Home Richard Dawkins Darwin Day 2015 Questions: #4 How does evolution explain homosexuality?

Darwin Day 2015 Questions: #4 How does evolution explain homosexuality?

358
24
SHARE

Richard Dawkins answers your questions about evolution in honor of Darwin Day 2015.

“For things such as homosexuality, which people who argue against evolution ceaselessly will insist, there appears to be no linear Darwinian reason to possess this trait”

Edited by Stephanie Renee Guttormson

Copyright 2015 Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

source

24 COMMENTS

  1. in the passed homosexuals had to pretend to be straight to be excepted (so they did reproduce)… that's probably how the "gene" was passed on if there indeed is a gene. Today, homosexual couples are allowed to reproduce and donate sperm or eggs and that's how it would be passed on now. Not only straight people have the ability to reproduce.

  2. How about the same impulse causing female attraction to males being the same one that flourishes in homosexual males? I'd say half of all gay males love to be penetrated anally, and all of them have nipples that serve no function.

  3. Without having watched the video, what I know about this subject is the fact that parents after a couple of children get increased odds of the next child they get being homosexual.

    And why this makes sense in the Darwinian sense istaht you would have no reason for your 3rd child to procreate if you already have two children to bring on the family name; so why not the last one be gay and have one who can take care of their parents when they get old?

  4. I believe there's a problem in believing EVERYTHING right know is a fruit of evolution. Sometimes some traits are passed by just because they are, there doesn't need to be a reason for it. Like for instance "sickle hemoglobins". There really isn't a point for that… it just happens because mutations happens and individuals who happened to have it procriated.

    I might be wrong in this though.

  5. IF DAWKINS WAS EVER IN MY TRIBE I WOULD RIP HIS HEAD CLEAN OFF WITH MY JOE KINNEY TRAINED HANDS. BISEXUAL OR GAY PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OVER 80% OF THE SEX CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST CHILDREN. COMMITED BY BOTH THE BI GAY MALE AND FEMALES. THE TRUTH IS THAT GAY PEOPLE POSSESSED BY A DEMONIC FORCE THAT IS ALL OVER THEM RAPING AND MURDERING CHILDREN SINCE THEY WERE FORCED INTO IT BY THEIR OWNER. THIS SHIT IS ON THE RECORD FOR ALL YOU HATERS OUT TOO WITNESS SO EAT A PUSSY IF YOU A MAN AND EAT A DICK IF YOU A WOMEN.

  6. I don't know more about genetics than Dawkins but the point he's making about a homosexuality-gene being brought out by being bottle fed as an infant doesn't make sense because there's verses in the Bible (before the bottle was invented) calling homosexuality an abomination / I choose to be heterosexual…

  7. What an inductive, correlative MESS this was!

    This kind of lazy half-scientific bullshit is precisely why religious Atheists (my pet term for people who "worship" science, as distinct from garden-variety atheists by their open antagonism towards alternate ideologies, while simultaneously, hypocritically, proselytizing their own ideological dogmas) are so obnoxious. They learn just enough about the relevant topic to give an impression of being knowledgeable, and no more, then present that information as abject fact.
    There is NO gay gene. Twin studies have NOT conclusively found anything about homosexuality being heritable. There is no science to the study of sexuality, there is in fact, nothing but GUESSES based on observation, because none of this conjecture is TESTABLE.
    Why is it so damn hard for religious Atheists to simply admit : "I/We don't know" ??

    P.S. I know what you're thinking and you can save it- I'm not a religious person of any description. I have no "sky daddy" for you to mock and shift focus to, sorry.

  8. Dawkins has been possessed by a demon ever since his painful pedophilie experience in the single sex school he was sent to.
    The demon makes him preach Satan' s lies.

  9. dawkins you need the healing power of Jesus christ from your childhood molestation and from your sin
    the same devil that encouraged your abuse is the same one whos lies you are promoting leading people and you to HELL
    the devil has many lies like the catholic church
    Matthew 7:21
    Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
    Romans 2:5
    But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

  10. Another thing could be analogous to the sickle cell genes. The existence of a gene could give reproductive benefits to most of the population, but can reduce the reproductive benefit to a small subset of the population. As long as the net effect is positive, evolution doesn't care about outliers: nature doesn't care whether 100% of a species population are reproducers, it cares about the net effect of reproduction. It might be that the genes involved have more than one use, so weeding out the "gay genes" would cost more than it gains.

  11. I do not like his explanation in the first 2 minutes. Other factors could explain a stronger correlation. The identical twins could identify with each other more than non identical twin, eventually influencing their sexuality. The behaviour of parents towards identical and non identical twins is not necessarily the same either.
    I'm sure a more conclusive test could be done on mice twins separated at birth…

  12. Was it me or did Dawkins make the claim (at the end of the video) that environmental factors are more the reason for homosexuality to exist than actual genetics? If so, that would lead me to deduce that homosexuality is still a human choice. Is there biological proof of a homosexual gene in science? (i ask because i am not a scientist and im trying to understand the latest scientific thinking on this issue, and not spew out my own personal opinions on any one argument or the other)

  13. 33
    It seems that I have been blocked from our thread. I don't know why this should be but I suspect that some authority has decided that my words have too much power.

LEAVE A REPLY