I love your videos. But I just don't understand why you keep saying "God" at the end of your videos. As a Deist, I think it is better to say "the creator." Why? Because none of us know who this creatorreally is.
If a god did appear one day, it would be pretty simple for it to prove itself a god and not a devil as stated in this video. What is interesting is that if a god did appear, prove itself, yet still had skeptics, then the game is over. Either the skeptics' god(s) appear(s) immediately to assert its/ their position, or disbelievers can be summarily dismissed to a place that isn't Heaven/ Nirvana/ Valhalla or whatever happens to be the home of the god that has appeared.
On an evolutionary standpoint it seems that homosexuality is a defect or a sign that an organism is not fit to reproduce. Not saying that I think homosexuals will burn in hell or that I don't like them, its just that on a view through the lense of biology, homosexuality would not pass the test of survival of the fittest. People can be gay all they want, I really dont care but it's definitely not natural.
@byteresistor Just because it exists in the natural world doesn't mean that it is in accordance with how nature SHOULD work. Because of survival of the fittest, natural defects in organisms are eventually weeded out over time. In the wild, animals with serious mental or physical handicaps usally dont survive long enough to reproduce. If homosexuality isn't a choice, Nature is obviously telling you that you arent even fit to reproduce.
@edgar669966 What about homosexuals who are so repressed that they marry women and have kids. Or the ones that dont adopt but have surrogate mothers/fathers? Also I don't think homosexuality is a handicap.
@edgar669966 When a woman has male babies her body sees that baby as a foreign body and attacks it with antibodies that feminize the baby. Now this doesn't mean that every boy will be gay obviously. It does mean that overtime or perhaps a woman with a very good immune system will produce a homosexual child. This of course is only with men and there isn't really any evidence with lesbians. Although you could look at it as a defect. I wouldn't because its not like a gay guy couldn't have kids.
I think that the concept of kin selection could explain the concept of homosexual adoption of orphan children. Its complicated, but evolution works on populations, not just the individual.
id rather not tear this argument apart as i would so appreciate the idea of emotional attachment to be considered an evolutionary process but it happens not to discuss the topic at hand. evolution as a system cannot be determined how it will affect the species by the species its affecting. it seems to me to be assinine to try. though we are aware of ourselves as individuals, the very concept of determining who we all are is the equivilent of claiming that deities exist in the first place.
This is very enlightened. I am a gay Deist. I burn incense and pray and I feel that it has really improved my life no end. The religious worship is ritual for ritual's sake but it works.
I'm born to a Muslim father and a Christian mother. In 2003, I almost got jailed for drugs. One day in the holding cell, lunch was served with yogurt, I had one spoonful and then the yogurt fell on the floor and formed a heart shape. Instead of serving a 5 year jail term, I was released with 1 year probation. From that day, I started seeing heart shapes everywhere I look. In 2005, I was blessed with a baby girl born with a birth mark on her forehead..a heart shape.
As an Atheist I must say you videos are a breathe of fresh air. Particularly the way you encourage dialogue, keep up the good work.
You have tapped into a very complex question here but I'd like to see if you would consider one thing. Natural selection works at a genetic not individual level. If a person was homosexual but invested parental time and care to say a niece or nephew, it might make more sense as to why the trait may sporadically exist in a population. I'll address the adoption l8er.
homosexuality alot of the times in humans is at the 4th or 5th child because the womens body gets better at attacking the fetus with hormones and other chemicals. natural selection doesn't really do nothing in humans, if it is a wild animal then it would not pass it's genes but would still get gay offspring because of hormones
one big reason i think for alot of religious theists not becoming atheist or deist is that they are afraid of hell, not all of them but alot that i have seen
Starting to tear (well, it's not my subject really but I can present thoughts on it).
Raising a child and giving birth to a child is separate. As long as the emotional bond with the baby is strong (which I guess the anticipation of adoption ensures), triggering the part of your brain that tells you to treat the child as if it is your own or part of your extended family/tribe doesn't seem to be that long of a stretch. Via survivability of the tribe, we're back at fully naturally selected traits.
good video! but there is more. how would only natural selection explain our perception of beauty? not of the opposite sex, but of the moon? the star? flowers? why do we all have the capacity to not just love other humans, but any and all other animals as well? i would love to see materialitsts explain these through "survival of the fittest". Disclaimer: I do believe in evolution, and am not religious.
No theist would approve this hypothesis, but there is some truth to it. Natural selection should not care for non-reproductive animals (homosexuals) or orphan animals. However, in a strange way, nature helps to improve the quality of life and the survival of a species by connecting these two together in a very beneficial way. I agree, showing God in life is very tricky because evolution does provide natural answers to the complexity of life.
If anything, you can take sapient and sentient intelligent, which were provided only to man, as an argument that there is something other than natural selection at work. I'm talking about the type of intelligence that allowed man to develop science, art, literature, etc., which are not essential for the survival of our species. I'm a Christian, by the way.
Check out DonExodus' video on homosexuality. He did a great job explaining how it works biologically.
An interesting thing (I think you've probably come across this phenomenon), many gay people are the 3rd, 4th, or 5th child. So it's not like there's some isolated gene (at least some people think this), but that it is a natural result of how the mother's body rears the child before it's born. Since it usually happens with later children, it's not something easily "weeded out" by evolution.
Hmmm homosexuality not explained by natural selection. This kind of implies that people who identify as homosexual or bisexualsdo no reproduce, when patently we do. Thus passing on our gay-bi genes (should they exist at all).
It also assumes that homosexuality is not a result of conditions in the womb, which would not be down to genetic factors per-say.
You are well spoken and I have subscribed. However, I am afraid I will need to disagree and I will make a video explaining myself. I hope you will approve it as a video response. I will be respectful even as the winner of the "ultimate pwnage video" event in the 2010 pwnage Olympics (god I love saying that!)
@JaguarJ0nes ...and a well-deserved award it was, congratulations! I approve all video responses provided that the owners haven't blocked or censored me.
I assume the basis of your argument is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, which I appreciate. Aren't there many natural anomalies which seem pointless w/regard to nat. selection (born blind, or w/extra fingers, etc)?
While I agree w/the fact that homosexuals can easily fill in needed societal gaps (adoption, etc), this can be done by hetrosexuals too. Your reasoning seems to start w/a conclusion and find reasons to support it. This seems no different than Theist rational.
@ralphyetmore You must admit, and I think I made this point in the video, that this is one deist argument that's effectively guarded against being hijacked by fundies any time soon. :)
@ralphyetmore You must admit, and I think I made this point in the video, that this is one deist argument that's effectively guarded against being hijacked by fundies any time soon. :)
@DeistPaladin - True! and I appreciate that too! However, I like to play devil's advocate and point out a potential argument for the sake of it (did I just say "devil's advocate"?) ;P
I assume the basis of your argument is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, which I appreciate. Aren't there many natural anomalies which seem pointless w/regard to nat. selection (born blind, or w/extra fingers, etc)?
While I agree w/the fact that homosexuals can easily fill in needed societal gaps (adoption, etc), this can be done by hetrosexuals too. Your reasoning seems to start w/a conclusion and find reasons to support it. This seems no different than Theist rational.
I assume the basis of your argument is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, which I appreciate. Aren't there many natural anomalies which seem pointless w/regard to nat. selection (born blind, or w/extra fingers, etc)?
While I agree w/the fact that homosexuals can easily fill in needed societal gaps (adoption, etc), this can be done by hetrosexuals too. Your reasoning seems to start w/a conclusion and find reasons to support it. This seems no different than Theist rational.
@ralphyetmore Points well taken and, if I remember correctly, I did approach this "proof" with all due modesty. This is why I don't spend any time in the atheist-deist debates (any more than the will-determinism debate) is there's no way to resolve it. I've come to see differences on these abstractions along the lines of "is the glass of water half full or half empty?"
@DeistPaladin Have you considered that most homosexual animals are bi-sexual and gene variants that cause homosexual behavior might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, which one study suggests? Maybe it is like sickle-cell anaemia which maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria. I guess I don't see the argument any different than why do dinosaurs have small arms or why do zebras have stripes.
use these simple absolute rule(s). 1. I will not use force or threat of force on anyone. 2. I will not accept force or threat of from anyone. This is basis of all freedom in this country. The only law that i recognize is Is "reasonable and prudent" law. This law supersedes the constitution in all cases. betcha didn't know that.
I would think that Homosexuals having a "parental instinct" would have an evolutionary explanation similar to the explanation for altruism. The biological imperative to propagate and raise offspring is still present in homosexuals.
@Benghazison (FACE + PALM) That "funny stuff" IS your answer. If you can't (or won't) even recognize that I have addressed your question, however inherently wrong it may be, then shame on you, but I'm not playing this "No you didn't, yes I did" game with you. You asked why gay men have sperm. The answer is because they are men. If all you are gonna do is ignore my answer and DP's as well and just spew out emotional "beatuy" crap talk, then we are finished here.
@Benghazison Yes, because it has been proven to be a natural phenomenon of the sex life of all kinds of species, humans included. Now cut it with the "salams" and the "lols". Who are you trying to impress? Seriously, what are you, five? "Promise to god that I would make you look funny"? Is that the kind of stupid shit that people typically discuss with your god? Gee, what a great, fun life you must live, though I suppose your kind are easily impressed.
Homosexuality is not natural at all, homosexuality is anti nature, as long as you believe that homosexuality is natural human state, then why nature (evolved) sperm in gay men's bodies? the purpose of sperm is to produce babies,Why your funny nature(evolved) sperm in gay men? so let us see what your Deism would answer. Sallam
@DeistPaladin ask that homosexual Bruce Bagemihl to answer this question Why nature (evolved)sperm in gay men bodies?as long as he believes it's a natural behavior in all species then he should know what's the reason and purpose of sperm in gay men bodies?why don't you answer the question?i know you're incapable to answer because homosexuality is not a natural at all,your blathering is always about REASON!now let your gift of reason answer Why nature(evolved)sperm in gay men bodies?Sallam
@DeistPaladin you never gave an answer, my question is clear: Why nature (evolved) sperm into gay men bodies? the question started with WHY? so the answer should be with BECAUSE. for sure you can't find the logical BECAUSE, an American friend told me that Bangemihl is gay. John! your a man of reason so please let your gift of reason answer the question Why do (natural) gay men need sperm? even uncle Darwin wouldn't be able to answer lol. so Mr reason where's your answer. sallam
Why do we have an appendix? Why do we get goose bumps that fluff up our non-existent body fur? Why do we have wisdom teeth?
If homosexuality is a sin to God, why did God create the "sweet spot" so some gay men can orgasm while receiving anal sex without even being given the "reach around?"
@DeistPaladin you see!again you answer with WHY not with BECAUSE lol the so-called sweet spot is only for one reason which's (pooping) not to have sex with. again you never answer, you just play with WHY word. i asked you one clear single question but your deism is paralyzed to answer, wisdom teeth are teeth that's it or do u need me to explain to you why do we have teeth lol appendix is something inside the human body and why its there?science hasn't find the answer yet. please answer my Q
@DeistPaladin it's hard to debate with ex professional(atheist),am not talking about God and religions,am just asking questions based on your so-called natural beliefs,when you stuck,you always try to personalize the issue,either answer or admit that you don't know,did you try to imagine a man's body with nipples?you need to know humans were created in the best shape and form,try to understand the philosophy and the real concept of human Beauty,something called science of beauty.sallam
@DeistPaladin John thanks for the compliment LOLi know well that am the hardest one you have ever encountered on line LOL,do you remember about a year ago when you asked me to help my poor brothers to answer,i still have your message there when you asked me to engage into debates and answering lol you never expected that i would use logic and gift of reason, you thought i would be parroting stuff,one year ago i promised you that you'd stuck deep into the bottomless pit with nothing to say.
@DeistPaladin i would like to see that video,which about a year ago you promised to produce lol that video never came to life, you can't imagine how much i enjoy the game with atheists and deists debate, i need some challenge to have fun, let me remind you about your funny video when you've slung the Quran away, i gave promise to God that i would make you look funny because i can beat 10000men like yourself with that great book,I did and i shall beat you whenever you need to be beaten. lol
@Benghazison Why do you need a belly button? Or nipples? It's there even though it's not needed, DP already made this point and so did I. There are things in nature that are unnecessary, but if a trait or feature isn't detrimental to anything there isn't any need for it to be selected against in nature. Gay men don't "need" sperm, just as no straight man "needs" it. That's not how things work. They develop as a male fetus, and their specific genetics/hormones render them however likely to be gay
@338dmac please you need to learn that sperm is NECESSARY it not there in vain lol unless you don't know what's the scientific purpose of sperm? come on please,get real and logical, my question is clear and simple, do you have natural answer or not? sallam
@Benghazison It's only necessary for people who are going to have children. So yes, for every other guy, sperm IS in vain. Obviously not every single living person has children, so what do you call it when every male has sperm? It is un-necessity. We have the provisions to mate and reproduce if need be, or if we want. And I don't understand what you expect; what, you think all gay men are going to be born without testicles? No; in order to be gay men, they must be MEN with MALE ANATOMY.
@338dmac regardless that people want to have children or not,there are many men can't have children for many reasons that's fine,but the Question is based on the purpose and the reason of sperm in gay men?if gay men are natural then nature don't need to (evolve) sperm into their bodies,so the question is why did aunt nature (evolved) sperm into gay men?now lets IMAGINE there are no nipples in men's body?try to remove them and imagine how the shape of men's body would be like?LOL sallam
@Benghazison The "purpose" for sperm in a gay man is the SAME as the "purpose" for sperm in a straight man who never has sex. Gay MEN are just that; MEN. They develop as men. What distinguishes them as homosexual is brain chemistry and hormones, NOT their anatomy. You don't understand this AT ALL.
@Benghazison If sperm was at all inspired by a divine intelligence, it wouldn't take millions of them to overcome the failure rate of attempts at fertilization. Nothing in nature is perfect. It's all sloppy, complicated, and sometimes absurd, but it works because it continues life.
@338dmac very good quote " it works because it continues life" but with gay men it shouldn't be there at all, as long as gays don't need sperm then why nature (evolved) sperm into their bodies? you're not answering my question, you just telling us stories try to find a logical answer because you have a gift of reason, please answer the question with logic or admit that homosexuality is anti nature, there's not much of potions left in here. Sallam
@Benghazison Homosexuality isn't really adhering the reproduction rate or survivability of our species, so there is no sufficient reason for it to be phased out genetically. Homosexuality is NOT "anti-nature", we've observed it in sheep, dogs, and other species though it is very rare. Face it, genetically and hormonally some individuals just prefer the same sex over the opposite sex. Your views on this matter are ridiculously simplistic and biased. Please go look this shit up yourself.
Why have nocturnal emissions? Isn't that unnatural? Sperm is not there to be wasted, right? Is it unnatural to not have sex (sperm dies out over time)?
Not all men are fertile too, should those men never have sex with a women because it is unnatural?
Is it unnatural for people to play soccer? People's feet aren't around just to kick a ball and run around for fun and games, we have feet so that it's easier to find food and stay alive, not to have fun.
@brutus149 sorry none of you is answering my question, you just tell me stories irrelevant ,please try to understand that my question is Why nature (evolved) sperm in gay men bodies? again the Q is WHY? so do you have logical and natural BECAUSE?sallam
Sperm is there in gay men, because nearly all men create sperm (some are sterile), if men didn't have sperm, there would be no way for women to get pregnant.
The factors that go into making someone attracted to the same sex, are not the same factors that control whether sperm is produced or not.
Sperm and sexual attraction are not dependant on eachother.
@MinervaInTheBrain of course factors that make ppl attracted to the same sex is not the same factors that control sperm that's fine,sperm is made to make women pregnant that's the natural purpose and reason of sperm in all men bodies, so obviously homosexuality is anti nature, so what's psychological,emotional (natural) factors that make men with sperm to be attracted to the same sex? so now let's shift from the biological mechanism to psychological reasons to see what's going on.sallam
2). Altruism can be explained by natural selection
3). Homosexuals are often semi-androgynous. Thus it could be an incomplete sexual differentiation (something very often seen in physical phenotypes, but rarely discussed when it comes to behavioral phenotypes).
So the fact that people can care for children that aren't theirs genetically is your proof? That's pretty lame. Consider the fact that most humans have a desire to have sex, regardless of whether that sex is going to make a baby. Sterile people still like sex. Making us like sex is evolution's roundabout way of getting us to make babies. And then making us like babies is evolution's roundabout way of getting us to care for the babies we create. It's not a perfect system, but ...
That's interesting...that's still a really unfair question to ask someone. Hey afterall, atheists weren't there any more than deists, christians, or muslims...
Good point. Now I understand ARMAGEDDON more completely. If the God that came here destroyed the world as the Bible says then I think he would prove his godship like he did for Egypt at the time of the Exodus, which caused Akhenaten to convert to monotheism and say the God's of Egypt were "worthless." So good point. God will prove himself by his absolute power.
Well, I think animals adopt other animals because they are programmed with a parenting instinct through natural selection. So, if they get a chance for a free baby, they take it. Just like those crazy chicks who snatch kids from the playground.
wouldn't you consider homosexuality the same as masochism or sadism and such? aren't they just irregularities in a naturally explainable brain?
as far as i'm concerned evolution doesn't need to explain certain degrees of emotion or mentality within our brain. it seems to me that after a certain point the evolution of the brain began creating accidental side-affects to the naturally selected components
imagine natural selection where every trait is a package deal. that's brain evolution imo.
Hahhh, Deism and Pantheism, such a breath of fresh air in the world. If there's anything better than hearing a rationed Atheist out on matters, it's a rationed Deist and/or Pantheist. I wish there were more fellows like you.
Stephen Colbert has *clearly* explained why God did not create homosexuality—God made man in His image, and if God made some men gay, that would mean God is part gay, yet God is 100% heterosexual!! (My video response [called "Stephen Colbert - God on (1) America (2) homosexuality"] explains it all.)
Are you a deist that believes an entity (god) created the universe or are you a deist that believes the universe itself is the entity (god) and we are just a part of it?
This concept kind of seems to fail due to the fact that it makes the assumption that ONLY environmental adaptation is responsible for life. I also just don't see how the point made can even support a deist god. Just seems like a big fallacy.
The existence of an entity shouldn't be the matter of debate. It should be the matter of research. If the entity claimed to possibly exist has no impact on reality and is basically meaningless speculation, it is just that, meaningless.
I think if God merely said "here I am", that wouldn't be convincing to anyone, but if the Christian god came down and showed off his Biblical super powers to the world, I think many followers of other faiths would convert along with a good number of atheists.
This strikes me as similar to the "why is there altruism, if not for God" argument." Altruism does not necessarily contribute to the survival of an individual or its offspring, but it does contribute on a larger scale. If a population containing gays survives more effectively than one without, it will outproduce the no-gays group.
as well thought out and insightful as many of your other points tend to be....I just don't see where this one even gets off the ground. It is being heralded that they think they have isolated the "homosexual gene". I see it like this....you can be attracted to women...you can be attracted to men. While the traits TEND to follow sex lines, they don't have to. So 10% of the time, a man gets the "attracted to males" gene from his mother. Therefore he turns out to be gay.
From there, if these men don't reproduce, they don't pass that gene along....but they don't have to. That's not how they got it either. Fact is though, that homosexuals DO reproduce through sperm banks and other means. Being gay doesn't hurt their survival rate, just lowers their reproduction...keeping them a minority.
I'd have to disagree- homosexual animals may reproduce in their lifetimes, and in fact may excell at reproducing. Homosexual humans often marry and have children. It's only a very small percentage of animals that reject the opposite sex entirely. So why haven't they died out? Well genetics aren't the only factor that determine how we are born- there's also conditions in the womb to consider, and if there is a gene then it could lay dormant or be recessive or something (genetics dunce here).
To expand on this, I don't think there is a single "trigger" or "cause" of homosexuality, not is homosexuality a definite trait. To a degree, all humans carry (I think) some capacity of attraction to the same sex - be it appreciation of form in art, a latent bi-curiosity, temporary experimentation, bi-sexuality, and so on to the other side of the spectrum towards full homosexuality. It's like a mixer board on a stereo... but of which can also be shaped by experience and growth.
So a child can born with the disposition to be hetero, but with and openness to homosexual experience, and still be completely straight due to a strict religious upbringing. Or perhaps they can be born with the disposition a bit more even mix of hetero and homosexual mix, have a strict religious upbringing, and become a heterosexual who enjoys secret weekend "encounters" (such as Ted Haggard).
But it's clear that homosexuality is neither purely a nurture or nature issue.
In some cases, it's not even an orientation so much as a fetish which draws it's roots from early youth. Though often grouped together in a single "Gay Community" - there is world of difference between a homosexual, a transsexual, and a transvestite. This is why it's not uncommon and is reasonable to see a man with gender identity disorders undergo very invasive surgeries to become a woman - while still being attracted only to women sexually. Gender Identity is separate, but related, to....
I don't think there is a gay "gene", insomuch as I think it's likely that since homosexuality is so pervasive in the animal kingdom, it's an emergent interplay of very fundamental and basal sexual stimuli.
I think, further, that homosexual emergence could well be a promoted trait in some species as a social bonding/dominance tool. In human culture, we often see "Warrior Groups" like Samurai and Spartans not just being brothers in arms, but lovers as well.
Yeah, there just isn't enough known yet. As curious as I am about a possible "gay gene" I almost hope they don't find it, because you know there are people who have the money and power to find a way to stamp it out.
It wouldn't matter. If there's a "gay gene", then some will suggest gene therapy to get rid of it. If there isn't, then it emboldens those who claim homosexuality is a behavioral "dysfunction" that can be "cured".
In either case, it's not going to stop irrational bigotry. The fact that, whatever the cause, it serves a demonstrable beneficial purpose in both nature and human societies should be enough to reason that it's not some "defect" to be fixed. To say nothing yet of basic human rights...
Indeed, already the Christians are starting to change their tune given the findings on the nature of sexual orientation. The President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary a few years back declared that homosexuality was not a choice. To him, it's now part of humanity's "fall from grace" and therefore still a "sin" to be fought against. A predictable move really, one we can expect from other Christian leaders in the future.
I'm pretty sure natural selection can account for this...
We're all (excluding sociopaths) with an innate sense of empathy--look to the research on mirror neurons here. This sense of empathy EVOLVED because civilization was more beneficial to our genetic proliferation than the alternative independent nomadic lifestyle. Just because an individual's desire to procreate with the opposite sex is non-existent or "turned off", does not mean he or she no longer empathizes, or desires to rear a child.
Still does not account for the natural occurrence of homosexuality in the first place. As anti-gay propaganda groups like to point out "homosexuals cannot reproduce".
As far as evolution theory is concerned homosexuality plays no role in it. Its spawned by a different phenomenon altogether.
If you have read the selfish gene then that should give you some answers for your theory.
If the goal is to preserve the same gene and not the individual then all of the activities we see amongst animals make sense. Including gay adoption.
If the only goal was to preserve the individual, wouldn't cannibalistic species be common as the strongest would survive. But for the most part the world most deadly animals do not eat each other.
Expanding upon my previous comment. A gay human is interested only in the same sex & hence can be described as a practicing homosexual & is sexually repulsed by the opposite sex. However, in the animal kingdom i don't know if any individual creature performs an homosexual act as a matter of preference. It could be mistaken identity or even a method of "letting off steam" especially as in many societies where only the alpha male is permitted to mate. Do lesbians exist in nature?
In a lot of cases you are correct it is to relax the atmosphere and more of a tribal bonding exercise. But that is not always the case. There are animals that are monogamous and also gay (and they are monogamous for life) such as penguins. Gay pengiuns will actually pass on opportunities to copulate with females if they are presented.
And yes lesbians exist in nature. In some pygmy chimpazee societies the majority of sex is between females.
deathbySquid. Ta for that i have learned something. I guess male homosexuality is driven by an overabundance of testosterone. However, I don't wish to sound naive on the lesbian pygmy chimps but one must assume that they (or any lesbians in the animal world) can only be speaking in tongues ..... if you get my drift. How else can it work or are these lesbian relationships merely only companions with no sexual intercourse? Must admit it is not an oft discussed topic but nonetheless interesting.
Pygmy chimps a somewhat similar to humans in that they have been observed 69ing and the females also do "scissoring". I mean i can't be bothered going back now and finding out about it but i think i remember alot of the sex was like mutual/self masturbation as well.
Pygmy Chimps are a matriarchal society and the sex is used to bond the weak females into a group which they use against the males who are more powerful but do not team up.
This is a great question & actually provides a challenge as opposed to the easily debunkable dross from Creos. The easy answer to adoption would be that such actions only take place in those organisms that have a highly developed society where compassion has evolved. However, on homosexuality, it would be a great study to see which organisms indulge in this practice. I would point out that in the animal kingdom what you cite as homosexual is actually bi-sexual. Is it just mistaken identity?
Why should natural selection not care about orphans? As you should know, most animals that live in groups have a rather close gene pool (in nature. man made facilities does often break this law in our times). Orphans do, actually, have benefit for the adopters, as they, in the time our personality evolved, when close in their gene pool to their adopting parents. Therefor - adopting children means better chance for your genes.
Gay couples, had a better change of preserving their genes this way.
I was thinking about this as well, also adopting children could well be more of a meme passed from body to body rather then parent to child.
The instinct to care for and raise a child is likely genetic, adoption is from living in an area with similar genes, why would gay animals not adopt a child from there local gene pool? simples...
From what I understand of deism, if it turned out to be the deist god, deists would not accept him, because the deist god does not do divine intervention.
Actually, this might as well be an indirect product of natural selection. Obviously caring for our own and protecting them will be hugely favored by NS.
However if our tendency to care for out family grows so much that it starts covering not only family members, but also strangers, then it seems NS can in fact do this.
I love your videos! But, I am afraid I have to agree that homosexuality in nature gives no reason at all to believe that deism is more likely. If homosexuality can be a reason to believe in deism, than so can black holes, gravity, light, or anything. Why does the homosexuality not fit in a purely materialistic world? Maybe you explained this in the book, I haven't read it.
Good video. I remember seeing it the first time around.
A video I want to see is one where you explain your reasons for believing in a deistic god, your personal philosophy as you said.
That is, specifically, why a purely natural universe is impossible and why supernatural intervention is required.
I say supernatural because I assume that a deistic god's ability to get the ball rolling with the forces of nature required something outside of what is possible in the natural universe.
What does evolution have to do with deism? You just said your belief in a god is unscientific " a personal philosophy". Then why are you bringing science back into this?
Evolutionary biologists, such as Steven Pinker, have hypothesized that homosexuals have actually played an important role in evolution, specifically in the care of sibling children.
There are obviously evolutionary benefits to having an additional person to help care for the children of a sibling, especially if the father of the children dies. The homosexual sibling of the mother (especially if male) can then provide for the well-being of the children and help ensure their survival.
they've actually done research that shows the female relatives of gay and bi men have more children suggesting that genes influencing sexual orientation in men also make women more likely to reproduce.
I was going to mention this, but you beat me to it.
It seems as if there is a gene or gene sequence that is selected for, which can express itself either as increase fertility or homosexuality. The increased fertility selects for the gene.
The study suggests females become more fertile and their male siblings become homosexual.
I wonder if male siblings of lesbian women have higher sperm counts?
Or if their female siblings are also more productive?
Deism has a dead God, i.e. deists believe that there was some initial cause to the creation of the universe and can call it "God" but nothing more can be deduced from that. Whatever "God" is - who cares? No one runs the universe, it runs itself, so God is kinda like dead.
Pantheism is the belief that Nature is arranged in a rational/harmonious way and that everything that exists is made of Nature. So Nature gives rise to everything, it is like "God" in that sense.
Your premise does not make sense. I am trained in evolutionary biology, and we know populations evolve, not individuals. Whatever helps the population as a whole is what is selected for.
Knowing the above, we see bees, naked mole rats, wolves, and so on, where individuals often give up temporarily, and even permanently, the rights to reproduce.
In wolves we see this in alpha couples where the non-alphas do not mate, and only help in hunting and taking care of the young from the alphas..
Next,.. in naked mole rats we see something like we more often see in the in the invertebrate world where there is a queen, and a set of workers. The workers are working for the good of the whole, and not for individual reproductive rights...
Bees and ants are highly specialized versions of this and are the true kinds (or queens) of this behavior,,,
Now why is the above selective?
We need to compare "carrying capacity" to possible "reproductive rates" and "population density"..
Now, if a population needs separate individuals to do differing jobs, then there is selective pressure to support a certain population density relative to the carrying capacity of the environment.
The problem comes from when the growth rate of the individual is too high at such a density to support such an explosion that would result.
The end result can vary, but often selective events that increases the population, but decrease the growth rates overall are selected...
This leaves a few option selectively speaking, and some individuals being active members of society that do not add to the population growth can, and will be selected for in this situation.
Basically put, it helps preserve the desired population density at a certain carrying capacity, or decreases the population growth relative to population density...
very good points, although i must contend against one point. it is the genes that are passed on, the population is the environment the genes must survive in. social populations can tackle larger prey, fend off more predators, and due to closer inbreeding than nomadic individuals are often helping their own genes survive despite individual sacrifice.
from my understanding, homosexual behaviour is only seen in social species and so is a likely mechanism for social cohesion.
Populations change genetically speaking,.. individuals do not. Genes are in individuals. A population usually has numerous alleles of a gene with varying frequencies of over time. This is why evolution works on population but never works on individuals or individual genes.
There may be a chance you are self taught here and do not quite understand the jargon, and its implications.
i am self taught on evolution, i have a BSc with multiple 2nd/3rd year modules covering genetics.
i agree mostly with what you say but i guess i am looking from a slightly different viewpoint. alleles are essentially immortal and their effect on phenotype and therefore an individuals survival within a population decide its continuation.
maybe i just disagree with the words you use, i'm certain i agree with your idea.
An allele is not immortal. It can be removed from a population if selection, or even Drift so allows.
I am not so sure what you were against in my wordings. Populations evolve, not individuals. This is evolutionary bio 101. We refer to evolution as a change in gene frequency in a population (this means a gene and its alleles, which is sorta relative which is which).
The population is not the environment. A population may have needs and behaviors that are part of the organisms environment.
that was awesomely wonderful. What do you think of stories of wild animals adopting human babies? There have been a few cases of feral children in our history, even making it into mythology and present day literature. A few years ago an abandoned baby was found being nursed by a stray dog.
Really is. But if you call him, her or it "God," then people will think you are referring to the "Christian God."
tmat04 2 weeks ago
I love your videos. But I just don't understand why you keep saying "God" at the end of your videos. As a Deist, I think it is better to say "the creator." Why? Because none of us know who this creatorreally is.
tmat04 2 weeks ago
Deism: Could Nature's God be consider The Force as in The Force in Star Wars? Like an energy / power of some kind that pervades the entire universe?
JorEl7771 1 month ago
If a god did appear one day, it would be pretty simple for it to prove itself a god and not a devil as stated in this video. What is interesting is that if a god did appear, prove itself, yet still had skeptics, then the game is over. Either the skeptics' god(s) appear(s) immediately to assert its/ their position, or disbelievers can be summarily dismissed to a place that isn't Heaven/ Nirvana/ Valhalla or whatever happens to be the home of the god that has appeared.
ChipArgyle 1 month ago
On an evolutionary standpoint it seems that homosexuality is a defect or a sign that an organism is not fit to reproduce. Not saying that I think homosexuals will burn in hell or that I don't like them, its just that on a view through the lense of biology, homosexuality would not pass the test of survival of the fittest. People can be gay all they want, I really dont care but it's definitely not natural.
edgar669966 6 months ago
@edgar669966 If it's not natural then why does it exist in nature? How does anything exist in the natural world without being natural?
byteresistor 6 months ago
@byteresistor Just because it exists in the natural world doesn't mean that it is in accordance with how nature SHOULD work. Because of survival of the fittest, natural defects in organisms are eventually weeded out over time. In the wild, animals with serious mental or physical handicaps usally dont survive long enough to reproduce. If homosexuality isn't a choice, Nature is obviously telling you that you arent even fit to reproduce.
edgar669966 6 months ago
@edgar669966 What about homosexuals who are so repressed that they marry women and have kids. Or the ones that dont adopt but have surrogate mothers/fathers? Also I don't think homosexuality is a handicap.
SpreaddEm 1 month ago
@edgar669966 When a woman has male babies her body sees that baby as a foreign body and attacks it with antibodies that feminize the baby. Now this doesn't mean that every boy will be gay obviously. It does mean that overtime or perhaps a woman with a very good immune system will produce a homosexual child. This of course is only with men and there isn't really any evidence with lesbians. Although you could look at it as a defect. I wouldn't because its not like a gay guy couldn't have kids.
SpreaddEm 1 month ago
I think that the concept of kin selection could explain the concept of homosexual adoption of orphan children. Its complicated, but evolution works on populations, not just the individual.
jbiemans77 6 months ago
id rather not tear this argument apart as i would so appreciate the idea of emotional attachment to be considered an evolutionary process but it happens not to discuss the topic at hand. evolution as a system cannot be determined how it will affect the species by the species its affecting. it seems to me to be assinine to try. though we are aware of ourselves as individuals, the very concept of determining who we all are is the equivilent of claiming that deities exist in the first place.
newinhuman 8 months ago
This is very enlightened. I am a gay Deist. I burn incense and pray and I feel that it has really improved my life no end. The religious worship is ritual for ritual's sake but it works.
RayL1983 9 months ago
I'm already subscribed :3 didn't realise, but regardless glad I am
KorvanShedai 10 months ago
their bannanas you got that right dude
CupisHomines 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm born to a Muslim father and a Christian mother. In 2003, I almost got jailed for drugs. One day in the holding cell, lunch was served with yogurt, I had one spoonful and then the yogurt fell on the floor and formed a heart shape. Instead of serving a 5 year jail term, I was released with 1 year probation. From that day, I started seeing heart shapes everywhere I look. In 2005, I was blessed with a baby girl born with a birth mark on her forehead..a heart shape.
Deism is God, God is Love.
wissamhassan 1 year ago
You hit the nail on the head every time. Bravo!
Jcm9991 1 year ago
Dolphins are pretty gay/bisexual and if i see it in nature especially in mammals its cool. :) good video.
vmorgun 1 year ago
As an Atheist I must say you videos are a breathe of fresh air. Particularly the way you encourage dialogue, keep up the good work.
You have tapped into a very complex question here but I'd like to see if you would consider one thing. Natural selection works at a genetic not individual level. If a person was homosexual but invested parental time and care to say a niece or nephew, it might make more sense as to why the trait may sporadically exist in a population. I'll address the adoption l8er.
TheMuzz88 1 year ago
homosexuality alot of the times in humans is at the 4th or 5th child because the womens body gets better at attacking the fetus with hormones and other chemicals. natural selection doesn't really do nothing in humans, if it is a wild animal then it would not pass it's genes but would still get gay offspring because of hormones
patrickledford420 1 year ago
one big reason i think for alot of religious theists not becoming atheist or deist is that they are afraid of hell, not all of them but alot that i have seen
patrickledford420 1 year ago
Starting to tear (well, it's not my subject really but I can present thoughts on it).
Raising a child and giving birth to a child is separate. As long as the emotional bond with the baby is strong (which I guess the anticipation of adoption ensures), triggering the part of your brain that tells you to treat the child as if it is your own or part of your extended family/tribe doesn't seem to be that long of a stretch. Via survivability of the tribe, we're back at fully naturally selected traits.
MegaYippie 1 year ago
good video! but there is more. how would only natural selection explain our perception of beauty? not of the opposite sex, but of the moon? the star? flowers? why do we all have the capacity to not just love other humans, but any and all other animals as well? i would love to see materialitsts explain these through "survival of the fittest". Disclaimer: I do believe in evolution, and am not religious.
Tartersauce101 1 year ago
No theist would approve this hypothesis, but there is some truth to it. Natural selection should not care for non-reproductive animals (homosexuals) or orphan animals. However, in a strange way, nature helps to improve the quality of life and the survival of a species by connecting these two together in a very beneficial way. I agree, showing God in life is very tricky because evolution does provide natural answers to the complexity of life.
TheMrDeist 1 year ago
If anything, you can take sapient and sentient intelligent, which were provided only to man, as an argument that there is something other than natural selection at work. I'm talking about the type of intelligence that allowed man to develop science, art, literature, etc., which are not essential for the survival of our species. I'm a Christian, by the way.
angelthman 1 year ago
Check out DonExodus' video on homosexuality. He did a great job explaining how it works biologically.
An interesting thing (I think you've probably come across this phenomenon), many gay people are the 3rd, 4th, or 5th child. So it's not like there's some isolated gene (at least some people think this), but that it is a natural result of how the mother's body rears the child before it's born. Since it usually happens with later children, it's not something easily "weeded out" by evolution.
AtheistAltar 1 year ago
Hmmm homosexuality not explained by natural selection. This kind of implies that people who identify as homosexual or bisexualsdo no reproduce, when patently we do. Thus passing on our gay-bi genes (should they exist at all).
It also assumes that homosexuality is not a result of conditions in the womb, which would not be down to genetic factors per-say.
NuclearInternet 1 year ago
You are well spoken and I have subscribed. However, I am afraid I will need to disagree and I will make a video explaining myself. I hope you will approve it as a video response. I will be respectful even as the winner of the "ultimate pwnage video" event in the 2010 pwnage Olympics (god I love saying that!)
JaguarJ0nes 1 year ago
@JaguarJ0nes ...and a well-deserved award it was, congratulations! I approve all video responses provided that the owners haven't blocked or censored me.
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
Very interesting video. Thank you for making it and for your polite, intelligent and articulate presentation.
JesusCockInAllahAss 1 year ago
I assume the basis of your argument is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, which I appreciate. Aren't there many natural anomalies which seem pointless w/regard to nat. selection (born blind, or w/extra fingers, etc)?
While I agree w/the fact that homosexuals can easily fill in needed societal gaps (adoption, etc), this can be done by hetrosexuals too. Your reasoning seems to start w/a conclusion and find reasons to support it. This seems no different than Theist rational.
BTW I'm a big fan. thx!
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore You must admit, and I think I made this point in the video, that this is one deist argument that's effectively guarded against being hijacked by fundies any time soon. :)
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore You must admit, and I think I made this point in the video, that this is one deist argument that's effectively guarded against being hijacked by fundies any time soon. :)
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
@DeistPaladin - True! and I appreciate that too! However, I like to play devil's advocate and point out a potential argument for the sake of it (did I just say "devil's advocate"?) ;P
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
I assume the basis of your argument is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, which I appreciate. Aren't there many natural anomalies which seem pointless w/regard to nat. selection (born blind, or w/extra fingers, etc)?
While I agree w/the fact that homosexuals can easily fill in needed societal gaps (adoption, etc), this can be done by hetrosexuals too. Your reasoning seems to start w/a conclusion and find reasons to support it. This seems no different than Theist rational.
BTW I'm a big fan. thx!
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
I assume the basis of your argument is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, which I appreciate. Aren't there many natural anomalies which seem pointless w/regard to nat. selection (born blind, or w/extra fingers, etc)?
While I agree w/the fact that homosexuals can easily fill in needed societal gaps (adoption, etc), this can be done by hetrosexuals too. Your reasoning seems to start w/a conclusion and find reasons to support it. This seems no different than Theist rational.
BTW I'm a big fan. thx!
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
@ralphyetmore Points well taken and, if I remember correctly, I did approach this "proof" with all due modesty. This is why I don't spend any time in the atheist-deist debates (any more than the will-determinism debate) is there's no way to resolve it. I've come to see differences on these abstractions along the lines of "is the glass of water half full or half empty?"
DeistPaladin 1 year ago
@DeistPaladin Have you considered that most homosexual animals are bi-sexual and gene variants that cause homosexual behavior might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, which one study suggests? Maybe it is like sickle-cell anaemia which maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria. I guess I don't see the argument any different than why do dinosaurs have small arms or why do zebras have stripes.
RuinSonic 8 months ago
To answer all questions from a deist perspective
use these simple absolute rule(s). 1. I will not use force or threat of force on anyone. 2. I will not accept force or threat of from anyone. This is basis of all freedom in this country. The only law that i recognize is Is "reasonable and prudent" law. This law supersedes the constitution in all cases. betcha didn't know that.
allentazwell 2 years ago
No finite mind knows everything.
if you define god as infinite, then you cannot
understand it.
If you seek truth and understanding you must only allow the most accurate data in your computer (mind?).
most moral conclusions are stated in digital format but calculated on analog data.
allentazwell 2 years ago
I would think that Homosexuals having a "parental instinct" would have an evolutionary explanation similar to the explanation for altruism. The biological imperative to propagate and raise offspring is still present in homosexuals.
grinder73 2 years ago
I gotta say, you are the most well thought out deist I have ever come across. I dont share your view, but i find it highly respectable. Kudos.
seeingglass86 2 years ago
Yeah, well at least people like him don't run countries. Oh, wait.... :o
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac just answer the question please and never mind that funny stuff lol
Benghazison 2 years ago
@Benghazison (FACE + PALM) That "funny stuff" IS your answer. If you can't (or won't) even recognize that I have addressed your question, however inherently wrong it may be, then shame on you, but I'm not playing this "No you didn't, yes I did" game with you. You asked why gay men have sperm. The answer is because they are men. If all you are gonna do is ignore my answer and DP's as well and just spew out emotional "beatuy" crap talk, then we are finished here.
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac let me ask you, do you believe homosexuality is a natural behaver of mankind or not? honest answer please. sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
@Benghazison Yes, because it has been proven to be a natural phenomenon of the sex life of all kinds of species, humans included. Now cut it with the "salams" and the "lols". Who are you trying to impress? Seriously, what are you, five? "Promise to god that I would make you look funny"? Is that the kind of stupid shit that people typically discuss with your god? Gee, what a great, fun life you must live, though I suppose your kind are easily impressed.
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac don't worry no Sallam for you any more but here a little LOL
Benghazison 2 years ago
Alright then, you've made the top ten. Now, I do believe I will retire for the evening, if you'll excuse me...
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac good night
Benghazison 2 years ago
Homosexuality is not natural at all, homosexuality is anti nature, as long as you believe that homosexuality is natural human state, then why nature (evolved) sperm in gay men's bodies? the purpose of sperm is to produce babies,Why your funny nature(evolved) sperm in gay men? so let us see what your Deism would answer. Sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
Why do we have an appendix? Why do we get goose-bumps to fluff up body fur we no longer have? Why do we have wisdom teeth? What's your point again?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
@DeistPaladin ask that homosexual Bruce Bagemihl to answer this question Why nature (evolved)sperm in gay men bodies?as long as he believes it's a natural behavior in all species then he should know what's the reason and purpose of sperm in gay men bodies?why don't you answer the question?i know you're incapable to answer because homosexuality is not a natural at all,your blathering is always about REASON!now let your gift of reason answer Why nature(evolved)sperm in gay men bodies?Sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
Dr. Bagemihl is gay? How do you know this?
I don't know his answer but I know I've already given you mine.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
@DeistPaladin you never gave an answer, my question is clear: Why nature (evolved) sperm into gay men bodies? the question started with WHY? so the answer should be with BECAUSE. for sure you can't find the logical BECAUSE, an American friend told me that Bangemihl is gay. John! your a man of reason so please let your gift of reason answer the question Why do (natural) gay men need sperm? even uncle Darwin wouldn't be able to answer lol. so Mr reason where's your answer. sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
Did you miss it? Here's my answer again:
Why do we have an appendix? Why do we get goose bumps that fluff up our non-existent body fur? Why do we have wisdom teeth?
If homosexuality is a sin to God, why did God create the "sweet spot" so some gay men can orgasm while receiving anal sex without even being given the "reach around?"
What's your point again?
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
@DeistPaladin you see!again you answer with WHY not with BECAUSE lol the so-called sweet spot is only for one reason which's (pooping) not to have sex with. again you never answer, you just play with WHY word. i asked you one clear single question but your deism is paralyzed to answer, wisdom teeth are teeth that's it or do u need me to explain to you why do we have teeth lol appendix is something inside the human body and why its there?science hasn't find the answer yet. please answer my Q
Benghazison 2 years ago
So you're saying that God created the sweet spot so we could cum when we "poop"? I can't say that's ever happened to me.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
This guy just doesn't get it, I think we're wasting our time and calories yet again...
338dmac 2 years ago
What's scary is this guy is as rational as any apologist I've encountered online. He even ranks among the pros (Strobel, McDowell, Craig. et. al.).
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
@DeistPaladin it's hard to debate with ex professional(atheist),am not talking about God and religions,am just asking questions based on your so-called natural beliefs,when you stuck,you always try to personalize the issue,either answer or admit that you don't know,did you try to imagine a man's body with nipples?you need to know humans were created in the best shape and form,try to understand the philosophy and the real concept of human Beauty,something called science of beauty.sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
@DeistPaladin John thanks for the compliment LOLi know well that am the hardest one you have ever encountered on line LOL,do you remember about a year ago when you asked me to help my poor brothers to answer,i still have your message there when you asked me to engage into debates and answering lol you never expected that i would use logic and gift of reason, you thought i would be parroting stuff,one year ago i promised you that you'd stuck deep into the bottomless pit with nothing to say.
Benghazison 2 years ago
@DeistPaladin i would like to see that video,which about a year ago you promised to produce lol that video never came to life, you can't imagine how much i enjoy the game with atheists and deists debate, i need some challenge to have fun, let me remind you about your funny video when you've slung the Quran away, i gave promise to God that i would make you look funny because i can beat 10000men like yourself with that great book,I did and i shall beat you whenever you need to be beaten. lol
Benghazison 2 years ago
@Benghazison Why do you need a belly button? Or nipples? It's there even though it's not needed, DP already made this point and so did I. There are things in nature that are unnecessary, but if a trait or feature isn't detrimental to anything there isn't any need for it to be selected against in nature. Gay men don't "need" sperm, just as no straight man "needs" it. That's not how things work. They develop as a male fetus, and their specific genetics/hormones render them however likely to be gay
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac please you need to learn that sperm is NECESSARY it not there in vain lol unless you don't know what's the scientific purpose of sperm? come on please,get real and logical, my question is clear and simple, do you have natural answer or not? sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
@Benghazison It's only necessary for people who are going to have children. So yes, for every other guy, sperm IS in vain. Obviously not every single living person has children, so what do you call it when every male has sperm? It is un-necessity. We have the provisions to mate and reproduce if need be, or if we want. And I don't understand what you expect; what, you think all gay men are going to be born without testicles? No; in order to be gay men, they must be MEN with MALE ANATOMY.
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac regardless that people want to have children or not,there are many men can't have children for many reasons that's fine,but the Question is based on the purpose and the reason of sperm in gay men?if gay men are natural then nature don't need to (evolve) sperm into their bodies,so the question is why did aunt nature (evolved) sperm into gay men?now lets IMAGINE there are no nipples in men's body?try to remove them and imagine how the shape of men's body would be like?LOL sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
Nipples for men. There's another good why question.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
@Benghazison The "purpose" for sperm in a gay man is the SAME as the "purpose" for sperm in a straight man who never has sex. Gay MEN are just that; MEN. They develop as men. What distinguishes them as homosexual is brain chemistry and hormones, NOT their anatomy. You don't understand this AT ALL.
338dmac 2 years ago
But stopping you life to pray 5 times a day is perfectly natural? fucking please
3rdworlds 2 years ago 6
@Benghazison If sperm was at all inspired by a divine intelligence, it wouldn't take millions of them to overcome the failure rate of attempts at fertilization. Nothing in nature is perfect. It's all sloppy, complicated, and sometimes absurd, but it works because it continues life.
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac very good quote " it works because it continues life" but with gay men it shouldn't be there at all, as long as gays don't need sperm then why nature (evolved) sperm into their bodies? you're not answering my question, you just telling us stories try to find a logical answer because you have a gift of reason, please answer the question with logic or admit that homosexuality is anti nature, there's not much of potions left in here. Sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
@Benghazison Homosexuality isn't really adhering the reproduction rate or survivability of our species, so there is no sufficient reason for it to be phased out genetically. Homosexuality is NOT "anti-nature", we've observed it in sheep, dogs, and other species though it is very rare. Face it, genetically and hormonally some individuals just prefer the same sex over the opposite sex. Your views on this matter are ridiculously simplistic and biased. Please go look this shit up yourself.
338dmac 2 years ago
@Benghazison:
Why have nocturnal emissions? Isn't that unnatural? Sperm is not there to be wasted, right? Is it unnatural to not have sex (sperm dies out over time)?
Not all men are fertile too, should those men never have sex with a women because it is unnatural?
Is it unnatural for people to play soccer? People's feet aren't around just to kick a ball and run around for fun and games, we have feet so that it's easier to find food and stay alive, not to have fun.
brutus149 2 years ago
@brutus149 sorry none of you is answering my question, you just tell me stories irrelevant ,please try to understand that my question is Why nature (evolved) sperm in gay men bodies? again the Q is WHY? so do you have logical and natural BECAUSE?sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
Sperm is there in gay men, because nearly all men create sperm (some are sterile), if men didn't have sperm, there would be no way for women to get pregnant.
The factors that go into making someone attracted to the same sex, are not the same factors that control whether sperm is produced or not.
Sperm and sexual attraction are not dependant on eachother.
MinervaInTheBrain 2 years ago
@MinervaInTheBrain of course factors that make ppl attracted to the same sex is not the same factors that control sperm that's fine,sperm is made to make women pregnant that's the natural purpose and reason of sperm in all men bodies, so obviously homosexuality is anti nature, so what's psychological,emotional (natural) factors that make men with sperm to be attracted to the same sex? so now let's shift from the biological mechanism to psychological reasons to see what's going on.sallam
Benghazison 2 years ago
JulieCranford is correct, but incomplete.
1). Homosexuals are often bisexual
2). Altruism can be explained by natural selection
3). Homosexuals are often semi-androgynous. Thus it could be an incomplete sexual differentiation (something very often seen in physical phenotypes, but rarely discussed when it comes to behavioral phenotypes).
Keeban3 2 years ago
So the fact that people can care for children that aren't theirs genetically is your proof? That's pretty lame. Consider the fact that most humans have a desire to have sex, regardless of whether that sex is going to make a baby. Sterile people still like sex. Making us like sex is evolution's roundabout way of getting us to make babies. And then making us like babies is evolution's roundabout way of getting us to care for the babies we create. It's not a perfect system, but ...
juliecranford 2 years ago
... but evolution is not perfect. Even if a person can't make babies and doesn't desire sex, they can still like babies. All three are separate.
juliecranford 2 years ago
That's interesting...that's still a really unfair question to ask someone. Hey afterall, atheists weren't there any more than deists, christians, or muslims...
gustjorodedheo 2 years ago
Good point. Now I understand ARMAGEDDON more completely. If the God that came here destroyed the world as the Bible says then I think he would prove his godship like he did for Egypt at the time of the Exodus, which caused Akhenaten to convert to monotheism and say the God's of Egypt were "worthless." So good point. God will prove himself by his absolute power.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
im hoping this guy isnt a fag
IHyRaXI 2 years ago
Well, I think animals adopt other animals because they are programmed with a parenting instinct through natural selection. So, if they get a chance for a free baby, they take it. Just like those crazy chicks who snatch kids from the playground.
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
wouldn't you consider homosexuality the same as masochism or sadism and such? aren't they just irregularities in a naturally explainable brain?
as far as i'm concerned evolution doesn't need to explain certain degrees of emotion or mentality within our brain. it seems to me that after a certain point the evolution of the brain began creating accidental side-affects to the naturally selected components
imagine natural selection where every trait is a package deal. that's brain evolution imo.
kukulza 2 years ago
Hahhh, Deism and Pantheism, such a breath of fresh air in the world. If there's anything better than hearing a rationed Atheist out on matters, it's a rationed Deist and/or Pantheist. I wish there were more fellows like you.
DumbRantings 2 years ago
Stephen Colbert has *clearly* explained why God did not create homosexuality—God made man in His image, and if God made some men gay, that would mean God is part gay, yet God is 100% heterosexual!! (My video response [called "Stephen Colbert - God on (1) America (2) homosexuality"] explains it all.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
How do you know that god is 100% heterosexual. Is there a miss god he's not told anyone about?
that sly fox
kinganarkzie 2 years ago 8
> How do you know that god is 100% heterosexual?
For one, God turned water into WINE. Not into Cosmos. Not into Apple-tinis. God likes His booze straight and served from an animal skin.
Also, God didnt "rent a summer cottage" in the city of Sodom---no, He destroyed it!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Wine? well God may not be gay but he's not very manly either.
A true heterosexual male would drink BEER. Get it together Johovah.
kinganarkzie 2 years ago
Good point. The wine, being the choice of beverage of the ancient Greco-Romans, indicates that God must be bisexual!
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
> The wine, being the choice of beverage of the ancient Greco-Romans, indicates that God must be bisexual!
Or a pre-trend metrosexual!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Of course Jesus must be bisexual for jesus love us all
AMEN
kinganarkzie 2 years ago 3
And Jesus is a "switch" as well as bisexual. We're told to "receive" the love of Jesus and Christians sometimes say "yours in Christ".
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
God destroyed Sodom because he blew such a huge load over, he's totally gay.
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
Did you read the part in the Bible about how the angels wanted to see the nightlife in Sodom? Gen 19:2
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I like 19:11. The wicked homosexuals are blinded so they can't find the door to Lot's house. How clever!
xXAkridXx 2 years ago
I'm sorry, are you saying that natural selection shouldn't produce homosexuals?
If so, you know that it smacks of "I don't understand blah blah, therefore GOD!".
ggab7768 2 years ago
Are you a deist that believes an entity (god) created the universe or are you a deist that believes the universe itself is the entity (god) and we are just a part of it?
MsWanderer1 2 years ago
How can the question if natural selection and mutations alone explains life as we know it not be a scientific one?
sajfen 2 years ago
I actually can see adoption of children as an adaptive survival trait for a species. It would be a highly efficient adaptive quality.
And yes, many Christian leaders have changed thier stance given the evidence. Being homosexual is not a sin, but acting on it is.
Then again, most things are a sin according to scripture so it is likely that a person is ALWAYS in a state of sin.
TheTruePooka 2 years ago
This concept kind of seems to fail due to the fact that it makes the assumption that ONLY environmental adaptation is responsible for life. I also just don't see how the point made can even support a deist god. Just seems like a big fallacy.
The existence of an entity shouldn't be the matter of debate. It should be the matter of research. If the entity claimed to possibly exist has no impact on reality and is basically meaningless speculation, it is just that, meaningless.
mct685 2 years ago
I think if God merely said "here I am", that wouldn't be convincing to anyone, but if the Christian god came down and showed off his Biblical super powers to the world, I think many followers of other faiths would convert along with a good number of atheists.
Naxos99 2 years ago
*sigh*
I enjoy most of your videos, but the scientific inaccuracy of this video really gets to me.
WizardofCalculus 2 years ago
This strikes me as similar to the "why is there altruism, if not for God" argument." Altruism does not necessarily contribute to the survival of an individual or its offspring, but it does contribute on a larger scale. If a population containing gays survives more effectively than one without, it will outproduce the no-gays group.
Samsaptaka 2 years ago
Very very interesting video...
Zakdayak 2 years ago
as well thought out and insightful as many of your other points tend to be....I just don't see where this one even gets off the ground. It is being heralded that they think they have isolated the "homosexual gene". I see it like this....you can be attracted to women...you can be attracted to men. While the traits TEND to follow sex lines, they don't have to. So 10% of the time, a man gets the "attracted to males" gene from his mother. Therefore he turns out to be gay.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
From there, if these men don't reproduce, they don't pass that gene along....but they don't have to. That's not how they got it either. Fact is though, that homosexuals DO reproduce through sperm banks and other means. Being gay doesn't hurt their survival rate, just lowers their reproduction...keeping them a minority.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
I'd have to disagree- homosexual animals may reproduce in their lifetimes, and in fact may excell at reproducing. Homosexual humans often marry and have children. It's only a very small percentage of animals that reject the opposite sex entirely. So why haven't they died out? Well genetics aren't the only factor that determine how we are born- there's also conditions in the womb to consider, and if there is a gene then it could lay dormant or be recessive or something (genetics dunce here).
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago 2
To expand on this, I don't think there is a single "trigger" or "cause" of homosexuality, not is homosexuality a definite trait. To a degree, all humans carry (I think) some capacity of attraction to the same sex - be it appreciation of form in art, a latent bi-curiosity, temporary experimentation, bi-sexuality, and so on to the other side of the spectrum towards full homosexuality. It's like a mixer board on a stereo... but of which can also be shaped by experience and growth.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
So a child can born with the disposition to be hetero, but with and openness to homosexual experience, and still be completely straight due to a strict religious upbringing. Or perhaps they can be born with the disposition a bit more even mix of hetero and homosexual mix, have a strict religious upbringing, and become a heterosexual who enjoys secret weekend "encounters" (such as Ted Haggard).
But it's clear that homosexuality is neither purely a nurture or nature issue.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
In some cases, it's not even an orientation so much as a fetish which draws it's roots from early youth. Though often grouped together in a single "Gay Community" - there is world of difference between a homosexual, a transsexual, and a transvestite. This is why it's not uncommon and is reasonable to see a man with gender identity disorders undergo very invasive surgeries to become a woman - while still being attracted only to women sexually. Gender Identity is separate, but related, to....
Sinuev1 2 years ago
...sexual orientation.
I don't think there is a gay "gene", insomuch as I think it's likely that since homosexuality is so pervasive in the animal kingdom, it's an emergent interplay of very fundamental and basal sexual stimuli.
I think, further, that homosexual emergence could well be a promoted trait in some species as a social bonding/dominance tool. In human culture, we often see "Warrior Groups" like Samurai and Spartans not just being brothers in arms, but lovers as well.
Sinuev1 2 years ago
As one who's a more-straight-than-gay-bisexual-in-a-monogamous-relationship-with-a-tomboyish-wife, I can appreciate that this is a complex issue.
There are hypotheses regarding the cause of orientation, ranging from womb conditions to a polygenetic trait. We still await the data.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
Yeah, there just isn't enough known yet. As curious as I am about a possible "gay gene" I almost hope they don't find it, because you know there are people who have the money and power to find a way to stamp it out.
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago
It wouldn't matter. If there's a "gay gene", then some will suggest gene therapy to get rid of it. If there isn't, then it emboldens those who claim homosexuality is a behavioral "dysfunction" that can be "cured".
In either case, it's not going to stop irrational bigotry. The fact that, whatever the cause, it serves a demonstrable beneficial purpose in both nature and human societies should be enough to reason that it's not some "defect" to be fixed. To say nothing yet of basic human rights...
Sinuev1 2 years ago
Well all that goes without saying, I'm sure :D
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago
Indeed, already the Christians are starting to change their tune given the findings on the nature of sexual orientation. The President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary a few years back declared that homosexuality was not a choice. To him, it's now part of humanity's "fall from grace" and therefore still a "sin" to be fought against. A predictable move really, one we can expect from other Christian leaders in the future.
DeistPaladin 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure natural selection can account for this...
We're all (excluding sociopaths) with an innate sense of empathy--look to the research on mirror neurons here. This sense of empathy EVOLVED because civilization was more beneficial to our genetic proliferation than the alternative independent nomadic lifestyle. Just because an individual's desire to procreate with the opposite sex is non-existent or "turned off", does not mean he or she no longer empathizes, or desires to rear a child.
waketherabble 2 years ago
Not bad.
Still does not account for the natural occurrence of homosexuality in the first place. As anti-gay propaganda groups like to point out "homosexuals cannot reproduce".
As far as evolution theory is concerned homosexuality plays no role in it. Its spawned by a different phenomenon altogether.
jaynkay100 2 years ago
kudos on your preface - well put
ThirdProverb 2 years ago
If you have read the selfish gene then that should give you some answers for your theory.
If the goal is to preserve the same gene and not the individual then all of the activities we see amongst animals make sense. Including gay adoption.
If the only goal was to preserve the individual, wouldn't cannibalistic species be common as the strongest would survive. But for the most part the world most deadly animals do not eat each other.
deathByStupid 2 years ago
Non sequitur flag on the field...
DIRTYDUNNZ 2 years ago
Expanding upon my previous comment. A gay human is interested only in the same sex & hence can be described as a practicing homosexual & is sexually repulsed by the opposite sex. However, in the animal kingdom i don't know if any individual creature performs an homosexual act as a matter of preference. It could be mistaken identity or even a method of "letting off steam" especially as in many societies where only the alpha male is permitted to mate. Do lesbians exist in nature?
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
In a lot of cases you are correct it is to relax the atmosphere and more of a tribal bonding exercise. But that is not always the case. There are animals that are monogamous and also gay (and they are monogamous for life) such as penguins. Gay pengiuns will actually pass on opportunities to copulate with females if they are presented.
And yes lesbians exist in nature. In some pygmy chimpazee societies the majority of sex is between females.
Of course these are just two examples.
deathByStupid 2 years ago
deathbySquid. Ta for that i have learned something. I guess male homosexuality is driven by an overabundance of testosterone. However, I don't wish to sound naive on the lesbian pygmy chimps but one must assume that they (or any lesbians in the animal world) can only be speaking in tongues ..... if you get my drift. How else can it work or are these lesbian relationships merely only companions with no sexual intercourse? Must admit it is not an oft discussed topic but nonetheless interesting.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
Pygmy chimps a somewhat similar to humans in that they have been observed 69ing and the females also do "scissoring". I mean i can't be bothered going back now and finding out about it but i think i remember alot of the sex was like mutual/self masturbation as well.
Pygmy Chimps are a matriarchal society and the sex is used to bond the weak females into a group which they use against the males who are more powerful but do not team up.
deathByStupid 2 years ago
This is a great question & actually provides a challenge as opposed to the easily debunkable dross from Creos. The easy answer to adoption would be that such actions only take place in those organisms that have a highly developed society where compassion has evolved. However, on homosexuality, it would be a great study to see which organisms indulge in this practice. I would point out that in the animal kingdom what you cite as homosexual is actually bi-sexual. Is it just mistaken identity?
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
Why should natural selection not care about orphans? As you should know, most animals that live in groups have a rather close gene pool (in nature. man made facilities does often break this law in our times). Orphans do, actually, have benefit for the adopters, as they, in the time our personality evolved, when close in their gene pool to their adopting parents. Therefor - adopting children means better chance for your genes.
Gay couples, had a better change of preserving their genes this way.
guruyaya 2 years ago
I was thinking about this as well, also adopting children could well be more of a meme passed from body to body rather then parent to child.
The instinct to care for and raise a child is likely genetic, adoption is from living in an area with similar genes, why would gay animals not adopt a child from there local gene pool? simples...
rarrmonkey 2 years ago
From what I understand of deism, if it turned out to be the deist god, deists would not accept him, because the deist god does not do divine intervention.
Heathenfidel 2 years ago
Actually, this might as well be an indirect product of natural selection. Obviously caring for our own and protecting them will be hugely favored by NS.
However if our tendency to care for out family grows so much that it starts covering not only family members, but also strangers, then it seems NS can in fact do this.
diegopmc 2 years ago
I love your videos! But, I am afraid I have to agree that homosexuality in nature gives no reason at all to believe that deism is more likely. If homosexuality can be a reason to believe in deism, than so can black holes, gravity, light, or anything. Why does the homosexuality not fit in a purely materialistic world? Maybe you explained this in the book, I haven't read it.
johnfvick 2 years ago
Good video. I remember seeing it the first time around.
A video I want to see is one where you explain your reasons for believing in a deistic god, your personal philosophy as you said.
That is, specifically, why a purely natural universe is impossible and why supernatural intervention is required.
I say supernatural because I assume that a deistic god's ability to get the ball rolling with the forces of nature required something outside of what is possible in the natural universe.
aderek79 2 years ago
But even if homosexuality would not provide any benefits to others than just to ones in a couple, it would be OK anyway.
I can be a total homeless bum, and no one can command me to become useful.
ricardas83 2 years ago
What does evolution have to do with deism? You just said your belief in a god is unscientific " a personal philosophy". Then why are you bringing science back into this?
kmonster420 2 years ago
homosexuality is partially a side effect of a gene that makes women more fertile
ModelAnarchist 2 years ago
RFD, I'm telling Prof :-)
crazypills2 2 years ago
Evolutionary biologists, such as Steven Pinker, have hypothesized that homosexuals have actually played an important role in evolution, specifically in the care of sibling children.
There are obviously evolutionary benefits to having an additional person to help care for the children of a sibling, especially if the father of the children dies. The homosexual sibling of the mother (especially if male) can then provide for the well-being of the children and help ensure their survival.
crazypills2 2 years ago 2
Oops, I meant to say that Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist...sorry.
crazypills2 2 years ago
they've actually done research that shows the female relatives of gay and bi men have more children suggesting that genes influencing sexual orientation in men also make women more likely to reproduce.
carnut666 2 years ago
Interesting point carnut666. Do you have a reference for the study?
Thanks.
Steve
crazypills2 2 years ago
theres an article on it on the newscientist site
i just typed in "female relatives of gay men have more children" on google and it was the second article
carnut666 2 years ago
I was going to mention this, but you beat me to it.
It seems as if there is a gene or gene sequence that is selected for, which can express itself either as increase fertility or homosexuality. The increased fertility selects for the gene.
The study suggests females become more fertile and their male siblings become homosexual.
I wonder if male siblings of lesbian women have higher sperm counts?
Or if their female siblings are also more productive?
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
Thanks carnu666
crazypills2 2 years ago
How about "group selection"? Individual natural selection isn't the only form of natural selection.
And is your position that a Deistic god somehow infused homosexuality in nature then? Why?
ILYIAB 2 years ago
Question: How do you contrast Deism with Naturalistic Pantheism?
Thank you for your wonderful and thought provoking videos.
TheNewRenaissance 2 years ago 2
Deism has a dead God, i.e. deists believe that there was some initial cause to the creation of the universe and can call it "God" but nothing more can be deduced from that. Whatever "God" is - who cares? No one runs the universe, it runs itself, so God is kinda like dead.
Pantheism is the belief that Nature is arranged in a rational/harmonious way and that everything that exists is made of Nature. So Nature gives rise to everything, it is like "God" in that sense.
ArtinEmil 2 years ago 2
Your premise does not make sense. I am trained in evolutionary biology, and we know populations evolve, not individuals. Whatever helps the population as a whole is what is selected for.
Knowing the above, we see bees, naked mole rats, wolves, and so on, where individuals often give up temporarily, and even permanently, the rights to reproduce.
In wolves we see this in alpha couples where the non-alphas do not mate, and only help in hunting and taking care of the young from the alphas..
Lagomort 2 years ago 4
Next,.. in naked mole rats we see something like we more often see in the in the invertebrate world where there is a queen, and a set of workers. The workers are working for the good of the whole, and not for individual reproductive rights...
Bees and ants are highly specialized versions of this and are the true kinds (or queens) of this behavior,,,
Now why is the above selective?
We need to compare "carrying capacity" to possible "reproductive rates" and "population density"..
Lagomort 2 years ago 4
Continued again:
Now, if a population needs separate individuals to do differing jobs, then there is selective pressure to support a certain population density relative to the carrying capacity of the environment.
The problem comes from when the growth rate of the individual is too high at such a density to support such an explosion that would result.
The end result can vary, but often selective events that increases the population, but decrease the growth rates overall are selected...
Lagomort 2 years ago 4
Finally:
This leaves a few option selectively speaking, and some individuals being active members of society that do not add to the population growth can, and will be selected for in this situation.
Basically put, it helps preserve the desired population density at a certain carrying capacity, or decreases the population growth relative to population density...
Lagomort 2 years ago 4
Excellent points Lagomort.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Thanks..
Lagomort 2 years ago
@lagomort
very good points, although i must contend against one point. it is the genes that are passed on, the population is the environment the genes must survive in. social populations can tackle larger prey, fend off more predators, and due to closer inbreeding than nomadic individuals are often helping their own genes survive despite individual sacrifice.
from my understanding, homosexual behaviour is only seen in social species and so is a likely mechanism for social cohesion.
bignastydragon 2 years ago
bignasty...
Populations change genetically speaking,.. individuals do not. Genes are in individuals. A population usually has numerous alleles of a gene with varying frequencies of over time. This is why evolution works on population but never works on individuals or individual genes.
There may be a chance you are self taught here and do not quite understand the jargon, and its implications.
Lagomort 2 years ago 2
i am self taught on evolution, i have a BSc with multiple 2nd/3rd year modules covering genetics.
i agree mostly with what you say but i guess i am looking from a slightly different viewpoint. alleles are essentially immortal and their effect on phenotype and therefore an individuals survival within a population decide its continuation.
maybe i just disagree with the words you use, i'm certain i agree with your idea.
bignastydragon 2 years ago 2
An allele is not immortal. It can be removed from a population if selection, or even Drift so allows.
I am not so sure what you were against in my wordings. Populations evolve, not individuals. This is evolutionary bio 101. We refer to evolution as a change in gene frequency in a population (this means a gene and its alleles, which is sorta relative which is which).
The population is not the environment. A population may have needs and behaviors that are part of the organisms environment.
Lagomort 2 years ago
maybe this is the difference a formal education makes on the subject.
i still believe i have the seed of an idea, yet not the time spent thinking on it to know truely if it has merit or not.
thanks for the dialogue.
bignastydragon 2 years ago
If there is some sort of intelligent 'god', then this god has to be an irresponsible asshole for creating this mess.
laffer35 2 years ago
that was awesomely wonderful. What do you think of stories of wild animals adopting human babies? There have been a few cases of feral children in our history, even making it into mythology and present day literature. A few years ago an abandoned baby was found being nursed by a stray dog.
ddpl365 2 years ago
I've been openly gay for over 30 years and I've only met one gay male couple that are raising kids together. That's a pretty small percentage.
I would say from my observation however that gays are more likely to do volunteer work.
cavejourney 2 years ago