Is homosexuality simply a part of evolution?

Interesting post--well done.

I do believe in God and feel the same way.

I agree as well.

I think this is part of the UN plan to lower the population. 

that is why they make oyu eat all them chemicals in your foods. 

that is why they teach you kids to be weak. 

If only the UN had a plan to lower human population to a sustainable level. However, I think that most people delude themselves into thinking that there's no problem.

And yes, homosexuality is part of evolution (and I am talking about from a common primate ancestor). Remember that there is no "plan" to evolution, only that certain traits are carried forward because a) they provide a benefit and (b) they are not a serious detriment.

Considering it exists in other species, it probably isn't a taught or learned behavior. as some purport. Evolutionary components make more sense.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

Attempts to explain the origins of homosexuality suffer from the larger ambiguities and mysteries of human sexuality and our relationship to primates, etc.  Treating it as an "abnormality" has implied that it is a pathology or undesirable deviation from the numerical majority.  

Stigmatization exhibits the ignorance of fear of the other, and males who think gays are weak or sissy need to meet some of their weight-lifting buddies outside the gym.  The facts are that gay and lesbian people are attracted to people of the same gender they are and nothing more.  It may well be that our cultural influences suppress part of our natural bisexuality and ability to respond neutrally to stimulus.  What is clear is that people are different about how sex figures in their identity and personality and that those differences have far more significance than gender or orientation.

The problem of sex and power where dominance and control is imputed to sexuality, gender or orientation has nothing to do with intimacy and bonding.  Our desire and need to be intimate and to bond transcends monogamous marriage.  How sex helps or hurts make relationships work does not appear to follow clear and consistent rules.

What does not appeal to us is our problem.  We can exclude pathological attractions to children where essential inequalities in the relationship make any moral possibility impossible or extremely remote.  We can also treat brutality and sadism for the crimes of violence they are.  S and M, on the other hand, can have its own play-acting and mutuality.  Acting out anger at women is not about sex.  Eros deserves more respect.

What I suggest is the real question is why heterosexuality is regarded so highly?  Just as racism is a problem about Whiteness, homophobia is really about the dogmas of heterosexism.  The "sissie" image is about sexism and the ridiculous idea that penises confer penetrating power to dominate.  Covering vulnerability with images of weaponry and power is pathetic.  Macho insecurity is the real problem.

I can understand homosexually being genetic (although I don't believe all homosexuals are born that way).  Homosexuals can go against their grain to mate with the opposite sex, and have been coerced by society to do so in the past.  If it is genetic, will societal acceptance lead to its removal from the gene pool over time?  Or is it possible, say, for a trait that causes sterility to be passed on through genetics indefinitely?

A sexual act can be coerced...and isn't the same thing as an adult emotional and sexual bonding being drawn only to the same sex.. In coerced acts, the emotional content found in non-coerced acts is lacking.

Performing a homosexual act doesn't make one homosexual. It happens all the time in prison...and is usually coerced....with both parties maintaining heterosexual orientaton when released if that's the one they had when they entered prison.

Mark wrote If it is genetic, will societal acceptance lead to its removal from the gene pool over time? 

Probably not. They don't reproduce to pass on the gene. They aren't the source. If it's maintained, it's locked into the species.. Why?

Perhaps it's a gene to address over-population.of a species since it's so wide-spread among species....and with societal repression, isn't allowed to function when its required..Getting married and having kids is a great alternative to the gallows.

Maybe nature handled over-population problems...and social constructs didn't allow it.

If they ever discover "the gene", or combinations of them, I'd be interested in studies correlating the gene/genes with population density, nutritional food availability, mother's stress (which  can increases cortical production), . and the like...... to see if there is a connection between one or a combination of factors. A trigger for the gene to be activated.. Some genes require one.

If it's nature's way of natural population control for our species....we screwed up big time.

Why is the gene maintained...when those acting upon it don't pass it on? That's contrary to genetics.unless its a locked in gene....like eyes.  with differing levels of triggers from one individual to the next...as is found in other species.

Nature provides genetic triggers in some species for population increase....some members of some  species even changing sex...readily observable through physical change. 

 A population control effect of homosexuality  is observable over a wide range of species...including our own if we care to see it.. Elephants for example don't overpopulate,, don't underpopulate,  have no natural enemies to keep their numbers in check,...and have homosexuality. .Probably genetics is the only explanation for that...

That's my own theory. I'd like to see it proven or disproven someday.

 Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

Sorry, just to chime in here with a biologist's perspective,

Excellent questions. Perhaps sexuality can be thought of like height (i.e. how tall a person is), which is influenced by many factors and can take on an entire range of values.

Some versions of genes could be beneficial in one copy (heterozygotes), and detrimental in two copies (homozygotic). Sickle-cell anemia is a great example, since one copy of the gene help prevent malaria, but two copies result in the disease.  Perhaps this is why these genes "for being gay" have stayed around. For example (in an extremely simplistic view), I can envision and too much testosterone in men could lead to excessive fighting, so there may be some gene that depresses its effects.  But when two of these genes are present in a man, they work together, and become homosexual.

To Polycarp, I'm not sure that MarkRogers means "coerced" as in "raped", but "bent by society's plier's" as in Bob Dylan (just a little joke).

There is no "why" for genes only "how".  Genes also don't work at the species level.  I would be hesitant to say that homosexuality is anymore wide-spread now than it has been before.  It is becoming more acceptable thanks to our belief in privacy and individual freedom, and people are become more vocal about it.  Who knows there may have been distant ancestors that died out because everyone was homosexual a long time ago, but I doubt that ever happened, and certainly couldn't happen now.

I wonder, whether, instead of just one axis, of which strict hetero- and strict homo- are on opposite sides, if there is another perpendicular axis that corresponds to (roughly) how introverted and extroverted our sexuality is (or how important it is to us).  For example, someone, who flaunts his heterosexuality is perhaps not any more hetro- than someone who does not flaunt it.  The same goes for homosexuality, except that the more introverted homosexuals are more likely to go their entire lives without acting on it because of what is deemed acceptable in society.

Perhaps the real question isn't how homosexuality evolved, but as to why societies have tried to repress it? If homosexuality is caused by a gene that confers benefit in heterozygotes, than Nature does not need to repress it (I am not sure how Nature could have the intent to repress), the gene will limit itself because homozygotes for the gene would not normally reproduce.  Only if the gene were closely linked to another gene (such as eye color) and THAT was actively selected for, then the society would possibly be in trouble.

If genes don't serve a function of "why", they become regressive. When they don't serve a purpose enhancing the survival of the species...they diminish

Would like me to restate it as, nature keeps the populations of some species in check through a homosexuality gene. . A how, not a why.. That implies I know that as fact....I don't. Then we of course go back to my previous post. I'd like to see that proven or disproven.. A test of the theory...I could care less either way...and am interested to see if is so or not so...

 The purpose is a why as much as it's a how....and science doesn't like "why's"...and has a lot of difficulty addressing anything psychological because of it. .We can tell how anger or sadness is  created, .and often have no clue "why" the how of that response is triggered. 

Einstein once said. "The value of a man could be measured  to the degree he lost his self."  We know "how" he said it. Why did he say it?

.I didn't say homosexuality was wide-spread for our species....I said it was widespread over species, that is, it exists in many species other than our own...including Thom's ducks..

. Two very different things.

rsyi wrote: "Perhaps the real question isn't how homosexuality evolved, but as to why societies have tried to repress it?"

Ireply n a simpler age, population meant strength. The commandment to be fruitful and multiply  was adopted by a pretty small group of people as a religious tenent. not by  dwellers of an elbow to elbow slum in India..

Up until the 30's, the commandment to be fruitfull and multiply made birth control illegal. We've done that. We can stop now....and we still hang on to the social mores.of 5,000 years ago. Basically changed to, "you have to be willing to be fruitful and multiply and don't have to....take the pill".

Native American Nations for the most part allowed homosexuality, some even exhalting it as special. . They also didn't overpopulate to the point they couldn't sustain their chosen lifestyles.. Populations didn't decline below  maximum sustainability of the envronment to support. them. . They maintained balance. Populations remaining stable for centuries.

Wars of conquest never really took hold. Large populations for strength was on the back burner.The cultures didn't provide  much incentive for war What are you going to do with an extra tippee after you've risked your life to kill its occupant? Couldn't pack it home and rent it.. That wasn't allowed. Each owned their own dwelling..Very different thought processes.

I'd like the theory proven or disproven. I like all theories proven or disproven. It's my nature. Unresolved questions bug me.. 

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"..

..

Thanks all.  I was wondering if homosexuals having been expected historically to live straight lives is why the gene would have been carried on.  I understand, now, that it can be present in straight people as well but not triggered, or only one when two is needed for the effect (like blue eyes).  After thinking about it I kind of figured I was off-base a little.  Thanks for the input.

Sexuality, genetics, and evolution are all a lot more complicated than this discussion indicates.

Sexuality and sexual attraction are not controlled by one gene. The determination of reproductive tract is controlled by the release of testosterone at a specific and remarkably narrow window in the very early embryo. If testosterone is not released at the right time the individual will have a female reproductive tract. Irrespective of the presence of a Y gene. 

Sexual attraction is not either/or but a wide spectrum from strictly heterosexual to bisexual to homosexuality to asexuality.  It is obviously controlled by a complex interplay of genes and environment. 

In social species, sexual attraction and intercourse play a role far beyond simple reproduction. It promotes cohesion within social groups. That cohesion is essential for survival of individuals within the group, therefore genes that promote homosexuality will be passed on. People "have sex" for a lot of reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction. This is also true for social primates, dolphin, elephants, birds, etc.etc. 

I have read studies that seem to indicate that homosexuality increases in population under stress due to overcrowding, and it may play a role in population control.

The common disdain, hatred and fear of homosexuals is, I think, just another manifestation of " Fear of the Other" which after all is another way to promote cohesion within the group. The problem, after all, is in how we define the group. 

It sad how many self-described christians don't follow the core message in Jesus' teaching that we are all brothers. 

evolution is a big lie

republican ken mehlman created homo sex

he was born in a log cabin

i heard if election was held today bush would win by 10 points

go democrats!!they have no idea what they did wrong

almost everything-theyre soooo full of themselves

johnny mathis turned them all gay

 dulcimerbird wrote: I have read studies that seem to indicate that homosexuality increases in population under stress due to overcrowding, and it may play a role in population control.

poly replies: Ditto.....and you've shed more light on the subject.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

I just want to repeat the point that our thinking about heterosexuality has more to do with homophobia and other myths about homosexuality than any "study" of homosexuality has revealed.  It is like trying to understand racism by analyzing Black people.

Fear of the other and some aspects of chaos in inheritance laws provide the best explanations I have heard so far about homophobia.  Macho insecurity and myths about the penis also infect the subject.  I find myself laughing when the biological fit argument is used to justify heterosexism.  God should have designed a different ass, I guess.  If it did not fit it would not be homosexual sex.

As to orientation and our ability to transcend it, I have a good friend whose husband and loving father of the children finally told her that she needed to look into her orientation.  She is one of the nicest and most positive women I have ever known.  She loved her husband and he loved her, a lot to help her find her true self, it turns out.  She has lived several decades now as a lesbian.  It is where she finds herself whole sexually.  Jim knew he was not giving her that.  What a guy!

The differences between gay and straight human sexuality are minimal, although the cultural experience of coming to terms with a stigmatized and oppressed aspect of self can bring added maturity as well as damage to self-image.  The qualities of relationship outside the bedroom are just like heterosexual marriage with the advantage of an absence in sexism.  We should worry more about "straight" marriage inequality and power struggles than in same gender relationships.  

Being curious about what causes homosexuality does not make anyone into a bigot.  But, research in the matter has often been driven by the idea of "curing" or "preventing" homosexuality.  The important question is why bother changing something that has no real negatives and could offer positives taken on objective data?  Heterosexism is clearly a problem worth some attention, but asking about the cause of homosexuality is about as important as why some are left-handed.  We have a fairly good idea about what eye color genetics will determine, but of what use is this knowledge?

Actually, the only "cause"  in equal rights that's involved is:.. do peope have equal rights....or not.

At one time, people of other races were considered to be a sub-species...human-like..Genetics finally proved otherwise.,Fully human...and racists can't deny that..Other races had the same rights all other human beings did. Equally.

Ultimately, the proof is in genetics...and the proof wasn't always known about race. Common sense sometimes fails us when the worst of our natures takes over..If homosexual  behavior isn't learned or taught (those causes are pretty well de-bunked) ...yet is associated with emotional bonding. and is found among other species...there is something else going on...probably genetic

When people don't have the same rights as others, they become being seen as less than fully human. If they were an equal human, they'd have those rights.  When people are seen as even a  little less than human...therefore not equal in rights.......bad things happen..

.Then, people get hung...like in the KKK South. Or tied to a fence and beaten to death....like in homophobic Wyoming

In this country, , both happened in part because Christians didn't like "others'"  God-given genes.

I'm interested in seeing if natural population control is a component of that. Whether it is or isn't, I still think its genetic. The behavioral sciences have exhausted themselves....that's all that's left.

Retired monk - "Ideology is a disease"

.

I dunno, I have a handful of gay friends, I have absolutely no qualms or issues with their lifestyle whatsoever. Do what makes you happy, as long as it's not endangering anyone else, right?

I do however think that the idea of homosexuality being evolutionary, is pretty funny though. Now I have no clue where I sit on the creation VS evolution thing, I don't feel that there is ample proof in either argument to make me want to sign off on one VS the other.

I will say that, evolution is based around the Surivial of the Fittest, and to guarantee that you reproduce and bear offspring to further promote the existance of your species. 

On that note, if humans evolved into homosexuality, then they basically evolve themselves into extinction, which seems very counterintuitive to the idea of evolution in the first place.

I blame it most likely on simple chemical imbalances or genetic "mishaps" that confuse or distort that persons sexual identity with regards to what they're "supposed" to be. But I'm not a doctor or scientist or psychologist so really, I have no clue, this is just my immediate outside opinion, lol.

Cheesborn wrote: "I will say that, evolution is based around the Surivial of the Fittest, and to guarantee that you reproduce and bear offspring to further promote the existance of your species."

poly relies: And evolution/nature  also provides for checks and balances .so a species doesn't exceed the carrying  capacity of its environment....and extinguish itself.

Elephants don't exeed the carrying capacity...nor are their populations below it unless we intervene. They have no predatory checks in nature. Their populations are stable. Elephants have homosexualtiy.

Ditto Native Americans. Their populations didn't exceed carrying capacity. until they had unforeseen environment breakdown (Anasazi) and didn't drop below  carrying capacity. They had homosexuality...and didn't repress it.

Popuations were stable...always in-line with the carrying capacity of the environment.

The solution of lions seems to be infanticide as a population control..It's the primary check on their numbers...insuring survival of the species with healthy, well nourished adults to reproduce. rather than over-populated, half-starved individuals producing sick offspring.. .

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

It seems to me, from an evolutionary perspective, like a lot of waste to have nature's "checks and balances" determine that the best way to control the population of a given species is to have it bear offspring that will not reproduce. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just not bear the homosexual offspring in the first place? I would think if evolution is "smart enough" to regulate it's own population, it would find a more convenient way to do so, likely by killing off the offspring before it is even born.

The lion example would be the closest (and most brutal) representation of that. Now, I'm by no means saying that if we reach a point where we can determine whether or not a human fetus will develop into a homosexual, that we should just kill off fetuses that display those characteristics in the name of population control, haha. It's obviously completely wrong on a number of levels.

But for the time that this homosexual is alive, assuming his evolutionary purpose is in the name of population control (because in this hypothetical point in time there isn't enough space and resources for the amount of humans), isn't he kind of defeating the point by still attributing to the "problem" of overpopulation by taking up space and consuming resources?

It's like giving up your car because of the expense of ownership, but still purchasing gasoline and insurance for it.

(And again I want to make it clear that this is a "logic" counterpoint - I'm absolutely not saying that homosexuals are a drain on society, I have gay friends myself and encourage them in their own lifestyles.)

So genes do not confer checks and balances to a population, the environment does.  There is a classic example of rabbits and foxes, where the rabbit population is primarily limited by the amount of grass available, and the foxes are limited by the amount of rabbits.  The populations oscillate up and down as too many foxes over-eat the rabbits, and then the foxes starve, then the rabbits aren't being eaten and overpopulate.  There are no genes controlling this.  According to classic population genetics, any genes (technically, specific alleles or mutations of existing genes) that are (even just slightly) bad across the board (i.e. in all genetic backgrounds), will be selected against.  If there were a "gay" gene, then even the carriers of this genes (who were straight) would leave fewer propigating descendents than people who did not have the gene, and over time, this gene (allele) would die out.  In theory, socially-coerced reproduction would be able to sustain a "gay" gene, since the capability still exists, just not the desire.

Such a "gay" gene is clearly not the case anyway, since genetic lineage would show that, e.g. closeted individuals, if they had children, would more likely have gay children.  While there might be some society effects (i.e. their families might be more accepting), this would be minor compared to a true genetic effect.

I forget who said it before, but it is instructive to think of our physical sexuality resulting from many chains of events that are all set-up in utero, and then "flipped" to either "male" or female" in response to hormones (and originally the presence or absence of the Y chromosome).  Being biological mechanisms, which are both simple and incredibly complex, there are many places where these events are not coordinated.  Presumably, our internal sexual attraction is also set up the same way.  We and all other animals that rely on sex, have evolved systems which allow for these chains of events (perhaps think of them as dominos) to be coordinated.  This is perhaps why heterosexism is considered the "norm" since there appears to exist mechanisms to coordinate the development of our genetalia, sexual orientation, and other sexual dimorphisms.  We humans often can't understand this type of complexity, since our machines are designed with much less ambiguity than biochemical pathways can.  For example, we design a system that will tightly link the brake pedal in your car to a variety of systems that help you stop, e.g. anti-lock device, skid sensors, etc.  But for biological systems, the sub-systems may not be as tightly linked, so that when the master switch is pulled, is may not trigger the coordinated responses.  An analogy might be stage hands at a theater that have to change a set by pulling on different ropes on cue.  There are nearly infinite reasons why one or two people might miss the cue, resulting in new scenery combination.  Ideally, nature has given plenty of practice to the "stage-hands" so that sexual orientation is coordinated with our physical, outwardly appearing sexuality.

One extreme example is the existence of "mosaics".  These individuals (either animals or humans) were technically born male, because they contain both X and Y genes, but early in development, some cell divisions did not divide the Y genes into  separate cells, resulting in daughter cells that were XYY and X.  All the descendents of the cell with just X were female.  Depending on which cell this was in the early embryo, it could give rise to the  blood cells, so that if you took a blood sample for genetic testing, it would come back female.  Tissues in mosaics would respond differently to hormones, possibly resulting in hermaphroditity.  While mosaics are pretty rare, there can be a variety of other reasons what coordination of these pathways are not perfect.

Knowing the mechanism of how these switches are flipped and coordinated will be useful.  There may be homosexuals who would prefer the choice to be heterosexual.  Persumably there may be heterosexuals who would become homosexual (although this seems unlikely and ill-fated for a society).  As a parent, I would prefer that my child is heterosexual because it would be a more difficult life otherwise.  More importantly, this knowledge could help transgender people perhaps have kids, etc.

Mitchel wrote: In the case of lions I was taught that male lions used infanticide to kill the offspring of the previous dominant males offspring in order to establish a pride of his own offspring.  I've never heard of it being a population thing

poly replies: And an effect of that is population control....for a species that has no natural enemies to keep it in check. The lion population remains stable..As for Thom's ducks...note the emotional bonding component....the bond being drawn to the same sex.

It isn't too likely that homosexuality is a personal "choice"...when making that choice is a death sentence  in some cultures and ostrasizing in others.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

The problem with how evolution has been characterized in the common media is that it is, somehow, intrinsically 'progressive'--when that description may be just an anthropomorphic mis-interpretation--including its blessed 'survival of the fittest'.  Stephen Hawking has pointed out that 'the smartest animal' (us) has now within our 'knowledge-acquiring' capacity the ability to destroy most everything that has 'evolved' on earth (including ourselves)--leaving the only 'evolutionary winners' being bacteria and cockroaches--making the potential of 'evolutionary progress' be in the same line with apocalyptic religious prophecies.  

Do we have the capacity to change that with our will?  Do we have the will to change that?   Or, does the vagaries of the 'natural process' predetermine our actions?   This ought to be a question each of us answers--individually and collectively.

As far as to the aspect of the 'nature' of homosexuality, it may depend upon what you think the 'nature' of man, himself, is.  If there is no choice as to how that man functions because 'it's in the genes', then considering any other prospects by such a pronouncement seems inherently moot.   As far as the natural tendency of man, we do hold herding instincts--and herds are dominated by alpha-males.  Females in the herd have a 'natural attraction' to the dominate males--and that is in the best interest of the 'herd survival' because of the assumption that the alpha-male has characteristics that are best in the interest of that survival of the herd.  This description has been used as the excuse for, say, Bill Clinton's (and possibly Tiger Wood's) behavior with many females--females just have a 'natural attraction' to 'alpha-males'.   In that respect, the 'one man/one woman union' appears to be unnatural. 

With respect to homosexuality itself, Sigmund Freud, the psychoanalyst that posited that all human behavior has a 'sexual motive' in one way or the other involved in it, also stated that it was heterosexual interactions that were naturally more competitive--homosexual interactions (and this doesn't necessarily mean extant expression of homosexual behavior) are more of the stabilizing components of society because they are less competitive according to Freud.   This psychoanalytic premise carried the idea that every person carries with them heterosexual and homosexual tendencies--with the expressed component being determined by a mixture of internal will and external conventions.  There is some natural evidence of this in considering that the supposed 'female hormone' of estrogen and the 'male hormone' of testosterone are present in varying degrees in all humans--each carrying characteristics typical for that hormone--especially with the male hormone testosterone determining the degree of aggression and libido to the degree of the amount of the testosterone hormone present. 

So is homosexuality just a part of evolution?  That's assuming that the 'cause of evolution' is implicit in the results obtained--and, as I've suggested, that may actually not be the case with each particular expression of sexual orientation carrying components of will and nature--and environmental 'social' components.   As each organism is more than just their genetic imprinting (cloned cats don't look alike--indicating, for instance, that the environment of the uterus, itself, can affect gene expression), each person's expressions--sexual and otherwise--are more than what may be 'genetically predisposed'....and there does seem to be a component of the human will that appears to be in contradistinction to 'just nature'.....

Agreed.  My brother "chose" to be straight, had a girlfriend for 8 years, and got married for a short time.  Too bad for him he "was" gay, and realized that living a lie wasn't ever going to be fulfilling and was, of course, incredibly unfair to his straight wife who he did love.

I'll say it, again, 'genetic predispostions' is an overly-simplistic way to explain human behavior--sexual or otherwise....

Is it 'nature'--or 'nurture'?  One of the more violent dogs is the pitbull--it was bred to be violent.   In the ER, the worst dog bite injuries I've ever seen are from pitbulls (one I remember where a grandfather's pitbull almost scalped his 5 year old grandson--taking me 6 hours and 23 packs of sutures to sew him up--the longest and most detailed suturing job I have ever done).  However, pitbull owners tell me that if this dog is raised in a fashion that promotes a more gentle response to humans, a more gentle response to humans is what you get.  Pitbulls can be just as loveable as any dog to man--nurturing can affect nature....

Considering pitbulls, it's interesting to note that dogs (as well as all domesticated animals--but, especially dogs) actually prove the real motive of evolution in that they fill the niche that's there--in domesticated dogs' case, that niche was actually created and enhanced by man's input with dogs being domesticated for over 10,000 years and started as a wolf-like animal (which would probably be a mid-sized dog today) that now has through artificial selection extended to well over a hundred breeds with sizes varying from the chihuahua (which I've heard recently actually might be one of the few dogs that came from a fox-like animal) to the Saint Bernard.  And, as far as 'natural selection' goes, many of these breeds would not be able to make it on their own out in the wild without man's assistance (the ones most likely to make it in nature are the ones more like the ones that are in nature--those more of the size and disposition of wolves and foxes--and I've heard the ones more likely to make it as feral dogs in urban environments are more like the mid-sized terriers).   

I say all of this, one, because it's an interesting story, and, two, to re-emphasize the point that 'genetic imprinting' (if you will) has parts to it that are more than just 'in the genes' and, rather, also have in ways in which any environment may impress upon its selection other than 'survival of the fittest' and in ways which we have yet to completely understand--even with other species than man....(but, man as the 'selector' instead of nature in the evolution of dog breeds is still an interesting story).... 

Ehhh.. I'm gonna say that the pit-bull "placebo" is far too strong.

Yes, the most awful dog bites you saw were from pit-bulls, but that doesn't mean that pits are inherently mroe violent because of it. It's simply because a pit does more damage when it bites than, say, a lab or a huskie. And for that very reason, more lab and huskie bites are likely to go undocumented.

I remember a statistic from some dog magazine (I used to volunteer for a couple rescues and a GSD breeder years ago) that basically surveyed god-knows-how-many-people, and mixed the survey in with reported dog bites.. want to know what the ACTUAL most common dog bite is? Labrador Retriever. Labs bite more people annually than any other dog breed out there. Are they more aggressive? No, but there are a LOT of labs here in the US, it's one of the most common choices any family makes when selecting a dog. If there are more of them, it's more likely that they will do something. Pretty simple concept.

Like car accidents. If a guy in a Ford Excursion crashes into a Hyundai Sonata, the Hyundai is likely going to be completely destroyed. Likewise, if the same impact occured, but the offending vehicle was another Hyundai Sonata, the overall damage (to the car and the occupants of the car that was hit) is going to be far less. That doesn't mean that the Excursion is prone to more accidents because they generate more money in repair bills, it just means that they do much more damage to the vehicle they hit when they hit them.

By the same token, many small stop-and-go-fender benders go completely unreported simply becasue the damage is so minimal that it's either not worth getting insurance companies involved or both parties just decide to shrug it off.

Now if Ford Excursions were as popular as Labradors amongst families, then you'd be seeing statistics saying that "The Ford Excursion was involved in xx.xx% of all vehicle accidents last year and xx.xx% were fatal or left people in critical condition".. something like that..

I've been bitten pretty badly by 3 different dogs. 2 of them were tiny little bastards, the 3rd one was a German Shephard. And hell yes, the Shep was more painful and damaging, But I'll bet my last dollar that the Shepherd isn't nearly as aggressive as the other two breeds are. 

People report pit bull bites because they do lots of damage. But I have lots of experience with that breed and have not found them to be any more likely to get defensive or aggressive than other breeds as a whole. They'll just screw you up more if they do attack.

Uh, Cheesebone, I don't see a lot of dog-fighting rings using Labrador Retrievers--or any other dog for that matter.   Most fighting dog rings use pitbulls--and they do so because of the pitbulls' ferociousness.   Maybe you ought to ask Vick and Taylor why they didn't use Labrador Retrievers since 'they bite as much as pitbulls':

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/11727/IL/US/

http://www.inhumane.org/data/MVick.htm

I have heard that when most dogs bite, they bite once and it's over (although I have also seen a case of a man bitten many, many times by a pack of dogs--he had to run up a tree to get away from them--however, none of his injuries were on the caliber of the pitbull with the 5 year old boy).   Pitbulls have a tendency to chew, tear and rip....they were bred that way....not that 'any dog can bite'--pitbulls just 'bite more'....

Frankly, I don't think you should have pitbulls as pets with young children around--but, that may just be me....

Well, Mitchell McElroy, what I was trying to explain with my example with the dogs is that man has the capacity to alter the natural process through his will--those dogs would not have evolved in the manner that they did without man's input--including, by the way, the pitbulls whose ferociousness was bred into them as a trait man 'selected'.  

Now, that doesn't mean that man can change nature totally--parts of it are so basic and fundamental as to not avoid completely--and, in answering your question on homosexuality's place in that mix, as I said, it depends upon what you think the nature of man is.  Is man only guided by 'instinctual bounds'--or is man guided by 'his will'?   Personally, I give will a lot of credit--more so than 'just nature'--but that may just be me and not any 'provable' scientific premise. 

So, is homosexuality more 'nature' than 'nurture'?   Sigmund Freud thought we were all both heterosexual and homosexual--the expression of which had natural and socially conventional components to it.  And, genetic input (even in dogs) is not the be all/end all that some propose it to be--nurturing cannot completely 'overrule' that--it can 'adjust it' (and there is scientific evidence of that--genetic predispositions to heart disease or cancer doesn't always mean that such heart disease or cancer will occur--it only means that there is a statistically significant increase in that expression--the expression, itself, also takes into consideration the environmental factors such a genetically-predisposed person has--just like the cloned cats not looking alike because of the different environments such cats are developed in). 

Now, with all that said, I am not one to believe that homosexual activity has to be 'adjusted'--but, I'm also not one to believe that the expression of homosexuality is without choice.  I don't like that prospect in humans because I don't like humans--individually and collectively--not being able to choose a course in their lives.  

So, in the final analysis, if you agree with anything that I've said, homosexuality is both nature and nurture (same as heterosexuality).   But, I am in absolute agreement that I nor anyone else has the right nor authority to intervene in what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own house behind their own 'door to private property'--if there is supposedly something 'immoral' about that, I remove that obligation from myself AND  'society' and give that all up between those consenting adults and their God (the 'integrity binder')....     

By the way, I limit that right between 'consenting adults' because, just like contracts, I limit all consensual agreeements to those that consider themselves as equal--children are not that (nor are animals, by the way)--and there may even be some problem with the mentally disabled but that may have to be judged on a case by case basis....

Kerry, people use pit bulls because they do more damage than a Lab. It's pretty simple.

Like the car comparison, if you entered into a demolition derby, and you were given the choice of a 7,000lb 4x4 with over 300HP or a 3,000lb family sedan with 100HP, which would you pick? And you make that decision because one has a "natural" advantage over the other.

Pits have a ridiculously powerful bite and a large mouth, strong build, low center of gravity, they can and will do more damage when they bite. It's pretty simple.

Pits are GREAT family dogs, all dogs are great family dogs if their owners do their job as responsible owners. Yes, a pit is potentially more harmful in the event of an attack, but again, this is no different than if you are the kind of person who raises your kids on dirt bikes and snowmobiles. If you're responsible, and teach responsibility, the kids will likely have a more profound respoect for the machines and get more enjoyment out of them. Are they more dangerous than basic bicycles and basketball? Potentially, but are you going to suggest that people don't introduce these things to their kids?

As I said, nurturing can adjust nature--to an extent.   However, risking young children around that prospect is something I wouldn't do.   You could ask that grandfather if he had it all to do over again, would he have chosen a pitbull as the dog to be around his 5 year old grandson.   That grandfather shot that dog right after that (in fact, the dog was already shot by the time the child got to the ER)--that could have been the wrong thing to do if it had affected the area in the brain that shows rabies (to be able to rule it out--which could have also been done without killing the dog by just watching it for unusual behavior over the next 10 days to see if it showed overt signs of rabies--and, then, sacrificing the dog by some other way than shooting it in the head if it did)--but, they were able to cut the head off, pack in a bag of ice, and work with a local veterinarian to send the head off to Austin and had rabies ruled out the next day (I think they just have to look in the area of the brain for typical cellular changes of rabies through an electron microscope--which can be lost if they shoot the dog in the head).   It was just the natural viciousness of that type of dog....

Uh, yeah--but, then, I wouldn't put a 5 year-old on a dirt bike--nor give a 5 year old a machine gun.   As I said, I wouldn't have a pitbull as a pet around young children.  Same would go for a wolf that was the family pet--I wouldn't have the 'pet wolf' around young children either.  You might could argue (as I mentioned above) that, with enough love and nurturing, you can have that pitbull (and maybe even that wolf) be just as loveable and gentle as any dog (or wolf?).  However, in the dog's (and wolf's) case, I'm not so sure just how much 'nature' you can 'nurture' out--I wouldn't have a pitbull as a pet with young children around....

My example with dogs was to show how evolution can be adjusted in man's case 'away from just nature'--and it was to show how environmental factors can do the same.   Evolution--and its 'genetic imprint'--is NOT the be all/end all as to how an organism expresses itself which can be altered by other environmental factors....biochemically, psychologically, socially, or just about any other way....

How much 'will' can adjust any of that may depend upon what's being adjusted and how you believe that 'nature' affects more than 'nurture'--some, like Jasper's brother, argue that sexual behavior is so basic a natural prospect that it can't be altered by any means (Mitchell McElroy seems to imply the same thing)--as I've said, while I have no scientific basis for that part of my opinion (ie. they can quote authorities that agree with them), I, personally, have a problem with any act of man that doesn't have some form of conscious choice.   The reason I give is what I said about 'evolutionary progress' in my first post.  We, as the 'knowledge-acquiring' organism, have gained enough knowledge to destroy ourselves and most every other species that has evolved on earth (barring bacteria and cockroaches who can survive an all-out nuclear holocaust)--if 'we' (individually and collectively) cannot adjust that through any act of will and it is our 'natural' tendency to self-destruct through such 'herding interactions' that man has a tendency to do and possibly explained as being as 'hardwired' as any vicious nature of the pitbull that cannot be adjusted by our will, I dislike that prospect for many reasons....but, first and foremost, for its 'inevitability' (making Stephen Hawking's suggestion that such an 'evolutionary prospect' be along the same lines as 'apocalytic religious prophecies' with no way for man to 'adjust' it by consensus or will--showing that evolution's supposed 'survival of the fittest' prospects taken to its extreme and as the only motive that 'evolution' supposedly 'offers' can actually, through such 'competition', challenge all 'survival' if no will or consensus can change that...).  

If there is not a single gene for race, there isn't likely to be a single gene for sexuality.

I don't think it is about population control, or the percentage of homosexuals would be more variable, depending on the population to resources ratio for any given species. Has that been observed in other species? (Best not use our own species as an example, as homophobia considerably affects the proportions  who admit to being gay).

Nature is continuously experimenting; each pairing is a genetic experiment, producing a different mix of genes to any that has happened before (excluding identical twins). Some pairings fail to produce offspring at all, some produce miscarriages, some produce sickly offspring, some will produce healthy but infertile offspring and some will produce healthy fertile offspring. Of the healthy offspring, some will turn out to be heterosexual, and some homosexual. Homosexuals are useful to the community because they are not tied up in raising their own kids. They can go out and hunt for the group or help raise others' kids. This may offset any reduction in offspring of their own, as others' kids will be better fed and protected and stand a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce themselves.

If homosexuals did help reduce the population, then we ought to be welcoming a major increase in their numbers right now, to help reduce our overpopulation.

I'm no expert, I'm just thinking aloud.

All good points I think, SueN.  I think some have taken the Biblical precedent to 'go forth and multiply' to a ridiculous, unreasonable, illogical extreme.  I give man at least a chance to alter that....by choice (and 'nature' if you want to see it that way)....and 'sex' is NOT just 'an act of procreation'....

'go forth and multiply' makes sense when you need warriors to beat the tribe next door, or your numbers are considerably less than your environment can support.

Our ancestors managed to avoid population, until not long ago, why can't we?

I think in our ancestors' case (as in some undeveloped parts of the world today), 'nature' was against them getting too large.  During the Middle Age, once European cities got to a certain size, the Black Plague wiped out about a third of the population periodically.   Improved sanitation removed much of that.  I think that's why the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan was at the time one of the largest cities in the world when the Spaniards came across it.   The Aztecs had the 'strange habit' of bathing in water everyday--and the city itself had an organized sewer system.   It was the Spaniards that smelled so bad.....8^).....

To prevent pregnancies starting at too young an age, the ancient Greeks encouraged homosexual activity among the young population as a means of birth control.   The ancient Egyptians used animal dung vaginal suppositories as a form of birth control--I think that might do it....I think the largest city in ancient times was ancient Rome that I believe reached a million people--but, then, it, too, had a clean water and organized sanitation system.....and, of course, even today in undeveloped countries, thousands still starve every day....as well as die of preventable and controllable diseases....

I can't remember the name but a Catholic theologian wrote a book a while back that contemplated just how many people the earth could support.   His answer was it depended upon how you proposed they were to live.   If all the inhabitants were to live as in developed countries in first world order, we already had too many people.   If we all were to live on starvation diets with little else, he concluded the earth might hold up to 15 billion....

Ah, the mystery of human sexuality, gender and population control and why homosexuality exists.  Mitchell falls for the old heterosexist procreation argument about male and female genitalia.  But gay sex exists and the parts fit, so the physiological argument ought to be bisexual or God gets blamed for confusion in biological design.  

It makes more sense to regard human sexuality as more than a procreative act.  The bonding matters, and both heterosexual couples doing parenting and other couples who find personal fulfillment in each other use sexual intimacy to seal the deal.  It really is about "making love."

Rather than treat homosexuality as unnatural, because it does exist in nature we ought to suppose that it has a place in nature.  No signs of pathology can be found, and when we do the research on gay and straight couples, what is the same is far more abundant and profound than the fairly minor differences.  

This is why I want the question to be about heterosexuality and why we think of it as the exclusively natural way.  Just as racism is about the White Myth, homophobia is about the Straight Myth.  The interesting thing about the research into the causes of homosexuality is that they have been driven by the attempt to prove the pathology rather than demonstrate its opposite.  The research has failed to find what it has sought in any pathology, deformity or flaw to homosexuality.  They myths have been exposed by the failure to prove them.

And, as with most heterosexual couples, sex is only part of a much more complex, rich and interesting human relationship.  The focus on homosexuality as a defining term for people distorts the issue from the start.  This is one of the least interesting differences in human beings around.  It matters if you are dating, but not much if you are just friends.

I agree.  Any signs of pathology appears to be directly related to having to hide their sexual orientation.

Well, I guess that I think of heterosexuality as the way many species evolved to generate genetic diversity.  Most people (even homosexuals) would probably agree that homosexuality did not evolve to generate genetic diversity.  Even though "the parts fit" for us, I would be surprised if this is the case for all sexual species.  For example, if the parts fit only between the opposite sexes, there would not be any selective disadvantage.  I'm not an expert in that field though, so someone else may know of specific examples.  Ultimately, a species can exist without homosexuality, but not without heterosexuality (unless its asexual, and then there is no difference between homo- and hetero-).  I guess you could say that homosexuality is the norm for asexual species, and heterosexuality came the "new norm" for sexual species.

Like I said before, it's to be expected that homosexuality arises during the evolution of sexual species, because biological systems are complex and inexact.  That does not mean that it should become a stigma.  And even though nurture (the environment) probably plays a role, it is unlikely to be dominant (because there are not clear trends - even conservatives have gay children).  And although it is nice to think of us have a choice in these things, the desire for a choice does make it real.  For people who are unhappy with their sexual orientation (for whatever good or bad reason), many have really wanted to be straight, but without success.  Taking a physiological/genetic approach is more likely to help these people.

The "choice" is to be oneself or not.  That is why the left-handed analogy is apt.  My father was forced not to be a left-hander, and it was not natural for him.  In the larger range of human differentiation, sexual orientation is not a big deal.  When we take a social perspective on evolution and "survival of the fittest," as did Darwin, we don't get lost in the perpetuation of our genes and the romanticization of the "alpha male."

Diversity is good for gene pools, but evolution does not require Einstein to pass his genes on for his genius to do so.  What genetic confluence produces the next Einstein is beyond our control even if we wanted to play in the genetic lab for specious and morally dubious ends.  Culture and the nurture of the genetics that show up has more to do with a good society and fulfilled human beings, and even with genius.

Could we breed NBA centers or NFL linemen any better than we do now?

By this argument, many of us would not be allowed to breed lest we impair the gene pool.  And my point is that it is a silly, if popular, diversion.

Human sexuality is about a lot more than breeding or even what it takes to raise kids.  Inheritance laws have a lot to do with heterosexism and the stigma on same gender relationships.  Adding moral strictures to the sociology is how culture establishes and enforces its "customs."  It has to be wrong as well as inconvenient.

Monogamy is a matter of efficiency and practicality, but many societies allow sex outside of marriage when it is not confused with sex in marriage.  If one does not have to lie and sneak around, "cheating" can be part of the larger sociology of "marriage."  Making the proper use of our human sexuality into a sacramental blessing of true marriage may turn on Miss Christine, but the facts of life are that affairs happen for better and worse.

These affairs are not about a need to procreate and pass on genetic heritage.  They are about the psychology of sex, and there is nothing strange that gay and lesbian sexuality is based in this same human context.  We really have to get the procreative imperative and physiology rhetoric out of the way.  Even when sex is about having kids it is about much more important and profound aspects of relationship than procreation itself.

As to those who are unhappy being who they are, there are several cases that come to mind.  The transexual is "in the wrong body."  This requires a lot more than the gay or lesbian person who wants to be straight.  For the latter, education and support can do all that is required.  Religious dogma can be countered by better doctrine.  Social and family prejudices can be dealt with as many have.  Learning that one can be happy, moral and gay makes the closet feel cramped and stuffy.

Having to go through surgery to change genders and to encounter the world from that other side is a lot harder.  But for those truly trapped, it is a choice worth making.  I can appreciate why any young person would "choose" to be straight rather than gay, but those who go through the process of coming to terms with who they are learn things heterosexual people rarely do.  What really works is to deprogram the heterosexist homophobia and affirm the actual human being.  

The key to the argument is that it is natural and "normal" in the larger human sense.  They mystery of what causes homosexuality does not reduce to a simple gene or any sociological or psychological determination in family or community.  Homophobia has been based on bad Bible reading and cultural prejudices, not on evidence or good theology.  If it helps people to see a genetic 'condition' as God given or normal, fine.  I always fear that it will spark the search for the way to prevent homosexuality.  It does not need prevention, only acceptance and civil justice.

Don't be taken back by the rather pompous self-righteousness of 'the conservatives' and their 'family values'--recent exposures in the media indicate that they, too, have 'homosexual tendencies' (even though, as the hypocrites that many of them are, they try to 'hide it').  Perhaps DRC is right, it's the subjugating of the behavior as being 'totally immoral (and 'pathological')' that has created the rift of social acceptability in certain groups with regards to homosexuality.   I remember reading many years ago that one of the initiators of Reagan's 'new morality and economics' died of AIDS because of their homosexuality.   What that should really indicate to any observer is what people propose to be and what people really are sometimes doesn't match in the 'world of politics'.....some of that confusion may lay behind the issue of what 'sex' is in its social and personal context--is it a 'confirmation of love to one another'--or a means of expressing power.....the alpha-male context of the herd goes for the latter....

Uh, Mitchell McElroy, I watched your you tube connection on 'Causality' using that scene in the movie, Matrix.   While I'll have to admit that I didn't see that movie, I would like to make a little comment on what I guess was that guy's point in 'causality'.   He seems to assert that 'choice' is merely illusionary--and, then, goes on to claim that whatever was in that chocolate cake gave that woman (who attracted all the attention around her) some kind of 'pelvic explosion' that I guess was to represent sex 'beyond her control'.   However, I think you're missing one element in that movie--this guy was describing it.   In his ability to describe it, it appears he is already appealing to his conscious tendency to will whether he claims that or not.  Once you make the issue conscious, you now have a choice....

As you note in my statement to you, I admit that 'sex', itself, has been seen as a basal motive in nature.   There are many aspects to that baseness--and, if you are one to believe all of this is dependent upon 'nature', there is no escape from it.   You are as that woman 'manipulated by the will' of the man who gave her the chocolate pie (with whatever 'special ingredient' put there by this man to cause the 'pelvic explosion').   However, again, once that issue becomes a conscious contention (as the man describing it), such a description, itself, lends to the point that I am making about the will.   If he were to describe that to the woman involved, as she recognized the impetus and understood its components, she would also increase her conscious awareness of that event and, then, be more likely to adjust it according to her will.   Lack of such an awareness and conscious consideration does, indeed, leave it as a 'basal causality', so to speak....

I am one NOT to believe that 'nature' and 'consciousness of nature' are the same thing--and more to believe that such consciousness as man can attain and act on is more like 'the fourth dimension'--a position being that describing the 'three dimensions of nature' (and doing so in a manner that understands it) is NOT the same thing as 'nature', itself.   When you get into that realm of description (and understanding) of nature, you are now enacting in a manner that demonstrates will.....it's not as much as 'cause and effect' as it is understanding that realm of 'cause and effect' in a manner that can actually adjust it by will....and, in some ways, I do believe man has that capacity....not 'God' to be sure, but a conscious replica as 'God'....we are not 'natural automatons' as such unless we remain ignorant of those things in nature that affect our actions....but, the man that is making that description of that woman's behavior is already indicating that 'he' is not so ignorant....I'm not sure if 'he' is trying to indicate that women are or not--he does seem to be indicating that that woman is....

 By the way, in the herd-analysis fashion I descibe above, that woman the man is describing that 'so many men are attracted to' may represent an alpha-female....in 'natural terms', it's exactly like what they want their offspring from that female to be like....

If everybody could come back 150 years from now, we'd all see that this entire discussion was obviated by the Human Genome Project. 

I believe that as various genes which make up humans are isolated and identified, science will prove that homosexuality is purely "nature," with "nurture" as merely a tangential concern.  In other words, it will be acknowledged that a person's DNA and genetics determine whether he/she is gay.  I believe that this has always been the case, but now the Human Genome Project will result in geneticists being able to prove it. 

At the point that a gay gene is identified, one of two things will happen.  The first scenario is that most discrimination against homosexuals will wane and disappear because it will be understood that being gay is no different than skin color in that it's not a choice, and that, therefore, people shouldn't be discriminated against because of it.  The other alternative will be that, because by 150 years from now most humans will be genetically engineered, homosexuals will be engineered out of existence. 

Pre-birth DNA tests will be used to allow parents to pick all the traits of their offspring in advance, and once pre-pregnancy gay genes are identified as likely in potential offspring, those genes will be genetically engineered out of the forthcoming babies.  So, all babies will probably be born straight.

The only way this won't happen will be if somebody can identify benefits to society as a whole which derive from having gay people around, via their being potentially able to make societal contributions that straight people are incapable of making.  If no such potential to make such contributions can be identified, I believe that homosexuals will simply be genetically engineered out of existence.

I think this will happen because society as a whole will see it as an easy way to eliminate the entire firestorm of social and cultural issues and controversies stemming from "the gay problem," for better or worse. 

What basis do you really have to make such a prediction?   You know, what's interesting coming from such a 'statistics believer' as Ulysses is that Ulysses can confine the action of the particular to the trend of the general in setting up the 'statistics behind law'--and, then, Ulysses then can exclaim that each expression of the particular in each organism is specified by the genetic trend in general (with no right or ability to 'vary' from the 'trend' without, in some way, being 'wrong' in moral law and material science--the particular has no expression or right to act other than what is put forth in each field's 'general trends').   While there does seem to be a sort of order in that statement, what it leaves out is what it is actually claiming to address--the action and expression of the particular in law and genetic science.   Is that to mean that there is no variance in either case either allowed in law or possible in genetic science?  

Ulysses--as all 'trends believers'--seems to say so--but, does that really make it so?   What is likely happening is that Ulysses really hasn't thought (or doesn't really care) about what's being proposed in those statements--or, maybe Ulysses does 'believe' there is no real 'individual expression' in this world--and, like what Daniel C. Dennett proposed in his book, Consciousness Explained, there is no real isolate (in particular) of consciousness once 'we' (in grouped--or 'general' consensus) can explain every aspect of inter- and intra-neuronal transmissions in the brain without consciousness (I see a problem there--maybe Ulysses doesn't--read my comments to Mitchell McElroy above).   But, this is really just another 'prediction' that has yet to be verified (and many of us wonder if it's even 'verifiable'--read below)...but, those that profess it still like to present itself as if it has already been set in stone....but, actually, once you really start looking at the specifics of their propositions (in both the 'statistical and genetic trends'), those making such propositions actually know less than what they are acting like.  However, maybe Ulysses doesn't believe there is any room for 'individual expression' in law or genetic science--if so, as I've said before, it is the logical equivalent of 'majority rule over minority rights'--in both cases....so, what's the 'logic' about 'minority rights' in anything?   Not much, it doesn't appear.....and, as I believe, the 'smallest minority' is 'the individual'....

Here's some statements coming from a book by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart titled, The Collapse of Chaos--Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World, concerning 'genetic engineering' and 'organism expression'.  It's pertinent to this point:

The phrase "genetic engineering" trips easily off the tongue.  People talk about it as if it's just a matter of making a few changes to the DNA blueprint, and then you get a new organism.   The problem is that the blueprint image is a huge oversimplification.  It suggests that the developing organism just reads its way through its "Book of Life" sentence by sentence, building bits and pieces, rather like a child assembling a toy car from a plastic kit or factory building a real one.  But the DNA blueprint is not like this.  In particular, it is recursive--self-referential.  In everyday life we learn to distrust self-reference--for example, the dictionary definition of "the" as "the definite article."  But computer scientists find self-reference enormously useful--for the same kind of reason that the definition "A wall is a row of bricks with a wall built on top of it" does actually tell you how to build a wall.  (It's just a short way to say "A wall is a row of bricks with a row of bricks built on top of it with a row of bricks built on top of it with a row of bricks built on top of it with...")   What it doesn't do is tell you how to stop, but that can be taken care of in other ways.   Because DNA chemistry is like computing, it also makes use of recursion. 

Car blueprints specify how to make complicated little components like gearwheels, how to combine them into a gearbox, what to hook the gearbox to, and so on.   Biological blueprints do both more and less.   They do less in that their main task is to direct the manufacture of tools--proteins that go on to make other changes as a result of their own peculiar chemistry.  It is as if a car blueprint specified which factory workers were to be activated, but only the workers--various specialists--knew what they had to do.  So the blueprint says "Activate Fred," and no more; but Fred knows that his job is to put the gearbox in.

However, the DNA blueprint also does more than the car blueprint.  Car blueprints do not specify exactly how every component should be made:  Nuts and bolts, for instance, are taken off the shelf from the storeroom.  But DNA blueprints have to specify the precise chemical structures of all the "worker" molecules they activate.  The car blueprint doesn't have to specify designs for the tools used by the factory workers, such as power screwdrivers; but the DNA blueprint not only has to specify designs for the tools, but also for the tools that make the tools.  And it must provide instructions for how to read the instructions.  

We want to spend the rest of this section showing you just how incredibly complicated the DNA blueprint really is.  Please don't be put off.  The whole point is that the system is so complicated that it's almost impossible to understand.   We certainly don't, and we don't expect you to either.  What we want you to take away from this discussion is meta-understanding; comprehension that the workings of DNA become fiendishly complicated if they are catalogued in detail.  We have to show you some of those details to convince you, but we don't want you to remember them.

The DNA blueprint operates on four different levels.  Much of the cell's tool kit is made from RNA, and the RNA structure is read directly from parts of the DNA sequence.  The ribosomes--the tiny automated tools that read messenger RNA and assemble proteins--are made from two kinds of RNA:  large and small ribosomal RNA.  The "disposable" linkage molecules that collect various amino acids and bring them to the ribosome for assembly are transfer RNA; those, too, are read directly from DNA subsequences.  The enzymes that do the job of reading the RNA tools from the DNA subsequences are proteins, known as RNA polymerases.  Like all proteins, they have to be made--and they need the rest of the system, including themselves, for that to happen.  So do the important proteins of the protein-assembly system, the ribosomal proteins.  The entire structure is self-referential.

But there is yet another level of recursion:  when to make each of the bits, and how much to make.  These decisions are controlled by proteins specified by yet other parts of the DNA chain by way of messenger RNA....

I think you get the idea.   And, there's a couple of other points in 'genetics' that, like 'statistics', Ulysses seems to be missing.   'Genetic code' is NOT an 'all or none' response--much of how that gene expresses IS dependent upon its environmental exposures as I've said before.   When we claim to have genetic marker that, say, makes a woman more likely to get breast cancer, just like 'statistics', that doesn't mean that every woman with that gene IS going to get breast cancer--it just means that their tendency to do so is more likely ('we' have noted a 'statistical correlation' to certain genomes--without, by the way, knowing exactly why they are more likely to get breast cancer).  

Now, some genetic coding is more basic than others (in other words, they get directly into the very mechanism as to how that particular protein is made or expressed from the beginning of the organism's development and does end up every time with that form of genetic expression--like trisomy 21 and Down's Syndrome--there are other genetically transmitted diseases that do the same from the biochemical level--but, that is not, and never will be, ALL genetic expression--'sexual predisposition' included...).   Furthermore, as I've pointed out before (and it comes from this book), even exact genetic matches still don't come out 'exactly' alike--cloned cats don't look alike--indicating that there are environmental factors that affect how the gene is expressed (implying that 'identical twins'--had they been formed at different times in the uterus--or different uteruses--wouldn't be 'identical').   Right now, there is still that question:  Is 'sexual expression' a hardwired genetic coding--or one that can be adjusted by environmental factors?   And, despite Ulysses' 'prediction', it still depends as much on what you believe.....I think it always will.....but, again, that does depend upon where you place 'the sexual function'--is it basic to biological chemistry like Down's Syndrome or just a genetic trend marker that can still have different forms of expression like breast cancer?

Here's another statement from The Collapse of Chaos at the end of that section:

"Genetic engineering" reaches into this incredibly complex network of chemical computations, makes a few changes, and observes that something interesting or useful results from them.   All without really understanding how the chemical factory works.   Would you be happy doing that to a real factory--even if you couldn't detect any side effects?   Or would you be worried that although you've replaced a few random bits of machinery and are now making teddy bears instead of aluminum cans, one day the production line will screech to a halt as fluff from the teddies builds up and clogs the cooling system?

Here's some more later on in the same book:

The message of conventional evolutionary theory is simple and direct.  Evolution is driven by random mutations in genes, with no particular direction; mutations produce changes to organisms, and natural selection of organisms prefers those mutations that offer increase survival value.   But now we are saying that this is not the full story.  Mutations to genes may not affect the organism at all, and organisms may change even though their genes do not. 

It may seem that everything is up for grabs, and there is no connection between genes and organisms at all.  But that's not what we are saying.  What we are arguing is that there is no simple, universal connection between genes and organisms.  Instead, there is a rich, fascinating, and largely unexplored joint dynamic.  The story of evolution that we have just told actually has many advantages over the conventional one.   It tells us that the versatility of genetic kits drives evolution in directions that make sense on the level of organisms.  It shows how the geography of creature space affects the evolutionary dynamic in DNA space (man has already experimented in this manner with the different species of dogs--my addition).  Those giraffes did want to eat the leaves that were higher on the tree, because if they hadn't, they wouldn't have evolved longer necks. 

This may sound a rather Lamarckian statement, but there is nothing in the mechanism of genetic assimilation that conflicts with our modern understanding of DNA and development.  It just tells a less oversimplified story, and shows that the possibilities inherent in a genuine interaction between DNA space and creature space are greater than those that occur in either space alone.  Trying to refer evolution to events that take place in just one of those spaces impoverishes the richness of their interaction.  

The interactive story of evolution, involving both genes and organisms, is much closer to common sense and experience than the picture of random tosses of the DNA dice.   It explains innumerable difficulties that plague the conventional approach--for instance, the evolution of complex structures such as the eye or the wing.  It is simpler, more coherent, and more convincing that the neo-Darwinist "It's all in the DNA" story.  And it implies that in future, science should devote far more attention to the interactive dynamic on combined DNA/organism space. 

Despite all attempts to the contrary, there is more to the life of any particular other than 'the trends' set forth by genetic expression in biological science--or statistical assertion of imposed laws.....but, what the 'trend believers' do seem to want to do is to remove any sense of individual will by their so-called 'truths in trends'--and I see no basis for that assertion in science--or law--but, it doesn't seem to stop their self-righteous march on to........what?   Knowledge?   Insight?   All of that takes a conscious person to assimilate.....the opposite being the automaton that, with the human genetic predisposition to violence, marches on to a self-destructive war on many levels....that, according to them, couldn't be changed 'by choice' even if we wanted to--or even if 'the law' said so.....if it's all 'in the genes' as hardwired as the Down's Syndrome..... as if biochemical interactions without consciousnesses (or will) to 'adjust' the organism's response to environmental (and genetic) influences....

What Ulysses 'believes' and what has actually been shown to be scientific fact are two different things.   While Ulysses 'believes' in the definity of the 'selfish gene' disposing of any and all individual variances, Ulysses ignored every thing that I posted pointing out that genetic coding is too intricate and expansive for it to predict each and every possible expression in each and every possible circumstance (especially considering the way it has to work)--and ignored that there is such a thing as definitive 'genetic disabilities', but then, there is also such a thing as 'genetic predispositions' that ARE NOT definitive (which one has 'sexual disposition' been PROVEN to be, Ulysses?).  As much as Ulysses 'believes' in the definitiveness of genetic coding more than a trend, just exactly like Ulysses 'belief' in 'statistic trends' turning into definitive and imposed law, is also as much as Ulysses does NOT 'believe' in allowing the particulars of individual will particular expression--and either Ulysses doesn't know (or doesn't care) what that means--since all that is exactly like the logical equivalent of 'majority rules over minority rights'--both in law and science (neither have been definitively proven--and some of it can be quite oppressive if imposed as fact).  

Otherwise, read above.   That was the whole point behind Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart's book--we have come no where near definitively describing how nature collapses chaos in terms that identify every possible and potential expression (we just know that it does--and we may even have a few markers that indicate trends but we don't know how they do that--but  we already do know that such genetic trends do NOT express themselves in every situation as 'predicted' even with the markers being used--with the possible environmental impacts--both within and beyond the organism--making such predictions impossible to be certain in each and every case)--and, because of the way genetic expression does interact with the uniqueness of its environment in many ways, despite what Ulysses 'predicts', many of us know that we don't know that now, and 'believe' that we never will know all this so definitively on a genetic level as to be 100% predictable--despite Ulysses' rather pompous and, at least to date, inaccurate assertions.   Many of us who have looked into the mechanisms of gene expression (as Cohen's and Stewart's book describes) in the particulars realize that the variables are so vast that we will never be able to describe them as succinct as some profess (exactly like imposed laws based on 'statistical safety')--such 'trends' only represent that--trends...stating otherwise has a rather anthropomorphic (and authoritarian) ring to it as if 'predicting what they think science can do (and statistics can say)' is the same thing as 'knowing what science is (and statistics are)'.....

Except for the very point that Ulysses ignores those exceptions in claiming how definitive genetic science and statistics imposed as moral law are....making Ulysses quite disingenuous in those professions and 'predictions'....

All of this 'certainty' always reminds me of my professor's statement:  The philosopher is like a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat.   The scientist is like a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat--that isn't there.  The theologian is like a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat that isn't there--and he knows it.