker then says:

"In making this statement Huxley has stepped outside the province of science, for a scientist can neither assert nor deny the existence of purpose in nature (...)"

Yes, natural selection, while selecting remarkably well for attributes that increase reproductive success (actually reproduction, successful child-rearing and protection), can't guarantee survival and reproduction, in all instances, or favorable adaptation in that regard for every individual.

But it's pretty amazing what natural-selection has accomplished.

Michael Ossipoff

And we've now reached a point where natural selection pretty much no longer applies to humans. The 'weak' humans end up being raised into adulthood, with just as much opportunity to reproduce as the 'strong' ones. Unless we start picking and choosing who can have children, I don't foresee any further advancement of our physical and mental abilities.

"In making this statement Huxley has stepped outside the province of science, for a scientist can neither assert nor deny the existence of purpose in nature (...)" — Andrew4Handel

This is precisely what happened. Scientists imbued a human tendency into some unknown mysterious force that governs all which is called Natural Laws. There is no way to distinguish Natural Laws from God (the God of Abraham and not the God of Michaelangelo).

Yes, natural selection, while selecting remarkably well for attributes that increase reproductive success (actually reproduction, successful child-rearing and protection), — Michael Ossipoff

Are you suggesting that natural selection will be weeding out Gay people? This type of reasoning, perpetuated by science, is as least as distasteful as any religious teaching along the same lines. Nazism was fed by this type of scientism.

I don't understand how natural selection can select something if it doesn't already exist. Hence we are left with the issue of how these emergent properties come to exist.

People seem to be conflating the benefit of a trait with a causal explanation. Homosexuals could be very altruistic and have super fertile mothers but that won't explain homosexual desire.

This is another abuse of "hierarchies"

"1920s, Belgian ethnologists analysed (measured skulls, etc.) thousands of Rwandans on analogous racial criteria, such as which would be used later by the Nazis. In 1931, an ethnic identity was officially mandated and administrative documents systematically detailed each person's "ethnicity,". Each Rwandan had an ethnic identity card.[11"

These identity cards formed part of the later Genocide.

These identity cards formed part of the later Genocide. — Andrew4Handel

Since Evolution is indistinguishable from other Western religions, it would make sense that adherents would draw the same conclusions, e.g. being Gay (or any other target minority group) is unnatural and is a target for extinction. This the Nazis could justify the murder of tens of millions of people by simply suggesting that they were agents of the natural universe. Similarly, the Inquisition could be justified as the adherents being agents of The Lord.

We can thus view Evolution and religion as a battle for the hearts and souls of fatalists (determinists) who embrace the concept of an outside force directing the Universe.

"Yes, natural selection, while selecting remarkably well for attributes that increase reproductive success (actually reproduction, successful child-rearing and protection)," — Michael Ossipoff


Are you suggesting that natural selection will be weeding out Gay people? This type of reasoning, perpetuated by science, is as least as distasteful as any religious teaching along the same lines. Nazism was fed by this type of scientism. — Rich

Nonsense. I've repeatedly criticized Scientificism (Science-Worship) at these forums.

Commendations to you for not being a Science-Worshipper. But not worshipping science doesn't mean you can play ostrich with it. Science (as a process for finding out how things happen in the physical world) is valid within its purview, its region of applicability.

It's not going to go away, by your doctrinaire, dogmatic anti-science belief.

So then, to you likewise believe that global-warming is just fake news?

But you aren't alone. There are a number of other people who want to prevent evolution from being taught in schools. Sorry, I won't wish you success in that goal.

Since around 1854, it's been more and more accepted that there is such a thing as evolution, and that natural selection is what drives it.

Join the 19th century. And then maybe the 20th and he 21st.

------------------------------------------------------------

I support everyone's right to make their own life choices. That includes gays. That also includes people who want medical euthanasia for any valid medical reason--any disease or injury that they regard as lowering their quality of life to what they regard as an unacceptable degree..

And that right to make one's own life choices has nothing to do with the PC (political-correctness) issue about whether gayness is hereditary, environmental, or both. I'm not into PC.

If gay-ness is more environmental than hereditary, so what? That's completely irrelevant to the individual-rights issue. I support everyone's individual right to make their own life-choices, where no one else is directly harmed. (Raising crocodiles in your backyard isn't just a personal choice, because it would endanger other people and animals.)

Dare I say it?: Natural selection suggests that gay-ness must have an environmental component. Probably a strong environmental component. Otherwise these discussions of course wouldn't be taking place.

Anti-Science PC?

And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does.

--------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, "Scientism" isn't a good name for Science-Worship. What would you call an adherent of Scientism? A Scientist? But that word (without capitalization) has another meaning. It means a practictioner of science--a completely different meaning from "Science-Worshipper"

That's why I say "Scientificism" instead.

Michael Ossipoff

Natural selection suggests that gay-ness must have an environmental component. — Michael Ossipoff

The discussion is about the all-powerful force called Natural Selection which was totally concocted by science and which seems to be obsessed with reproduction (something Freudian going on here). Apparently, according to this reproduction obsession, Natural Selection is weeding out all those that aren't equally obsessed. It's all about procreation? Sounds very strange to me.

And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does.

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight, but theres neither. Gay people mostly come out and mostly have come out of predominantly Straight communities and most of the children raised by Gay parents have turned out straight.

And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does. — Michael Ossipoff

Nazism was entirely technology driven, and after the war the U.S. used many Nazi for our missile program.

As far as ideology was concerned, the concept of the survival of the fittest race was music to their ears. They actually set up labs that experimented on humans (in the most barbaric ways) trying to figure out ways to exterminated faster. It was all about Natural Selection and the survival of the fittest.

There is no reason for minds to exist. The only valid explanation is an explanation of how consciousness is produced. — Andrew4Handel

Why is it that you can't answer a simple question? You avoiding it just shows that you aren't being intellectually honest. I've addressed and answered your questions, yet you cannot do the same. It's getting to the point where you are insulting my intelligence and wasting my time.

Consciousness is involved in numerous things, composing symphonies, language, doing math, reading books, sexual pleasure, pain, concept formation, thought, dreaming ad infinitum. — Andrew4Handel

Okay, finally. Some of these have to do with surviving in the social environment (composing symphonies, language, etc.) and some have to do with filtering behavior (sexual pleasure, pain, etc.). What about learning new skills and filtering your instinctual behavior in social environments? When learning something new, your attention (consciousness) is focused on the task at hand. Only after you have acquired the instructions (stored them in long term memory) can you then perform the task without much attention to it. Why would consciousness be fully focused on a new task but then relegate it to a background task (on auto pilot) once you are able to repeat the skill without much attention to it?

The explanation for biology is biochemical and refers to specific biochemical behaviours,it is not "evolutionary". Natural selection can only select something after it begins to exist it can't produce consciousness (or gills) on demand. conscious has to begin to exist before it can be of any use. — Andrew4Handel

And I asked about how natural selection has molded the brain, which is a biochemical organ, and how that isn't selection for fitter brains and minds. All you do is repeat yourself without answering the pointed questions that I pose.

You haven't really proposed any argument apart from telling people watch this etc I have a degree in psychology and philosophy. I know how neurons work and about different brain structures, I know about fMRI etc (I had to write a critical essay on brain scanning techniques) etc and studied the search for neural correlates. I had to read seven books on the philosophy of mind for my course and I have also read Dennets Consciousness explained. — Andrew4Handel

I have proposed an argument - that the mind has evolved as a result of environmental selection pressures and that consciousness improves evolutionary fitness. How else can you explain how human beings have spread across the planet and manipulates his environment and the complex social environment (which is really just a kind of natural environment)? So you haven't taken the time to watch any of the videos?

I watched a video by Stephen Pinker where he claimed "We think in images" But I don't I think in words. That to me is poor quality broadcasting that youtubers are liking unreflectively. — Andrew4Handel

We do think in images. We are visual creatures. Most of our terms that we use are visual terms. I don't know how many times I've posted the story of the Man with No Words:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_Without_Words

in different threads, yet no one responds to it. This many knew no language yet was able to survive and categorize his thoughts. Language is simply visual squiggles and sounds. So even saying that you think in words is saying that you think in visuals and sounds.

Something is only a solution if the environment is consistent day in day out. — Andrew4Handel

Camouflage is a solution as long as any hungry predator in the vicinity uses vision to locate prey. I never said that they would be perfect or final.

It seems like Evolutionary psychology is trying to be deterministic and predict what behaviours we ought to automatically exhibit. So that all behaviour must subsume under an evolutionary paradox even if there is no plausible reason linking it to whatever model of evolution they are using.

Heterosexuality is not explained yet it is taken for granted because of it obvious benefits to gene transmission/reproduction. — Andrew4Handel

You need to watch the video with Tooby and Cosmides and pay special attention to what Tooby explains near the end.

I already went over homosexuality. You are just being purposefully obtuse.

We do think in images — Harry Hindu

I do not. I think in words. In what way do I think in any images and how can you know this?

Harry H.You are conflating the benefits of a feature with a causal explanation.

Saying wings aid survival through flight is for example an explanation in service of evolution not a biochemical theory about the evolution of wings.

Evolution 101:
.
This is one big reply to several posters:
.
Alright, I came here to discuss metaphysics. I didn’t come here to explain and advocate natural selection to evolution-deniers, or to justify science to science-haters.
.
Besides, I suspect that the evolution-deniers and science-haters aren’t really that, and are just devil’s-advocate-trolling.
.
But here I am anyway, replying in this topic. Explain that. :)
.

.
And we've now reached a point where natural selection pretty much no longer applies to humans. The 'weak' humans end up being raised into adulthood, with just as much opportunity to reproduce as the 'strong' ones. Unless we start picking and choosing who can have children, I don't foresee any further advancement of our physical and mental abilities.

.
Maybe, but if eugenics conflicts with kindness and humanity, I’d choose kindness and humanity.
.
But don’t expect societal improvement.
.
What has been the result, the culmination, of all of the best efforts of people working for societal improvement? Don’t take my word for it, just look around at what’s happening societally.
.
Have you ever noticed that the sheep are matched and suited to their herders like a glove to a hand?
.
…as if the sheep were made for their owners?
.
It’s like Huxley’s Brave New World, except that of course there’s nothing new about it. And of course, in real life, as opposed to the novel, it wasn’t achieved by drugs.
.
It was the result of evolution.
,
Don’t get me wrong. It’s amazing what evolution has accomplished. If you aren’t awed by it, then you haven’t noticed it.
.
But there must have been a time in our species’ prehistoric past (and after too?) when complete obedience to authority was adaptive.
.
Think of it as a “theory” to explain societal events and the societal stasis.
.
It’s a particularly well-confirmed theory.
.
P.T. Barnum said that there’s a sucker born every minute.
.
W.C. Fields said, “Never give a sucker an even break.”
.
Those two great social-scientists have provided the explanation for the societal stasis.
.
It can be called a stasis, because of course nothing has changed throughout history, from ancient times, to Classical times, to medieval times, renaissance, up to modern times. Only a few details of the herding-method, the mode, have changed, with technological advances.
.

I don't understand how natural selection can select something if it doesn't already exist. Hence we are left with the issue of how these emergent properties come to exist.

.
There were always differences and variation among individuals. Those differences were augmented by mutations. Most mutations were maladaptive. But just a few were adaptive. The individuals with those adaptive mutations (or just with more adaptive attributes within ordinary variation) survived long enough to pass them on. Soon the individuals with the more adaptive traits and attributes increased their percentage of the population.
.
That’s how varieties of species arise.
.
As industrialization arrived, in some places soot filled the air, and trees’ bark became blackened with soot. In at least one location, it was noticed that the moths that landed on the tree-bark had eventually acquired a dark coloring, for camouflage against the black tree-bark.
.
Sometimes populations become geographically separated for one of any number of reasons. Maybe some move into a new niche somewhere else. Then, as the two populations continue to diverge, in their separate adaptation to their different environments—or maybe just because they’re geographically separate and not interbreeding—soon their genetic makeup is so different that they can’t interbreed. …or at least not with the full efficiency that’s possible within a species.
.
Now there are two species instead of one.
.
That was inevitable. That speciation has been happening for as long as there’s been life.
.

People seem to be conflating the benefit of a trait with a causal explanation.

.
The benefit of an adaptive trait results in its possessor surviving longer, having, and successfully rearing more offspring. …resulting in adaptive traits increasing in the population.
.
Causal? You bet.
.
• Andrew4Handel
.

This is another abuse of "hierarchies"

.
"1920s, Belgian ethnologists analysed (measured skulls, etc.) thousands of Rwandans on analogous racial criteria, such as which would be used later by the Nazis. In 1931, an ethnic identity was officially mandated and administrative documents systematically detailed each person's "ethnicity,". Each Rwandan had an ethnic identity card.[11"

.
These identity cards formed part of the later Genocide.

.
Science (and misunderstandings of science) has been abused. Does anyone believe that abuse of science and technology hasn’t taken place even after the Nazis?
.
But are we worse off because of science?
.
How were things in medieval times? Sure, rulers didn’t have the technology to do as much harm as they can do now. But they did the best they could, didn’t they. …reminiscent of the Walrus in Alice in Wonderland (or Through the Looking-Glass?), who didn’t eat as many of the oysters as the Carpenter did, but nevertheless ate as many as he could.
.
If you lived in ancient times, would you still be alive at your age? And what kind of hardship would your life have consisted of?
.
Yes, arguably, life might have been pretty good in Paleolithic times, but that lifestyle just isn’t societally-attainable now.¬
20 hours ago
• Rich
780
Rich:

Since Evolution is indistinguishable from other Western religions…

.
Evolution isn’t a religion. It’s an established fact.
.

…, it would make sense that adherents would draw the same conclusions, e.g. being Gay (or any other target minority group) is unnatural and is a target for extinction.

.
Thoroughgoing utter nonsense (as from a troll).
.
The Nazis abused their misunderstanding of evolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to be an evolution-denier. Most people who aren’t evolution-deniers don’t endorse or support Nazis or the like.
.
In fact, evoluion-deniers are among the most numerous supporters of Nazi-like policies.

.

This the Nazis could justify the murder of tens of millions of people by simply suggesting that they were agents of the natural universe. Similarly, the Inquisition could be justified as the adherents being agents of The Lord.

.
Your conclusion: So we should all be evolution-deniers and science-haters.
.
The Nazis’ misunderstanding of science, and the Inquisition’s decidedly unscientific justification for its crimes have no valid role in justifying evolution-denial or science-hating.

.

We can thus view Evolution and religion as a battle for the hearts and souls of fatalists (determinists) who embrace the concept of an outside force directing the Universe.

.
Too silly to answer. The question is, why do I waste my time answering trolls? Well, just this last post, and that’s all.

18 hours ago
11 hours ago
• Rich

Rich:
.

“Natural selection suggests that gay-ness must have an environmental component.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
The discussion is about the all-powerful force called Natural Selection which was totally concocted by science
.

Science didn’t concoct evolution; it discovered evolution.

and which seems to be obsessed with reproduction

.
Selective reproduction is the obvious mechanism of evolution.
.
See above in this post, regarding natural-selection..
.

(something Freudian going on here)

Darwin was a few decades before Freud.
.
Freud deserves credit for having the courage, in Victorian times, to mention the dreaded “S-word”.
.
Other than that, I don’t know that Freud said anything societally helpful. (But I’m no Freud-authority.)
.

. Apparently, according to this reproduction obsession, Natural Selection is weeding out all those that aren't equally obsessed.

.
Obsessions probably aren’t optimally adaptive. But yes, natural selection has tended to weed out survival-&-reproduction-disadvantageous attributes.
.
But it isn’t just reproduction. It’s survival for long enough to reproduce and successfully rear and protect one’s offspring.
.

It's all about procreation? Sounds very strange to me.

.
Sorry, but it’s nevertheless true. What, other than selective procreation resulted in speciation?


• Thanatos Sand:

“And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does. “—Michael Ossipoff

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight.

.
Of course. But there’s also a blatantly-obvious natural-selection influence too.
.

, but theres neither.

.
That’s your scientific pronouncement? I stated an obvious reason why, in view of natural-selection, a strong environmental influence is needed to explain gay-ness.

Rich:

“And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Nazism was entirely technology driven, and after the war the U.S. used many Nazi for our missile program.

As far as ideology was concerned, the concept of the survival of the fittest race was music to their ears. They actually set up labs that experimented on humans (in the most barbaric ways) trying to figure out ways to exterminated faster. It was all about Natural Selection and the survival of the fittest.

.
Answered above, in this post.
.

Natural selection can only select something after it begins to exist. it can't produce consciousness (or gills) on demand. conscious has to begin to exist before it can be of any use. — Andrew4Handel

.
Adaptive attributes either existed here and there among the population, to varying degrees, or else were the result of (usually maladaptive, but sometimes adaptive) mutations.
.
(see the natural-selection explanation, above in this post)
.
The changes, from one generation to the next could have been quite gradual, but eventually, over time, those changes could be big.
.
Animals react to their environment. Call that “consciousness” if you want.
.

You haven't really proposed any argument apart from telling people watch this etc I have a degree in psychology and philosophy. I know how neurons work and about different brain structures, I know about fMRI etc (I had to write a critical essay on brain scanning techniques) etc and studied the search for neural correlates. I had to read seven books on the philosophy of mind for my course and I have also read Dennets Consciousness explained. — Andrew4Handel

.
Consciousness is used as an obfuscatory way to refer to the fact that animals react to their surroundings.
.
"Consciousness explained"? Darwin explained it in 1854.
.
Sorry, Mr. Dennet.
.

I have proposed an argument - that the mind has evolved as a result of environmental selection pressures and that consciousness improves evolutionary fitness.

.
That’s Darwin’s explanation.
.
He beat you to it in 1854.

.

Heterosexuality is not explained yet it is taken for granted because of it obvious benefits to gene transmission/reproduction. — Andrew4Handel

You say that it isn’t explained, and then you give its obvious explanation.

.Alright, enough troll-engaging, evolution-defending, and science-defending.
.
As I said, I’m at this forum to discuss metaphysics.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Heterosexuality is not explained yet it is taken for granted because of it obvious benefits to gene transmission/reproduction. — Andrew4Handel

Is it possible that homosexuality is just a bug in the human reproductive program, rather than an emergent trait with evolutionary implications? Heterosexuality is obviously the normal instinct, as it is essentially required for continuation of the species. Homosexuality may just be a flaw in the system that occurs when a human is first forming, where a male brain gets paired with female sex organs, or vice versa. There is no hereditary component other than continuation of the chance of the flaw occurring, because there are no homosexual sex organs, only mismatched bodies and brains.

“And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does. “—Michael Ossipoff

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight.
.
Of course. But there’s also a blatantly-obvious natural-selection influence too.

Then there has to be one for Gays, too, because they've been here forever and are still going strong..

, "but theres neither."
.
That’s your scientific pronouncement?I stated an obvious reason why, in view of natural-selection, a strong environmental influence is needed to explain gay-ness.

You did nothing of the kind; your reason was neither obvious nor correct. And it's really lame to reduce my statement to three words from the middle statement and treat it like my complete one. If you have faith in your incorrect view, at least address my entire statement. You have failed to do so, so far. Here it is:

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight, but theres neither. Gay people mostly come out and mostly have come out of predominantly Straight communities and most of the children raised by Gay parents have turned out straight.

Consciousness is used as an obfuscatory way to refer to the fact that animals react to their surroundings. — Michael Ossipoff

Consciousness is experience and awareness of surroundings. There is no explanation as to why we have experiences ( including dreams, pain and other sensations )qualia). Defining consciouness is controversial but you certainly haven't characterisied it convncingly.

You once again are conflating the trivial observation of somethings benefit with the mechanical, biochemical or otherwise explanation of emergent properties.

The benefits of consciousness do not amount to a causal explanation of why we are able to perceive anything or have sensations. (how the brin if it does "produces" experinces and sensations)

You do not seem to have a demand for thorough causally complete coherent explanations for anything. New body parts have to be created in conjunction with mutations and environmental factors but these require a biochemical thery fo properties available and caused by biochemistry and not just a reference to "fitness".

"Natural selection" seems to be verging on a trivial tautology that if something survives it is well adapted.

And we've now reached a point where natural selection pretty much no longer applies to humans. The 'weak' humans end up being raised into adulthood, with just as much opportunity to reproduce as the 'strong' ones. Unless we start picking and choosing who can have children, I don't foresee any further advancement of our physical and mental abilities. — CasKev

As long as there is death and reproduction, the mechanisms of natural selection are in play. There is a common misconception that what we might think of as "better" traits are not being selected for, or what we think of as "worse" traits are being selected against, that means that evolution isn't occurring in the human population, but that betrays a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Whatever traits continue to be passed on are those traits that are "selected for" and those that are not are "selected against" given the current environment (which includes our cultural and technological environments).

There is huge literature in psychology and philosophy of mind and neuroscience etc. Posting links to one thinker Stepehen Pinker as authoritative (Or Darwin) is hapless.

Heterosexuality is obviously the normal instinct, as it is essentially required for continuation of the species. — CasKev

Heterosexuality is required but what it requires is much more complex than homosexual desire.

Homosexuals just need to fancy each other. Heterosexuality has to get a different sex attracted to a different looking sex (it failed for me as an exclusive homosexual) and keep complex sexual organs in seperate bodies compatible which is a bizzare feat.. So for example the woman gets ovaries, eggs and womb and breast man gets sperm etc.

So you need a set of really providentially mutations selected. People seem to downplay the role of consciousness in sexual attraction as well.

Is it possible that homosexuality is just a bug in the human reproductive program, rather than an emergent trait with evolutionary implications? Heterosexuality is obviously the normal instinct, as it is essentially required for continuation of the species. Homosexuality may just be a flaw in the system that occurs when a human is first forming, where a male brain gets paired with female sex organs, or vice versa. There is no hereditary component other than continuation of the chance of the flaw occurring, because there are no homosexual sex organs, only mismatched bodies and brains. — CasKev

That's a good explanation. Admittedly the environmental explanation wasn't really that good (It was just the best that I could suggest) . Your explanation sounds better, and explains the otherwise difficult-to-explain fact that homosexuality is found in other animal species too.

Michael Ossipoff

I hasten to add that no one is implying a value-judgement. Just a mechanism.

Michael Ossipoff

Is it possible that homosexuality is just a bug in the human reproductive program, rather than an emergent trait with evolutionary implications? Heterosexuality is obviously the normal instinct, as it is essentially required for continuation of the species. Homosexuality may just be a flaw in the system that occurs when a human is first forming, where a male brain gets paired with female sex organs, or vice versa. There is no hereditary component other than continuation of the chance of the flaw occurring, because there are no homosexual sex organs, only mismatched bodies and brains.
— CasKev

Are people really spewing this anti-scientific, homophobic nonsense that homosexuality is "just a bug in the reproductive system," and that there are no "homosexual sex organs, only mismatched bodies and brains?" That is so pathetic.

Gays and their sexual preferences bringing them together are not flaws and neither are their predilections. Gays and the homosexuality they practice have been here for millennia and many of them, like Alan Turing, clearly are not who they are because of "bugs in the reproductive system."

It's thinking like that from the quote above that led England to castrate the man who arguably won the Allies WWII and drive him to suicide. Unreal.

Michael Ossipoff

.
"That’s your scientific pronouncement?I stated an obvious reason why, in view of natural-selection, a strong environmental influence is needed to explain gay-ness."--Michael Ossipoff


You did nothing of the kind; your reason was neither obvious nor correct. — Thanatos Sand

Yes, in view of what CasKev posted, maybe my explanation wasn't the best one. Maybe a better explanation is that it's just a "transcription-error", to borrow a term from the movie Timeline.

Note that I admit when I'm wrong (or was likely wrong).

And it's really lame to reduce my statement to three words from the middle statement and treat it like my complete one. If you have faith in your incorrect view, at least address my entire statement. You have failed to do so, so far. Here it is:

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight, but theres neither. Gay people mostly come out and mostly have come out of predominantly Straight communities and most of the children raised by Gay parents have turned out straight.

...none of which precludes environmental causes. But CasKev's explanation is more plausible.

Michael Ossipoff

I hasten to add that no one is implying a value-judgement. Just a mechanism.

Michael Ossipoff

Attributing Gays' sexual preferences to an unproven, unscientific, homophobic "mechanism" that you see as a "bug in the reproductive system" and not just a regular product of the reproductive system that made Gays and their predilections is a value judgment. You are saying that Gays' sexual predilections are not as natural as Straights'. that is an immense value judgment.