Agree Agree:  68
Likes Likes:  242
Page 5 of 92 FirstFirst 123456789153055 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1367
  1. #61
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    Asteroids Champion, 123 GO Champion, Ball Of Madness Champion, Solitare Champion, Deal or No Deal Champion, Connect 4 Champion, Yeti Sports 8- Jungle Swing Champion, Putt it in Golf Champion, Yetisports 10 - Icicle Climb Champion, mahjong Champion, 247 Mini Golf Champion, Flash Golf Champion, Battleship Champion, Solitaire Golf SLingo Champion, Archery Champion dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    51,368
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by suliso View Post
    Couple thoughts that came into my mind while reading the latest discussion...

    It seems reasonable to assume that whatever causes homosexuality happens either at conception or during the pregnancy. No one has found a homosexuality gene and not for the lack of trying.

    Any theory that explains the male homosexuality should be able to do the same for the female form. Are there actually more gays than lesbians? Seems so reading this board, but that isn't exactly scientific...
    Are there any theories about what causes heterosexuality?

  2. #62

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by dryrunguy View Post
    Are there any theories about what causes heterosexuality?
    There are plenty, including some discussed earlier in this thread, but I don't think there is one which is widely accepted. The only thing most seem to agree on is that it is genetic instead of a choice/upbringing.
    Last edited by suliso; 02-05-2011 at 12:08 PM.
    Roger forever

  3. #63

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by dryrunguy View Post
    Are there any theories about what causes heterosexuality?
    I don't know if there are. One thing that puzzles science if why there is sex at all. From the point of view of safely passing your genes along, it makes little sense. Parthenogenesis would be a much better choice. Why dilute your precious gene pool with somebody else's that you really know very little about goes against the "Selfish Gene" idea.

    The main theory about why there is heterosexuality is in the Genesis, I guess
    Starry starry night

  4. #64

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Miles View Post
    The study that linked the number of male children to homosexuality theorized that a woman's body treats a male fetus as a foreign object and with each successive male fetus develops stronger "anti-bodies" which "attacks" the fetus and in some way alters the sexual orientation of the fetus.
    Seriously?

    This would make a great performance piece.


  5. #65

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by suliso View Post
    There are plenty, including some discussed earlier in this thread, but I don't think there is one which is widely accepted. The only thing most seem to agree on is that it is genetic instead of a choice/upbringing.
    Which sounds more cultural than scientific.

    I'm shocked.


  6. #66

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by craighickman View Post
    Seriously?

    This would make a great performance piece.
    Watch for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Miles View Post
    Found the story as it was reported on 60 minutes -- it appears toward the end.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...89607318034090#
    Towel Avatar, do your thing!

  7. #67

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    I don't know if there are. One thing that puzzles science if why there is sex at all. From the point of view of safely passing your genes along, it makes little sense. Parthenogenesis would be a much better choice. Why dilute your precious gene pool with somebody else's that you really know very little about goes against the "Selfish Gene" idea.
    First time I hear that. In my opinion sexual reproduction is easy to explain (not so easy to explain is why humans are so sexually active compared to other mammalian species and why we do it all year long). Asexual reproduction suffers from low genetic variability and thus is significantly more susceptible to adverse mutations. It is, however, observed in some insect and amphibian species under certain conditions.
    Roger forever

  8. #68

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by suliso View Post
    First time I hear that. In my opinion sexual reproduction is easy to explain (not so easy to explain is why humans are so sexually active compared to other mammalian species and why we do it all year long). Asexual reproduction suffers from low genetic variability and thus is significantly more susceptible to adverse mutations. It is, however, observed in some insect and amphibian species under certain conditions.
    It seems it is not so easy:
    Dawkins: "There are many theories of why sex exists, and none of them is knock down convincing".
    John Maynard Smith stated that sex was "an evolutionary scandal".
    George Williams: "There is a kind of crisis at hand in evolutionary biology (thanks to sex)".
    Ernst Mayr: "Since 1880 the evolunionists have argued over the selective advantage of sexual reproduction. So far, no clear cut winner has emerged from this controversy".
    Nature, in an article in 2007: "The explanation for why sex is so common as a reproductive strategy continues to remain a mystery".

    It seems that the crux is a simple question: if you agree that the sole goal of the gene is to pass itself to future generations, then asexual, NON MIXING reproduction will do a better job at that. Also, the chances of damaging mutations are much less than the chances that you will mix your genes with a less "evolved" partner. If you just "split" yourself, you only risk mutation as a "de-evolution" step, and most of those would be so fatal that your spawn would simply not survive. You would then again asexually reproduce. On the other hand, if you are extremely fit for your environment, sexual reproduction would lead you to mate to a less "fit" partner, leading to a less fit offspring simply because of regression to the mean.
    It seems it is not so simple.
    Starry starry night

  9. #69

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Miles View Post
    Watch for yourself.
    Science meets art. One of my favorite places to be.

    Consider the stereotype that gay men and their mothers can have a pretty antagonistic/codependent relationship. That relationship started in the womb because the mother's body considered her male fetus a foreign object?

    Goldmine.


  10. #70

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by craighickman View Post
    Science meets art. One of my favorite places to be.

    Consider the stereotype that gay men and their mothers can have a pretty antagonistic/codependent relationship. That relationship started in the womb because the mother's body considered her male fetus a foreign object?

    Goldmine.
    It's only a theory so far but they have research to back up their claim. What do you have?
    Towel Avatar, do your thing!

  11. #71

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    I'm kind of unclear on that theory. From what I know, ALL fetuses are treated as a foreign object. One of the great things about gestation is that the mother's immune system does not attack the fetus for a period of 9 months. Then it triggers a "repeal" condition, in turn triggering the birth response. This, again, is what I have read.
    So if the condition were that homosexuality is caused by a rejection of the fetus, it would make no difference if said fetus is male or female.

    On Craig's idea of science and art: Phillip Roth meets Phillip K. Dick? Wow!
    Starry starry night

  12. #72
    Contests
    Awards Showcase

    Ace Blackjack Champion, Base Jumping Champion, Ultimate Jewel Champion Woody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    4,612
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    It seems that the crux is a simple question: if you agree that the sole goal of the gene is to pass itself to future generations, then asexual, NON MIXING reproduction will do a better job at that.
    I don't follow that. If there are other successful genetic lines out there, it makes sense to cross-breed and try things out. Maybe they have adaptions you don't. This is much more rapid and focused on successful adaptions that random internal mutation would be. It seems very advantageous to me.
    I put in the work and wanted it so badly but this guy is the best for a reason. He is such a complete player ... maybe I'll just punch him or something, I don't know. - Andy Roddick

  13. #73

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Miles View Post
    It's only a theory so far but they have research to back up their claim. What do you have?
    I find the theory fascinating and as an artist I immediately conceived of a performance piece based upon the theory.

    That's all.


  14. #74

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    Quote Originally Posted by Woody View Post
    I don't follow that. If there are other successful genetic lines out there, it makes sense to cross-breed and try things out. Maybe they have adaptions you don't. This is much more rapid and focused on successful adaptions that random internal mutation would be. It seems very advantageous to me.
    Other points that people consider are:
    1. If you go for asexual reproduction, ALL members of the species are reproducing, ALL the time.
    2. You point cuts both ways. If you have some less successful lines our there, you are better off if you stay away from that race (would you like to mix your genes with, lets say, a Palin (and I don't mean Michael)).
    3. Asexual replication does imply an accumulation of mutations. One or two may be not fatal, but if you accrue some more, then you are in trouble. On the other hand, it only takes one bad coupling for two recessive genes to go operational.
    4. You are right. From the point of view of genetic variety, sexual reproduction is the way to go. The fact that it is so successful also points out to the fact that it is advantegous. But again, from the point of view of a gene, trying to reproduce itself, there are explanations awaiting. It is obvious that sexual reproduction works. It is that the explanations are not completely sound (as Dawkins says).
    Starry starry night

  15. #75

    Re: Let's Discuss Science

    I would imagine that long time ago there were some organisms reproducing asexually and some trying out the "new" sexual thing with the later winning the race for survival. Not being a geneticists I probably miss a lot of details and complications, but in my understanding it has to do with long term adaptability. Even organisms usually reproducing asexually are capable of "sexual" exchange of genetic material (for example bacteria). Otherwise there is no progress and sooner or later the species lose the competitive battle with more adaptable organisms.

    By the way it is wrong to think as evolution in general or a gene in particular having a purpose or a "long term plan". There is none...
    Roger forever

Page 5 of 92 FirstFirst 123456789153055 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •