Posted on 02/18/2014 7:22:53 AM PST by Seizethecarp
In the last two decades, dozens of scientific papers have been published on the biological origins of homosexuality - another announcement was made last week. It's becoming scientific orthodoxy. But how does it fit with Darwin's theory of evolution?
...boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain.
Brothers of a different kind - identical twins - also pose a tricky question. Research has found that if an identical twin is gay, there is about a 20% chance that the sibling will have the same sexual orientation. While that's a greater likelihood than random, it's lower than you might expect for two people with the same genetic code.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
"...if an identical twin is gay, there is about a 20% chance that the sibling will have the same sexual orientation."
Only a 20% chance? Must be a typo!
The gay gene theory is not compatible with natural selection theory.
Oh if only Darwin was here to straighten that one out.
More likely explanation: Older brother often ‘messes about’ a little with younger brother.
“It’s becoming scientific orthodoxy.”
More like a scientific WTF!
The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What is it you want to know about the Darwin Award?
The ‘last boy born is gay’ theory cited above looks like more likely psychological, not neurological.
Which boy is more likely to become mentally ill?
Actually, this is not unreasonable.
One of my bigger pet peeves is the routine confusion between "inborn" and "genetic."
Let us assume, for purposes of discussion, that much if not most homosexuality is present at birth. There are two potential explanations: genetics and fetal development. IOW, a flaw in the blueprint or mistakes in how those blueprints were assembled.
Yet discussion of the issue is generally limited to whether a genetic cause can be found.
Most birth defects are a result not of genetic abnormalities but of fetal development issues. It is reasonable, IMO, to consider inborn homosexual tendencies a type of birth defect, at least from a Darwinian POV.
So (the argument goes), it would be immoral (according to our standard) for God to judge our homosexuality because He is the One who made us this way.
This logic can easily be applied to larceny, sexual promiscuity, deviant sexuality (pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc), substance abuse, etc.
Voila! Man has turned the tables on God (he thinks), allowing man to reject God on moral grounds! In essence, man has made himself God.
What an original 'modern' philosophy, right? I'll bet God never saw this coming...
You said in your heart, "I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
- Isaiah 14:13
“scientists” trying furiously to prove that this is a natural thing, rather than an aberration. This is not true science.
So that logic says boys with older sisters will have a sex change?.
We encourage more homosexuality by tolerating it.
1. Sickle Cell Anemia
2. Cystic Fibrosis
3. Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency
4. Tay-Sachs Disease
5. Autism
6. Rape
7. Murder
8. Stupidity
>>...boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third
Maybe because all the older brothers call the younger one a f**?
Not only do they share the same genetic code, they also shared the same pre-birth and, normally, post-birth environment.
To separate out the pre-birth from post-birth contributions, one would have to study identical twins separated at birth. Compare their rate of homosexuality to identical twins raised together.
It would also be useful to study identical twins versus fraternal twins. Same, or nearly, pre and post birth environments, but differing genetic codes.
Or one could compare adopted children to actual siblings to determine, to some extent, how much family environment matters as compared to genetics.
Did you grow up around me and my younger brothers?
If it’s genetic or “in born”, why would it be more likely that boys abused as children by men have a better chance of being gay?
If gays are born that way, you wouldn’t be able to “turn” gay would you?
And how exactly would you be able to tell the difference between someone who was “born gay” vs “turned gay”?
You can’t because it’s a behavior, not trait.
If a man were to walk into a room full of men women and children and declare, "I have sex with women". He would be regarded as rude, perverse or even a pedophile.
Yet, another man can walk into a room full of men women and children and declare, "I am gay", which is the same thing as saying, "I have sex with men". And, we are supposed to celebrate it?
When gays publically declare their, er, affections, I regard it as someone saying, "look at my crotch while I tell you about my libido."
If "homosexuality" includes "lesbianism", which ordinarily it does, this statement reduces to meaningless mush, doesn't it?
What utter bull crap! I have 3 older brothers, so if I do the math, that would make me definitely gay. And my younger brother (5 boys in the family) would be 133% gay. My beautiful wife and 4 children and my brother's wife and their 2 children prove these "scientists" are nothing more than paid political hacks.
These people believe that gender is a malleable construct of societal influences but homosexuality is something you are born with. Insane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.