3 ms·

It almost certainly is an evolutionary dead end. That is why it is equally almost certainly not determined genetically.

close04 8y ago
How about genetic disorders that kill the individual in their infancy thus guaranteeing they will not pass on the gene? Homosexuals are technically able to reproduce should they insist on it. Kind of throws a spanner in you lack of logic... Do you think this inability to reach a valid conclusion based on a set of inputs is a choice or genetic?
- mrob 8y ago
  I don't think it's a good comparison, because those genetic disorders are usually single gene mutations, and much rarer than homosexuality. In many cases we know the exact enzyme that's broken and how it causes the disease. In the case of homosexuality, there are genetic markers that are statistically associated with it, but no clear proof of genetic causation. The genetic aspect could be indirect, by changing susceptibility to environmental factors.
  - close04 8y ago
    > it is equally almost certainly not determined genetically The point of the now almost flagged comment I was replying to (quoted above to make it easier to follow) is that being unable to reproduce is proof that the condition is not genetic. Whether it's one gene or a collection, that they are rare or common, that we know the mechanism in detail or not, becomes irrelevant in this context. The inability to reproduce "proves" only that you are unable to reproduce. There is no conclusion that one can draw from this regarding the cause: genetic mutation, accident, etc. Unless you (or the serial downvoters who most likely didn't bother to understand what I said) can prove the connection implied by the poster above, I see no argument to contradict my statement.
acct1771 8y ago
That logic doesn't add up, regardless of your, or anyone's, position. There are many genes that are expressed naturally, or through mutation, that would remove from reproductive ability.

How about genetic disorders that kill the individual in their infancy thus guaranteeing they will not pass on the gene? Homosexuals are technically able to reproduce should they insist on it. Kind of throws a spanner in you lack of logic... Do you think this inability to reach a valid conclusion based on a set of inputs is a choice or genetic?

mrob 8y ago
I don't think it's a good comparison, because those genetic disorders are usually single gene mutations, and much rarer than homosexuality. In many cases we know the exact enzyme that's broken and how it causes the disease. In the case of homosexuality, there are genetic markers that are statistically associated with it, but no clear proof of genetic causation. The genetic aspect could be indirect, by changing susceptibility to environmental factors.
- close04 8y ago
  > it is equally almost certainly not determined genetically The point of the now almost flagged comment I was replying to (quoted above to make it easier to follow) is that being unable to reproduce is proof that the condition is not genetic. Whether it's one gene or a collection, that they are rare or common, that we know the mechanism in detail or not, becomes irrelevant in this context. The inability to reproduce "proves" only that you are unable to reproduce. There is no conclusion that one can draw from this regarding the cause: genetic mutation, accident, etc. Unless you (or the serial downvoters who most likely didn't bother to understand what I said) can prove the connection implied by the poster above, I see no argument to contradict my statement.

acct1771 8y ago

That logic doesn't add up, regardless of your, or anyone's, position. There are many genes that are expressed naturally, or through mutation, that would remove from reproductive ability.