One thing I like about credible scientists... They never claim to know things that they don't. They will outright say that it's just a thought or a postulate or a hypothesis than to saying it as though it's factually confirmed.
One of the problems about scientists is that they’re being judged by the people who don’t understand science. Take idiots like fauchi for instance. Unfortunately it’s not about being a genius or a talented scientist these days it’s about who panders the most to the sheep. Fortunately nobles are granted by those who actually have a properly functioning mind and those who value results over big sweet words. Though it’s a matter of time before that too changes in the US, and that will be day that the US ends for good and when opposing advanced countries start culling the sheep.
Thats exactly why we should not discount religion or the Bible because as in this particular video , Mr. Dawkins states shows just what youre stating - he”s not sure and uses the word “if” multiple times. Just because one is a scientist doesn’t prove their hypothesis/ guess/ thought/ idea. Medical science use drugs to treat symptoms, all having harmful side effects but none having “healing qualities “ . My observatory hypothesis is that “man” in and if ourselves really do not know much about life , the origin of life or the reason that we are here. We arent “inherently good” shown how violent the individual and especially organized government is throughout history. I opt for a Creator who teaches creation , purpose and love. Although the avg “religious” person screws that up as well. Because again, “man” doesn’t know anything and can’t do anything right. Even our relationships. Theres no such thing as evolution. We need to lie to ourselves in order to maintain our “pride” so as to keep our “self” centeredness because we are selfish creatures of habit and of comfort as evidenced in our chronic complaining. Even in a confortable environment we find a reason to be unhappy, uncomfortable, jealous, discontent, etc. The human being is not evolved, we are not animals, we are human. Animals can not build, drive, reason or use the toilet bowl and wipe their butt with toilet paper. Evolution does not exist. Praise The Creator for life and love. Let’s pay attention and use what the Creator gave us well
Remember this man is only concerned with how things work and why things are. He doesn't give a damn about your religion, gender, or orientation. That's what I like about him!
for those who say it is a choice, then THEY could choose homosexuality. Then they could could get turned-on by those of the same sex and turned off by the opposite. That is true if sexual orientation is a choice. But, this is just a way for religious people to hate others, discriminate against them, and feel superior to them. Hating others and having the blessings of god. I would suggest hating others is a choice.
Very true. It's just that they wouldn't want to try it because they think it's a mortal sin :P I wouldn't want to try something if I would be tortured for eternity because of it
If people really could choose what sexual orientation they wanted to be, then homosexuals could just choose to be heterosexual, and then they wouldn't have to put up with the bigotry of Evangelical Christians and other homophobes. But the fact is that your sexual orientation is NOT a choice.
@hatter00 “Nope, the pieces fit together.” Of course, they do. All you have to do is throw out all contradicting data and voila! Everything fits together like a GLOVE…unless you take into account that Abiogenesis is a scientific impossibility, that the fossil record has no proof, that the pre - Cambrian layers do show EVEN embryonic sponge eggs but no, ZERO, nothing of pre-cursors for the phyla that just suddenly appeared afterwards, that living fossils exist, that there are living examples of merged genus species that due to DNA can be shown to NOT be transitional species, showing that other fossilized non-living “transitional species” are just as non-transitional. Oh yeah, THOSE pieces are REAL empirical evidence that contradicts the theory but since were BIASED and they DON’T FIT (just IGNORE them. You know, out of sight out of mind,- It’ll JUST go away) So just like Dawkins, you’re SO Biased, that you are aware of some just missing data, but you’re so sold and brainwashed that to you, that’s just a missing i. If that's NOT assumption, then I don't know what is!
@@mahdisuccar9054 Of course. Just like playing cards can disappear because MILLIONS of eye witnesses have seen that with their own eyes at Vegas magic shows. (BTW..The genetic ability that living things have to adapt to survive, -{longer or shorter beaks like Darwin saw} does NOT equal the ability to continue to adapt right out of their genus into a different phyla. THAT is what evolution says happens, and THAT no one has ever seen. To say that it does because we can "see" a finch with a bigger break, is like saying that because a magician can throw away a card faster than we can see it means that it disappeared.
Shut up. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@MrBugPopdawg how did you break like 3 unspoken rules at once, one replying to a comment that’s SEVEN years old, two making this about politics, three using that silly ass emoji.
Natural selection does not work no more that well when there is civilisation that is why gays being extinct not is going to happen. Also being able to predict if someone is going to become gay i simply do not believe that. Sure when you have identical twins and one is gay the other one likely is also gay ..but you cannot draw farreaching conclusions from that. The thing is you can fall in love with a man and a woman, may it be accidental or not, and what you prefer with each brain being different, is hard to tell by definition. Likely there is a minority where it is over the top clear with in most cases it being hard to tell.
@@revolzsync1694 the idea that we came from adam and eve isn't the most horrifying one, the logical result of this theory is. If we have come from adam and eve only, it is impossible to deny that humanity started through incest, the thing that religion has always and rightfully objected to.
Since homosexuality seems to represent a relative statistical minority in every population, one could also assume that the genetic potential for homosexuality might not necessarily serve a survival-oriented purpose, but that it was simply a genetic potential that was able to hang around since it wasn't harmful to survival. After all, natural selection doesn't optimize or selects only traits that are productive, it only gets rid of traits that are relative worse for survival than others. But a gene pool that every so often produces 5% of gay people or so in a given population simply isn't harmful to the survival of that population. (And if the worker bee hypothesis is true, there might even be social functions). So, in that case, it might simply be a random occurence that natural selection wasn't bothered about and so it still exists. Think of the colour of our blood, for instance: There doesn't have to be a specific, survival-oriented purpose to why it has this specific colour. One colour just developed, and since the colour didn't have any effect on survival one way or the other, it hung around. It is "survival-neutral" so to speak. Homosexuality as a phenomenon might be equally "survival-neutral" for any given population.
There are also things like "frequency dependant selection", which leads to a stable ratio of certain traits in a population. E.g.: Left-handedness is something based in genetics. It's also strongly linked to a slightly shorter life-span, lighter weight at birth, and some other things which are linked to lower fitness. BUT if you are in a society, where everybody uses the predominantly the right hand for example to fight, you will have an advantage as a left-handed person, because your strong hand is the one the enemy or oponent might not be that used to (that's not just a so-so-story, btw, there is some evidence to support things like that. In tennis, for example, left-handed people do have a distinct advantage due to their unusual circumstances). Of course, this advantage only works, as long as your trait is a minority. As a result of the disadvantage related to these genes, AND the advantage that is based on the frequency your trait has in a population, you will end up with a stable ratio between your trait and the averege one. The fact that almost every population has a stable minority, which simply doesn't seem to die out, and which is present in many, many species, I would actually say that there is some sort of frequency dependant selection going on. Or at least I consider it a high possibility.
Demian Haki Interesting post :) Just a little comment - there is a reason for the colour of our blood. Haemoglobin is a pigment. It is a red pigment. That's why our blood is red :) I only know this as I'm a nurse and this is something I am starting to be interested in as I've just started doing phlebotomy :) lots of people don't know, so you weren't to know.
lucy topsy Yes, but my point was that there seems to be no survival oriented purpose for why blood should have this particular pigment rather than any other. Or is there a reason that you know of?
Ah I see :) I don't know why it's that pigment. I'd like to know though :) Blood is one of the most intricate and interesting tissues in our bodies, in my humble opinion :) It's an exciting time to be alive!
@@adrirajtalukdar4305 Yes, maybe homosexuality is a complex phenomenon involving multiple genes and also some environmental conditions. Maybe is sometimes genetic, other times is environmental but globally beneficial on the long run.
Just because someone isn't intellectually leveled with Dawkins on the subject doesn't mean that they can't state their opinion. Einstein expressed his theories of relativity as a nobody in a world filled with renowned physicists, yet he was the one who changed the world.
+Sigmund Freud Einstein didn't change the world, he changed contemporary physics of the early 20th century which paved the way for modern physics. Michael Faraday has probably had the largest effect on our world and contemporary society. But there definitely is a difference, Einstein and Dawkins were/are scientists, and science is defined by experimental observation. They dedicate their lives to producing theories and facts gained through experimentation and research. This is extremely different to the unexperienced, and more often than not, unqualified youtube commenters who base their opinion on who knows what. The point is, these guys know their shit. They have evidence and results to back up their claims, while most youtube commenters will not.
Virtuoso Joel people think that agreeing with Dawkins = genius. Thing is, he also has 'personality', opinion, politics, financial interest, bias and so on. If you hear him speak on religion, he is aggressively more than atheist, but actually anti-Christ(ian). Interesting hat he mentions bottle-feeding. Ironically, the bottle is made of plastic. Also the baby feed may have gmo soy or corn in there. Ironic that he used that as an example. Taken further...the contact with the breast may influence a boy to love the touch of a woman.
Thank you Joel Pearson for defending reason and Dawkins. What the Internet has become... Dawkins being VERY precise with wording as he ALWAYS is and people removing key words from his mouth to make their points. Guys on the genetics and behavior research: remember that Dawkins had profound influence on your fields since the 70s. He is still honest to truth and a great communicator. Please let's show respect for such great and honest intellectual. Thanks Joel and Dawkins.
I love how he explains in (at least rather) easy words but still keeps his explanations scientifically correct... and I even more like he discusses the validity of the question before actually answering it.
My sister studies history, and pointed out that many many people were gay throughout history, and many famous historical figures, who were married and had children, also had 'boyfriends'. Also things like the kamasutra, which is thought to have been written between 400BC and 200BC has lots of homosexual acts in it, so maybe its more social stigmas that have actually 'kept people in the closet' and only now that some places are becoming more and more accepting, we see 'homosexuals' more often. And to be honest I like it that way. Finally everyone can be free! :D great video.
You need a better example. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
I didn't even know that genes could operate that way, I've learned something today. I had my own ideas for how homosexuality could survive natural selection, but the activated gene makes it seem more reasonable and definitely helps me understand evolutionary biology more. I also thought when you mentioned the existence of bisexuals that the implied statement that bisexuality and homosexuality could have an identical root cause was an interesting one I never considered. Thank you
+Birchman Woody Freud postulated way back when that the natural state of sexuality is BIsexuality, because, as a humanist, he couldn't bring himself to state scientifically that as RATIONAL beings driven perhaps by reproductive instincts we must necessarily be limited by those instincts because of our advanced nature of desire....personally, as much as I disagree with Freud in many areas, this is one where I do agree...I don't think any culture or individual should have limits or hangups when it comes to the desire of sexuality....we are sooo different from other animals in that regard, so should regard it as a blessing, not a curse....
+Birchman Woody I do not think there was a whole lot of anthropological/biological/zoological studies delving into universal bisexuality 100+ years ago...I think that science came later...my point seems a step later from yours because of the moral dimension unique to humans...what I would argue is since WE DO KNOW we engage in behaviour based in desire, and acknowledge pleasure RATIONALLY, it is an extra gift certainly to be dealt with wisely and responsibly, but also according to our own discretion. For instance, I should have sex with whom I want to have sex, and there shouldn't be some douche in a white robe telling me I'm a sinner....the same gift of language allows me to communicate with 6 billion people, whereas chimps and whales lack that ability....plants innately make their own food, we cultivate ours, and everything on the scale in between relies on what is available...THUS, in MOST regards humans ARE quite different....
fjaurler I believe the first video did switch camera every time Dawkins did. People however did complain over the constant switching so they uploaded a new version of the first one, and kept on not switching for the rest. But since the videos probably where recorded at the same time, little did Dawkins nor his team know this would become a problem and therefore he sometimes looks "of camera" (as the plan from the beginning was).
canyousmellasmell There here are no arguments being made there by him. It is a simple summary of the production of this clip with a couple of minor harmless assumptions added. If you don't understand what is being written, at least try and be polite, and ask.
How not to make a video. He should have filmed it twice one for each camera. I'd have reshot that. Much of the colour issues could have been sorted in editing though.
Best explanation I have heard so far. The human condition is so complex and varied. Such amazing creatures who need to make the most of their time and leave the world a better place for the next generation!
It is wrong that's why. Only 20% of identical twins where one is homosexual have both being homosexual. That's so low that it's most likely nurture over nature. Dawkins didn't know this then but the epigenetic basis of homosexuality was also debunked when scientists did not find any gene or cluster of genes whose activation could reliably predict homosexuality. This paper was published in Nature under the title "No Gay Gene"
There are many other alternatives to the ones proposed here. here are some: Why can't it be a hormonal response by the mother when there is a large number of male children. How about a hierarchy or bonding strategy used by males to improve group cohesion (since social animals reproductive fitness benefits from this) Or a trait that is has a reproductive benefit to women, that is being selected for and male homosexuality is just a by product of it (thus is a net plus evolutionarily) Or there are many genes that contribute to homosexuality and most combinations contribute to reproductive fitness, while some fewer combinations results prominent homosexual preference (also an evolutionary net plus for these genes). Or why not all or some combination of these and other strategies (they don't appear mutually exclusive). I think people only see this as a problem because we think of genetics like a computer algorithm, instead of chemistry.
Jared Fait Mutations or errors in replicating and combining DNA are what lead to potentially beneficial traits. Most individual mutations are usually either harmful or have no effect at all. Accumulations of non-harmful mutations can sometimes lead to a difference in an organism that affords them opportunity to survive long enough to procreate. Evolution is actually driven by nature if anything; successful traits are acquired in successive generations in a given population of organisms based on the benefit to the organisms' survival at that time and in that environment. The environment changes over time and shapes evolutionary pressures right along with it.
hcheyne "I think people only see this as a problem because we think of genetics like a computer algorithm, instead of chemistry." Plus people not only forget epigenetic mechanisms, most have never even heard of epigenetics.
Could the gene not be recessive? So, you can carry the gene and not be homosexual, but if you have a child with another person also with that recessive gene you can have a homosexual child? Like being ginger or having blue eyes, etc. There's also cultural causes. In the past a homosexual couldn't admit to being so, and would have to still get married and have kids.
Kevin Boone I wasn't saying the culture caused homosexuality, obviously, I'm saying there are cultures that did/do demonize and oppress it, so even gay men/women were still having straight sex in order to avoid what would happen to them in that society, whether they liked it or not. Thus passing on the gene. Second, by it being a recessive gene it wouldn't make all your siblings carry it. For instance, I'm ginger. I can only be ginger because both my Mother and Father carry the gene to be so, even though only my Mother is ginger. My sister, on the other hand, is blonde. I'm also left handed. Again, both my parents have that gene, but in this case NEITHER of my parents are left handed and nor is my sister, however my Mother's father and two of my uncles are. That's just how recessive genes work, they're not going to effect everyone, but they're going to remain in their DNA.
+Andy Semple There are cultural causes to homosexuality*, but none in the West to my knowledge; here biology largely drives sexuality. Environment anywhere can play a role in particular attractions, to lingerie, feet, big butts and lips or a particular race, for example. The question is what triggers gender specificity, as it's not a choice --- whether, or not, to have sex is the only choice. Many think family- and/or social-dynamics play a role, but every explanation posited fails scrutiny for its glaring contradictions. For instance, some have claimed a family with a "cold" mother or absent father or an abusive parent could trigger it. But the children's adult sexual orientation largely matches the parents, as most homosexuals have siblings who are heterosexual. Why aren't all of them heterosexual? Various studies show between 2.9 -5% of human beings are homosexuals. I understand heterosexual sensibility and religion informs our concern about THOSE PEOPLE and that science wants to know why they exist. But I'd address those 3 problems from an understanding that we are human beings first. That there is an inherent dignity to each of us that society shouldn't trample. That it's a provocation to suppress, verbally abuse, physically attack, incarcerate, or kill adults and others for who they love. It is why THOSE PEOPLE don't equivocate. It's existential (a matter of life and death). (Some non-Western ethnic groups seem to have encouraged the practice of homosexuality, in Papua New Guinea, for example. Others accept and/or celebrate same-gender loving members.)* Show less
+Andy Semple For the recitation of the facts, which I understand, thanks. Your statement about cultural causes isn't clear to me. Please elaborate.Thanks!
Kevin Boone Well first, I never mentioned the West. I was looking at the grander scale of 'the world'. But that's not to say there isn't still some bias left in the West. Take the US, where Christian values are still alive in many communities. A person born gay there would certainly have no legal issue with being gay, but they'd still face losing their family, and may end up oppressing their nature because they've been taught within their religion that being gay is an evil thing. In other countries you'll have arranged marriages and so fourth, forcing a gay person either legally or socially to carry on their family line. So it's not about culture causing homosexuality, it's about some culture hiding it away to the point gay people will still have kids, increasing the chances those children will be gay. Then those kids will hide it away, and so on. You only need to look at Russia. When it stopped being punished there, the gay community shot through the roof as people that once hid it came out as gay. Putin, being an idiot, thought this meant it being legal was 'causing' gayness through the media without understanding that these people were always gay, they'd just never been allowed to say it. His way of dealing with it was to add weight and stigma to being gay without actually making it illegal, lowing the number of people willing to come out, and increasing the chance they'll end up in an unhappy straight marriage having kids that (even if the gene is recessive) are statistically more likely to be gay.
+Andy Semple Mr. Semple, our points speak to different issues. But you've done a great job addressing yours. Science would do well to test those hypotheses. Are you a biologist/geneticist?
I'm not comparing homosexuality to a genetic defect, but can't this question also be asked for defects ? Why are people still born with bad eyes and physical defects ? Or what about people with genes which make them obese ? In what way does evolution favor such things ? I think this generates a broader question, rather than being specific to one thing, simply just ask, "What is the Darwinian reason for possessing non beneficial traits for reproduction and survival ?"
because we have in a way we have exceeded natural selection. We don't let people die because they're disabled. We don't require favourable physical traits to survive that's why we came up with supermarkets. Ultimately to determine what a non beneficial gene is a person must have it and not pass it on. The only way to get beneficial traits from genes is to have non-beneficial as well. Or at least that's my take
+Anthony R yes but surely this sort of privileged lifestyle has not been around to effect evolution to the required extent! Disabled people very well were left to die in the masses no less than 200-500 years ago, which is nowhere near enough time to effect us in any meaningful evolutionary manner! And even if you make the claim that we are like that now, it was the evolutionary process that lead us here historically! Your answer is essentially saying what we do now lead us to our current evolutionary state! The question was how did we get here now...
+Charlie Davis I get what you're saying. I guess what I was saying just explains why nowadays stuff like that is more prevalent rather than how we got there like you said
+Cloud Strife There can always be disadvantageous traits, even when an individual has two very "fit" parents. There are lot of reasons for this, random mutations, recessive genes, genetic drift etc. The idea behind darwins theory was that these traits can't (in most cases) accumulate because of natural selection. Dawkins suggests an epigenetic solution for the constant rate of homosexuals in this video. Natural selection can't really influence this since the cause of the "disadvantageous" trait is not in the DNA itself, but rather in the way genes are activated. There is a correlation between the sexual orientation of two identical twins, but it's far from 100%. One guy can be gay while his (identical) twin brother can be straight.
+Cloud Strife Perhaps it's because we haven't finished evolving and we never will. We often consider ourselves to be the finished article but really we are just a snap shot in time, we are a long way from perfect and frankly I don't think we ever will or can be.
I thought this had been somewhat elucidated with rather recent studies showing male children born to mothers who had given birth to previous males having an increased chance of being homosexual and the probability increasing with each additional male birth. I believe the researchers attributed this to an antibody mom produces in response to antigenic stimulation in her earlier male pregnancies, which perhaps alters hormonal levels in the amniotic fluid tending to produce males who later identify as homosexual and do not go on to propagate or have considerably smaller families. In a paleolithic family unit where resources were finite, one could hypothesize a selective advantage to this happening.
Interesting hypothesis. I also heard another explanation. There was a (small) study that showed that if a gay man has a heterosexual sister, she statistically has more children than the average. The suggestion was that the different balance of hormones and things that made the male gay were present in the sister but had a very different effect that led her to have more children.
I think that it has to do with a child getting more "feminine" (gay male) or "masculine" (lesbian) hormones or "traits" than usual from their correspondent straight parents. Just the same way a boy can have his mother's eyes or nose, sometimes this goes further where he even has her sexuality (as with the daughter and her father). As a gay guy, perhaps I got more than I bargained for from my mother, where I even "obtained" her sexuality. But I don't know.
I'm a lesbian. I have my mother's looks overall, but I have my dad's overall behaviour (the way he talks, walks, laughs, etc). So you're right. Maybe I did somehow acquire his sexuality too?
@@5xmasterx548 It does make sense and it was also the conclusion of Alfred Kinsey who studied human sexuality quite extensively. This also explains the genetic problem, there is no genetic basis for homosexuality, rather most people can do both actions and choose one over the other most of the time due to socialization
@@fark69 lol no then why do homosexuals exist? They shouldn't exist at all because most of society doesn't accept them. They should also "turn" bisexual due to societal pressure. But guess what, they don't. People have tried it and have failed. Society may force you to hide your sexuality but it can't change it.
I've been toying with this idea a bit lately and it's "is natural selection, for humans, relevant anymore?" because there really isn't anything stopping a gene from spreading. For example if heritable cancer is found in a specific family tree, that doesn't mean that gene will die out because those people still reproduce no matter. Specific traits don't really hinder our ability for survival in modern day society too because most of our traits are irrelevant in society and aren't necessary for survival. Idk if this is where you ask questions for these videos but it would be great to have an opinion on this.
Since homosexual couples still find ways to have children and therefore have not 'taken themselves out of the gene pool', doesn't the question become moot? What do you think of the idea of homosexuality being an incidental expression of any number of other genetic traits like for example improved liver function?
prixat I think the question is still valid considering homosexuality has survived within our ancestry for millions of years- long before any artificial insemenation tactics were ever used. Just look at homosexuality in other species. Dolphins may be smart, but they lack the thumbs required to make in vitro fertilization happen.
balzonurchin I wasn't thinking of IVF but heterosexual sex, or turkey basters, (due to societal pressure or whatever). My main point being we don't have to think of homosexuality as the intended expression of some set of genes but perhaps the unintended expression of some completed unrelated function. Then the calculation moves to the benefits of that unrelated trait (my example was improved liver function) against a reduced (but not zero) chance of passing that on to the next generation.
balzonurchin The gene(s) that, by some path, result in homosexuality _must_ have some benefit to reproduction _of the population_, somehow, _or it would not exist_.
Chris Goss he’s literally a world-renowned evolutionary biologist. He’s the author of The Selfish Gene, which is widely considered one of the great innovations in modern evolutionary biology.
+TheLady2luv if you believe in "God" and his mysterious bullshit way...grow up...children in Africa are dying of starvation,disease. Where is God? Why can't he save those innocent kids...stop your bullshit God talk...grow the fuck up...I'm an ex Muslim and I risk my life for being an atheist...dipshit like you just make me laugh..fuck your Gods...
deezebee2 Consider predisposition for weight gain. It may be a survival advantage when there are cycles of plenty and scarcity of food. Not so much when there is always plenty of food available in the individual's environment.
@@smkanim2009 I was a gay baby. My parents knew I was gay when i was born. While I was in the womb, I was already doing some interior decorating. When my mother broke water, and bared down and pushed, the first thing that came out was a throw pillow, lol.
Oh wauw, so you came out in the 80's? I mean it wasn't the worst time, but it's still cool that you felt comfortable at that decade to come out. Or did you live in a very liberal city/state/country? My country was already quite far with acceptance (there's even an 80's children-show here that covered coming-out in one episode) but your username sounds Anglophonic. Also GAYBABY!!!! 😄
I wonder why he didn't mention what seems to me to be the simplest explanation: What if male and female homosexuality work differently? What if some straight males carry genes that can make their daughters lesbians, and straight women carry genes that can make their sons gay? That way you can have a gene that's either neutral or positive from an evolutionary POV and still result in individuals who don't procreate. The gene expression explanation sounds just as plausible, though.
Άλκης Δ., that wouldn't explain it, unless you're saying that the whole "attraction" thing is passed down from the parent of the opposite gender, as it is evolutionarily beneficial to that gender. But you didn't say that. Is that what you meant to say?
+Άλκης Δ. Researchers report that they have linked male homosexuality to a small region of one human chromosome, a region designated Xq28. Scientists said the work suggests that one or several genes located on the bottom half of the sausage-shaped X chromosome may play a role in predisposing some men toward homosexuality. A man's X chromosome is always inherited from the mother, who bestows on her son a reshuffled version of one of her two copies of the X chromosome. The latest results indicate that the newly reported genetic factor is passed through the maternal line, a curious twist given that in the past society has held women at least partly responsible for fostering their sons' homosexuality. The gene could work by directly influencing sexual proclivity, perhaps by shaping parts of the brain that orchestrate sexual behavior."
+Mouthy Mark It would explain why there still are homosexuals. Because men that were homosexual died, but the women were the reason their offspring (between heterosexual man and woman) in some cases inherited a slightly, lets say "deformed", x-chromosome and turned out to be homosexual. (difficult to describe it in english, sry)
I’m a gay guy and have experienced same-sex attraction since kindergarten. I often used to wonder as a self-hating adolescent, “Why am I like this?” I eventually concluded that since I was incapable of getting a scientific answer, the only satisfying answer was, “...because.” A lot of people find such an answer dissatisfying, but when you meditate on it, it really provides a greater overview which facilitates in liberating a person from feeling shame, inferiority, self-hatred, etc about one’s homosexuality. I didn’t choose it. It’s just how things shook out, either in the womb or in the first few years of my life. And in either case, what say did I have? None. Thus, homosexuality is, by definition, natural.
I'm surprised he didn't mention that genetic traits can sometimes be linked. Eg, when foxes in eastern europe were deliberately bred to be tamer other traits also changed. Maybe homosexuality is linked with something that's beneficial. Maybe the gene that makes some people gay makes others more resistant to disease, or more fertile, etc. So that even though some people didn't breed there was enough of an advantage in the species as a whole that the gene wasn't selected against.
@@MOMO-fe2ks check out what happened when they selectively bred eastern european foxes. They selectively bred only those that were friendlier, more tame, yet other traits also changed, like gaining floppy ears. There is some debate about why those other traits changed, maybe it was just a coincidence or maybe the genes did multiple things. If it is true that multiple things are effected by changes to a gene then it could be a reason for many things being the result of natural selection and evolution.
@Mike No, it's that each gene affect multiple traits. So that a change in trait 'A' will also cause a change in trait 'M', etc This affects anything that is caused by genes, such as physical and mental development. If homosexuality is indeed something naturally coded in genes, as it seems to be, then the gene for homosexuality could probably also affects other aspects as well. I read a study a while ago that was suggesting a correlation between homosexuality and higher fertility rates in women. ie that when one sibling is homosexual their sisters have higher birth rates. If true this would suggest that the gene that affects homosexuality is the same gene that affects fertility, and with higher fertility being a strong trait for a species survival, it would mean that homosexuality is a natural byproduct of something that's evolutionary beneficial. All purely hypothetical at the moment. Homosexuality isn't behaviour, it's a gene caused mental trait.
I’m an amateur history student, and that video gave me an, alternative idea. What if we’re making a mistake, looking at homosexuality from the male perspective. It is only in very recent history, that people mate, for love. For thousands of years daughters were married off, for political gain. They had no choice, and they HAD to produce heirs. Most people didn’t even expect to get a choice, like in many parts of the world still.(think of arranged marriages). So a homosexual daughter passes on the gene. Generation after generation.
Well, I'm also a scientist and to me that was also a long winded "I don't know". He may sound sophisticated using scientific vocabulary. But scientists eventually get tired of that and start to look for more rigorous analysis. Even at the level of mere speculation, which is the case here with Dawkins, this is not at all an impressive reasoning. The lack of evidence for any of the examples is so overwhelming that any other non-popular scientist would be massacrated of peer negative opinions.
@@renancunha4799 Be like a true scientist and read these pages: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics www.nbcnews.com/id/35254750/ns/health-womens_health/t/destined-inherit-your-moms-body/#.XcaxiVczaUk en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibling#:~:targetText=Full%20siblings%20are%20first%2Ddegree,in%20their%20human%20genetic%20variation. www.britannica.com/science/mutation-genetics#:~:targetText=Mutation%2C%20an%20alteration%20in%20the,cell's%20or%20the%20virus's%20descendants. Remember, you can't just call yourself a scientist without doing the research yourself.
@@striveforsuccessstudysmart3509 I didn't. I'm not the one who is beeing questioned about something and is offering an answer. I'm agreeing with the sir right here and giving my personal opinion. One guy Said the lack of knowledge is the problem for the young man here. I said I'm from the same enviroment than Dawkins and I think he doesn't know how to answer the question. Where am I beeing like Dawkins?
In our more tolerant societies, gay men now face less persecution and gay relationships are becoming more accepted. Will that lead to less gay men in heterosexual marriages, hence less gay men having children and ultimately less gay genes being passed to future generations and consequently a reduction in the percentage of gay men in future populations?
However, if something happens in utero, there may not provide a genetic indicator, because it came after conception. It has been indicated that some women’s immune system will fight the testosterone meant to program a male child at certain critical points in utero.
well Homosexuality doesn't pose any threat to life right? Evolution deals with extension of life (generally) meaning that it isnt perfect but it is up to par with sustainability. Like with footwear, evolution didnt give us footwear we created it because walking barefoot causes all sorts of issues that we need to fix using our minds and the minds application to reality.
I heard of a theory that says mothers who are more stressed and anxious and have these sorts of problems are more likely to produce homosexual kids because it assumes that the conditions of the environment the baby is being born in is not gonna be good for having a life so the kid is more likely to be born gay so he doesn't reproduce in such bad conditions
He didn't mention it but I'm sure it's talked about... is it possible that the gene responsible for sexual orientation is pleiotropic? That is, responsible for multiple (and possibly unrelated) traits. As such, it may never get selected out because without it, we'd lose the ability to make red blood cells (or something to that effect) and not survive.
that would come under the first one, no? that gay people have value to the community in ways other than reproductive? I think that the example given or the reasoning you gave is the most likely. it can explain the lower percentage of gays to straits whist also explaining why their percentage is not extremely low, like more obvious deficits.
That was very disappointing! There are many traits that occur at a stable rate across populations that do not have an evolutionary advantage. Homosexuality occurs at the same rate across all human cultures. It is very clearly not caused by cultural differences. Not all traits need to have a clear advantage, they are simply variations that occur at a stable rate. These variations may have no environmental cause at all. It is true that some genetic expression is triggered by environmental events, but clearly that's not always the case. Also, it's very important to separate genetic expression from cultural expression. A Gay stereotypical mannerism, like any cultural stereotype, is shaped largely by cultural/historical means, not genetic means. Even heterosexual gender stereotypes are shaped more by culture and history than genetics. What might seem "natural" can actually be "historical", a product of culture not genetics or some other non-cultural environment cause.
emchartreuse Could you provide an evidence (in a form of a reference to a research article) that demonstrates that the occurrence rate of homosexuality is the same across different cultures?
Yeah, these answers are extremly hypothetical. But we cannot forget, that it is extremly difficult to find out, why a certain traid is evolutionary benefitial and what the selection pressures are. So, to a certain degree, there needs to be room for speculation. But I don't think he does a very good job in explaining it here either. He usually does better.
That's the point. He's giving a 'How Possibly' story, not a 'Just So' story. The latter is where we've discovered something and are saying exactly how a thing is; the former is usually answering an objection of the form "X cannot be true because of Y." In this case, the existence of homosexuality could be considered a refutation of evolutionary theory -- "How can natural selection be correct when homosexuality exists?" A "How Possibly" story answers this question; although, because no-one is saying they've made a discovery, they're not saying this is the correct answer; just that answers exist and so the existence of homosexuality is not in itself a refutation of evolution.
I've read a few journals on the subject, and one group proposed that it can sometimes be the result of the mother's immune system not fully recognizing the child as a part of the woman's body due to the difference in hormones. The woman's body would then fight off these hormones and replace them with more estrogen. This hormonal replacement affect's the fetus as it develops and, if subjected to this early on, can cause the fetus's brain to develop female hormones instead of male hormones. I'm not sure if this is entirely true, and if anyone would like a link to the study I can try and find it again :)
Because, strictly from an evolutionary perspective, female homosexuality can still produce offspring and pass genes to next generations, while male homosexuality can't.
Richard would be happier out of THAT Closet. Just an uninformed observation. That being said It's not a choice you are born with being gay, you recognise " things are different" almost from the sand-box! Definitely from pre-school, primary and on it goes as you develop and start understanding the language for this. As a minority a marginalised minority, why would anyone choose to be persecuted and have to fight for their identity, their family, their security, their standing in society and sometimes their safety and are forced to bath in societies swamp of ignorance and stupidity. Life is incredibly complex! Thank what ever, who ever for Gay! Life is a better place. 🌈
Sorry but UA-cam's retarded comment section doesn't let me space out paragraphs, for some unknown reason: Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.5.6564 Differences regarding the BSTc www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7477289 (abstract, full study below) pure.knaw.nl/portal/files/515234/15106_285_swaab.pdf Regarding the transexual fetus and hormones during development www.researchgate.net/publication/11534454_Sexual_differentiation_of_the_bed_nucleus_of_the_stria_terminalis_in_humans_may_extend_into_adulthood
One thing I don't often hear mentioned, is the fact that being gay doesn't mean that you won't reproduce. There are many gay when who you will hear about who hid their sexuality throughout their life and managed to get married and have kids before coming out of the closet later in life. I would suspect that throughout history, this was probably quite normal and maybe even the most common scenario, owing to the deep need for a companion in life and the potential danger of revealing your true desires. Many men or women may have chose to forge a heterosexual relationship for the sake of companionship despite the lack of sexual attraction.
@@criousone181 No-where in the video it says twins like their other twin. It says that twins were one is homosexual, the other is more likely to be homosexual as well. Also, keep your cringy religious bs somewhere else, it sounds like a madman rambling.
Hold The Door!! he's not going to meet anyone, if that is what you believe, fine. But I and dawkins don't see any evidence for a god and therefore we don't think think that there is a deity, the chance for a god to exist is even to the chance that the flying spaghetti monster exists or that we're all living in a computer simulation.
hikevanossvikkstar how dare you blaspheme against the supreme god of the bible the creator of all things including you. I pray for your poor soul. Just accept Jesus and all the sins you have committed will be forgiven no matter how heinous, even pedophila and murder.
Pure life you think evolutionary biology is fact? Wait I thought evolution was a theory with some evidence. Facts are axioms, and from what I know Biology, specifically evolutionary biology is not an axiom or a fact.
@@eduardocastaneda9476 a theory with an evidence makes it a fact, whoever in 2019 thinks evolution is only theory and not actual thing is just purely desilusional ignorant
Juraj Jurík go back to General Biology and learn the definition of theories, laws, and afterwards tell me any scientific journal stating evolutionary biology is an axiom. Afterwards we should also make the Big Bang theory a fact. Furthermore, if a theory is a fact then it cannot be improved upon, which theories are known to do over time. Like I said, go back to general biology and learn some definitions.
@@eduardocastaneda9476 mate you just try to seem super smart with wording but are an idiot actually, afterwards furthermore axiom my arse. You go back to elementary school and learn comprehensive reading and first understand the stuff you're trying to be so clever about lol
@Drake Grey Drake he ran like a chicken when the challenge was presented to him. He knows without question that he would lose and that Craig would make him look bad and that's why he ran from the debate.
I'm surprised you are only tackling his on a individuals level. Didn't you teach us to think neo-darwinistic? First, everything not sufficiently adverse in gene reproduction will not necessarily get pruned (junk DNA). Genes for being ugly or infertile or otherwise reproductively handicapped, can happily survive too in a population, if they don't have a high likelihood of expressing themselves. Gay siblings share almost all genes, but not all turn out to be gay. It's unlikely to be down to only one gene. And it's likely that gene expression is conditional too. So of course "the gay gene" can survive in a population. From reading the selfish gene, I already had a idea in my head about this which frankly feels more convincing than this video.
Nothing, people are just more accepting nowadays which means that people don’t need to hide who they’re attracted to. At a certain point the amount of people who identify as lgbtq+ will stop rising, just as the amount of left handed identifying people kept rising until it stopped at around 11% of the population when being left handed became normalized.
It is utterly baffling to me why the question even gets asked. I have absolutely no idea why homosexuality needs explanation. I see nothing wrong with it. Never have. Why do people spend so much time making a fuss about it?
That's what he meant with gene-expression. If it's switched one way it might have advantages, if it's switched the other way, it causes homosexuality. (though I think the milkbottle idea isn't likely, since homosexuality is older than even our species)
The big problem is with Gregor Mendel or rather at least how we teach about him in school. We teach kids about his experiments with pea plants and that gives us the idea that genes have a clear cut effect on how the organism develops. What we don't generally teach about Gregor Mendel is that for a few years before his experiments, he spent time purifying his pea strains so he could get genetically pure green and yellow peas. And that's what he used for his experiments. You're never going to get examples like that in nature. The other possibility that probably works in conjunction with Dawkins' explanation here is that homosexuality isn't governed by one single gene, but rather a collection of several genes that all express themselves differently depending on their developmental environment.
The more I read and listen to Dawkins to less inclined I am to give credence to what he says. I don't why and I am certainly not qualified to debate the topic on his level. He just comes across as disingenuous and making it up as he goes.
Sounds like Dawkins is saying two things…? 1. There is a gene for homosexuality but it is dormant. 2. This homosexuality gene is triggered depending on your environment .
Ah yes. School shootings, abortions, transsexuals stripping in front of young children, identity crises, rising depression, rising alcoholism, rising drug abuse. A world without religion is a clown world.
Unfortunately, I remember only faintly an article that I have read in a scientific publication that argued for the third case that Dawkins proposed as an explanation of homosexuality. It looked at another mammalian species, it could have been goats or sheep or something related, where there is about the same frequency of homosexuality as in humans. Homosexuality was explained as a statistically relaible side effect of sexual development specific to both species. Sorry, this is all quite vague, but if anyone came across the same article please mention it. It was the most compelling and quite surprising explanation why homosexuality occurs in our species without violating evolutionary principles.
Cameraman missed the evolution of cinematography.
Bravo 😂😂
LMFAO
What did you expect, when your subject missed the evolution of clothing fashion? ;;)
@@Chimel31 I don't get it...
The second camera angle looks horrible and totally unnecessary.
This was the most eloquent "I don't know" I've ever heard.
Hahahahaha, too right. Was looking for this comment
Almost like there's a lot of uncertainty and nuance when it comes to this topic
One thing I like about credible scientists...
They never claim to know things that they don't. They will outright say that it's just a thought or a postulate or a hypothesis than to saying it as though it's factually confirmed.
something most religious preachers/scholars never do....
@@monsurhabib NOBODY should claim to know things they don't. Period.
robert samuel, exactly, as opposed to the scientist in the picture.
One of the problems about scientists is that they’re being judged by the people who don’t understand science. Take idiots like fauchi for instance. Unfortunately it’s not about being a genius or a talented scientist these days it’s about who panders the most to the sheep. Fortunately nobles are granted by those who actually have a properly functioning mind and those who value results over big sweet words. Though it’s a matter of time before that too changes in the US, and that will be day that the US ends for good and when opposing advanced countries start culling the sheep.
Thats exactly why we should not discount religion or the Bible because as in this particular video , Mr. Dawkins states shows just what youre stating - he”s not sure and uses the word “if” multiple times. Just because one is a scientist doesn’t prove their hypothesis/ guess/ thought/ idea. Medical science use drugs to treat symptoms, all having harmful side effects but none having “healing qualities “ . My observatory hypothesis is that “man” in and if ourselves really do not know much about life , the origin of life or the reason that we are here. We arent “inherently good” shown how violent the individual and especially organized government is throughout history. I opt for a Creator who teaches creation , purpose and love. Although the avg “religious” person screws that up as well. Because again, “man” doesn’t know anything and can’t do anything right. Even our relationships. Theres no such thing as evolution. We need to lie to ourselves in order to maintain our “pride” so as to keep our “self” centeredness because we are selfish creatures of habit and of comfort as evidenced in our chronic complaining. Even in a confortable environment we find a reason to be unhappy, uncomfortable, jealous, discontent, etc. The human being is not evolved, we are not animals, we are human. Animals can not build, drive, reason or use the toilet bowl and wipe their butt with toilet paper. Evolution does not exist. Praise The Creator for life and love. Let’s pay attention and use what the Creator gave us well
Remember this man is only concerned with how things work and why things are. He doesn't give a damn about your religion, gender, or orientation. That's what I like about him!
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👍
Any person that believes homosexuality is a choice, is admitting that they are capable of choosing to become homosexual, themselves.
Assassin Vives So if they can, why don't they try it out?
for those who say it is a choice, then THEY could choose homosexuality. Then they could could get turned-on by those of the same sex and turned off by the opposite. That is true if sexual orientation is a choice. But, this is just a way for religious people to hate others, discriminate against them, and feel superior to them. Hating others and having the blessings of god. I would suggest hating others is a choice.
great
Very true. It's just that they wouldn't want to try it because they think it's a mortal sin :P I wouldn't want to try something if I would be tortured for eternity because of it
If people really could choose what sexual orientation they wanted to be, then homosexuals could just choose to be heterosexual, and then they wouldn't have to put up with the bigotry of Evangelical Christians and other homophobes. But the fact is that your sexual orientation is NOT a choice.
Why is there so much hate on Dawkins? he is hypothesizing what might be the answer, you don't insult a scientist because of their theory.
@hatter00 Yes, at least Dawkins doesn't assume and condemn. 😂
@hatter00 “Nope, the pieces fit together.”
Of course, they do. All you have to do is throw out all contradicting data and voila! Everything fits together like a GLOVE…unless you take into account that Abiogenesis is a scientific impossibility, that the fossil record has no proof, that the pre - Cambrian layers do show EVEN embryonic sponge eggs but no, ZERO, nothing of pre-cursors for the phyla that just suddenly appeared afterwards, that living fossils exist, that there are living examples of merged genus species that due to DNA can be shown to NOT be transitional species, showing that other fossilized non-living “transitional species” are just as non-transitional. Oh yeah, THOSE pieces are REAL empirical evidence that contradicts the theory but since were BIASED and they DON’T FIT (just IGNORE them. You know, out of sight out of mind,- It’ll JUST go away) So just like Dawkins, you’re SO Biased, that you are aware of some just missing data, but you’re so sold and brainwashed that to you, that’s just a missing i. If that's NOT assumption, then I don't know what is!
Yeah, plus this theory is informed because it has been seen in animals
@@mahdisuccar9054 Of course. Just like playing cards can disappear because MILLIONS of eye witnesses have seen that with their own eyes at Vegas magic shows. (BTW..The genetic ability that living things have to adapt to survive, -{longer or shorter beaks like Darwin saw} does NOT equal the ability to continue to adapt right out of their genus into a different phyla. THAT is what evolution says happens, and THAT no one has ever seen. To say that it does because we can "see" a finch with a bigger break, is like saying that because a magician can throw away a card faster than we can see it means that it disappeared.
Please don’t throw in the word “theory” so easily when you talk about hypothesis.
As usual, Richard Dawkins can explain complex science in a way that can be understood by the average person. Kudos to you Dr. Dawkins.
Shut up.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Too bad he cant make things clear to MAGA republicans!🤣🤣
@@MrBugPopdawg how did you break like 3 unspoken rules at once, one replying to a comment that’s SEVEN years old, two making this about politics, three using that silly ass emoji.
@@You-vv1xv Three unspoken rules?! How would I know given they are unspoken. I never knew Dawg!🤣
Natural selection does not work no more that well when there is civilisation that is why gays being extinct not is going to happen. Also being able to predict if someone is going to become gay i simply do not believe that. Sure when you have identical twins and one is gay the other one likely is also gay ..but you cannot draw farreaching conclusions from that. The thing is you can fall in love with a man and a woman, may it be accidental or not, and what you prefer with each brain being different, is hard to tell by definition. Likely there is a minority where it is over the top clear with in most cases it being hard to tell.
I am an ex-Muslim and i am proud (of leaving islam 😂), and Dawkins helped me a lot in my path.
I have a lot of friends that accept evolution and still countiue with Islam. What makes you leave it?
@@Izlyboy evolution contradicts with islam..u know..in islam, humanity came from adam and eve just like in christianity.
Me too
@@revolzsync1694 the idea that we came from adam and eve isn't the most horrifying one, the logical result of this theory is. If we have come from adam and eve only, it is impossible to deny that humanity started through incest, the thing that religion has always and rightfully objected to.
the king of OPOP, many religious people don’t see Adam and Eve as literally so for them it doesn’t contradict.
Since homosexuality seems to represent a relative statistical minority in every population, one could also assume that the genetic potential for homosexuality might not necessarily serve a survival-oriented purpose, but that it was simply a genetic potential that was able to hang around since it wasn't harmful to survival. After all, natural selection doesn't optimize or selects only traits that are productive, it only gets rid of traits that are relative worse for survival than others. But a gene pool that every so often produces 5% of gay people or so in a given population simply isn't harmful to the survival of that population. (And if the worker bee hypothesis is true, there might even be social functions).
So, in that case, it might simply be a random occurence that natural selection wasn't bothered about and so it still exists. Think of the colour of our blood, for instance: There doesn't have to be a specific, survival-oriented purpose to why it has this specific colour. One colour just developed, and since the colour didn't have any effect on survival one way or the other, it hung around. It is "survival-neutral" so to speak. Homosexuality as a phenomenon might be equally "survival-neutral" for any given population.
There are also things like "frequency dependant selection", which leads to a stable ratio of certain traits in a population.
E.g.:
Left-handedness is something based in genetics. It's also strongly linked to a slightly shorter life-span, lighter weight at birth, and some other things which are linked to lower fitness.
BUT if you are in a society, where everybody uses the predominantly the right hand for example to fight, you will have an advantage as a left-handed person, because your strong hand is the one the enemy or oponent might not be that used to (that's not just a so-so-story, btw, there is some evidence to support things like that. In tennis, for example, left-handed people do have a distinct advantage due to their unusual circumstances). Of course, this advantage only works, as long as your trait is a minority. As a result of the disadvantage related to these genes, AND the advantage that is based on the frequency your trait has in a population, you will end up with a stable ratio between your trait and the averege one.
The fact that almost every population has a stable minority, which simply doesn't seem to die out, and which is present in many, many species, I would actually say that there is some sort of frequency dependant selection going on.
Or at least I consider it a high possibility.
Demian Haki Interesting post :)
Just a little comment - there is a reason for the colour of our blood. Haemoglobin is a pigment. It is a red pigment. That's why our blood is red :) I only know this as I'm a nurse and this is something I am starting to be interested in as I've just started doing phlebotomy :) lots of people don't know, so you weren't to know.
lucy topsy Yes, but my point was that there seems to be no survival oriented purpose for why blood should have this particular pigment rather than any other. Or is there a reason that you know of?
Ah I see :) I don't know why it's that pigment. I'd like to know though :) Blood is one of the most intricate and interesting tissues in our bodies, in my humble opinion :) It's an exciting time to be alive!
Demian Haki What are you talking about? Blood is red because iron attaches to hemoglobin. There is literally rust in your veins.
Maybe the same gene that produces homosexuality also produces other beneficial effects. So the gene is selected by other factors.
Yeah, I was wondering if it's linked to other beneficial genes or perhaps on close loci.
@@kumaaraanderson234 Probably homosexuality is promoted by social selection.
@@BehindDesign Yes DR i agree with your premise...
It can be polygenic too
@@adrirajtalukdar4305 Yes, maybe homosexuality is a complex phenomenon involving multiple genes and also some environmental conditions. Maybe is sometimes genetic, other times is environmental but globally beneficial on the long run.
lol @ all the people commenting who think they know more about genetics than dawkins.
Just because someone isn't intellectually leveled with Dawkins on the subject doesn't mean that they can't state their opinion. Einstein expressed his theories of relativity as a nobody in a world filled with renowned physicists, yet he was the one who changed the world.
Sigmund Freud Einstein didn't change the world with a poorly researched UA-cam comment.
+Sigmund Freud Einstein didn't change the world, he changed contemporary physics of the early 20th century which paved the way for modern physics. Michael Faraday has probably had the largest effect on our world and contemporary society. But there definitely is a difference, Einstein and Dawkins were/are scientists, and science is defined by experimental observation. They dedicate their lives to producing theories and facts gained through experimentation and research. This is extremely different to the unexperienced, and more often than not, unqualified youtube commenters who base their opinion on who knows what. The point is, these guys know their shit. They have evidence and results to back up their claims, while most youtube commenters will not.
Virtuoso Joel people think that agreeing with Dawkins = genius.
Thing is, he also has 'personality', opinion, politics, financial interest, bias and so on. If you hear him speak on religion, he is aggressively more than atheist, but actually anti-Christ(ian). Interesting hat he mentions bottle-feeding. Ironically, the bottle is made of plastic. Also the baby feed may have gmo soy or corn in there. Ironic that he used that as an example. Taken further...the contact with the breast may influence a boy to love the touch of a woman.
mrlawilliamsuk Warmachine You started off ok but then descended into farce. Better luck next time.
I like how objectively he discusses a potentially politically charged topic
I don't like that 😂 I want to agree or disagree not just have an idea of a possibility.
Ciaran Clarke then science probably isn’t for you
His last hypothesis (the unproven "example") might be seen as coming from a political bias. But maybe that's just me.
It's political only for those who want to make it political. Same thing with race and gender.
@PassionOfLifee what are these?
Thank you Joel Pearson for defending reason and Dawkins.
What the Internet has become... Dawkins being VERY precise with wording as he ALWAYS is and people removing key words from his mouth to make their points.
Guys on the genetics and behavior research: remember that Dawkins had profound influence on your fields since the 70s. He is still honest to truth and a great communicator. Please let's show respect for such great and honest intellectual.
Thanks Joel and Dawkins.
I love how he explains in (at least rather) easy words but still keeps his explanations scientifically correct... and I even more like he discusses the validity of the question before actually answering it.
Fan boy alert
My sister studies history, and pointed out that many many people were gay throughout history, and many famous historical figures, who were married and had children, also had 'boyfriends'. Also things like the kamasutra, which is thought to have been written between 400BC and 200BC has lots of homosexual acts in it, so maybe its more social stigmas that have actually 'kept people in the closet' and only now that some places are becoming more and more accepting, we see 'homosexuals' more often. And to be honest I like it that way. Finally everyone can be free! :D great video.
I always wanted to take a degree in biology because of Richard Dawkins.
Do it!
You need a better example.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
A deep dive into the world of biology will lead you to the conclusion of intelligent design...
@@memorialmovies8830 hahaha no
Did you study biology?
@@memorialmovies8830 umm no, no real study of biology would even lead the most stupid person to that ridiculous conclusion
I didn't even know that genes could operate that way, I've learned something today. I had my own ideas for how homosexuality could survive natural selection, but the activated gene makes it seem more reasonable and definitely helps me understand evolutionary biology more. I also thought when you mentioned the existence of bisexuals that the implied statement that bisexuality and homosexuality could have an identical root cause was an interesting one I never considered. Thank you
Look up epigenetics, this will show you away that gene expression can be changed
Peter Bartley I knew that existed but apparently forgot/never learned its mechanism. Thanks :)
+Birchman Woody Freud postulated way back when that the natural state of sexuality is BIsexuality, because, as a humanist, he couldn't bring himself to state scientifically that as RATIONAL beings driven perhaps by reproductive instincts we must necessarily be limited by those instincts because of our advanced nature of desire....personally, as much as I disagree with Freud in many areas, this is one where I do agree...I don't think any culture or individual should have limits or hangups when it comes to the desire of sexuality....we are sooo different from other animals in that regard, so should regard it as a blessing, not a curse....
+Birchman Woody I do not think there was a whole lot of anthropological/biological/zoological studies delving into universal bisexuality 100+ years ago...I think that science came later...my point seems a step later from yours because of the moral dimension unique to humans...what I would argue is since WE DO KNOW we engage in behaviour based in desire, and acknowledge pleasure RATIONALLY, it is an extra gift certainly to be dealt with wisely and responsibly, but also according to our own discretion. For instance, I should have sex with whom I want to have sex, and there shouldn't be some douche in a white robe telling me I'm a sinner....the same gift of language allows me to communicate with 6 billion people, whereas chimps and whales lack that ability....plants innately make their own food, we cultivate ours, and everything on the scale in between relies on what is available...THUS, in MOST regards humans ARE quite different....
+TheGreatYukon Yeah that's why the nature vs nurture thing is a false dichotomy more or less... things are more... monist than they might seem
“Identical twins are more like each other than non-identical twins”… this is deep insight.
Good talk, but you and your camera people have to coordinate :D
Shkotay D It's a constant dual cam setup, so I'm afraid you have to blame the editing guy who clearly did favor one lighting over the other. ;)
fjaurler I believe the first video did switch camera every time Dawkins did. People however did complain over the constant switching so they uploaded a new version of the first one, and kept on not switching for the rest. But since the videos probably where recorded at the same time, little did Dawkins nor his team know this would become a problem and therefore he sometimes looks "of camera" (as the plan from the beginning was).
***** Drop your attempt at intellectual argument Niklas, the clip was abysmal.
canyousmellasmell There here are no arguments being made there by him. It is a simple summary of the production of this clip with a couple of minor harmless assumptions added.
If you don't understand what is being written, at least try and be polite, and ask.
How not to make a video. He should have filmed it twice one for each camera. I'd have reshot that. Much of the colour issues could have been sorted in editing though.
Best explanation I have heard so far. The human condition is so complex and varied. Such amazing creatures who need to make the most of their time and leave the world a better place for the next generation!
This is wonderful. Why isn't more of this level of stuff on mainstream TV?
its not clickable. that was true when you wrote this and by god is it true today
It is wrong that's why. Only 20% of identical twins where one is homosexual have both being homosexual. That's so low that it's most likely nurture over nature.
Dawkins didn't know this then but the epigenetic basis of homosexuality was also debunked when scientists did not find any gene or cluster of genes whose activation could reliably predict homosexuality. This paper was published in Nature under the title "No Gay Gene"
There are many other alternatives to the ones proposed here.
here are some:
Why can't it be a hormonal response by the mother when there is a large number of male children.
How about a hierarchy or bonding strategy used by males to improve group cohesion (since social animals reproductive fitness benefits from this)
Or a trait that is has a reproductive benefit to women, that is being selected for and male homosexuality is just a by product of it (thus is a net plus evolutionarily)
Or there are many genes that contribute to homosexuality and most combinations contribute to reproductive fitness, while some fewer combinations results prominent homosexual preference (also an evolutionary net plus for these genes).
Or why not all or some combination of these and other strategies (they don't appear mutually exclusive).
I think people only see this as a problem because we think of genetics like a computer algorithm, instead of chemistry.
My dad is 1 of 9 you could be right.
***** All evolution is a result of random mutation.
Jared Fait Random mutation and non-random selection...
Jared Fait Mutations or errors in replicating and combining DNA are what lead to potentially beneficial traits. Most individual mutations are usually either harmful or have no effect at all. Accumulations of non-harmful mutations can sometimes lead to a difference in an organism that affords them opportunity to survive long enough to procreate. Evolution is actually driven by nature if anything; successful traits are acquired in successive generations in a given population of organisms based on the benefit to the organisms' survival at that time and in that environment. The environment changes over time and shapes evolutionary pressures right along with it.
hcheyne "I think people only see this as a problem because we think of genetics like a computer algorithm, instead of chemistry."
Plus people not only forget epigenetic mechanisms, most have never even heard of epigenetics.
Could the gene not be recessive? So, you can carry the gene and not be homosexual, but if you have a child with another person also with that recessive gene you can have a homosexual child? Like being ginger or having blue eyes, etc.
There's also cultural causes. In the past a homosexual couldn't admit to being so, and would have to still get married and have kids.
Kevin Boone I wasn't saying the culture caused homosexuality, obviously, I'm saying there are cultures that did/do demonize and oppress it, so even gay men/women were still having straight sex in order to avoid what would happen to them in that society, whether they liked it or not. Thus passing on the gene.
Second, by it being a recessive gene it wouldn't make all your siblings carry it. For instance, I'm ginger. I can only be ginger because both my Mother and Father carry the gene to be so, even though only my Mother is ginger. My sister, on the other hand, is blonde. I'm also left handed. Again, both my parents have that gene, but in this case NEITHER of my parents are left handed and nor is my sister, however my Mother's father and two of my uncles are. That's just how recessive genes work, they're not going to effect everyone, but they're going to remain in their DNA.
+Andy Semple There are cultural causes to homosexuality*, but none in the West to my knowledge; here biology largely drives sexuality. Environment anywhere can play a role in particular attractions, to lingerie, feet, big butts and lips or a particular race, for example. The question is what triggers gender specificity, as it's not a choice --- whether, or not, to have sex is the only choice. Many think family- and/or social-dynamics play a role, but every explanation posited fails scrutiny for its glaring contradictions. For instance, some have claimed a family with a "cold" mother or absent father or an abusive parent could trigger it. But the children's adult sexual orientation largely matches the parents, as most homosexuals have siblings who are heterosexual. Why aren't all of them heterosexual? Various studies show between 2.9 -5% of human beings are homosexuals. I understand heterosexual sensibility and religion informs our concern about THOSE PEOPLE and that science wants to know why they exist. But I'd address those 3 problems from an understanding that we are human beings first. That there is an inherent dignity to each of us that society shouldn't trample. That it's a provocation to suppress, verbally abuse, physically attack, incarcerate, or kill adults and others for who they love. It is why THOSE PEOPLE don't equivocate. It's existential (a matter of life and death).
(Some non-Western ethnic groups seem to have encouraged the practice of homosexuality, in Papua New Guinea, for example. Others accept and/or celebrate same-gender loving members.)*
Show less
+Andy Semple For the recitation of the facts, which I understand, thanks. Your statement about cultural causes isn't clear to me. Please elaborate.Thanks!
Kevin Boone Well first, I never mentioned the West. I was looking at the grander scale of 'the world'. But that's not to say there isn't still some bias left in the West. Take the US, where Christian values are still alive in many communities. A person born gay there would certainly have no legal issue with being gay, but they'd still face losing their family, and may end up oppressing their nature because they've been taught within their religion that being gay is an evil thing. In other countries you'll have arranged marriages and so fourth, forcing a gay person either legally or socially to carry on their family line.
So it's not about culture causing homosexuality, it's about some culture hiding it away to the point gay people will still have kids, increasing the chances those children will be gay. Then those kids will hide it away, and so on.
You only need to look at Russia. When it stopped being punished there, the gay community shot through the roof as people that once hid it came out as gay. Putin, being an idiot, thought this meant it being legal was 'causing' gayness through the media without understanding that these people were always gay, they'd just never been allowed to say it. His way of dealing with it was to add weight and stigma to being gay without actually making it illegal, lowing the number of people willing to come out, and increasing the chance they'll end up in an unhappy straight marriage having kids that (even if the gene is recessive) are statistically more likely to be gay.
+Andy Semple Mr. Semple, our points speak to different issues. But you've done a great job addressing yours. Science would do well to test those hypotheses. Are you a biologist/geneticist?
This explains depression being genetic vs environmental perfectly as well!!! Awesome!
Depression is not genetic, like homosexuality.
@@fark69 a person can be genetically predisposed for depression but it's not the sole factor
I'm not comparing homosexuality to a genetic defect, but can't this question also be asked for defects ? Why are people still born with bad eyes and physical defects ? Or what about people with genes which make them obese ? In what way does evolution favor such things ?
I think this generates a broader question, rather than being specific to one thing, simply just ask, "What is the Darwinian reason for possessing non beneficial traits for reproduction and survival ?"
because we have in a way we have exceeded natural selection. We don't let people die because they're disabled. We don't require favourable physical traits to survive that's why we came up with supermarkets. Ultimately to determine what a non beneficial gene is a person must have it and not pass it on. The only way to get beneficial traits from genes is to have non-beneficial as well. Or at least that's my take
+Anthony R yes but surely this sort of privileged lifestyle has not been around to effect evolution to the required extent! Disabled people very well were left to die in the masses no less than 200-500 years ago, which is nowhere near enough time to effect us in any meaningful evolutionary manner! And even if you make the claim that we are like that now, it was the evolutionary process that lead us here historically! Your answer is essentially saying what we do now lead us to our current evolutionary state! The question was how did we get here now...
+Charlie Davis I get what you're saying. I guess what I was saying just explains why nowadays stuff like that is more prevalent rather than how we got there like you said
+Cloud Strife There can always be disadvantageous traits, even when an individual has two very "fit" parents. There are lot of reasons for this, random mutations, recessive genes, genetic drift etc. The idea behind darwins theory was that these traits can't (in most cases) accumulate because of natural selection.
Dawkins suggests an epigenetic solution for the constant rate of homosexuals in this video. Natural selection can't really influence this since the cause of the "disadvantageous" trait is not in the DNA itself, but rather in the way genes are activated. There is a correlation between the sexual orientation of two identical twins, but it's far from 100%. One guy can be gay while his (identical) twin brother can be straight.
+Cloud Strife
Perhaps it's because we haven't finished evolving and we never will.
We often consider ourselves to be the finished article but really we are just a snap shot in time, we are a long way from perfect and frankly I don't think we ever will or can be.
I love this man
Same mr Ms word, and could u give me a free copy of office 360? thx
Daddy Richard thick yo (No homo ofc)
Outside of religion you wouldn't have to worry about having to say that lol
gay
gei
I thought this had been somewhat elucidated with rather recent studies showing male children born to mothers who had given birth to previous males having an increased chance of being homosexual and the probability increasing with each additional male birth. I believe the researchers attributed this to an antibody mom produces in response to antigenic stimulation in her earlier male pregnancies, which perhaps alters hormonal levels in the amniotic fluid tending to produce males who later identify as homosexual and do not go on to propagate or have considerably smaller families. In a paleolithic family unit where resources were finite, one could hypothesize a selective advantage to this happening.
There aren't many people like him! Really want to see him live 200 years of life
Interesting hypothesis. I also heard another explanation. There was a (small) study that showed that if a gay man has a heterosexual sister, she statistically has more children than the average. The suggestion was that the different balance of hormones and things that made the male gay were present in the sister but had a very different effect that led her to have more children.
*With the amount of homosexuals in the world*
As far as I know, the amounts is in ones of percents. That's A LOT of people.
I think that it has to do with a child getting more "feminine" (gay male) or "masculine" (lesbian) hormones or "traits" than usual from their correspondent straight parents. Just the same way a boy can have his mother's eyes or nose, sometimes this goes further where he even has her sexuality (as with the daughter and her father).
As a gay guy, perhaps I got more than I bargained for from my mother, where I even "obtained" her sexuality. But I don't know.
That's an interesting way to see it.
I'm a lesbian. I have my mother's looks overall, but I have my dad's overall behaviour (the way he talks, walks, laughs, etc). So you're right. Maybe I did somehow acquire his sexuality too?
This would not explain why identical twins are very unlikely to be both gay
i think most people are bisexual, they just dont act out on it because of societal pressures
that makes no sense
@@5xmasterx548 It does make sense and it was also the conclusion of Alfred Kinsey who studied human sexuality quite extensively. This also explains the genetic problem, there is no genetic basis for homosexuality, rather most people can do both actions and choose one over the other most of the time due to socialization
@@fark69 there could be a genetic basis for homo if it increases their fitness but we can’t tell yet.
@@fark69 lol no then why do homosexuals exist? They shouldn't exist at all because most of society doesn't accept them. They should also "turn" bisexual due to societal pressure. But guess what, they don't. People have tried it and have failed. Society may force you to hide your sexuality but it can't change it.
You probably think that because you might be bisexual yourself. Straight people also had the same mentality.
I've been toying with this idea a bit lately and it's "is natural selection, for humans, relevant anymore?" because there really isn't anything stopping a gene from spreading. For example if heritable cancer is found in a specific family tree, that doesn't mean that gene will die out because those people still reproduce no matter. Specific traits don't really hinder our ability for survival in modern day society too because most of our traits are irrelevant in society and aren't necessary for survival. Idk if this is where you ask questions for these videos but it would be great to have an opinion on this.
I keep expecting him to say at the end, "And now young Jedi, you, will, die!" *lightning shoots from fingers*
Since homosexual couples still find ways to have children and therefore have not 'taken themselves out of the gene pool', doesn't the question become moot?
What do you think of the idea of homosexuality being an incidental expression of any number of other genetic traits like for example improved liver function?
prixat I think the question is still valid considering homosexuality has survived within our ancestry for millions of years- long before any artificial insemenation tactics were ever used. Just look at homosexuality in other species. Dolphins may be smart, but they lack the thumbs required to make in vitro fertilization happen.
rapeand
Homosexuality is still documented long before artificial insemination.
balzonurchin I wasn't thinking of IVF but heterosexual sex, or turkey basters, (due to societal pressure or whatever).
My main point being we don't have to think of homosexuality as the intended expression of some set of genes but perhaps the unintended expression of some completed unrelated function.
Then the calculation moves to the benefits of that unrelated trait (my example was improved liver function) against a reduced (but not zero) chance of passing that on to the next generation.
balzonurchin I think an answer would look like this: bigthink.com/think-tank/the-gay-gene-new-evidence-supports-an-old-hypothesis
balzonurchin
The gene(s) that, by some path, result in homosexuality _must_ have some benefit to reproduction _of the population_, somehow, _or it would not exist_.
It’s a shame how Dawkins’ biology work is often overlooked
Chris Goss he’s literally a world-renowned evolutionary biologist. He’s the author of The Selfish Gene, which is widely considered one of the great innovations in modern evolutionary biology.
Nice to see dawkins actually doing something worthwhile with his time rather than bashing his head against a wall arguing with religious people.
clearly its the work of the flying spaghetti monster!
+Robert Mitchell God is awesome! And no I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being totally serious.
+TheLady2luv for killing children's in Africa? God is bullshit
khairowensullivan Killing children in Africa??? I think you're talking about something else dude.
+TheLady2luv if you believe in "God" and his mysterious bullshit way...grow up...children in Africa are dying of starvation,disease. Where is God? Why can't he save those innocent kids...stop your bullshit God talk...grow the fuck up...I'm an ex Muslim and I risk my life for being an atheist...dipshit like you just make me laugh..fuck your Gods...
khairowensullivan First speak properly my dear then we can successful move foward in terms of reasoning. At the moment, I don't understand you. Sorry.
Look at me Dawkins, I'm here.
That's extremely intriguing, I had no idea that genes could have different effects depending on the environment.
deezebee2
Consider
predisposition for weight gain. It may be a survival advantage when there are
cycles of plenty and scarcity of food. Not so much when there is always plenty of food available in the individual's environment.
This is called epigenetics. It's a well estabilished scientific consensus nowadays.
I'm 50 years old, and my eyes always went to handsome males far more than pretty females. I came out at 19, and wish it could have been earlier.
You wish you could've been a gay baby HUH?
@@smkanim2009 I was a gay baby. My parents knew I was gay when i was born. While I was in the womb, I was already doing some interior decorating. When my mother broke water, and bared down and pushed, the first thing that came out was a throw pillow, lol.
Oh wauw, so you came out in the 80's? I mean it wasn't the worst time, but it's still cool that you felt comfortable at that decade to come out. Or did you live in a very liberal city/state/country? My country was already quite far with acceptance (there's even an 80's children-show here that covered coming-out in one episode) but your username sounds Anglophonic. Also GAYBABY!!!! 😄
Weird question but do you get aroused by your own penis?
@@SevastianNandez I'm gay and yes. I do
Totally unsatisfactory answer. He would have been much better off saying "we don't know."
I wonder why he didn't mention what seems to me to be the simplest explanation:
What if male and female homosexuality work differently? What if some straight males carry genes that can make their daughters lesbians, and straight women carry genes that can make their sons gay?
That way you can have a gene that's either neutral or positive from an evolutionary POV and still result in individuals who don't procreate.
The gene expression explanation sounds just as plausible, though.
Άλκης Δ., that wouldn't explain it, unless you're saying that the whole "attraction" thing is passed down from the parent of the opposite gender, as it is evolutionarily beneficial to that gender.
But you didn't say that. Is that what you meant to say?
+Άλκης Δ. Researchers report that they have linked male homosexuality to a small region of one human chromosome, a region designated Xq28. Scientists said the work suggests that one or several genes located on the bottom half of the sausage-shaped X chromosome may play a role in predisposing some men toward homosexuality.
A man's X chromosome is always inherited from the mother, who bestows on her son a reshuffled version of one of her two copies of the X chromosome. The latest results indicate that the newly reported genetic factor is passed through the maternal line, a curious twist given that in the past society has held women at least partly responsible for fostering their sons' homosexuality.
The gene could work by directly influencing sexual proclivity, perhaps by shaping parts of the brain that orchestrate sexual behavior."
Mouthy Mark Cool, sounds fascinating. I'll have to look that stuff up for myself.
+Άλκης Δ. steven pinker's answer is A LOT better
+Mouthy Mark It would explain why there still are homosexuals. Because men that were homosexual died, but the women were the reason their offspring (between heterosexual man and woman) in some cases inherited a slightly, lets say "deformed", x-chromosome and turned out to be homosexual. (difficult to describe it in english, sry)
Thanks Dawkins for making me feel dumb, again.
I’m a gay guy and have experienced same-sex attraction since kindergarten. I often used to wonder as a self-hating adolescent, “Why am I like this?” I eventually concluded that since I was incapable of getting a scientific answer, the only satisfying answer was, “...because.”
A lot of people find such an answer dissatisfying, but when you meditate on it, it really provides a greater overview which facilitates in liberating a person from feeling shame, inferiority, self-hatred, etc about one’s homosexuality. I didn’t choose it. It’s just how things shook out, either in the womb or in the first few years of my life. And in either case, what say did I have? None. Thus, homosexuality is, by definition, natural.
@Gen. Clorox Bleach What does that mean though?
how does evolution explain those eyebrows that won't quit???!??!!??!?!
Checkmate atheists
You probably need a lot more heat insulation than most.. 🤔 😁
Max S.F. 😂😂BYE! YOU KILLED ME!!👻👻
sexual selection. OBVIOUSLY! rawr!
tim driver KenM?
3:14 That's the men in girl sleepovers he pretends to be gay but not. Origin of the meme
I'm surprised he didn't mention that genetic traits can sometimes be linked. Eg, when foxes in eastern europe were deliberately bred to be tamer other traits also changed.
Maybe homosexuality is linked with something that's beneficial. Maybe the gene that makes some people gay makes others more resistant to disease, or more fertile, etc. So that even though some people didn't breed there was enough of an advantage in the species as a whole that the gene wasn't selected against.
I don't think that's how genes operate
@@MOMO-fe2ks check out what happened when they selectively bred eastern european foxes.
They selectively bred only those that were friendlier, more tame, yet other traits also changed, like gaining floppy ears.
There is some debate about why those other traits changed, maybe it was just a coincidence or maybe the genes did multiple things.
If it is true that multiple things are effected by changes to a gene then it could be a reason for many things being the result of natural selection and evolution.
@Mike No, it's that each gene affect multiple traits. So that a change in trait 'A' will also cause a change in trait 'M', etc
This affects anything that is caused by genes, such as physical and mental development.
If homosexuality is indeed something naturally coded in genes, as it seems to be, then the gene for homosexuality could probably also affects other aspects as well.
I read a study a while ago that was suggesting a correlation between homosexuality and higher fertility rates in women. ie that when one sibling is homosexual their sisters have higher birth rates. If true this would suggest that the gene that affects homosexuality is the same gene that affects fertility, and with higher fertility being a strong trait for a species survival, it would mean that homosexuality is a natural byproduct of something that's evolutionary beneficial.
All purely hypothetical at the moment.
Homosexuality isn't behaviour, it's a gene caused mental trait.
I’m an amateur history student, and that video gave me an, alternative idea. What if we’re making a mistake, looking at homosexuality from the male perspective. It is only in very recent history, that people mate, for love. For thousands of years daughters were married off, for political gain. They had no choice, and they HAD to produce heirs. Most people didn’t even expect to get a choice, like in many parts of the world still.(think of arranged marriages). So a homosexual daughter passes on the gene. Generation after generation.
Please just stick with the close up angle.
That'll do.
I diedddddd when they switched angles
why not talking about female homosexuality???
that was a long winded "i don't know"
You don't understand do you...
Well, I'm also a scientist and to me that was also a long winded "I don't know". He may sound sophisticated using scientific vocabulary. But scientists eventually get tired of that and start to look for more rigorous analysis. Even at the level of mere speculation, which is the case here with Dawkins, this is not at all an impressive reasoning. The lack of evidence for any of the examples is so overwhelming that any other non-popular scientist would be massacrated of peer negative opinions.
@@renancunha4799
Be like a true scientist and read these pages:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
www.nbcnews.com/id/35254750/ns/health-womens_health/t/destined-inherit-your-moms-body/#.XcaxiVczaUk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibling#:~:targetText=Full%20siblings%20are%20first%2Ddegree,in%20their%20human%20genetic%20variation.
www.britannica.com/science/mutation-genetics#:~:targetText=Mutation%2C%20an%20alteration%20in%20the,cell's%20or%20the%20virus's%20descendants.
Remember, you can't just call yourself a scientist without doing the research yourself.
@@renancunha4799
You actually did the same thing as Dawkins had.
Nice job biting your own tail
Mr. WorldSerpent.
@@striveforsuccessstudysmart3509 I didn't. I'm not the one who is beeing questioned about something and is offering an answer. I'm agreeing with the sir right here and giving my personal opinion. One guy Said the lack of knowledge is the problem for the young man here. I said I'm from the same enviroment than Dawkins and I think he doesn't know how to answer the question. Where am I beeing like Dawkins?
In our more tolerant societies, gay men now face less persecution and gay relationships are becoming more accepted. Will that lead to less gay men in heterosexual marriages, hence less gay men having children and ultimately less gay genes being passed to future generations and consequently a reduction in the percentage of gay men in future populations?
However, if something happens in utero, there may not provide a genetic indicator, because it came after conception. It has been indicated that some women’s immune system will fight the testosterone meant to program a male child at certain critical points in utero.
well Homosexuality doesn't pose any threat to life right?
Evolution deals with extension of life (generally) meaning that it isnt perfect but it is up to par with sustainability. Like with footwear, evolution didnt give us footwear we created it because walking barefoot causes all sorts of issues that we need to fix using our minds and the minds application to reality.
This taught me something about genetics. Got me thinking about which genes would be activated by which environmental factors.
I heard of a theory that says mothers who are more stressed and anxious and have these sorts of problems are more likely to produce homosexual kids because it assumes that the conditions of the environment the baby is being born in is not gonna be good for having a life so the kid is more likely to be born gay so he doesn't reproduce in such bad conditions
He didn't mention it but I'm sure it's talked about... is it possible that the gene responsible for sexual orientation is pleiotropic? That is, responsible for multiple (and possibly unrelated) traits. As such, it may never get selected out because without it, we'd lose the ability to make red blood cells (or something to that effect) and not survive.
that would come under the first one, no? that gay people have value to the community in ways other than reproductive? I think that the example given or the reasoning you gave is the most likely. it can explain the lower percentage of gays to straits whist also explaining why their percentage is not extremely low, like more obvious deficits.
It was possible but after the "No Gay Gene" study we can confirm this is not the explanation
Why would any gay person want it selected out? I am bisexual and would rather die than be heterosexual 😭
That was very disappointing! There are many traits that occur at a stable rate across populations that do not have an evolutionary advantage. Homosexuality occurs at the same rate across all human cultures. It is very clearly not caused by cultural differences. Not all traits need to have a clear advantage, they are simply variations that occur at a stable rate. These variations may have no environmental cause at all. It is true that some genetic expression is triggered by environmental events, but clearly that's not always the case.
Also, it's very important to separate genetic expression from cultural expression. A Gay stereotypical mannerism, like any cultural stereotype, is shaped largely by cultural/historical means, not genetic means. Even heterosexual gender stereotypes are shaped more by culture and history than genetics. What might seem "natural" can actually be "historical", a product of culture not genetics or some other non-cultural environment cause.
emchartreuse Could you provide an evidence (in a form of a reference to a research article) that demonstrates that the occurrence rate of homosexuality is the same across different cultures?
I am not a homophobe and I have utmost regard for Prof Dawkins but I think he's being highly speculative here.
Yeah, these answers are extremly hypothetical. But we cannot forget, that it is extremly difficult to find out, why a certain traid is evolutionary benefitial and what the selection pressures are. So, to a certain degree, there needs to be room for speculation.
But I don't think he does a very good job in explaining it here either. He usually does better.
I don't think he could have been any more clear in admitting just how speculative he was being.
Micah Y. ...and we are all listening to the speculations of a highly qualified 'guesser' soooo....lol.
How is that funny, he's an incredible scientist and more qualified than almost anyone to speculate.
That's the point. He's giving a 'How Possibly' story, not a 'Just So' story. The latter is where we've discovered something and are saying exactly how a thing is; the former is usually answering an objection of the form "X cannot be true because of Y." In this case, the existence of homosexuality could be considered a refutation of evolutionary theory -- "How can natural selection be correct when homosexuality exists?" A "How Possibly" story answers this question; although, because no-one is saying they've made a discovery, they're not saying this is the correct answer; just that answers exist and so the existence of homosexuality is not in itself a refutation of evolution.
He smoothly goes from question of "homosexuality" into "male homosexuality", completely ignoring that "female homosexuality" exists too.
I enjoy these. You keep them short and concise, educational, and interesting.
Interesting. See Richard Dawkins love letters. He revellers in them. I watch them all the time. So funny.
Good video about an interesting topic. I feel a bit smarter now. Thanks.
I’m still stunned that so many people view this man as some profound, intellectual hero.
Yes you're right people that form opinions based on facts are idiots. Better to form opinions based on feelings. Lib-Dems forever.❤️❤️❤️
@@catscats50 Awesome reply
he is 🙂
@@islamandchristianityhater5713 Uh huh.
I've read a few journals on the subject, and one group proposed that it can sometimes be the result of the mother's immune system not fully recognizing the child as a part of the woman's body due to the difference in hormones. The woman's body would then fight off these hormones and replace them with more estrogen. This hormonal replacement affect's the fetus as it develops and, if subjected to this early on, can cause the fetus's brain to develop female hormones instead of male hormones. I'm not sure if this is entirely true, and if anyone would like a link to the study I can try and find it again :)
randomintrestsperson I would love to read it. I have heard that too.
skyler thomas I know about a boy who was born with milk in his breasts. Too much estrogen from the mother but it sorted itself out.
that would only make sense though if only men were gay..what about lesbians? if they had extra estrogen wouldn't they be hyper feminine?
Brittany if you are answering me. This boy didn't turn out to be gay. :)
Well estrogen has nothing to do with homosexuality so I think that journal is just perturbating stereotypes
Population control? I love him but why is he only referring to Male homosexuality?
Because, strictly from an evolutionary perspective, female homosexuality can still produce offspring and pass genes to next generations, while male homosexuality can't.
There isn't any religious reason for it ffs for those that argue against it
Richard would be happier out of THAT Closet.
Just an uninformed observation. That being said It's not a choice you are born with being gay, you recognise " things are different" almost from the sand-box! Definitely from pre-school, primary and on it goes as you develop and start understanding the language for this. As a minority a marginalised minority, why would anyone choose to be persecuted and have to fight for their identity, their family, their security, their standing in society and sometimes their safety and are forced to bath in societies swamp of ignorance and stupidity. Life is incredibly complex! Thank what ever, who ever for Gay! Life is a better place. 🌈
Thank you Glen Hutton! For your realistic, sadly true, and thankfully OPTIMISTIC summary of the Gay situation - past and present!
Maybe homosexuality occurs when the bisexual gene doesn't get copied properly?
I actually like that idea, who knows, maybe it is so.
Being bisexual is used in some species between males for social purposes, so it is beneficial.
Sorry but UA-cam's retarded comment section doesn't let me space out paragraphs, for some unknown reason:
Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus.
press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.5.6564
Differences regarding the BSTc
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7477289 (abstract, full study below)
pure.knaw.nl/portal/files/515234/15106_285_swaab.pdf
Regarding the transexual fetus and hormones during development
www.researchgate.net/publication/11534454_Sexual_differentiation_of_the_bed_nucleus_of_the_stria_terminalis_in_humans_may_extend_into_adulthood
Indeed, then Dawkins would have said "it's genetic, but not inheritable". Made the same reflection
You're a dumbfuck, you make the choice to like the person and gender.
Oh look someone that denies science lol. It's not a choice and that's been proven deal with it.
It's a coping mechanism.
I think he needs to grow himself a Darwinian beard
Took 5 minutes to say “ No, evolution doesn’t explain it and I don’t have a clue why “
Everyone get ready for out-of-context quote-mining in 3, 2, 1...
"DAWKINS SAYS BOTTLE FED BABIES TURN HOMO!"
So nature relies on nurture in the way it displays itself?
i see no problem with how he explained this
One thing I don't often hear mentioned, is the fact that being gay doesn't mean that you won't reproduce. There are many gay when who you will hear about who hid their sexuality throughout their life and managed to get married and have kids before coming out of the closet later in life. I would suspect that throughout history, this was probably quite normal and maybe even the most common scenario, owing to the deep need for a companion in life and the potential danger of revealing your true desires. Many men or women may have chose to forge a heterosexual relationship for the sake of companionship despite the lack of sexual attraction.
Why doesn't he just say that he doesn't have a clue. I could be genetic, environmental, psychological or any combination therein.
@@criousone181 No-where in the video it says twins like their other twin. It says that twins were one is homosexual, the other is more likely to be homosexual as well.
Also, keep your cringy religious bs somewhere else, it sounds like a madman rambling.
dawkins is getting old...
He's currently 75 years old so, yeah he is old
hikevanossvikkstar he is about to meat his creator. I hope for his sake he repent his sins and accept Jesus and his savior.
Hold The Door!! he's not going to meet anyone, if that is what you believe, fine. But I and dawkins don't see any evidence for a god and therefore we don't think think that there is a deity, the chance for a god to exist is even to the chance that the flying spaghetti monster exists or that we're all living in a computer simulation.
hikevanossvikkstar how dare you blaspheme against the supreme god of the bible the creator of all things including you. I pray for your poor soul. Just accept Jesus and all the sins you have committed will be forgiven no matter how heinous, even pedophila and murder.
Hold The Door!! well, go praise and love your magical skydaddy if that's what you want
That was extremely interesting
I remember an identical twin study where one identical twin was straight and the other identical twin was gay. They were two biological brothers.
I may completely disagree with Dawkins on religion, but no one can deny that he is an absolutely brilliant biologist.
Well that's because one is fact and one is fiction so it makes sense.
Pure life you think evolutionary biology is fact? Wait I thought evolution was a theory with some evidence. Facts are axioms, and from what I know Biology, specifically evolutionary biology is not an axiom or a fact.
@@eduardocastaneda9476 a theory with an evidence makes it a fact, whoever in 2019 thinks evolution is only theory and not actual thing is just purely desilusional ignorant
Juraj Jurík go back to General Biology and learn the definition of theories, laws, and afterwards tell me any scientific journal stating evolutionary biology is an axiom. Afterwards we should also make the Big Bang theory a fact. Furthermore, if a theory is a fact then it cannot be improved upon, which theories are known to do over time. Like I said, go back to general biology and learn some definitions.
@@eduardocastaneda9476 mate you just try to seem super smart with wording but are an idiot actually, afterwards furthermore axiom my arse. You go back to elementary school and learn comprehensive reading and first understand the stuff you're trying to be so clever about lol
Q? Why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate Dr William lang Craig?...
Because it’d be a waste of time.
Because he knows that he would lose.
@@gskessingerable AMEN!
Settle down gay boy
@Drake Grey
Drake he ran like a chicken when the challenge was presented to him. He knows without question that he would lose and that Craig would make him look bad and that's why he ran from the debate.
I'm surprised you are only tackling his on a individuals level.
Didn't you teach us to think neo-darwinistic?
First, everything not sufficiently adverse in gene reproduction will not necessarily get pruned (junk DNA). Genes for being ugly or infertile or otherwise reproductively handicapped, can happily survive too in a population, if they don't have a high likelihood of expressing themselves.
Gay siblings share almost all genes, but not all turn out to be gay. It's unlikely to be down to only one gene. And it's likely that gene expression is conditional too.
So of course "the gay gene" can survive in a population.
From reading the selfish gene, I already had a idea in my head about this which frankly feels more convincing than this video.
The faith it takes to believe in evolution is astounding
yawn....
@@versioncity1 get some sleep buddy
So what is it about the modern environment that brings out the homosexual tendencies more so than in the past?
Nothing, people are just more accepting nowadays which means that people don’t need to hide who they’re attracted to. At a certain point the amount of people who identify as lgbtq+ will stop rising, just as the amount of left handed identifying people kept rising until it stopped at around 11% of the population when being left handed became normalized.
I got an ad about god before watching this 0_0
It is utterly baffling to me why the question even gets asked. I have absolutely no idea why homosexuality needs explanation. I see nothing wrong with it. Never have. Why do people spend so much time making a fuss about it?
There’s nothing wrong in asking questions.
Brendan Maclean are you now comming out?...
service asap what an amazing question.
sthindair I don’t believe I said there was.
@@brendanpmaclean I'll take that as a yes you are comming out...
As a young man, ALL of my friends were GIRLS but getting older I have settled on my attraction to men 🤣 I'm not sure where that places me.😮
WE WANT FRESH RICHARD CONTENT!!!
WE 💙 Richard Dawkins,
No homo 😏😏😏
could it just be a dormant gene that gets switched on sometimes?
That's what he meant with gene-expression. If it's switched one way it might have advantages, if it's switched the other way, it causes homosexuality. (though I think the milkbottle idea isn't likely, since homosexuality is older than even our species)
Simple people need simple answers, but smart people appreciate a hypothesis as food for thought
Agreed. I love thinking about stuff like this for hours.
The big problem is with Gregor Mendel or rather at least how we teach about him in school. We teach kids about his experiments with pea plants and that gives us the idea that genes have a clear cut effect on how the organism develops.
What we don't generally teach about Gregor Mendel is that for a few years before his experiments, he spent time purifying his pea strains so he could get genetically pure green and yellow peas. And that's what he used for his experiments. You're never going to get examples like that in nature.
The other possibility that probably works in conjunction with Dawkins' explanation here is that homosexuality isn't governed by one single gene, but rather a collection of several genes that all express themselves differently depending on their developmental environment.
I love how there’s an urgency for atheists to bash on religion.
Because in the USA there is still a sizable amount of people who want policy to be based off religious values
@Drake Grey Not here? More likely not atleast here.
@Drake Grey No trolling.
@Drake Grey Can't, cus your definition is wrong and there's nothing else you can say.
@Drake Grey And by what way you think i'm fooling with you?
The more I read and listen to Dawkins to less inclined I am to give credence to what he says. I don't why and I am certainly not qualified to debate the topic on his level. He just comes across as disingenuous and making it up as he goes.
Dawkins is one of my idols but he really needs to trim those damn bushy eyebrows.
No
Sounds like Dawkins is saying two things…?
1. There is a gene for homosexuality but it is dormant.
2. This homosexuality gene is triggered depending on your environment .
In other words, we don't know. Very interesting topic
i love how wonderful and complicated is the world without religion.
Ah yes. School shootings, abortions, transsexuals stripping in front of young children, identity crises, rising depression, rising alcoholism, rising drug abuse. A world without religion is a clown world.
@3:16 sneaker males, perhaps? A similar behavior shows up in cuttle fish.
Sound like guys with an obsession with sneakers ;)
Unfortunately, I remember only faintly an article that I have read in a scientific publication that argued for the third case that Dawkins proposed as an explanation of homosexuality. It looked at another mammalian species, it could have been goats or sheep or something related, where there is about the same frequency of homosexuality as in humans. Homosexuality was explained as a statistically relaible side effect of sexual development specific to both species. Sorry, this is all quite vague, but if anyone came across the same article please mention it. It was the most compelling and quite surprising explanation why homosexuality occurs in our species without violating evolutionary principles.