Society

[Jos Elkink]

Homosexuality:
They wouldnt be able to reproduce, and therefore wouldnt contribute to increasing the numbers and ensuring the survival of the species.

What makes you think homosexuals cannot reproduce??

Fun point: Evolution doesn't work for the survival of the species: Evolution is just the tendency of genes that succeed in getting passed on to become more common.

Exactly - quite an important point here ...

Now one theory advanced for why homosexuality, if genetic, might not be selected against (much supposition is involved):
Suppose that an autosomal gene exists which recessively (genotype s/s) causes homosexuality (or a tendancy towards homosexuality) in males. But further suppose that male heterozygotes (S/s) are more nurturing or 'sensitive' or some such thing than the 'wild-type' (S/S) (yes I know this is playing with some stereotypes. This theory is not my own, so it isn't my fault.) This could be a favorable trait for either obtaining a mate or successfuly raising offspring, so heterozygotes would have a reproductive advantage, preventing the gene from fading out of the population.

It sounds interesting, except that I have no clue what you are talking about. Would you be able to translate this into English?

[SekoETC]

Now one theory advanced for why homosexuality, if genetic, might not be selected against (much supposition is involved):
Suppose that an autosomal gene exists which recessively (genotype s/s) causes homosexuality (or a tendancy towards homosexuality) in males. But further suppose that male heterozygotes (S/s) are more nurturing or 'sensitive' or some such thing than the 'wild-type' (S/S) (yes I know this is playing with some stereotypes. This theory is not my own, so it isn't my fault.) This could be a favorable trait for either obtaining a mate or successfuly raising offspring, so heterozygotes would have a reproductive advantage, preventing the gene from fading out of the population.

Where did you get that theory? since it makes damn lot of sense. So carriers of the gene might be better fathers and mates thus giving a chance for the gene to be passed on to their sons. It's a bit too simple but sounds logical. But there are also homosexuals that are more like the wild type, they don't want to cuddle, just rule.. How do you explain that?

[Junesun]

First of all I agree, can a Mod please split this thread or something?

I agree that it should be split, to allow for better discussion.
When you look at the list of forums, you see who has moderator privileges for each one. This one doesn't show any name as moderator, so I guess there are no moderators here who could split the topic?

[Jur Schagen]

Having followed this discussion for a few days, I'd like to make some comments.

First, I do not think it is about racism. I assume Hunter and Seko don't have any problem with a person that clearly has an olive skin and all other physical features from a Turkish background, yet speaks perfectly Dutch or Finnish and behaves like the predominant culture of Holland and Finland prescribe. No, this actually is about culturalism, or to be more precise, anti-muslim sentiments in Western society today, as well as anti-Western sentiments among muslims. The fact that most "Turkish-look" people are muslims as well confuses the discussion.

Yes, a significant subset of muslims have a value set that doesn't correspond to the Western values. The differences are mostly about women's rights, the seperation of church in state, and the valid ways for expanding the religion (jihad). To start with the first, this group of muslims believes that a girl that doesn't cover at least her legs, arms, and hair in public is actually inviting any man around her to make a pass at her since the Koran says that a decent woman should cover herself to avoid males being attracted to her. In this line of thinking, a girl that doesn't do so is obviously a whore. Also, the muslim women are taught to obey men. If they do not, very harsh measures can follow, ultimately expulsion from the family or even murder. And what girl wants that? Much rather do they comply, and a very significant group actually feels this to be right. This violates the Western way of thinking (at least that of the past decades), but does that mean to say that they are wrong? These are our laws, and even if I personally feel that to be right, who is to say that this is universal, more advanced, or whatever? Who knows, maybe women actually *are* inferior to men and "everything" works better if they obey their man...

Same goes for seperation of church and state, as well as Jihad. If you actually believe that the religion you follow is the ultimacy in enlightenment, it is perfectly viable to want everyone else to follow it is well, and live by its laws. Christianity has been no different in the past ages, and one might argue that they still are in a more subtle way. Now, if muslims believe we will burn in hell forever if we fuck before marriage, drink alcohol, or eat pork, it is only a small step to seeing them as truly loving us for trying to get us off our evil path, and make sure we live by the Laws to save us from our punishment later on... Mind you, I'm not saying that they are right, I'm trying to find an answer for our modern dilemma: how do we respect a religion that doesn't respect our values? "Live and let live" simply won't do in this case. (Note: We have had a simiular problem in politics in the eighties over here: how do we incorparate into a democracy a group that's looking to destroy that democracy? The Belgians and the French are still working on this (Vlaams Blok, Front National), but what can you do if people choose to use their democratic right to vote against democracy?)

Mind you, I'm not saying that this is what all muslims think or do; there are much more liberal branches in the muslim world as well. Strangely though, the "exported" muslims seem to hold much more conservative views about their religion then the traditional places of origin - Morocco and Turkey here in Holland, Pakistan in England, and so on. Several muslim countries have had female leaders, including Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines. This may have to do with the fact that being a minority (and increasingly a despised minority) incites to hold on to your traditional customs to conserve your identity in a strange place.

Finally, Westerners are arrogant in exporting their values as well to traditional muslim countries. For instance, Turkey has become one of the most popular holiday countries for Dutchmen in the past few yeas. The Dutch that go there, think it is perfectly normal that if you order a beer on a terrace, you get it. If you take a look at the beaches, miniscule bikini's are widely seen. Both are, however, against the predominant culture of the region. The sole reason that they are accepted is commercial - the bar owner that's not serving beer will be out of business soon, no Dutchmen would travel there if they had to be fully-clothed on the beaches. If that isn't an example of capitalist colonialism... And that's relatively mild, the way the Americans think (actually, "thought" would probably be a better word in this context) they can export their values (democracy) by installing a puppet regime in Iraq is much worse. I'm not even mentioning the Palestine oppression by the Jews here, for there is two sides to that story.

About Hunter's notes on crime: this is unrelated to muslimanity (except for Al Qaeda-style terrorism); theft and the like are equally despised in the Koran as they are here, no imam will condone crimes like these. Calling you GF a whore and harrassing her have completely different origins and should be discussed separately; Pirog has done a remarkable job in pointing out some origins. I just want to add another aspect, that is much less visible then race: if you would extrapolate prison population to income group, you would probably get the result that poor people have a large representation in jails. Furthermore, foreigners tend to be poorer, for a large variety of reasons. Thus, foreigners have large jail populations. Removing their (relative) poverty would be a much more effective solution then blaming it on their race though.

Jur.

[The Industriallist]

Sorry, maybe I am just stupid but I don't get your point at all. If a million flies says that shit tastes good, I'm still not going to taste it. What do you want me to do, lie to you and say I have suddenly turned openminded and international? I have no reason to fool people like that. I am what I am.

The clever point is that unlike being a human, say, being a racist is something you can change if you choose to. So you could say that and be telling the truth, or at least trying to make it the truth.

>Jos
Okay, basic human genetics...I should be able to manage this:
In humans, most genes are found in two copies, one from each parent. Which of the two is passed down to any offspring is selected randomly for each child. A particular version of a gene is called an Allele.
So, the theory claims the existance of an (undiscovered) gene with two alleles:
S, the 'normal' allele.
s, the 'homosexuality' allele.
Since we're only interested in one gene here, to give a genotype you only need list the two alleles of that gene present. The theory posits that these genotypes have the following effects on males (no effect is claimed for females, though that would be another way the gene could survive):
S/S: 'normal' heterosexual males.

S/s: gentler, more sensitive, or more nurturing heterosexual male. This results in increased reproductive success, even in a modern setting.

s/s : homosexual or likely to be homosexual male. Assumed to be reproductive dead end, in general.

Since the S/s males will tend to have children, the s allele will have a tendency to continue in the population, even though most s/s males don't reproduce. At the same time, if the s allele is reasonably prevalent, 'matings' of S/s males with females carrying the s allele will be frequent, and such matings can produce s/s offspring.

The only thing going for this theory is that it makes some degree of sense. They don't have evidence of genetic influence on homosexuality.

>Seko again
I got it from a magazine, but I don't remember which one. It could have been something reputable, of it might have been 'Discover', which is a bit of a trashy science magazine.
And no one would have the nerve to suggest that one gene totally determined anyone's behavior. The 'more tender' is a relative term...if the base situation is a cannibalistic axe-murderer, it wouldn't help much.

Also, it only asserts that S/s is 'more tender'. s/s might be assumed to get the same effect, but might not.

Now to distance myself...This theory seems internally consistant and does explain how genetic homosexuality could survive in a population. It doesn't actually give any evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

[Junesun]

>Jos
Okay, basic human genetics...I should be able to manage this:
In humans, most genes are found in two copies, one from each parent. Which of the two is passed down to any offspring is selected randomly for each child. A particular version of a gene is called an Allele.
So, the theory claims the existance of an (undiscovered) gene with two alleles:
S, the 'normal' allele.
s, the 'homosexuality' allele.
Since we're only interested in one gene here, to give a genotype you only need list the two alleles of that gene present. The theory posits that these genotypes have the following effects on males (no effect is claimed for females, though that would be another way the gene could survive):
S/S: 'normal' heterosexual males.

S/s: gentler, more sensitive, or more nurturing heterosexual male. This results in increased reproductive success, even in a modern setting.

s/s : homosexual or likely to be homosexual male. Assumed to be reproductive dead end, in general.

Since the S/s males will tend to have children, the s allele will have a tendency to continue in the population, even though most s/s males don't reproduce. At the same time, if the s allele is reasonably prevalent, 'matings' of S/s males with females carrying the s allele will be frequent, and such matings can produce s/s offspring.

The only thing going for this theory is that it makes some degree of sense. They don't have evidence of genetic influence on homosexuality.

I actually learned this at school (the process, not this particular assumed case)! <feeling very proud and useful>
May I just explain a point that didn't come across clearly yet?

Assume a case where the mother has s/s genotype and the father has S/S genotype. The child gets one allele from the mother and one from the father. Which of the two alleles (that form the genotype) of the mother that is, is random. Same for the allele from the father. However, since both mother and father have purely s/s or S/S respectively, there is only one outcome: the child will have S/s genotype. (S/s and s/S are the same, it's just the combination that matters).

Now assume a case where the mother has S/s genotype and the father has S/s genotype. The child gets one allele from the mother and one from the father. Now there are 4 possibilities, which can be neatly shown in a table: <table border="1">
<tr>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>S</td>
<td>s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>S</td>
<td>SS</td>
<td>Ss</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>s</td>
<td>Ss</td>
<td>ss</td>
</tr>
</table>

<WHY DOESN'T THIS TABLE SHOW?>
On the first horizontal line you have the mother's alleles and on the first vertical column you have the father's alleles. The rest of the table shows the possible combinations.
The outcome is: the child could have S/S genotype with 25% probability, s/s genotype with 25% probability and S/s genotype with 50% probability. Which means that in such a pairing, with the assumed meaning. there's a chance of 1 in 4 that the child will be homosexual. Homosexuality has been passed on even though neither of the parents was homosexual.

Results for a S/S and S/s pairing: 50% chance for S/S, 50% chance for S/s.
Results for a s/s and S/s pairing: 50% chance for s/s, 50% chance for S/s.

Hmm... looking at these results, S/s should be the most common genotype after several generations of natural development. Does that mean that there are lots of gentle, sensitive but not homosexual men around? If so, where are they hiding?

This whole probability issue actually becomes much more interesting if one of the allele is dominant and the other is recessive, as is the case with many human genetic illnesses. In such a case, people with two dominant alleles would be healthy and people with one dominant and one recessive allele would be healthy, too, without any visible difference to those with two dominant genes, just those with two recessive alleles would develop the illness.[/code]

[Jos Elkink]

First of all I agree, can a Mod please split this thread or something?

I agree that it should be split, to allow for better discussion.
When you look at the list of forums, you see who has moderator privileges for each one. This one doesn't show any name as moderator, so I guess there are no moderators here who could split the topic?

Before reading the others posts a quick comment on this one: there are moderators, of course, namely me and Thomas and probably Cosmo, who are admins of the forum as a whole. But I really see no need for moderation. If you guys want to split the subject, start separate discussion threads. No need to weed through all posts above to figure out how to split them - the discussions are too much intertwined.

[Jos Elkink]

Thanks for the clarifications on genes - very interesting explanation ...

And Jur, I quite agree there (you said we never did ...).

[kroner]

Hmm... looking at these results, S/s should be the most common genotype after several generations of natural development. Does that mean that there are lots of gentle, sensitive but not homosexual men around? If so, where are they hiding?

This would be so if you assumed that the two alleles were equally represented in the population. If one allele is more prevelent in the parent generation, the chances of various pairing occuring will be scewed towards the more prevelant one. The next generation will have exactly the same distribution as the last one did if everyone is equally likely to produce offspring and with a randomly selected partner.

So even in the over-simplified case, there's nothing about the situation that indicates which genotypes will be more common.

Additionally you have to take into account the most important part of all, the part that makes evolution work, which is that the phenotype of the person will influence if they reproduce and if so, with whom. this changes all the probabilities completely.

[Jos Elkink]

Additionally you have to take into account the most important part of all, the part that makes evolution work, which is that the phenotype of the person will influence if they reproduce and if so, with whom. this changes all the probabilities completely.

Why is that needed to make evolution "work"? (Not denying it, just not sure ...)

[AoM]

Evolution is a funny thing. But it doesn't always code for species survival. A particular species of elk died out because of genes selective for reproduction.

It goes a little something like this: The males of the species had really huge antlers. The females of the species would mate with the male who had the largest antlers. Therefore, big antler genes survived throughout the generations, and smaller antler genes died out. With each generation, the average antler size of the male elk grew bigger and bigger. The sad thing is, eventually, the antlers grew to be so big and heavy that they became a hindrance to the males. At full maturity, some elk couldn't even lift their heads! Natural predators began to take advantage of this encumbrance, and it got to the point where males couldn't get to the point of maturation quick enough before a predator ate them. With no males to procreate with, the female elk had a hard time having babies. No babies led to no new generation, and thus natural selection led to disaster and extinction of the species.

I don't even know if there's any relevance in here to the topic, I honestly haven't bothered reading the prior 8 pages of posts. I just thought some of you might like to hear a little genetics story.

~AoM

[Chrissy]

First point: Do these 'souls' have any means of interaction with the physical world?

I don't know.

Second: Where do 'souls' go after 'death'?

I don't know.

Third: What influence does 'god' have on the subsequent fate of 'souls'

I don't know.

Fourth: why does God care that you've spoken for all the other 'souls' on the planet?

I don't know if he does, but if does know, then he probably thinks,"That's nice."

Bonus: Define 'life' and 'death'. Not an easy question, but vital to your theology, I think.

'life', is when you're alive, and 'death', is when you're dead.

Double Bonus: How does one determine whether a life form has a 'soul'?

My guess would be if it had a conscience. Even if it was deep, deep, deep... down inside of them.

Uncomfortable question: Where is 'free will'?

You chose to sit down and read this, right?


Chrissy

[The Industriallist]

First point: Do these 'souls' have any means of interaction with the physical world?

I don't know.

Second: Where do 'souls' go after 'death'?

I don't know.

Third: What influence does 'god' have on the subsequent fate of 'souls'

I don't know.

Fourth: why does God care that you've spoken for all the other 'souls' on the planet?

I don't know if he does, but if does know, then he probably thinks,"That's nice."

doesn't this just nicely evicerate your post about praying for everyone, and no need to thank you in the afterlife, and so on? If even you don't claim to know what any of it means...

Bonus: Define 'life' and 'death'. Not an easy question, but vital to your theology, I think.

'life', is when you're alive, and 'death', is when you're dead.

That isn't even trying to answer the question. I'm not sure I would want to either, but you can't legitimately call either of them important until you can say what they are.

Double Bonus: How does one determine whether a life form has a 'soul'?

My guess would be if it had a conscience. Even if it was deep, deep, deep... down inside of them.

And...back to the definition game. You've told me how to determine if something has one immeasuarable in terms of another. Are you going to approach anything that can be perceived at some point?

Uncomfortable question: Where is 'free will'?

You chose to sit down and read this, right?

I think I did. But the great thing about free will is you can never prove that it exists...
I sit down, look at your post, and decide to read it. But was it possible that I would decide otherwise? From your perspective, with your limited knowledge, of course it was. But given the specific arraingement of the universe at that point, could I have made any other decision, or had any other thoughts than whatever ones I actually had?

Every decisision you make seems in every way like an exercise of free will. But it would seem just as much like one if there were not even the slightest possibility that you would decide differently.

>Meisora
There's also an allele in mice that has this clever trick:
Every gamete produced by a carrier of this allele contains the allele, in violation of the normal 'random assortment' rule. It had no other effect in heterozygotes.

This means that the only way it can die out of a population is if every single carrier is cut out of the gene pool.
However, it's also recessively lethal (or sterilizing...not sure which). So in one particular isolated population, it naturally spread through untill every single mouse was a carrier. Then there could be no next functional generation.

[kroner]

Additionally you have to take into account the most important part of all, the part that makes evolution work, which is that the phenotype of the person will influence if they reproduce and if so, with whom. this changes all the probabilities completely.

Why is that needed to make evolution "work"? (Not denying it, just not sure ...)

This is the principle referred to as natural selection. If every member of the gene pool reproduced with equal likelyhood, the genepool would remain exactly the same from generation to generation. The species wouldn't change. Instead, certain traits are selected for. That is, members who have the trait are more likely to reproduce. Then in the next generation, that trait will be represented in a higher portion of the population. Over time, the species will shift toward what ever traits help them survive and reproduce. Then throw in some random mutation and that's evolution.

[Chrissy]

I'm going to practice my right to free will and end this conversation with you Industriallist. See how that works? I have more idepth answers for you, but there's no need for them right now. I don't appreciate your little subtle insults. Good luck to you.