Before I begin, let me point out that last night, IncrediIncredipete.com quietly passed half a million hits. The 500,000th hit belongs to someone in Australia. Hmm. Now who do we know that lives in Australia?
So, my genius brother emailed me yesterday with an interesting “proof” of why homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic, regardless whether you believe in Darwinism or Creationism. I thought it was good, so I’m posting it, followed by my own comments on the topic of genetic traits. Also, comments in [brackets] are my additions to his arguments.
If homosexuality is supposedly genetic, why do we still see homosexuality today? Since homosexuals de facto cannot reproduce [assuming human cloning remains illegal], they cannot pass on their â€œdifferentâ€ genes to any next generation. With that in mind, even if we assume more people are coming out all the time and adopting a homosexual lifestyle as it becomes socially or morally acceptable, the number of gays would still be ultimately shrinking as they die off young (from disease) and (biologically) childless.
And truly any gay genes should have been eliminated in past times when homosexuality was previously acceptable, as in Rome and other parts of the ancient world. Their argument of genetic ties is kind of like saying that being born a-sexual (as a biological eunuch) is a hereditary, genetic fact of life. If it ever was, it would either been eliminated after a single generation, or it would have to be tied to frequent singular genetic mutations (occurring regularly but never being able to reproduce to pass on the mutations directly), which is biologically unheard-of and simply improbable.
So whether you look at it from God-genetics or Darwin-genetics, homosexuality simply cannot be tied to genetics.
Eat that, Darwin
The only other answer might be that homosexuality is found in certain mother’s genes, but even here there is a problem. As per the second law of thermodynamics, over time (or generations), un-useful genetic material like homosexual genes would eventually be lost because it would serve no purpose or advantage to the mother.
It has been proven that genetic material becomes increasingly less complex with each generation as information is lost in DNA production. With that, non-essential information like homosexual genes would surely be among the first to be eliminated.
Interesting. You see, most of you already know, I’m a staunch believer that most, if not all, destructive or “alternative” lifestyles are a product of environment and experiences. I’m not going to sit here and try and tell you what you should and shouldn’t do. I’m not here to do that, but I am here to say we should call things what they are. A choice.
One example I’ve used before is the idea of the “obesity gene.” Are there some people who have diseases and disorders which make them gain and maintain extra weight? Of course. I’m not talking about those people whatsoever. But what about people who don’t have a disease causing it? Is it a genetic predisposition to overeat?
Not likely, given that obesity is a leading cause of death. It would seem that if it were a genetic trait, it would be getting more and more rare, not more and more prevalent. Call me crazy.
The same is true of drug addiction. Are people genetically predisposed, or did they just start down a bad path and can’t figure out how to change?
So, what am I saying? Well, genetic traits that are damaging or harmful to a species are always eliminated over time through natural selection. This is observable science. I do not believe for an instant that one can blame bad decision-making on genes.