Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by zedrexvsyrex

  1. 3 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Therefore it has a genetic component. Therefore it evolved.

    Socialization/nurture evolved FROM nature because it increased our chances of survival. I think that homosexuality evolved (what an oxymoron!) just as a byproduct of how heavily influenced we are by socialization. So in reality, it's not that non-heterosexuality evolved per se, it's just that altruism evolved (along with a desire for altruism), which I believe is a better way of stating the evolutionary mechanism at play. Not to mention, it assumes that all homosexuals are feminine, maternal, and nurturing in behavior which is a gross generalization anyway.

    15 minutes ago, Strange said:

    My understanding of the experiments you are referring to is that they put animals in situations of extreme overcrowding etc. That does not correspond to how most people live.

    Overcrowding in a social sense. The mouse farms never reached maximal capacity, nor were they even close to it either. This makes it all the more interesting. There were more rodents than social roles could fill, which gave rise to the chaos. I wonder how much can be attributed to humans as well, with Dunbar's Number and all that. 

  2. 7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    the distance that you should calculate is that from either of them to their common ancestor

    Well, that's why I had this segment to account for it:

    "3,636,364 ÷ 2 = 1,818,182 generations from both, chimps and humans"

    Dividing by 2 accounts for the separation of both at the same time. 

    9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    If we focus on actual genes, that shoots up close to 99%.

    Yeah I remember reading from this as well, but we would have to ignore 18% of chimp DNA and 25% of ours, which I don't think would be academically honest to draw conclusions from. But let's try it anyway:

    99% = 0.99

    0.99 × 6,400,000,000 = 6,336,000,000 shared bp

    6,400,000,000 - 6,336,000,000 = 64,000,000 unshared bp

    64,000,000 unshared bp ÷ 70.4 = 909,091 generations worth of mutations needed to diverge humans and chimps

    909,091 ÷ 2 = 454,545 generations needed for human-chimp separation

    454,545 × 20 = 

    9,090,910 years needed


    Now this is much closer than the 36 million estimate I had before. But it's still too slow, and again we still had to exclude much of our DNA and chimp DNA to get there, not to mention it still has the same biases as the other 3 points. 

  3. 13 minutes ago, Strange said:

    If there is no evolutionary basis, then what? It was created by god?

    I believe that sexuality is the link between nature and nurture. Sex is biological due to obvious reasons, but is also social too. In other words, there are biological attributes driving attraction, but also social attributes as well. And since social attributes are a product more so of nurturement/upbringing, I believe that one can be socialized into changing their sexuality. Evidence of this is seen in how sexuality can change over the course of someone's life. Another example (albeit, very taboo) is bestiality. Bestiality involves socializing animals to be sexually attracted to humans; animals have much lower cognitions along with much higher impulses than humans too. I'd imagine that there could be a similar mechanism in humans, especially considering that we're the only species to engage in anal sex.

    13 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Something being favoured (even if your hypothesis/guess were correct) does not make something universal. And something else being less favoured does not disappear. 

    Genetic drift + natural selection.

    16 minutes ago, Strange said:

    1. Humans are not mice

    2. Even if social pressure could create homosexual behaviour in humans (implausible) that is not the explanation for all homosexuality. That would be like saying that people get violent when drunk, therefore all violence is due to drink.

    We use mice for a reason. They exhibit similar social systems that we humans do. And while it may not explain all, it may account for a significant amount. Interestingly, the rise of social media coincided with the rise of sexual deviancy (sexual deviancy being defined in this case as non-heterosexual and/or cross-species sexual intercourse), which very well could be increasing social pressure. 

  4. Hey guys, I just need to preface this by saying that I haven't studied evolution in-depth. I just got a little too bored so I read up a little bit on the specific numbers of mutation rates and all of that. In other words, I'm not really educated on evolution.

    So anyway, I'm trying to figure out mathematically how long it would have taken for us to diverge from our closest relative, the chimpanzee. I've tried working it out for myself, but everything I've come up with shows that it should take way longer than it did. Hear me out.

    We share 96% of our DNA with chimps, and in there are 6.4 billion base pairs (bp) in the human genome (3.2 billion from each parent). Knowing this, we can figure out how much we share and don't share with chimps:

    96% = 0.96

    0.96 × 6,400,000,000 = 6,144,00,000 shared bp

    6,400,000,000 - 6,144,00,000 = 256,000,000 unshared bp

    Now according to this study, the human genomic mutation rate is 1.1 × 10⁻⁸ per bp per generation. So:

    (1.1 × 10⁻⁸) × 6,400,000,000 = 70.4 mutations per generation.

    256,000,000 unshared bp ÷ 70.4 = 3,636,364 generations worth of mutations needed to diverge humans from chimps.

    However, because we get half our genes from each parent, that means that it should be 35.2 mutations (because 70.4 ÷ 2 = 35.2). That also means that the mutations are split into 3,200,000,000 each. At this point, it's important to note that in order for a trait to show, it must either be dominant or have 2 recessive alleles. Generally speaking, any gene that is not 'normal' or 'average' relative to the general population is typically recessive. Basically, both parents should have the exact same mutations for it show. Assuming random mutations, that would mean a 35.2 in 3,200,000,000 chance that the mutations are in favor of the divergence of chimps and humans; this means that out of every 3.2 billion mutations, only 35.2 are likely to have been diverging us from chimps.

    3,200,000,000 ÷ 35.2 = 90,909,091.

    And in order to account for the likelihood of having the same exact mutations, we use the statistical probability of both A and B being A × B. In other words, this:

    (35.2/3,200,000,000) × (35.2/3,200,000,000) = 1,239.04/10,240,000,000,000,000,000.

    10,240,000,000,000,000,000 ÷ 1,239.04 = after 8,264,462,809,917,355, 1 generation will have the same mutations on both chromosomes.

    Now, knowing that we need 3,636,364 generations in order to diverge from chimps, that means:

    8,264,462,809,917,355 × 3,636,364 = 30,052,595,041,322,314,049,586 total generations to diverge from chimps. While the average generation for chimps is 25 years and 30 years for humans, I will assume 20 year generations to speed things up a bit:

    30,052,595,041,322,314,049,587 × 20 =

    601,051,900,826,446,280,991,736 years needed for humans to diverge from chimps.


    Now clearly, this is way longer than the actual age of the universe. So naturally, I figured I did something wrong. I decided to throw out the whole concept of probability, and assumed that all traits making humans more chimp-like were dominant, assumed that all human-like traits in chimps were also dominant, and also assumed that all mutations that occur were not random and were ONLY meant to diverge humans from chimps:

    96% = 0.96

    0.96 × 6,400,000,000 = 6,144,00,000 shared bp

    6,400,000,000 - 6,144,00,000 = 256,000,000 unshared bp

    256,000,000 unshared bp ÷ 70.4 = 3,636,364 generations worth of mutations needed to diverge humans and chimps.

    3,636,364 ÷ 2 = 1,818,182 generations from both, chimps and humans in order to get to where we are today. Assuming 20-year generations:

    1,818,182 × 20 =

    36,363,640 years needed for evolution of humans and chimps.

    This is 5 to 6 times the amount of time that the fossil record says. And the thing is, this is STUPIDLY biased in favor of evolution because:

    1. One generation should have been 27.5 years, not 20

    2. This is assuming that any and all mutations that occurred were in favor of delineating the species, which completely goes against evolution since most mutations are random and harmless

    3. It also assumes absolutely no gene flow, which could potentially speed up the evolution process, or (more likely) slow it down.

    So, what am I getting wrong here? Did I mess up my math or did I somehow magically show a problem with evolution? What am I missing?

  5. On 3/14/2019 at 12:17 PM, StringJunky said:

    Evolutionarily, If you take one breeder out of the breeding equation you can use them to assist in the upbringing of their siblings offspring, which can significantly improve the survival of the group. That group will carry the genes of the gay individual, and so the gay gene perpetuates.

    I disagree. I believe that there is no evolutionary basis for homosexuality.

    If it really were because of 'assisting in the survival of offspring', then polygyny would be the predominant form of relationship/sexuality, as women have much greater maternal instincts than males do. And as such, heterosexual polygynous relationships would be favored over homosexuality. 

    Homosexuality is explained by increased social pressure, as we know from John B. Calhoun's rodent experiments (specifically Mouse Universe). It caused the "behavioral sink" which in turn led to extinction in every test, retest, and variation of said tests and retests. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.