the first homosexual

[Kuciwalker]

On the other hand, there is shared genetics... in that all these creatures are sexed.

Even the genetics of sex vary from species to species! Not all animals use XY; birds and amphibians and fish and insects all have different systems.

Homosexuality also deals with sex.. so it is very reasonable to think hat it would be in the sex genes where there is commonality.

See above. There's no commonality on sex* itself between species in the first place.

* by which I mean gender, except gender is only supposed to apply to words

I think that it is generally thought that sex decended evolutionary and wasn't the result of covergent evolution.

Sexual reproduction obviously didn't. But the particular mechanism for recognizing what is the right thing to have sex with? How could that have any commonality between humans and fruit flies?

[Jon Miller]

They identify male and female the same way as usual (species dependent), but which are recognized to have sex with change from the female to male (at the sex location)?

I see your issue now though. You think that it is an issue of identification, while I think it is an issue of sex.

And I am pretty sure that the current theory is that our (mammal) sex genes descended from bird/reptiles.. it's not like they are completely different.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

It's obviously an identification problem...

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's obviously an identification problem...

It isn't in humans. Rather in humans it is a sex issue.. not a not determining the right sex.

I know, I made the connection to complicated humans.. just giving an example (even if not a good one).

I personally woudl go for the simpliest explanation, which is that it isn't an identifiication issue but rather a sex issue. Also, if it was an identifictation issue you wouldn't see homosexuality as much as some sort of xenosexuality (not the right word.. sexual interest in other species/etc).

JM

[Kuciwalker]

I personally woudl go for the simpliest explanation, which is that it isn't an identifiication issue.

... except that it's obviously an identification issue. Except you seem to be using the word differently from me. I'm talking about the mapping between "male/female" and "should/should not have sex with", not "picture of guy/girl" and "male/female". Since "male/female" is completely different in different species, it's implausible that the mapping is done by a common mechanism.

[Jon Miller]

Huh?

You dont' make any sense.

Identification is what is female, what is male, what is prey, etc.

If it is an identification issue, then it is very complicated (and as you point out different, as identification is very different for different species) as identiication is very complicated. And if there is a common mixup with male/female identication.. why isn't there such with prey/female?

On the other hand, the "what do I do with a male/female" is fundamental (and obviously descending) to all sexed creatures. This is a very simple thing compared to identification, it seems to me. This would also share commonality... which would allow a simpler explanation (what scientists always prefer!). It would also explain why it is homosexuality in particular that we observe as being so common.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I personally woudl go for the simpliest explanation, which is that it isn't an identifiication issue.

... except that it's obviously an identification issue. Except you seem to be using the word differently from me. I'm talking about the mapping between "male/female" and "should/should not have sex with", not "picture of guy/girl" and "male/female". Since "male/female" is completely different in different species, it's implausible that the mapping is done by a common mechanism.

You suggestion that "what do I do with female/male" didn't descend evolutionary is rediculous.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

I can't parse that sentence.

[Jon Miller]

It is inherent to the idea of male/female of sex between male and female (and my hypothesis is that there is a common mutation that causes this action to get reversed). So it is obvious that it is related throughout all creatures that have sex.

I think you are mixing up male/female with how do I identify male/female.

JM
(My understanding is that the common hypothesis is that it is genetic (as I described) but instead of being a common mutation is selected for in some common anscestor (and has continued to be selected for). This also seems to me to be reasonable.)
(Once more though, my ideas is based on Nature/Science level stuff that I have read in the last decade. My hypothesis might already be killed in the laboratory.)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


The natural homosexuality rate (among humans, and currently) seems to be about 10%, that doesn't seem to be universal...

Who came up with this figure of 10% ?

Ever wonder how they calculated it ?

Given the existence of civil laws outlawing homosexuality and the hostility of some organised religions towards manifestations or expressions of same-sex relationships, don't expect this much-quoted '10%' to be in any way an accurate reflection of how many people in different societies across the world either identify as being gay or lesbian or bisexual or admit to themselves or others to having had a same-sex experience or relationship.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


like the one I'm quoting?

Oh my, it's Poland's would-be queen of mean.


Your comments never get any wittier, do they ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


There is evidence that increased pollution results in increased observations of homosexuallity in animals.

JM

I think there's more evidence to suggest that many scientists simply weren't admitting to themselves that they had previously witnessed same sex sexual activity in the wild amongst species other than humans.


Not surprising given the illegality of homosexuality in many countries across the world and the religious strictures against it.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Who came up with this figure of 10% ?

Ever wonder how they calculated it ?

Given the existence of civil laws outlawing homosexuality and the hostility of some organised religions towards manifestations or expressions of same-sex relationships, don't expect this much-quoted '10%' to be in any way an accurate reflection of how many people in different societies across the world either identify as being gay or lesbian or bisexual or admit to themselves or others to having had a same-sex experience or relationship.

]

I think a lot of people have had a same-sex experience. That does not make one homosexual. (especially not genetically, which is what we have been discussing recently) However, if you look at sexual practices/etc, there is a pretty clear cut distinction, according to the research I have seen.

I personally don't think that bisexuality is genetic based (unlike homosexuality/heterosexuality).

I also have heard numbers all over the place (from 2% to 100%), but most real research I have seen puts it about 10%. This includes for other societies that aren't western.

JM
(edit: I said majority, but that is stupid. The statistic was a straight person averaged .5 same sex partners... of course, some will have a small number, some will have 1, and most will have 0. I am not sure how they determined who was homosexual or not in this study (the homosexuals did average for more same sex sexual partners thoguh).)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I think there's more evidence to suggest that many scientists simply weren't admitting to themselves that they had previously witnessed same sex sexual activity in the wild amongst species other than humans.


Not surprising given the illegality of homosexuality in many countries across the world and the religious strictures against it.

There was some bird that had a very clear correlation. I dont' remember the name of the bird right now, I beleive it is found in europe.

JM

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


There was some bird that had a very clear correlation. I dont' remember the name of the bird right now, I beleive it is found in europe.

JM

That's all a bit too vague for me.