Evidence of evolution "at work"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
G

Gigantron

Robot
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
89
Members do not see this ad.
This must be the week of scientific discoveries, because along with finding out the neutrino particles travel at FTL speeds, a previously undocumented population of moth has also been discovered. Apparently they "only" feed on fruit, but when offered blood, will also feed on that as well.

[YOUTUBE]ZEZNcLNGMZE[/YOUTUBE]
 
Every species is into the vampire craze these days.
 
Can we get Iceman's take on this?
 
NickNaylor said:
Able to measure faster-than-light particles, can't find moth.

Can't explain that.
Click to expand...

Eh, my confusion comes from your assumption that all fruit eating moths don't have needle like tongues. Now I'm not an entomologist, so would you care to elaborate? 😕
 
I have a question that I've been wanting to get answered.

If being homosexual was hereditary, would basic natural selection favor those who can reproduce (i.e. hetersexuals) over does who cannot (homosexual). Homosexuality has been around for a great deal of time so evolutionary speaking, that gene should be extinct due to over prevalence of the normal gene, one that has the ability to pass itself on to its progeny. Homosexuals cannot sexually reproduce. But homosexuality still exists. Unless this homosexuality gene defies thousands of years of evolution, homosexuality cannot be a hereditary trait or anything that you are born with. It must be environmentally affected. Am I not correct?
 
Stacker said:
I have a question that I've been wanting to get answered.

If being homosexual was hereditary, would basic natural selection favor those who can reproduce (i.e. hetersexuals) over does who cannot (homosexual). Homosexuality has been around for a great deal of time so evolutionary speaking, that gene should be extinct due to over prevalence of the normal gene, one that has the ability to pass itself on to its progeny. Homosexuals cannot sexually reproduce. But homosexuality still exists. Unless this homosexuality gene defies thousands of years of evolution, homosexuality cannot be a hereditary trait or anything that you are born with. It must be environmentally affected. Am I not correct?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
 
Stacker said:
I have a question that I've been wanting to get answered.

If being homosexual was hereditary, would basic natural selection favor those who can reproduce (i.e. hetersexuals) over does who cannot (homosexual). Homosexuality has been around for a great deal of time so evolutionary speaking, that gene should be extinct due to over prevalence of the normal gene, one that has the ability to pass itself on to its progeny. Homosexuals cannot sexually reproduce. But homosexuality still exists. Unless this homosexuality gene defies thousands of years of evolution, homosexuality cannot be a hereditary trait or anything that you are born with. It must be environmentally affected. Am I not correct?
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. Homosexuals will be extinct.... When all humans are extinct. Just because a species can't breed doesn't mean it can't be made indefinitely.

Ever hear of mules?? Horse mom, donkey dad?? Ligers? Tigons? Google sterile hybrids
 
Apparently the hypothetical gay gene could persist for generations as a recessive gene.
 
Stacker said:
I have a question that I've been wanting to get answered.

If being homosexual was hereditary, would basic natural selection favor those who can reproduce (i.e. hetersexuals) over does who cannot (homosexual). Homosexuality has been around for a great deal of time so evolutionary speaking, that gene should be extinct due to over prevalence of the normal gene, one that has the ability to pass itself on to its progeny. Homosexuals cannot sexually reproduce. But homosexuality still exists. Unless this homosexuality gene defies thousands of years of evolution, homosexuality cannot be a hereditary trait or anything that you are born with. It must be environmentally affected. Am I not correct?
Click to expand...

You're assuming that there's one specific gene for homosexuality. Mendel got lucky when he chose his model organism but most things aren't black or white with two different alleles effecting a trait in different individuals. Traits can be affected by multiple genes working in parallel or metagenomics.
 
Re: adaptive disadvantage:

Don't forget that historically many gay people just got married and had kids anyway. Actually, that's still true today...
 
🙂

10907396.jpg
 
FoxyMD30 said:
You're absolutely correct. Homosexuals will be extinct.... When all humans are extinct. Just because a species can't breed doesn't mean it can't be made indefinitely.

Ever hear of mules?? Horse mom, donkey dad?? Ligers? Tigons? Google sterile hybrids
Click to expand...

That's a terrible analogy. Selective breeding is beyond the scope of relevant natural selection. We obviously don't and cannot selectively breed two parents with a possible recessive allele for homosexuality in order to sustain a homosexual population. There isn't a motive to do so. It isn't what naturally occurs and it didn't occur thousands of years ago. How the hell do you expect two renaissance individuals to knowingly breed for homosexuality. Mendel had not even existed yet.
 
Stacker said:
Apparently the hypothetical gay gene could persist for generations as a recessive gene.
Click to expand...

No s***. And you want to be a doctor? You should have learned this in freshman bio 1

Many believe it is a combination of genetic predisposition and environment (maternal womb). So yes, you are born that way.
 
kpcrew2oo2 said:
You're assuming that there's one specific gene for homosexuality. Mendel got lucky when he chose his model organism but most things aren't black or white with two different alleles effecting a trait in different individuals. Traits can be affected by multiple genes working in parallel or metagenomics.
Click to expand...

It's been speculated that Mendel fudged his results because they were too perfect and haven't been repeated accurately.
 
whyyyyy is the thread bump necessary and why did it turn to a debate on homosexuality :|
 
ppfizenm said:
No s***. And you want to be a doctor? You should have learned this in freshman bio 1

Many believe it is a combination of genetic predisposition and environment (maternal womb). So yes, you are born that way.
Click to expand...

? They haven't even found the gene locus for a possible gay gene so I don't know why you hastily say that gay people are born that way. Sorry but Lady Gaga could be wrong, you might not have been born that way.

Obviously looking at a solved problem is much easier than being the solver trying to recall a single fact out of the blue from "into bio" that recessive genes can persist in a population. Give me break, dayum.
 
There was an evolutionary psychology article on the concept of heterozygous advantage and homosexuals role in nature and familial dynamics.
 
Stacker said:
? They haven't even found the gene locus for a possible gay gene so I don't know why you hastily say that gay people are born that way. Sorry but Lady Gaga could be wrong, you might not have been born that way.

Obviously looking at a solved problem is much easier than being the solver trying to recall a single fact out of the blue from "into bio" that recessive genes can persist in a population. Give me break, dayum.
Click to expand...

Because there likely is no single locus, but rather a complex combination of multiple genes working. Likewise epigenetics come into play from there on. Neuroscientists have studied this and looked at structures such as the sexually dimorphic nuclei in the hypothalamus.
And furthermore are you trying to imply that homosexuality is a choice?
 
Stacker said:
? They haven't even found the gene locus for a possible gay gene so I don't know why you hastily say that gay people are born that way. Sorry but Lady Gaga could be wrong, you might not have been born that way.

Obviously looking at a solved problem is much easier than being the solver trying to recall a single fact out of the blue from "into bio" that recessive genes can persist in a population. Give me break, dayum.
Click to expand...

It's been pumped into your head since early high school i.e. persistence of blue eyes in brown eyed families. Comes up studying for the MCAT. The list goes on.

And some researchers do believe they have found the "gay gene". The problem is it's not something that is easily researched as sexual behavior is not governed by just one gene. There are many things coming into play. You are ignoring everything that happens to DNA, RNA, and proteins in cells as well.

Not quoting lady gaga. Implying that as the environment that is suspected to have an effect, the one you mentioned, is exposure to differing levels of hormones during critical periods in the womb. In the womb aka prior to birth hence born that way, unless you periodically crawl back in side your mother.
 
samueltak said:
I don't see any constructive debate here because there isn't enough evidence to support either side yet
Click to expand...

Not really... I think it's pretty definitive that human sexuality and homosexuality is based on epigenetics.

If I'm correct, women with androgen insensitivity syndrome or have XXX are more statistically prone towards lesbianism. I can't quiet remember since it has been a while since cellular neurophysiology and behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
  • Question Question
MPH courses as evidence of academic readiness
Replies
11
Views
790
Goro
Goro
M
Worth it to work full time unpaid at a lab?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
DiavoloAlighieri
How to improve at medical scribing outside of the workplace?
Replies
3
Views
683
NOLZAOINK
N
L
Work and Activities Review
Replies
0
Views
531
lizadav02
L
P
Working Abroad for Summer of App?
Replies
2
Views
356
candbgirl
C
Top