Gays: Evolution's Success Story?

From what I understand Evolution is like a computer program that tweaks and learns as it's going with the end goal being perfection or reaching a point where any more tweaking would be detrimental. We've yet to observe what happens when the program exits because it has used up all its options. Or have we?

If the program is set to execute at conception and it has run out of variables, wouldn't it start to reuse the ones at the end of the coding and start a regressive process? If that continued over successive generations you would end up with a devolving species. Maybe this is what happened to crocodiles, alligators, tortoises and turtles after the dinosaurs. Their legs shrank, they became slower and they moved to the beaches and the water to return from whence they came.

To prevent this happening one would expect the program to have a fail safe. To prevent reactivation at conception, reproduction would be terminated. This could explain the demise of the dinosaurs. They reached a stage in their evolution where any more generations would be degenerative. The vast majority simply didn't reproduce and a few species with a faulty fail safe continued but on a path of devolving.

That brings us to our own species. Three percent of the population won't reproduce naturally because they are attracted to the same sex. Is this the fail safe in action? The gay population doesn't appear to be shrinking, although it's hard to tell given it was stigmatised for so long. Evolution-wise they should just disappear but they don't. Each generation produces its own gay population.

What if gays are the end result of the program that's been running millions of years? Biologically speaking it could be easier for the program to switch gender preference than mess around with the reproductive organs which it deems to be evolved as it is.

Gays are certainly intelligent, talented and resourceful. We saw that during AIDS when they pooled their resources and learned biology from scratch to understand the disease long before any governments did. They made incredible progress in such a short time.

So, it seems to make sense that while there is the capacity to evolve, a species will reproduce, but when it has maximised the potential, reproduction becomes damaging.

To be born gay should be an aspiration and not a sin if this is the case. Homosexuality is not objectively disordered and a contravention of the natural order as the Church claims. It's actually the end goal of God's Creation and is preserving order in the species from degeneration, it would seem.

a reply to: PraeterLambo

That makes little sense if, you say the population of people who are gay has not increased. For it to be an evolutionary failsafe, it would increase over time. I would think it is part of the natural order of things, but not an end goal.

Humans still contain DNA that allows them to change sex, obviously the requirements to change sex are not possible with the human system but it does mean that we have to be able to swap genders as theres no point biologically being male and fancying males if theres a shortage of females etc.

a reply to: PraeterLambo

Gays are certainly intelligent, talented and resourceful.

Are you suggesting there is a correlation between being gay and being intelligent? I would love to see your research on this as I have found gays can be just as stupid or smart as anyone else. Also, your theory regarding gays as being special, in an evolutionary sense, may make you feel better, but it is comical and preposterous.

FABULOUS!!! GAY'S RULE, HETERO'S DROOL!

a reply to: PraeterLambo

Evolution doesn't actually work like that. It relies on random mutations that give advantages to procreation. Homosexuality in nature among several species is assumed to have been static throughout our evolution. This is because it is a natural expression that doesn't impact procreation. It does serve a purpose, even if slight, but its overall impact cannot be the result of evolution.

One exception is if a seemingly unrelated mutation proves successful enough to improve survival and that mutation also brings with it a larger chance to produce gay offspring then maybe.

A more interesting study would be the claims that the percentage of gay members of a species fluctuating with the risk of overpopulation and scarce resources.

a reply to: PraeterLambo

I would say that the phenomena of social acceptance of once alienated groups, of all kinds, represents evolutionary success, in that the species is strong enough and "wealthy" enough to have reached a point of expressing social altruism.

Darwin may have known
a thing or two re: species
but he still had kids.

We can still Reproduce though... lets pretend in a last case scenario a Gay person could Naturally Reproduce.

A Sex Act is a Sex Act, but being Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual Pansexual Etc is more factors than just "Sex" it's attraction obviously and Sexual Attraction, but also every other thing that make that "Connection"

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
We can still Reproduce though... lets pretend in a last case scenario a Gay person could Naturally Reproduce.

A Sex Act is a Sex Act, but being Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual Pansexual Etc is more factors than just "Sex" it's attraction obviously and Sexual Attraction, but also every other thing that make that "Connection"

Exactly. I don't like to eat worms but I would do it to save our species.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
We can still Reproduce though... lets pretend in a last case scenario a Gay person could Naturally Reproduce.

A Sex Act is a Sex Act, but being Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual Pansexual Etc is more factors than just "Sex" it's attraction obviously and Sexual Attraction, but also every other thing that make that "Connection"

If sex isn't for reproduction it is just entertainment.

natural selection is not part of human nature anymore. no one has to die any more (in the west) to have sex. The tolerance of homosexuals in our society is due to education and civil freedom. it's very hard to define human evolution, but i think happiness and well being is the goal for humanity.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
We can still Reproduce though... lets pretend in a last case scenario a Gay person could Naturally Reproduce.

A Sex Act is a Sex Act, but being Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual Pansexual Etc is more factors than just "Sex" it's attraction obviously and Sexual Attraction, but also every other thing that make that "Connection"

If sex isn't for reproduction it is just entertainment.

So you only have sex with the intent to have kids? What if you or your partner (I am assuming your are hetero) suddenly couldn't have children? Would you never have sex with them? And, if you did, you wouldn't do it for anything more than entertainment?

Not love? Not connection? Does your partner know you feel this way?

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
We can still Reproduce though... lets pretend in a last case scenario a Gay person could Naturally Reproduce.

A Sex Act is a Sex Act, but being Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual Pansexual Etc is more factors than just "Sex" it's attraction obviously and Sexual Attraction, but also every other thing that make that "Connection"

If sex isn't for reproduction it is just entertainment.

So you only have sex with the intent to have kids? What if you or your partner (I am assuming your are hetero) suddenly couldn't have children? Would you never have sex with them? And, if you did, you wouldn't do it for anything more than entertainment?

Not love? Not connection? Does your partner know you feel this way?

That's a subjective take on it. Always a good idea to look at these things objectively before making an opinion.

a reply to: Metallicus

If sex isn't for reproduction it is just entertainment.

Or you know....intimacy, bonding.

All the above.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Metallicus

If sex isn't for reproduction it is just entertainment.

Or you know....intimacy, bonding.

All the above.

Both are functions involved in the process of reproduction.

a reply to: Metallicus

because gay people dont feel love. could you sound more ignorant?

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Metallicus

because gay people dont feel love. could you sound more ignorant?

No one said this

a reply to: PraeterLambo

the end goal being perfection or reaching a point where any more tweaking would be detrimental.

The idea that there is some terminal point of perfection is not my understanding of evolution.

Three percent of the population won't reproduce naturally because they are attracted to the same sex.

Three percent is the conservative number, and gay people do reproduce using their genetics [even if that's not deemed natural].

What if gays are the end result of the program that's been running millions of years?

I think the next big leap will be integrating technology and the human body. That's another discussion, I suppose.

So, it seems to make sense that while there is the capacity to evolve, a species will reproduce, but when it has maximised the potential, reproduction becomes damaging.

As far as I know we don't have reason to think the number of gay people being born is gradually increasing. Also, the global population is projected to increase substantially in the next 100 years.



Regardless, It's not my understanding that evolution is about becoming some 'perfect being'. What's perfect for one environment is not in the next, and environments change.

a reply to: OhOkYeah

You can easily have sex and have it be an act of intimacy without it ever contributing to reproduction [either intentionally or via infertility].