dimreepr Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 (edited) I'm sorry I insulted people. I know what I'm doing wrong. My scientific imagination is I think pretty good but it's often meaningless when it doesn't come with real evidence. I have an article that summarizes scientific research concerning the cause of homosexuality. http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html I'll quote some interesting stuff. "Homosexuality is a congenital condition much like being "left handed". Before you dismiss the analogy remember there were times in history when being left-handed (the archaic meaning of "sinister") meant you were possessed by evil." "Today we know that left handedness is the result of excess testosterone slowing the growth of the left-hemisphere in the developing fetal brain. It's not a choice. It's a condition. Ironically, homosexuality is caused much the same way as being left-handed. Instead of excess testosterone, the developing male fetus receives too little, often too late." "Another nuclei of the hypothalamus, INAH-3, reveals that heterosexual males have double the volume of both homosexual and female subjects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INAH_3 "A review of current research shows that there is no evidence supporting a social cause for homosexuality. On the contrary, there are multiple studies, both with animals and humans, demonstrating the causative relationship with the pre-natal testosterone during a critical stage in "defeminization"." "Dr. Harry Harlow's famous studies with Rhesus monkeys demonstrated that such things as love and the ability to nurture healthy children was a learned skill that could be altered by after birth experiences. This non-biologic effect may play a role in female homosexuality and may also be a contributing factor in the degree to which congenital homosexuality is either expressed or repressed. But they do not cause homosexuality." "Male rats were exposed to prenatal (i.e. before they were born) or postnatal (after they were born) stress, or both. The prenatally stressed males showed low levels of male copulatory behavior and high rates of female lordotic responding (i.e. "lordotic" refers to mounting behavior which usually occurs during mating). Postnatal stress had no effect." "The present data support the hypothesis that exposure of pregnant rats to environmental stressors modifies the normal process of sexual behavior differentiation in male fetuses by decreasing functional testosterone and elevating androstenedione levels during prenatal development." This shows that prenatal stress increases the chance of homosexuality. Prenatal stress is known to be related wit premature birth: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179976/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651684/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179252/ So science shows prematurely born infants have a higher chance of being homosexual. No, science just shows correlation is not equal to causation, however hard you try. Edited May 1, 2017 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 I'm sorry I insulted people. I know what I'm doing wrong. My scientific imagination is I think pretty good but it's often meaningless when it doesn't come with real evidence. I have an article that summarizes scientific research concerning the cause of homosexuality. http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html I'll quote some interesting stuff. "Homosexuality is a congenital condition much like being "left handed". Before you dismiss the analogy remember there were times in history when being left-handed (the archaic meaning of "sinister") meant you were possessed by evil." "Today we know that left handedness is the result of excess testosterone slowing the growth of the left-hemisphere in the developing fetal brain. It's not a choice. It's a condition. Ironically, homosexuality is caused much the same way as being left-handed. Instead of excess testosterone, the developing male fetus receives too little, often too late." "Another nuclei of the hypothalamus, INAH-3, reveals that heterosexual males have double the volume of both homosexual and female subjects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INAH_3 "A review of current research shows that there is no evidence supporting a social cause for homosexuality. On the contrary, there are multiple studies, both with animals and humans, demonstrating the causative relationship with the pre-natal testosterone during a critical stage in "defeminization"." "Dr. Harry Harlow's famous studies with Rhesus monkeys demonstrated that such things as love and the ability to nurture healthy children was a learned skill that could be altered by after birth experiences. This non-biologic effect may play a role in female homosexuality and may also be a contributing factor in the degree to which congenital homosexuality is either expressed or repressed. But they do not cause homosexuality." "Male rats were exposed to prenatal (i.e. before they were born) or postnatal (after they were born) stress, or both. The prenatally stressed males showed low levels of male copulatory behavior and high rates of female lordotic responding (i.e. "lordotic" refers to mounting behavior which usually occurs during mating). Postnatal stress had no effect." "The present data support the hypothesis that exposure of pregnant rats to environmental stressors modifies the normal process of sexual behavior differentiation in male fetuses by decreasing functional testosterone and elevating androstenedione levels during prenatal development." This shows that prenatal stress increases the chance of homosexuality. Prenatal stress is known to be related wit premature birth: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179976/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651684/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179252/ So science shows prematurely born infants have a higher chance of being homosexual. This post is confusing. The quoted content beneath the Wikipedia link cannot be found in the Wikipedia article. On the other hand, I do not trust ViewZone. https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/viewzone.com The links to National Institutes of Health (nih.gov) do not mention homosexuality and you have provided no quotes. My own idea on the matter is that homosexuality is within the range of tolerable mutation or variation. Most mutations are deleterious, yet we do not devolve with time. Although I need authoritative confirmation of this idea, I think we do not devolve with time because there is a fitness cut-off below which we are not fit enough to perpetuate our kin. Thus, we are all slightly above this fitness cut-off. In addition to the sexually antagonistic selection hypothesis, we also know that homosexuals can provide resources for their kin. For example, a sister with too many offspring may allow a homosexual sibling to adopt. Thus, homosexuality is still within the range of tolerable mutation or variation. There is little reason to think that homosexuals should have a preponderance of other mutations as if it were the result of pre-term exposure to mutagens. Incidentally, homosexuality is not related to rates of atypical handedness (e.g. left handedness or ambiguous handedness), but pedophilia, hebephilia, and other psychiatric conditions are. Robert Full: Robots inspired by cockroach ingenuity (TED Talks) Well, many biologists will tell engineers, and others, organisms have millions of years to get it right;they're spectacular; they can do everything wonderfully well. So, the answer is bio-mimicry: just copy nature directly. We know from working on animals that the truth is that's exactly what you don't want to do — because evolution works on the just-good-enough principle, not on a perfecting principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 As far as I can tell Itoero is NOT making the argument that homosexuality is good or bad. His argument is simply that hormonal changes in the womb play a factor ( pretty much accepted science ). The 'stretch' is that premature birth cause hormonal changes, which seems to be like putting the cart ahead of the horse, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 As far as I can tell Itoero is NOT making the argument that homosexuality is good or bad. His argument is simply that hormonal changes in the womb play a factor ( pretty much accepted science ). The 'stretch' is that premature birth cause hormonal changes, which seems to be like putting the cart ahead of the horse, to me. Yeah, it seems like it would be more likely that hormonal changes in the womb could lead to both an increase in the likelihood of being gay and also an increased chance of premature a birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonDie Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 The distinction is that of a proximal cause versus an ultimate cause. In biology, proximal causes are physiological whereas ultimate causes are based on adaptive function. Itoero might think that a relationship to premature birth only hints at a proximal cause, it also hints at homosexuality being a developmental abnormality. As Itoero's hyperlinks to NIH explain, pre-term birth is related to stress. Stress increases inflammation, and inflammation causes tissue damage. Thus infants born pre-term likely suffered more tissue damage as a result of high inflammation while in the womb. This shows that prenatal stress increases the chance of homosexuality.Prenatal stress is known to be related wit premature birth:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179976/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651684/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179252/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 ! Moderator Note Staff are of the belief that any science that could be discussed here has been. As such, thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts