1. Comment #162973 by HourglassMemory on April 17, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Thank God an issue like that is coming out!

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

2. Comment #162975 by Mitchell Gilks on April 17, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Oh, oh, oh...but the earth isn't perfectly round (*ducks beer bottle*)

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

3. Comment #162979 by jo5ef on April 17, 2008 at 6:35 pm

"If you think you understand it, you don't know nearly enough about it"
I know what the writer means, but i think this comment encapsulates whats wrong with the way science is sometimes presented in the public arena. It is intepreted as "you lowly peasants should not even bother to try to understand important scientific concepts". I dont think Darwin or Dawkins would agree, or why have they written books targetted at lay audiences?

Other Comments by jo5ef

4. Comment #162991 by babrock on April 17, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Small question.
W/in t text under t 1st heading "Everything is an adaptation produced by nat. sel." it states "Homosexuality mite be linked to gene variation that increase fertility in females"

Does not this mean that t sisters, mothers and t odd female offspring of gay men should tend to be more fertile than that of non gay men?

I have never heard of any such thing

Other Comments by babrock

5. Comment #162992 by Count von Count on April 17, 2008 at 7:18 pm

Fascinating.

I have recently been thinking that rather than having articles and debates on "evolution vs. creation," it might be more useful to put our energies into having articles like this one that simply explain evolution. Remember the wonder you felt when you first started to understand evolution? The next time you are about to get in the old "e.v.c" debate with someone, maybe try taking a time out to just explain to them the basic ideas. Try to make them see the beauty rather than shoot down their ideas. (If anyone tries this, let me know about your results!)

The subtitle echoes a bumper sticker I thought of (which could perhaps be made a bit more catchy):
"Don't believe in evolution? Maybe you just don't understand it."

Other Comments by Count von Count

6. Comment #163002 by Goldy on April 17, 2008 at 7:52 pm

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
Maybe detractors and IDiots care to read teh damn thing for themselves before thinking (not, I admit, something they partake of too much)
Indeed, there is no excuse not to know everything
http://darwin-online.org.uk/

Other Comments by Goldy

7. Comment #163005 by theantitheist on April 17, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Remember the wonder you felt when you first started to understand evolution?

Must say that i was bored about it, i was learning all the science stuff in school and you just tend to learn it and get on it with it.

I think this is why it's so important to keep ID out of the classroom. If i'd had mixed signals maybe i'd have been more resistant to it rather then just accept it as fact (I know this runs in parrallel with indoctrination but..). In the same way i've never checked how accurate WWII was, it was presented as fact and i have had no reason since to challange the fundamental facts.

Other Comments by theantitheist

8. Comment #163010 by bentleyd on April 17, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Great article! Unfortunately from NewScientist.com it's just preaching to the choir.

Other Comments by bentleyd

9. Comment #163012 by akado on April 17, 2008 at 8:16 pm

YES!
awesome article!
I need this to hit on some christians around here that I have just bartely brought on the brink of giving up their religion! X3

Other Comments by akado

10. Comment #163013 by dragonfirematrix on April 17, 2008 at 8:19 pm

In response to the article, my opinion is: The Christians of America have no interest about the facts of life on planet Earth. They care not about proven evidence. Christians are only interested in the adherence of everyone to their fantasies and imaginary saviors.

Lets face it. There is almost zero hope for planet Earth.

Today, I listened to police, lawyers, and policy makers all of whom are having problems with the prospects of charging (let alone convicting) anyone in the Texas polygamy scandal. Repeatedly, I kept hearing stuff about religion, sects, and beliefs. It appeared that the social workers have their hands tied by the courts.

If America cannot convict the religious of child abuse because the beliefs of the religious preach the practices, then how can any of the religious (or conservative policy wonks) ever understand The Law of Evolution?

Hey, if religion does wrong, it is okay as long as it is faith-based. With the size of that Texas religious compound and community, I would guess the money for all of structures were flowing in even during the Texas governorship controlled by George W. Bush.

This is what I learned today.

I wish Pat Condell would do one of his fiery articles on religion in America. Pat, we need you.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

11. Comment #163025 by Damien White on April 17, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Comment 4 by babrock:

"mothers and t odd female offspring of gay men should tend to be more fertile"

Um, they're gay. There won't BE any offspring. Tends to be a fundamental flaw in the, er, design....

Other Comments by Damien White

12. Comment #163040 by Mitchell Gilks on April 17, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Homosexuality isn't restricted to males, and there is absolutely nothing that says homosexuals can't reproduce or have offspring. In case you haven't noticed, a good chunk of the majority of people are unattractive. It is not strange, or in anyway unheard of for people to have offspring with people they are not attracted to.

Because of the stigma against homosexuality by society, straight people tend to be adverse to the idea of even getting near a member of the same sex, untop of not being attracted to them. I am not sure, but I doubt this translates to the other extreme. I don't think there is a social stigma against homosexuals being near or having sex with members of the opposite sex, so I don't see a reason why they would be anymore adverse to the idea then they would be of having sex with anyone they don't find attractive. I could be wrong about that last part though, and it likely varies between people.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

13. Comment #163050 by secondsoprano on April 17, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Um, they're gay. There won't BE any offspring.

Oh for FSM sake. We did this to death already in another thread. Can someone post a link?

Homosexuality. Infertility. Totally different things. OK?

Other Comments by secondsoprano

14. Comment #163053 by Christopher Davis on April 17, 2008 at 11:07 pm

"With the size of that Texas religious compound and community, I would guess the money for all of structures were flowing in even during the Texas governorship controlled by George W. Bush."---dogfirematrix #10

Sorry dogfire, can't blame this one on W. I'm pretty sure the majority of the people living in that compound came from Colorado City, Arizona, and I'm almost positive that is where most of the money came from. The FLDS has been fleecing the state of Arizona out of money for the past 70 years.

The compound in Texas was supposed to be a new "kingdom" for Warren Jeffs and his followers. Of course Jeffs got arrested last year for facilitating marriages between underage girls and 40-50 year old men. I haven't been following this story since I got called to active duty last Oct., but a little googling using "Warren Jeffs" and "Colorado City, Arizona" should make for some interesting reading if you are so inclined.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

15. Comment #163054 by Damien White on April 17, 2008 at 11:12 pm

secondsoprano:

"Homosexuality. Infertility. Totally different things. OK?"

Never said they weren't. It's just that Male-to-male or female-to-female sex will not produce offspring.

Other Comments by Damien White

16. Comment #163055 by riki on April 17, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Get yourself a gay couple, a lesbian couple and a turkey baster. Then before you know it, you've got a baby with four parents.

Other Comments by riki

17. Comment #163056 by secondsoprano on April 17, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Never said they weren't. It's just that Male-to-male or female-to-female sex will not produce offspring.

True but irrelevant. What you said was that homosexuals would not have any offspring. This is self-evidently not true.

Take me for example: I'm homosexual, I have a child. My genes (including, for the sake of argument, my "gay" genes) are being passed on.

Homosexually orientated people have always been just as physically capable of producing offspring as bisexually and heterosexually oriented people. Whether they do that by heterosexual sex, turkey baster, etc doesn't change the fact that they are homosexual.

Other Comments by secondsoprano

18. Comment #163057 by secondsoprano on April 17, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Get yourself a gay couple, a lesbian couple and a turkey baster. Then before you know it, you've got a baby with four parents.

... two of whom are homosexuals who have "produced offspring" in the biological sense.

Other Comments by secondsoprano

19. Comment #163058 by Sargeist on April 17, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Goldy said:

Indeed, there is no excuse not to know everything

Especially not in the Google Age. But this does mean that I end up always saying: "Does anyone know..., oh, ok, I'll look it up myself."

Other Comments by Sargeist

20. Comment #163061 by Greyman on April 17, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Homosexuality does not prohibit mating with the opposite sex, just biases against choosing to do so.

If the genetic contributor in males also causes increased fertility in female offspring then there's a long term cancelling effect.

It would then become a trade off between decreased chance of replication in male generations versus an increased chance of replication in subsequent female ones.

Other Comments by Greyman

21. Comment #163064 by Damien White on April 17, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Any children produced by heterosexual reproduction at the behest of or for the benefit of gay couples are still produced heterosexually.

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.

Other Comments by Damien White

22. Comment #163065 by secondsoprano on April 18, 2008 at 12:03 am

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.

It is not an ideology. Take your homophobia to some other board. It is not welcome here.

Other Comments by secondsoprano

23. Comment #163073 by Darwin's badger on April 18, 2008 at 12:31 am

Comment #163064 by Damien White on April 17, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Any children produced by heterosexual reproduction at the behest of or for the benefit of gay couples are still produced heterosexually.

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.

Ideology? WTF are you on?

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

24. Comment #163084 by DavidJGrossman on April 18, 2008 at 1:18 am

"It is not an ideology. Take your homophobia to some other board. It is not welcome here."

You are obviously unaware of the homosexual agenda:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28970

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

25. Comment #163085 by PeterRobertson on April 18, 2008 at 1:19 am

You could imagine a genetic variant that would increase a woman's fertility by more than (say) 10% and have the side effect that 10% of her descendants would be homosexual.

Whether or not the homosexuals produced offspring, the variant would confer a net advantage and so could be propagated by the increased number of reproducing offspring.

Other Comments by PeterRobertson

26. Comment #163087 by Daniel Palmer on April 18, 2008 at 1:28 am

From the article:

Most [mutations] make no difference to our bodies, because most of our DNA is useless junk anyway.

It's a little ironic that this article, in purporting to dispel misconceptions about evolution, furthers another.

Even if 'junk' DNA has no apparent morphological, phenotypic effect, that is not to say that it serves no purpose.

Grrr.

Other Comments by Daniel Palmer

27. Comment #163091 by NJS on April 18, 2008 at 1:34 am

Correct me if I'm wrong but the research on homosexuality showed that the SIBLINGS of homosexual men were on average more fertile than those of heterosexuals.

Other Comments by NJS

28. Comment #163095 by Ygern on April 18, 2008 at 1:42 am

This is a very interesting collection of articles.

The comments section on New Scientist are a bit depressing. So many idiots rushed in to defend their various gods as if articles in a Science Journal were an affront to their dignity.

Other Comments by Ygern

29. Comment #163114 by Bueller_007 on April 18, 2008 at 2:32 am

"The comments section on New Scientist are a bit depressing. So many idiots rushed in to defend their various gods as if articles in a Science Journal were an affront to their dignity."


This is what happens when the IDiots at Uncommon Descent link to an article.

I'd almost recommend going over there now to see some of the laughable comments. (Some people are even defending Biblical inerrancy.)

Of course, those of us with the faculty of reason are not able to comment on that blog because they screen all the posts. I believe my Uncommon Descent account was blocked merely for linking to http://expelledexposed.com/">Expelled.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

30. Comment #163116 by fretmeister on April 18, 2008 at 2:37 am

I usually get the magazine.

Can't see it changes anything though - I don't see many people picking it up with their copy of 'Nuts'

Shame really - the mag is a pretty good read most of the time.

Other Comments by fretmeister

31. Comment #163147 by riki on April 18, 2008 at 3:08 am

It's great to see that New Scientist have published an article on this. Though I'm sure they'll take some heat from the Creationists.

btw who was it that said they wanted to be a fruit fly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7350403.stm

Other Comments by riki

32. Comment #163152 by Mitchell Gilks on April 18, 2008 at 3:09 am

I highly doubt that there are "gay genes". I am unaware of any significant evidence of homosexuality being hereditary. Also, the whole idea of a preference being genetic sounds rediculous to me.

That said, I don't think that heterosexuality is genetic either. Merely sexuality, and sexual preferences, I think are likely developed at a very young age. For whatever reason, 90% aim them toward the opposite sex, while 10% aim them toward the same sex.

I think that the idea that is is genetic is latched unto with vigour, so they can just claim "see, it's not my fault, I can't help it. I was born this way." Without realizing that is a non-issue, and doesn't matter. Even if people just arbitrarily decided to be homosexuals, I still fail to see a rational case to be made why there would be anything wrong with that. I think that too many homosexuals are buying into the complete non sequitur that if they could help it, or even it wasn't genetic, that would be somehow bad.

Now, I could be wrong, it could be genetic, I just highly doubt it. Unless someone can demonstrate evidence of it's hereditary transmission. In fact, I would take any demonstration of the hereditary transmission of any preference, as evidence that at least preferences can be hereditary.

I also don't think that it is a conscious decision, as I don't think that any preference is. They are developed over time, and not something we have control over. Though I really don't see how it would matter in the slightest if we did.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

33. Comment #163157 by bamboospitfire on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 am

Mitchell Gilks - on what basis do you say that the shape of the Earth is not round? I agree that it is not perfectly spherical, but if we're going to be pedantic let's get it right. ;-)

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

34. Comment #163159 by Darwin's badger on April 18, 2008 at 3:19 am

MG, you seem to be suggesting that sexuality is merely the product of environment. Do you have any evidence to base that upon, or is it just a gut feeling?

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

35. Comment #163181 by Michael Le Page on April 18, 2008 at 3:53 am

Those of you commenting on sexuality might want to read this one first:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

Daniel Palmer, I think you'll find I haven't got it wrong on junk DNA. I'm not saying all non-coding DNA is junk, just that most of it is. Follow the "useless junk" link in that article for the evidence:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13616-evolution-myths-natural-selection-is-the-only-means-of-evolution.html

Other Comments by Michael Le Page

36. Comment #163224 by Apathy personified on April 18, 2008 at 4:36 am

First, well done to new scientist, so many 'rebuttals' (i use this word in the loosest possible term) to evolution stem from a lack of understanding of it, though there will always be a core of people who refuse to accept the facts.
Second, i think MG has a very good point is all that he said, but could it be that there is no 'gay gene' so to speak, but it is certain combinations of genes that may give preference one way or the other?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

37. Comment #163246 by Chris Mayer on April 18, 2008 at 5:09 am

Love this article, especially for the head slapping realisation on the 'mutations can only lose information' point. If a a mutation can lose information, logically a reversion is a gain in information. Well doh! How did this never occur to me before?

As an evolutionary layman, it is always wonderful to find such a succinctly beautiful rebuttal such as that.

Other Comments by Chris Mayer

38. Comment #163295 by babrock on April 18, 2008 at 6:39 am

All t discusion regarding procreation involvig gay men not withstanding;I did not get anything like an answer to my question, so I will ask it again.

Is t writer stating that female relitives of gay men are more fertile? Actualy it reads to me like it was a mere hypothisis, one of a few that could explain t presence of "gay" genes. (I realy do not want t start anything on that issue)

I am simply unclear on how much, if at all, t writer is making that assertian.

Other Comments by babrock

39. Comment #163302 by discipline on April 18, 2008 at 6:59 am

Ygern: "The comments section on New Scientist are a bit depressing."

Indeed. My favorite is this one:

Physical fields propagating at the speed of light are preceded by nonlocal electric and magnetic potentials.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect )

God is the sum of these potentials. Subtle is the Lord.

That's a new one! It's amazing how adept creationists are at sounding scientific without needing to do any actual science. It's all about marketing the meme -- which they've had 2,000 years to perfect.

Great series of articles though -- succinct and convincing.

Other Comments by discipline

40. Comment #163306 by babrock on April 18, 2008 at 7:11 am

My wife says that she has read of there being a tendency for female siblings (like NJS was stating) of gay men to feel t need to make up for t lack of procreativeness in their family. She understood it to be more psychological rather than genetic tho.

Along those same lines, she noted a tendency for couples who adopt because of infertility, to bear a child soon after t adoption. T presure is off.

Neither of these is a genetic issue. Tho in t former case, I think it could explain how whatever "gay" gene there is getting put out there.

Other Comments by babrock

41. Comment #163307 by discipline on April 18, 2008 at 7:12 am

Here's another gem from the comments section in the New Scientist:

http://www.askdarwinists.com/

It appears to be written by a Turkish creationist -- you know, from the only country more ignorant of evolutionary biology than the US.

Looking at that site reminds me of our friend Dinesh D'Souza's immortal phrase: "I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony." Where to start?

Other Comments by discipline

42. Comment #163310 by AmericanGodless on April 18, 2008 at 7:20 am

Mitchell Gilks, bamboospitfire, & others interested in the pedantic issue of "the Earth is (not) round": I have long thought it amusing to note that if the Earth were a billiard ball, it would fail Brunswick's tolerances for sphericity, but pass for smoothness (just barely).

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

43. Comment #163321 by jayalenik on April 18, 2008 at 7:42 am

Babrock

The c s the d e w the r t . A i h the p o g the i t the s .

I hope that clears things up.

Other Comments by jayalenik

44. Comment #163322 by phasmagigas on April 18, 2008 at 7:42 am

Homosexuality does not prohibit mating with the opposite sex, just biases against choosing to do so.

If the genetic contributor in males also causes increased fertility in female offspring then there's a long term cancelling effect.

It would then become a trade off between decreased chance of replication in male generations versus an increased chance of replication in subsequent female ones.

its an interesting hypothesis or sure, as homosexuality (bisexuality?) seem to be goverened in part by the maternal hormonal conditions??????? and this is determined genetically and influences the mothers own fertility and that of her offspring subsequently.

its amazing that if the connection were true then homosexuality is merely a collateral condition as such, quite amazing, enough of that burn in hell choice nonsense. if true iit would be interesting to see if the most fertile women CAUSE homosexuality.

I must admit its an iteresting thing in its own right how members of one sex supposedly primed to be attracted to he opposite sex do not in the case of homosexuals, and indeed in talking to gay men they seem to be even more 'into' other men than are women, but thats probably just men generally. its almost fetishistic, where the guy will focus very heavily on a particular body trait, im not sure women do that, well not overtly anyway.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

45. Comment #163331 by phasmagigas on April 18, 2008 at 7:53 am

Any children produced by heterosexual reproduction at the behest of or for the benefit of gay couples are still produced heterosexually.

Natural selection of any such children will not be affected by the ideology of their parents.

I bet a man who considers himself exclusievly homosexual could stil impregnate a woman, given enough coaxing and stimulation, drugs etc (sounds like a party) id be surpised if he couldnt maintain an erection to orgasm esp. with a very attractive woman(I am NOT suggesting that gay men can be made straight, its just that men seem very sexually charged and for known evolutionary reasons). Maybe im wrong but remember supposedly straight men will have homosexual encounters in differing situations, im guessing men more than women are more open to sex generally, with who ever.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

46. Comment #163376 by sidfaiwu on April 18, 2008 at 8:58 am

The comments below the misconceptions on New Scientist's website are infected with IDiots! We need some people with actual knowledge about evolution to counter their IDioticy. I lack the knowledge to be effective in countering all the errors.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

47. Comment #163484 by padster1976 on April 18, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Er, did Damien White actually call homosexuality an 'ideology'?

Are you kidding me?!

Damien,

Lets get this, er, straight...

An ideology, or, a base ideas and ideals that go to form the platform of economic or political theories as well as the set of beliefs and characteristics of a particular social group or individual, and somehow this has to with a man sleeping with another man and a woman sleeping with another woman?

Communism, Nazism, Capitalism are all ideologies - soooo, homosexuality would have to be an 'ism'?

'Homosexualism.' or 'Homosexism' Do these word exist? My spell checker doesn't like them.

When we see homosexual penguins, giraffes, dolphins, etc, are we seeing not natural behaviour in animals, but the insidious indoctrination of the minds of the young with their parents ideology?!

Oh course not.

Bee Eye Gee Ohh Tee.

Other Comments by padster1976

48. Comment #163524 by emmet on April 18, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I did not get anything like an answer to my question, so I will ask it again.

I suggest purchasing a fully working keyboard. Yours appears to be faulty. In particular, the "h" and "e" keys don't appear to respond after the "t" key has been pressed.

After that, maybe you could rewrite your question in English and people could read it without feeling like they've had a fork stuck in their eye every other word.

Other Comments by emmet

49. Comment #163588 by babrock on April 18, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I repeated t question merely to point out that it had not been answered, only talked about. If you thought I was demanding a responce, I apolagise for my part in your confusion. Otherwise feel free to ignore every thing I post. I in turn will not get bent out of shape over people being petty and bitchy.

I apolagise for being poor at typing and spelling. I had a longer, more indepth responce, but I timed out w/ it once again

Other Comments by babrock

50. Comment #163594 by babrock on April 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm

I asked t question because I was honestly curios and (t spelling police notwithstanding) figured that there should be plenty of people smart enuf to understand t issue better than I did and someone probly would not mind explaining it to me.

T spelling police( and other petty bickering) notwithstanding, I look forward to reading what everyone has to say, whether I am being noticed or ignored.

Other Comments by babrock