OrionzRevenge

Could homosexuality be explained with ''prenatal modification''? Let's say certain genes during embryogenesis are active in the brain and body which causes masculinisation, so different kind of hormon levels compared between different fetus during a critical time in the whomb could be explanation why some people are homosexual?

There is an enormous amount of research that supports this notion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation#Prenatal_maternal_stress

I think people get carried away too much with Dawkin's Selfish Gene notions of survival of the fittest.

Like most of the rest of the 1500+ animals that are known to exhibit homosexual behavior, Humans are social animals. Thus it is actually about survival of the fittest society.

Also, Nature really hates to re-invent the wheel and sex is simply way too good of a behavioral reward system to limit it to procreation.

The next time a straight person tries to tell you that homosexuality is an obvious birth defect or learned deviant behavior then ask them if they feel the same way about a straight female being sexually receptive when she is not in estrus????

Humans are naked, sweaty, bipedal apes because the males were designed to chase furry prey under the African sun until they have a heat stroke. Modern African tribal hunters, that still live this life, often have to chase a prey animal something like TWENTY MILES.

Whereas at the same time, human big headed infants are completely helpless for months and the mother & child need the male to provide for them.

So what gets the guy to want to drag back the kill 20 miles instead of sitting down and having a big lunch?

Oh yeah, having sex pops in his head every 20 minutes.

One of the most cited studies regarding the prenatal origins of male homosexuality relates to the pregnant mother enduring stress.

So what could cause her so much stress that she would find a solution (that gains evolution's favor) while at the same time being partially contrary to her own genetic legacy?

Oh yeah, too many Macho males threatening the survival of the community by fighting constantly.

If you look a Bonobo chimps with their anything-anytime-anywhere-and-with-anyone-including-the-young-children approach to sex, you see they sue it as a social glue to solicit food gifts and to reduce stress among other reasons besides making monkeys.

Also the taboo of pedophilia is a western social construct and not a human instinct (as a survey of other cultures will reveal). Too, in these other cultures the adults don't feel or behave like perps and the children are not made to feel like victims, and thus, thay suffer no psychological harm.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pbs+evolution+on+trail

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial (creationism vs evolution) NOVA-PBS (1:51:26)

This is a great source for ammunition and clarity.

 

My informed speculation (and the one I'm using for practical purposes) is that since females during this stage in human evolution now had to take more care for their kids from birth through younghood than most species out there, and this meant energy and resources. So through the mechanism of sexual selection, loyalty in a man would become a desired trait. Percieving loyalty cannot really be accurate or reliable, but I'm guessing it could've happened a substancial number of times. As for the name I'm not bothering still with that concept. Example: in this story in particular the male character is Ergaster whereas the female character is Turkana (I even talk about Turkana's son as Turkana's boy. Sort of like an easter egg for anthropologists and paleontologists. They are not known as those names in their society though. In an earlier story dealing with austrolopitecines the names of 3 characters came from actions they established during the first act in a dispute, so their names are practically adjectives.

 

And I'll later first introduce the concept of naming in hominids societies first relating from jewlery and colors in the form of the many pendants that hominids fabricated. But of course, when I get to that part of the book more threads and debates will already be in place in this forum.

 

PS: I like the idea of her watching them go, but I'll weigh more alternatives first since I'd have to rewrite the whole 1st Act, which starts with great pace and energy and focuses on Ergaster hunting a gazelle with the use of persistance hunting.

 

I've thought of that idea, but set much after, in Pythagorean society, with Pythagoras himself being a secondary or tertiary character. That story would end up in the invasion of Croton by Sybaris and the alleged criticism of communal life vs freedom.

Pair bonding , romantic love as we might say, would be greatly influenced by brain developement in the infant reflecting its level of helplessness.

IMO However, lol, attachement to mom & child is certainly a requirement, but the female may well have found another woman's attentive male had that extra something besides being good at bringing home the bacon next door.

A new study found that something like 50% of the nestlings of pair bonded birds are not the attending father's offspring. As fertile females would often go fly off with the neighbor's hubby in the early morning. Very often step siblings would be in the same nest.

Indications are that H. ergastier was less sexually dimorphic than Habillis. So that works for the notion of pair bonding vs a Cock of the Walk Alpha Male situation.

Also, I'm not so certain that they were linited to just grunts, nor greatly stunted in abstrat thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster

Linguistic use

According to the BBC series Walking With Cavemen, Homo ergaster was probably the first hominid to use "what we would recognise as a human voice," though its symbolic cognition was probably somewhat limited compared to modern humans.

It was thought for a long time that H. ergaster was restricted in the physical ability to regulate breathing and produce complex sounds. This was based on Turkana Boy's cervical vertebrae, which were far narrower than in later humans. However, later discoveries of cervical vertebrae in Dmanisi, Georgia, which were some 300,000 years older than those of Turkana Boy, were well within the normal range of human vertebrae range.^[14] It has been established, furthermore, that the Turkana Boy probably suffered from a disease of the spinal column that resulted in narrower cervical vertebrae than in modern humans^[15] (as well as the older Dmanisi finds). While the Dmanisi finds have not been established definitively as H. ergaster, they are older than Turkana Boy (the only definite ergaster vertebrae on record), and thereby suggest kinship to ergaster. Turkana Boy, therefore, may be an anomaly.

 

Anyways, I'm brand new here. Looks like a fun forum and I hope to get a brain buzz from reading and chatting with you guys.