How does science explain homosexuality?

Glitch in evolution.

>>7808123
Having extra males around for labor, hunting, and protection without having them compete for females is a huge evolutionary advantage for populations

The Greeks and Romans damned our race forever.

>>7808129
But won't they then compete for other males, wasting the same amount of time
>Inb4 no because their are very few homosexuals
Well then not much is being contributed then

>>7808129
Broscience general? Seriously, I challenge you to find even three sources that explicitly support your claim here.

>>7808129
Even if what you say is true, the gay guys wouldn't pass on that gay gene... Granted if we're assuming gayness to be genetic but that's another argument

>>7808154

The fuck are you talking about?

Look, having extra males around in a hunter-gatherer society is beneficial for the reasons I already mentioned. However, having too high of a male to female ratio is a very good predictor of social instability. So having a certain percentage of men being gay gives you the benefits of extra muscle without the social instability.

>>7808123
It's actually a pretty fascinating question. The best explanation currently is that it's biochemical and is hereditary through epigenetic marking mechanisms, rather than genetics. Nucleic acids are "marked" in all sorts of ways inside the cell to control how genes are expressed. These chemical additions to a DNA sequence are preserved in DNA replication and therefore cell division. The idea is that the trait of homosexuality is passed from fathers to daughters, and mothers to sons. Males with DNA modifications to protect against testosterone underexposure in the womb will pass this on (most likely) to their offspring, increasing the chances of a homosexual girl. A similar system of DNA modification protects females in the womb from testosterone overexposure, and this would be passed on from the mother to the son -- increasing the chances of a homosexual male.

It makes a lot of sense that it would be due to gene control, rather than genetics altogether since homosexuals can't reproduce and therefore propagate their genome.

File: 1440506585273.png (573KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1024x576px

>>7808157
>gay gene

>>7808176
Also, aside from the heritable nature of homosexuality, I should add that the ultimate factor seems to be testosterone exposure in the womb. In the case of males, this is why fraternal birth order is strongly correlated to homosexuality.

>>7808129
how explain lesbians

when 2 hotties do scissoring, i am suddenly get boner, bang fatty instead, make babies, propogate species

indeed

>>7808123
recent sociological research suggests Homosexuality exists on a spectrum and is not binary (vice did a story about it a while ago).

...suggesting that if you are exclusively gay or seiously homophobic, there is likely also a psychological factor at play.

lol

>>7808176
So it's kind of emergent behavior from crossing of reproductive conditions that separately create androphiles and gynophiles?

>>7808353
That's the theory, yes. Prenatal androgen exposure has a lot of effects on the individual.

An individual's digit-ratio, length of index finger compared to ring finger, is a way to crudely estimate exposure to androgens in the uterus.
Here's a neat chart that correlates behavioral traits with digit ratio:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio#Correlation_between_digit_ratio_and_traits

>>7808123
Try the gay uncle theory. A mother and father both have kids but must both work to bring up kid. Neither parent has time to spend with kid, but a gay uncle who has no kids of his own has plenty of time to spend with the kids to raise them and care for their safety while the parents are out making money.

Are you born with knowledge of what humans look like? No - according to science, your neurons imprint your parents and later your own body as models of 'human.'

The words 'male' and 'female' are also just one way of understanding the difference between the sexes. Traditionally, the concept 'human' was 100% restricted to a man - women were considered a different species. Alternately, they've been conceived as two sides of the same coin created by dividing a whole - such as in Daoism.

Your brain doesn't think in these words natively. Somehow, you have biases in mate selection - if this is nature rather than nurture, it's quite a question how such specific sexual signals became innately stimulating. But we can guess it has something to do with genetically encoded neural circuits which wait for a highly specific pattern of neural register activation.

Presumably, these neural circuits would be formed differently in heterosexual men and women. Homosexuality would be the development of opposite-sex neural circuits. This is supported by studies where young mice were given opposite sex hormones, and went on to display homosexual mate selection and opposite sex behavior.

This is all controlled by hormone levels, which respond to social signals in mammals. So, men who don't get to dominate a social group will develop in a more feminine manner, and the younger their deprivation from power begins the stronger the effects.

Environmental mixed with a mental disorder.

>>7809056
>women were considered a different species.
When? Where?

>>7809082

To the Norse, Askr, the first man, was made from ash; Embla, the first woman, was made from elm.

The mentality survives today as cooties.

>>7808123
"Shit happens."

Pretty much the same DNA builds both humans that are attracted to men and humans are attracted to women, and people can't be completely turned off by their own sex or they'll be disgusted every time they masturbate because their genitals are a turnoff. The human body only has about 35 megabytes of DNA code to fit sex-linked traits in, and most of that's junk (and the instructions for making a junk); with how complicated the brain is, are you really surprised that there's overlap?

>>7808174
However, having too high of a male to female ratio is a very good predictor of social instability.
Like Sweden?
Luckily native Swedish men are becoming more and more gay to compensate

File: 1453624541689.png (394KB, 482x618px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 482x618px

Listened to a physicist ,whose name I can't recall, give a free will lecture on youtube .One of his big arguments on why abandoning the idea of free will is good would be because it would help the acceptance of homosexuality.I can see the social value of accepting gayness but found it odd that this man of science could overlook that it seemingly contradicts basic biology as a reason why some people might find homosexuality as odd

>>7809206
>seemingly contradicts basic biology

People do things that feel good, dicks don't go numb just because they're touching a dude, there's no way DNA can possibly code for "only get a boner when you see a girl", and the prostate exists. Not seeing any biological obstacles here.

Any objections on grounds of "but it's a massive design flaw!" are both assigning way more intelligence and purpose to evolution than is reasonable, and drastically underestimating how much of an evolutionary leap would be required to make sexual attraction somehow absolutely gender-locked instead of just mostly, and overestimating the selection pressure here.

>>7808123
Feels good man

>>7808176
So its nature's way of population control, well, glad im not hit by it

its not like things evolve to accomplish something.
its the other way.
things who accomplish something come out.
being gay is no disadvantage for the group it seems like but it does mean it has a "purpose"

>>7808176
You forgot to mention the theorized evolutionary benefit that caused this strange phenomenon, apparently woman who have this trait also produce more offspring then woman who don't. It's more likely to occur in families that have had a lot of children in the past versus the families that don't which explains the every brother increasing the chances of a homosexual occurrence.

>>7808157
>gay gene
It's a virus, not a gene.

>>7808174
Except that today's gay community is a social construct. During the Greek and Roman times, men would have both homosexual and heterosexual relations. This behavior of being only gay happened very recently, and probably because homosexuality was shunned by the church for so long that it became a thing by itself.

So homosexuality wouldn't have brought more muscle without competition because men who had homosexual relations would also want to procreate.

Let's suppose science proves gay is a disease, that all gays are destroying our society and that humanity will die thanks for them. What do you think it would happen? People would go crazy, witch hunt on said scientists that proved that. Thing is, this is a realm science will never go against, even with proof in their hands, just because people wouldn't accept it.

>>7808135
Why, because they built up civilisations? Things like homosexuality arise from prosperity

>>7808123
>explain
I think it's about time for you to meet the term "philosophy of science." Start with the raven paradox and work from there.

>>7808123
it doesn't. homosexuality is always a personal choice of a perverted degenerate. i like traps and i browse /fit/, i'm also an engineer at nasa, yet for me to become gay would have to involve my personal choice. all in all i would say i'm definitely not a gay and that homosexuality should be punished by law again. because when it was illegal, homosexuality did not exist.

>>7809344
Thoes were caucasins, they are natrally fucked up race and homosexuals

File: 7550629.jpg (51KB, 938x477px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 938x477px

>>7809493
>i like traps and i browse /fit/,
>i'm also an engineer at nasa,

File: 1431310683993.jpg (34KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 375x375px

>>7809493
>engineer at nasa
>doesn't capitalise the start of his sentences
>thinks being gay is a choice

>>7809598
>>7809746
aside from your obvious latent homosexuality, the autism runs strong in both of you.

To prevent overpopulation?

>>7810054
Loose association has no place on this board.