Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
But those of us that DO ask....and consequently DO tell..... get told we're "atheist libs"
I know that's not really you Mike...and I really respect your right to follow your own heart....
But you have to admit....America knows how to ratchet it up several notches!
ChilledMammal
Registered
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
I am new to forums but would like to wade in on this discussion,.
The article below supports the argument that sexuality in some people is strongly correlated to a person's biology/DNA.
I've friends who have decided that same sex relationships suite them fine. It was their life choice, which I respect and they're very happy with it. On the other hand I have another friend who grew up in a normal family and who from a very young age was attracted to the same sex. The kids around him could tell he was different, a bit girlish and teased him continuously about it. But the fact is, he did like the other boys in that 'special' kind of way right from the start.
I believe people have the right to choose and not be treated differently because of it. I also subscribe to the view that sexuality is on a sliding scale in people and not a simple on or off. I have no agenda, personally I like the ladies and I'm male.
It seems very clear to me that in some cases sexuality is a choice and/or environmental and in other cases it is not a choice, it's something deep within a person's Biology/DNA.
Quote from a scientific article on brain biology.
"Transexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psychogenic or biological etiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years [1,2]. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour [3,4], is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones [5,6]."
IJ TRANSGENDER - A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality By J.-N. Zhou, M.A. Hoffmann, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab
To bring it around to the original thread, I don't think it matters if it is choice of biology, a person deserves the right not to be discriminated against. Religion is more often used as a tool by a person or a group of people to gain power and control over other people, through the use of fear and divisiveness. And in most cases asks people to stop using their own logic and reasoning skills.
R
redacted
Guest
Unless, of course, the sin is directed!!! Like killings directed in the bible.
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding something.
It is this kind of thing that leaves me with a bit of uneasiness with the idea of religious extremists who interpret scriptures literally, believe they are being instructed by their god, and accept those instructions without reasonable limitations.
Last edited by a moderator:
CZ_Diver
Registered
Well, Mike... I don't know that I have the energy to keep going. I've done this argument before, and it is futile. We'll have to agree to disagree, as I don't want to endlessly debate. It's a useless argument anyway, as I highly doubt I'm going to be able to find proof enough to conquer your beliefs/faith. And visa versa. And I don't wanna:
I'll go back to the sidelines and let others "participate."
Right! Yeah, that makes me repent and respect creation..............right there
Pick on someone your own size, will ya....bloody goof
As for the, "no amount of silver or gold will buy them off". of course not, duh!!....while one is busy raping the wives...might as well rob the poor %^#%^. Why barter or trade for something you can just take...sheez
Just Brilliant
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,797
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
You must remember that many fundamentalists do no acknowledge biology as a science so in their mind it could not be a "choice of biology."
ChilledMammal
Registered
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry it was a typo on my part, it was choice or biology, not choice of biology. Thanks for the correction.
- Messages
- 22,171
- Reaction score
- 2,797
- # of dives
- 5000 - ∞
I wasn't correcting, it works either way.
Warthaug
Contributor
This may appear 4x, as scubaboard has throw me database errors several times now. If this happens I'd be eternally grateful if a mod removed the extra posts (doesn't matter which, they're all identical).
------------------------------------------------------
Gotta love "Christian" sources for these types of info - they ignore all the inconvenient little facts that sets the context for the stats:
1) Drug use:
Alcohol and drug use among homosexual men and wome...[Addict Behav. 1989] - PubMed Result
Long story short, it is slightly higher in homosexuals, not because more start it, but rather because they tend to carry on with the habit longer than the hetero's do. And rates of addiction are the same between the groups, meaning that use turns to abuse at the same rate in both groups.
2) STD's:
STD Surveillance 2006
While homosexuals have the highest rate, we heterosexuals are catching up at a phenomenal rate. The incidence of STDs among homosexuals has been dropping, overall, for nearly 20 years, while the rate for heteros has been climbing over that same period.
Guess who has the highest risk for new HIV infection in the USA? I'll give you a hint - they're young and straight.
In terms of absolute numbers, heteo's are also way ahead of homosexuals.
3) Domestic violence:
Intimate partner abuse among gay and bisexual men:...[J Urban Health. 2007] - PubMed Result
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ipv.txt
Long story short - the rates among homosexuals is about the same as women experience in male-female partners. So the problem seems to be men, not homosexuals. But wait, there's more:
History of childhood sexual abuse and HIV risk beh...[Am J Public Health. 2007] - PubMed Result
Homosexuals are more likely to be the victims of parent-child abuse than heteros. Guess that's all them good ol' "Christian" dads trying to beat their wayward children back onto gods path...
4) Mental health:
Sexual orientation and mental health. [Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2007] - PubMed Result
Ignoring the evidence dictating the practice: sexu...[J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2004] - PubMed Result
Lesbians' drinking patterns: beyond the data. [Subst Use Misuse. 2003 Sep-Nov] - PubMed Result
Yep, they have more. Thanx to all of the abuse, ridicule, violence and exclusion society throws at them. But I guess we're blaming the victims here, so well ignore the root cause.
Oh, and you want to see some truly horrifying stats on mental health? Look up some of the studies looking at the "formerly gay"; men who were gay, but then converted to a straight lifestyle. Compared to them, homosexual men are a paragon of mental stability.
You're wrong about what those number mean, or how their calculated, and the statistical significance they represent, but none-the-less they're old science and there is much better evidence today - as well as an explanation for the less than 100% concordance between twins.
The twins are probably the easiest place to start. Genes are regulated, meaning that they can be turning on/off, and/or the amount of the resulting protein produced can increased/decreased. There is a phenomena called "epigenetics", which is essentially an inherited regulation of a gene that is not a result of a mutation. It acts like a mutation, but the DNA is not mutated. Instead the gene is turned off/on in a way which is inheritable.
A lot of these epigenetic "mutations" are set in the first few cell divisions after the egg is fertilized; meaning that identical twins can have different epigenetic "mutations", and thus have a different phenotype.
Long story short, mutations and epigenetic changes are known to be involved in homosexuality, and the rate in which identical twins "inherit" different epigenetic phenotypes occurs at about the same rate as the discordance between twins in the above studies. In plain English, that means that the differences between identical twins you so readily assume disproves a genetic link is most likely due to epigenetics - i.e. due to *inherited* pseudo-genetic traits.
And there is yet another form of non-genetic "inheritance" that seems to be involved - birth-order. Basically, if a mother has multiple son's she is more likely to give birth to a homosexual son than is a mother with few children, or a mother with an even mix of boys and girls. The underlying cause appears to be maternal antibodies which target male proteins. This appears to result in some of the epigenetic changes mentioned above, although there are probably more direct (i.e. non-genetic or epigenetic) processes involved in that as well.
All together this makes for a pretty strong argument for a biological basis to homosexuality.
Genetic and epigenetic factors are associated with...[J Clin Invest. 2007] - PubMed Result
X-chromosome inactivation patterns in monozygotic ...[Am J Med Genet A. 2007] - PubMed Result
Epigenetics of personality traits: an illustrative...[Twin Res Hum Genet. 2008] - PubMed Result
Aberrant DNA methylation associated with bipolar d...[Mol Psychiatry. 2008] - PubMed Result
Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mo...[Hum Genet. 2006] - PubMed Result
A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed Result
Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and ...[Laterality. 2008] - PubMed Result
So that's a quick overview of what we know from humans, but the data goes far beyond that.
Now, to bring things back to the topic of evolution:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Is commonly believed in the anti-gay movement that "gay" genes would be removed by evolution as the men who carry them leave no offspring. They take this as wither proof evolution is wrong, or that homosexuality is not genetic, depending on which cat they're trying to skin that day.
Not too surprisingly, this belief comes more from ignorance of evolution, rather than from any legitimate data. The main point most people miss is that a gene "harmful" to some individuals will be maintained if it offers an advantage to the overall population. For example, the sickle-cell anemia gene. In one copy it provides protection against malaria. The cost of this is the small percent of individuals who get two copies - they end up with a deadly disease. But the advantage of one gene out-competes the disadvantage of inheriting two, so the mutation is maintained.
So, with that background, the potential evolutionary advantages are:
1) The genes are advantageous overall, and its only rare combinations which result in homosexuality, and therefore evolution maintains those genes (most likely explanation for people).
2) The genes are advantageous in women, and that advantage "overwhelms" the cost to men (also quite likely in people).
3) The genes (or gene combination) themselves are not good, but the frequency that they occur in the population is too low for natural selection to effect (possible, but very hard to measure, and the number of homosexuals out there suggests that these genes are quite common).
4) Kin selection. Basically gay men help pass on their genes by assisting their siblings (who carry many of the same genes) raise children. This is a controversial idea in evolutionary biology, as the genetic benefit of helping kin drops pretty quickly as you move down a generation.
When you take into account the birth-order phenomena, #4 gets a boost. Homosexuality may have evolved as a way of getting female "benefits" (i.e. assistance in child rearing) in families where there is a lack of genetic females. Controversial, and nearly impossible to prove, but makes for interesting conjecture.
--------------------------------------------------
Any how, to finish off.
Recent studies in humans have identified genetic regions (called loci) associated with homosexuality. Based on current scientific standards, this is considered proof positive of a genetic basis. That said, each region contains multiple genes, so the identification of the genes(s) in each region that are involved, and the exact combination of those genes/regions that results in homosexuality, will not be known until a more detailed study of those regions is done:
A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed Result
In addition to the genetics, a growing body of evidence is beginning to explain the underlying biological cause of homosexuality. Long story short, gay men's hypothalamus is "feminized", meaning that it is shaped like and responds like a womans hypothalamus. The hypothalamus develops in the womb, and is essentially full-formed upon birth. Meaning that the changes to the brain that produce homosexual behavior are set at birth:
Sexual differentiation of the human hypothalamus. [Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002] - PubMed Result
Structural and functional sex differences in the h...[Horm Behav. 2001] - PubMed Result
Differential brain activation in exclusively homos...[Brain Res. 2004] - PubMed Result
Review: brain aromatization and other factors affe...[Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2000] - PubMed Result
Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexua...[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005] - PubMed Result
And just one last note - it is possible to decide not to follow ones biological impulses - everyone does that all the time. But what evidence we have today suggests that the anti-gay movement has it backwards - people don't "choose" to be gay; rather biologically gay people choose to be straight.
Bryan
------------------------------------------------------
Gotta love "Christian" sources for these types of info - they ignore all the inconvenient little facts that sets the context for the stats:
1) Drug use:
Alcohol and drug use among homosexual men and wome...[Addict Behav. 1989] - PubMed Result
Long story short, it is slightly higher in homosexuals, not because more start it, but rather because they tend to carry on with the habit longer than the hetero's do. And rates of addiction are the same between the groups, meaning that use turns to abuse at the same rate in both groups.
2) STD's:
STD Surveillance 2006
While homosexuals have the highest rate, we heterosexuals are catching up at a phenomenal rate. The incidence of STDs among homosexuals has been dropping, overall, for nearly 20 years, while the rate for heteros has been climbing over that same period.
Guess who has the highest risk for new HIV infection in the USA? I'll give you a hint - they're young and straight.
In terms of absolute numbers, heteo's are also way ahead of homosexuals.
3) Domestic violence:
Intimate partner abuse among gay and bisexual men:...[J Urban Health. 2007] - PubMed Result
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ipv.txt
Long story short - the rates among homosexuals is about the same as women experience in male-female partners. So the problem seems to be men, not homosexuals. But wait, there's more:
History of childhood sexual abuse and HIV risk beh...[Am J Public Health. 2007] - PubMed Result
Homosexuals are more likely to be the victims of parent-child abuse than heteros. Guess that's all them good ol' "Christian" dads trying to beat their wayward children back onto gods path...
4) Mental health:
Sexual orientation and mental health. [Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2007] - PubMed Result
Ignoring the evidence dictating the practice: sexu...[J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2004] - PubMed Result
Lesbians' drinking patterns: beyond the data. [Subst Use Misuse. 2003 Sep-Nov] - PubMed Result
Yep, they have more. Thanx to all of the abuse, ridicule, violence and exclusion society throws at them. But I guess we're blaming the victims here, so well ignore the root cause.
Oh, and you want to see some truly horrifying stats on mental health? Look up some of the studies looking at the "formerly gay"; men who were gay, but then converted to a straight lifestyle. Compared to them, homosexual men are a paragon of mental stability.
You're wrong about what those number mean, or how their calculated, and the statistical significance they represent, but none-the-less they're old science and there is much better evidence today - as well as an explanation for the less than 100% concordance between twins.
The twins are probably the easiest place to start. Genes are regulated, meaning that they can be turning on/off, and/or the amount of the resulting protein produced can increased/decreased. There is a phenomena called "epigenetics", which is essentially an inherited regulation of a gene that is not a result of a mutation. It acts like a mutation, but the DNA is not mutated. Instead the gene is turned off/on in a way which is inheritable.
A lot of these epigenetic "mutations" are set in the first few cell divisions after the egg is fertilized; meaning that identical twins can have different epigenetic "mutations", and thus have a different phenotype.
Long story short, mutations and epigenetic changes are known to be involved in homosexuality, and the rate in which identical twins "inherit" different epigenetic phenotypes occurs at about the same rate as the discordance between twins in the above studies. In plain English, that means that the differences between identical twins you so readily assume disproves a genetic link is most likely due to epigenetics - i.e. due to *inherited* pseudo-genetic traits.
And there is yet another form of non-genetic "inheritance" that seems to be involved - birth-order. Basically, if a mother has multiple son's she is more likely to give birth to a homosexual son than is a mother with few children, or a mother with an even mix of boys and girls. The underlying cause appears to be maternal antibodies which target male proteins. This appears to result in some of the epigenetic changes mentioned above, although there are probably more direct (i.e. non-genetic or epigenetic) processes involved in that as well.
All together this makes for a pretty strong argument for a biological basis to homosexuality.
Genetic and epigenetic factors are associated with...[J Clin Invest. 2007] - PubMed Result
X-chromosome inactivation patterns in monozygotic ...[Am J Med Genet A. 2007] - PubMed Result
Epigenetics of personality traits: an illustrative...[Twin Res Hum Genet. 2008] - PubMed Result
Aberrant DNA methylation associated with bipolar d...[Mol Psychiatry. 2008] - PubMed Result
Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mo...[Hum Genet. 2006] - PubMed Result
A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed Result
Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and ...[Laterality. 2008] - PubMed Result
So that's a quick overview of what we know from humans, but the data goes far beyond that.
Now, to bring things back to the topic of evolution:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Is commonly believed in the anti-gay movement that "gay" genes would be removed by evolution as the men who carry them leave no offspring. They take this as wither proof evolution is wrong, or that homosexuality is not genetic, depending on which cat they're trying to skin that day.
Not too surprisingly, this belief comes more from ignorance of evolution, rather than from any legitimate data. The main point most people miss is that a gene "harmful" to some individuals will be maintained if it offers an advantage to the overall population. For example, the sickle-cell anemia gene. In one copy it provides protection against malaria. The cost of this is the small percent of individuals who get two copies - they end up with a deadly disease. But the advantage of one gene out-competes the disadvantage of inheriting two, so the mutation is maintained.
So, with that background, the potential evolutionary advantages are:
1) The genes are advantageous overall, and its only rare combinations which result in homosexuality, and therefore evolution maintains those genes (most likely explanation for people).
2) The genes are advantageous in women, and that advantage "overwhelms" the cost to men (also quite likely in people).
3) The genes (or gene combination) themselves are not good, but the frequency that they occur in the population is too low for natural selection to effect (possible, but very hard to measure, and the number of homosexuals out there suggests that these genes are quite common).
4) Kin selection. Basically gay men help pass on their genes by assisting their siblings (who carry many of the same genes) raise children. This is a controversial idea in evolutionary biology, as the genetic benefit of helping kin drops pretty quickly as you move down a generation.
When you take into account the birth-order phenomena, #4 gets a boost. Homosexuality may have evolved as a way of getting female "benefits" (i.e. assistance in child rearing) in families where there is a lack of genetic females. Controversial, and nearly impossible to prove, but makes for interesting conjecture.
--------------------------------------------------
Any how, to finish off.
Recent studies in humans have identified genetic regions (called loci) associated with homosexuality. Based on current scientific standards, this is considered proof positive of a genetic basis. That said, each region contains multiple genes, so the identification of the genes(s) in each region that are involved, and the exact combination of those genes/regions that results in homosexuality, will not be known until a more detailed study of those regions is done:
A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed Result
In addition to the genetics, a growing body of evidence is beginning to explain the underlying biological cause of homosexuality. Long story short, gay men's hypothalamus is "feminized", meaning that it is shaped like and responds like a womans hypothalamus. The hypothalamus develops in the womb, and is essentially full-formed upon birth. Meaning that the changes to the brain that produce homosexual behavior are set at birth:
Sexual differentiation of the human hypothalamus. [Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002] - PubMed Result
Structural and functional sex differences in the h...[Horm Behav. 2001] - PubMed Result
Differential brain activation in exclusively homos...[Brain Res. 2004] - PubMed Result
Review: brain aromatization and other factors affe...[Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2000] - PubMed Result
Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexua...[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005] - PubMed Result
And just one last note - it is possible to decide not to follow ones biological impulses - everyone does that all the time. But what evidence we have today suggests that the anti-gay movement has it backwards - people don't "choose" to be gay; rather biologically gay people choose to be straight.
Bryan
- Status
Similar threads
