On Meaning....

[shunyadragon]

More like science-of-the-gaps.



If Cosmic Skeptic were to state that the Aesthetic was an evolutionary accident, that would be much more an objective perspective than attempting to reduce it to survival. It would also be in alignment with other atheistic arguments and tropes.



"Being old and no longer able to mate" or "being of a low caste" is not applicable to Catholic priests. For them, celibacy is part of becoming a Catholic priest which is done voluntarily. Also, that doesn't address Kolbe's sacrifice.




So homosexuality is exempt from evolutionary pressure to reproduction because it's a mutation?

No, homosexuality is not exempt from the evolutionary pressure to produce. It simply exists in the genetic variation of the minority of the population. There apparently is not evolutionary pressure to eleminat it since most of the population is normal There exists a range of natural genetic sexuality naturally in the population and no apparent genetic pressure to make everyone normal in terms of sexual preference. Yes no one has demonstrated a specific homosexuality gene, but Sexual preference has been kinked to a degree on genetics, environment and hormones. Human genetics is very complex, and it will likely be some time before the research works it out.

Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals

Genetics may explain up to 25% of same-sex behavior, giant analysis reveals

Still, researchers caution that genes can’t predict who might be gay, bi, or straight

A new study suggests many genes, each with small effects, may play a role in same-sex sexual behavior. People who have had same-sex partners are more likely to have one or more of certain DNA markers, according to the largest ever search for genes linked to sexual orientation. Even all the markers taken together, however, cannot predict whether a person is gay, bisexual, or straight. Instead, hundreds or thousands of genes, each with small effects, apparently influence sexual behavior.

The paper, published today in Science, builds on results presented by the same team at a 2018 meeting. The published study emphasizes that the genetic markers cannot be used to predict sexual behavior.

Still, the work is being hailed as the most solid evidence to date linking specific genetic markers to same-sex sexual behavior. "For the first time we can say without a reasonable doubt that some genes do influence the propensity to have same-sex partners," says psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who was not involved in the study. The results come with caveats, however, he and others say.

Get more great content like this delivered right to you!
SIGN UPStudies of families and twins have long suggested same-sex behavior has a genetic component. Starting in the 1990s, scientists reported tentative evidence for genetic links to sexual orientation. In the past few years, huge data sets with DNA from hundreds of thousands of people have made possible much more powerful studies.

To explore the genetics behind sexual behavior, an international team co-led by geneticist Benjamin Neale of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, used the UK Biobank, a long-term health study of 500,000 British people. The team worked with behavioral scientists and also consulted with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) advocacy groups.

Neale's team examined DNA markers and data from surveys of sexual behavior filled out by nearly 409,000 UK Biobank participants and about 69,000 customers of 23andMe, the consumer testing service; all were of European ancestry. The UK Biobank survey asked: "Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex?"; the 23andMe survey featured a similar question. The team found five genetic markers significantly associated with answering yes to those queries. Two markers were shared by men and women, two were specific to men, and one was found only in women.

One of the genetic variants was near genes associated with male baldness, suggesting a tie to sex hormones such as testosterone, and another was in an area rich in smell genes, which have been linked to sexual attraction. When the researchers combined all the variants they measured across the entire genome, they estimate that genetics can explain between 8% and 25% of nonheterosexual behavior. The rest, they say, is explained by environmental influences, which could range from hormone exposure in the womb to social influences later in life.

But the five DNA markers they found explained less than 1% of this behavior, as did another analysis that included more markers with smaller effects. As with other behavioral traits such as personality, there is no single "gay gene," says Broad team member Andrea Ganna. Instead, same-sex sexual behavior appears to be influenced by perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes, each with tiny effects.

As the researchers had reported last year, they also found people with these markers were more open to new experiences, more likely to use marijuana, and at higher risk for mental illnesses such as depression. LGBTQ people might be more susceptible to mental illness because of societal pressures, the researchers note.

Other researchers caution that the findings are limited by the fact that a person who had a single same-sex experience was counted as nonheterosexual. Having just one such encounter, for example, may reflect an openness to new experiences rather than sexual orientation, says Dean Hamer, a retired geneticist from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. "These are fascinating findings, but it's not really a gay gene study per se," says Hamer, who in 1993 reported finding an area on the X chromosome that was more common in gay men; that region was not found in the new study. "I'm now much less excited about the possibility of getting good biological clues" to sexual orientation, he says.

Bailey wishes the UK Biobank had asked subjects which sex they feel more attracted to, not just about their behavior (as 23andMe did). "They didn't have a particularly good measure of sexual orientation," agrees evolutionary biologist William Rice of the University of California, Santa Barbara, who notes such a question would also capture gay or bisexual people who have not acted on their attractions. Still, he's glad to see the study getting attention. "A big chunk of the population" is not exclusively heterosexual, he notes, and "they want to understand who they are and why they feel the way they do."

© Copyright Original Source

[Diogenes]

When someone finds a gene to explain homosexuality, it will be cause to sit up and take notice. Someone thought it had been found a couple of decades ago, but no-one could repeat of the findings of the initial tests - not even the researcher who conducted the initial test.

In a defence of Shuny, I would agree that it's likely biological and not necessarily a "free" choice. I would wager it's likely hormonally based if anything. Of course, if there was a gay gene, the Left would move to protect aborting fœtuses with the gay gene, but aborting Downs fœtuses would still be acceptable.

[tabibito]

So homosexuality is exempt from evolutionary pressure to reproduction because it's a mutation?

When someone finds a gene to explain homosexuality, it will be cause to sit up and take notice. Someone thought it had been found a couple of decades ago, but no-one could repeat of the findings of the initial tests - not even the researcher who conducted the initial test.

[Diogenes]

Of course, he did not get into the scientific support for these behaviors, but indeed has a scientific basis for these behaviors.

More like science-of-the-gaps.

His objective perspective concerned his objections to the Bishops use of the subjective behaviors to justify belief, which could be true whether God exists or not.

If Cosmic Skeptic were to state that the Aesthetic was an evolutionary accident, that would be much more an objective perspective than attempting to reduce it to survival. It would also be in alignment with other atheistic arguments and tropes.

Examples: Celibacy is present in animal populations for various reasons such as ln the hierarchy structure, and among primates older members and those of low hierachy become celibate and move out of the main population.

"Being old and no longer able to mate" or "being of a low caste" is not applicable to Catholic priests. For them, celibacy is part of becoming a Catholic priest which is done voluntarily. Also, that doesn't address Kolbe's sacrifice.

Homosexuality need not have a reproductive value to be naturally a result of a natural occurring genetic minority of any given population, which is the case in humans.

So homosexuality is exempt from evolutionary pressure to reproduction because it's a mutation?

[shunyadragon]

Not really, he's as partisan as Baron as highlighted as by the discussion on Kolbe's sacrifice somehow reducing to evolutionary drive. The practice of celibacy is also antithetical to any evolutionary reproductive drive. Homosexuality is also antithetical to any evolutionary reproductive drive. He then proposes Terror Management Theory with no support.

Of course, he did not get into the scientific support for these behaviors, but indeed has a scientific basis for these behaviors. His objective perspective concerned his objections to the Bishops use of the subjective behaviors to justify belief, which could be true whether God exists or not.

Examples: Celibacy is present in animal populations for various reasons such as ln the hierarchy structure, and among primates older members and those of low hierachy become celibate and move out of the main population.. Homosexuality need not have a reproductive value to be naturally a result of a natural occurring genetic minority of any given population, which is the case in humans.

[Diogenes]

I did not say Cosmic Skeptic presented any 'objective facts.' He maintained an objective perspective.'

Not really, he's as partisan as Baron as highlighted as by the discussion on Kolbe's sacrifice somehow reducing to evolutionary drive. The practice of celibacy is also antithetical to any evolutionary reproductive drive. Homosexuality is also antithetical to any evolutionary reproductive drive. He then proposes Terror Management Theory with no support.

[shunyadragon]

Zero "objective facts" presented by Cosmic Skeptic. I would agree that there was no middle ground in the dialogue.

I did not say Cosmic Skeptic presented any 'objective facts.' He maintained an objective perspective.'

[Diogenes]

I listen to the dialogue, and found not much difference in the views described by Theists and Atheists in the past,

I would agree with you there, both are essentially reduced to tropes.

The Bishop still relied on strongly subjective attributes of human nature to justify his belief, which could exist as a part of human nature regardless of whether God exists or not. The atheist perspective remains entrenched in 'I believe in objective facts only,' which has no middle ground in the dialogue.

Zero "objective facts" presented by Cosmic Skeptic. I would agree that there was no middle ground in the dialogue.

[shunyadragon]

Well yes, but it is interesting - for those so inclined...

I listen to the dialogue, and found not much difference in the views described by Theists and Atheists in the past, The Bishop still relied on strongly subjective attributes of human nature to justify his belief, which could exist as a part of human nature regardless of whether God exists or not. The atheist perspective remains entrenched in 'I believe in objective facts only,' which has no middle ground in the dialogue.

[seer]

too long; didn't watch

Well yes, but it is interesting - for those so inclined...

[Sparko]

?

too long; didn't watch

[seer]

tl;dw

?

[Sparko]

tl;dw

[seer]

Here is an excellent discussion between Cosmic Skeptic and Bishop Barron, enjoy...