CuriousChris Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 Well it's very interesting that the research I highlighted has caused some food for thought. Would I be right in thinking that the research is generally percieved as worthless?
daveyboy1969 Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) I hold to the epigenetic theory of homosexuality; namely, that a male fetus which is epigenetically programmed to be hyper sensitive to testosterone and hypo sensitive to estrogen--for obvious reasons--while in the womb will sometimes later in life pass that epigenetic programming to his unborn daughter who will be similarly hyper sensitive to testostorone and hypo sensitive to estrogen while in the womb leading to the masculization of the female fetus. Likewise, a female fetus which is epigenetically programmed to be hyper sensitive to estrogen to and hypo sensitive to testosterone--as normally occurs--will sometimes pass that epigenetic programming to her unborn son who will be likewise hyper sensitive to estrogen and hypo sensitive to testosterone while in the womb leading to feminization of the male fetus. It also seems reasonable that the degree to which the mis-programmed sensitivity/insensitivity to sex hormones is passed to the child of the opposite sex will vary greatly from person to person leading to a wide spectrum of psychological sexual characteristics aka the Kinsey Scale. comments please. lol now I see that this topic was covered in earlier posts... but I would like to add that occasional fauty epigenetic inheritences of this type would seem to preclude the need for any adaptive/natural selection explanations... Edited January 20, 2013 by daveyboy1969
jp255 Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Would I be right in thinking that the research is generally percieved as worthless? In my opinion I consider the research to be preliminary, providing suggestive evidence. When I say, in post 50, that there is no evidence for it being a true cause, I mean that there are no identified causative epigenetic factors. The evidence currently only suggests that epigenetics could be a possible contributor to homosexual behavioural traits. It is for this reason, that the model is limited in it's ability to explain much at the moment. but I would like to add that occasional fauty epigenetic inheritences of this type would seem to preclude the need for any adaptive/natural selection explanations... I disagree. That statement needs support by showing that the escape rate does not differ significantly across all human populations, or some other support. If there was variation in the escape rate, then it could in theory be subject to selection. If there was no variation then every individual would have an equal chance of having offspring with epigenetic escape, and so selection would not be able to act. The term "faulty" is inappropriate as previously commented.
overtone Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 Why is the word 'faulty' a problem? The epi-markers are normally swept away are they not? And homosexuality occures when they are not correctly swept away? The epi-markers are normally kept, insted of being swept away, a certain fairly large percentage of the time. The frequency of homosexual orientation is apparently not only fairly high, but fairly high across cultures and continents and geographic varieties and evolutionary lineages of the entire species. The species appears to be designed to produce a certain percentage of homosexuals, for some reason. The safest presumption is that this is a feature, not a bug. A property, not a flaw. The idea that this arrangement is "faulty" needs a very strong argument.
CuriousChris Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 The epi-markers are normally kept, insted of being swept away, a certain fairly large percentage of the time. The frequency of homosexual orientation is apparently not only fairly high, but fairly high across cultures and continents and geographic varieties and evolutionary lineages of the entire species. The species appears to be designed to produce a certain percentage of homosexuals, for some reason. The safest presumption is that this is a feature, not a bug. A property, not a flaw. The idea that this arrangement is "faulty" needs a very strong argument. 'Designed'? I assume you really mean evolved?
Manfromzurich Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Drabant-Poster-v7.pdf
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now