When is passion for Happiness/Love, not fueled by our choice in Hope? Selflessly, Ps. Love is a continual belief in the variable choice as Hope (not its result) for Happiness. _Human Nature Pattern (E.O Pursuit of Happiness) facebook.com/notes/eternal-optimism/eo-pursuit-of-happiness-1st-read/10159904079405720/
razzdarkstar also loved his little smirk, like yeah, i heard myself say that, fuck you im a scientist though, and this is a real theory im positing. Wink wink.
This actually Dawkins describing himself. He has exploited the young,still developing minds of college students who are naive enough to take his message as the gospel.
@@terrylunsford352 LOL Dawkins is right, religious freaks like you are just worried about young people finding out the truth instead of being brainwashed by religious bullshit
@@terrylunsford352 "This actually Dawkins describing religious parents. They has exploited the young,still developing minds of college students who are naive enough to take their message as the gospel." I think you meant to say this?
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah Thers something so hilarious about hearing a proper English professor saying " the sneaky fucker theory". Classic! Richard Dawkins rocks!
+Crass Frazier You are One Sad Man; but it makes me laugh to think that while you're strutting about sneering at everyone else, someone is rogering your girlfriend. Oh? You don't have one? Now there's a shocker!
For all you Richard Dawkins haters : first of all, the title of the video is wrong. Richard doesn't explain how the gay gene was preserved. He talks about three POSSIBILITIES, or three HYPOTHESIS, on how homossexuality survived Darwinian evolution. That's it !! He's not certain. In NO MOMENT he claims to be sure about a gay gene, or if there is one, how it survided. He's talking about ideas. He's discussing possibilities. He's open to questions about it. It's 100% OPPOSITE of religious fanatics who claim to be 100% sure that their God created the universe, the Earth, and men, and etc. RD is humble and willing to admit he doesnt know, but he'll keep studying and debating. For you haters ... there's no "debate", there's just closing the ears and eyes and shouting "la la la la la la".
You are wrong. How he can talk about POSSIBILITIES if we haven't presented a gay gen? First a gen, and when possibilities about his origion. Are you talking about a tee pot on the Jupitier opbit although it is not conffirmed as a fact? Looks like Dawkins made up the argumentation on the same bases on which made it his religious opponents: imagination. Very funny)))))))))
Al Pack If you do / believe / act in any way, genes are involved. He is talking in generalizations, as scientists do before they have any data in the relevant area. Homosexuality could be one gene, a set of genes working together or a gene / genes working in combination with a set of environmental factors. However genes will be involved in some way, as genes are essential to life down to the last plant cell. But he is working under the assumption that he could be wrong and cannot say for sure. It has no relevance to Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot analogy.
thejolf No. You are wrong. Genes has nothing to do with things like homosexuality or zoophilie or what ever crazy things the people make. If you like football it has nothing to do with genes. That is something over. The phenomenon of our thinking. The way we do it. The reason why Dowkins are lying and pretending not to know this bullshit very obvious - he just do a favour to homosexual community. A great one. Because I can understand how hard for him to do it. But if we won't be honest with some things why on Earth he criticize the religion? The other things? I don't like - toPartlyHonest. It is worse then be a coward and lyier. The true and logic doesn’t need homosexual allies to proof themselves. I have lost my respect for Mr. Dowkins. Alas!
fpsqt I really hate that you see Creationists that way. I assume you experienced closed mindedness from some Creationists. I wish it weren't that way. I also hope that you didn't allow your antagonism towards them share the way you saw their arguments. Additionally, I really don't want to cause any argument but I've seen quite a bit of Dawkins stuff as I've been researching quite a bit on his way of thinking. He's brilliant but from what I've seen he's not humble. But since you mentioned it, where do you (serious question, not being sarcastic) get your idea of humility as a virtue? And please allow me to recommend something (I know I'm nobody to you, just out of respect, take it or leave it.) Please ensure that your emotions are not clouding your judgment towards Creationists or Creationism. Again, nothing but respect here.
Dawkins: Uncle theory is one.. Interviewer: Yeah it makes sense.. Dawkins: sneaky fucker theory is one.. Interviewer: yeah it makes sense.. Dawkins: you are gay too Interviewer: yeah it makes sense...
Dawkins could also theorise about rape as being one way (cruel) this gene was spread. Religion made almost mandatory to marry and reproduce, for a long time in history. Ironicly religions was so much against it but helped to increase gene incidence for it.
The term “sneaky fuckers” was coined by evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith to describe subordinate males who take advantage of the opportunity to mate with females while dominant males are otherwise occupied, leading to their reproductive success (Smith, 1993
Alexa Corabrynth :: Thank you for the explanation ! I was just about ready to forget it until I read your explanation ! ( Google was of no help ! Kept taking me to soccer terminology. ) ThKs ! ⬜⬜⬜ Dawkins doesn't even mention John Maynard Smith ; as a result, I was left wondering ( from his _first_ hypothesis ) :: How the hell are they passing on "gay" genes to kids they are babysitting, who have already been born w / o any conception-participation on the part of the babysitter ? I don't know what's it like on your end, Alexa, but on my end, the video starts in the "middle" of the conversation, like I missed an important part. He doesn't mention "bi-sexuality" until his _second_ hypothesis !
Richard Dawkins - a man of true love, compassion and great kindness and opposer of cruelty, tyranny and unreason. How could any genuine, loving person despise him? Thank you for all that you have taught me, sir.
@@vladimirerfan7721 Hey maybe that is how that gene manifested usefully under past circumstances - the ability to better love intelligent people for their teachings and heed them. Not blaming the gay guys, but I feel that ability is diminishing. :D
Yeah, but you kind of have to give him a break because he's not a scientist. He's just a Gay rights activist and supporter. He probably wasn't sure how to respond, conversationally, or to take it in as a lecture.
science is about narrowing down hypothesis over time, science still doesnt have the definitive answer yet. we DO know that environmental factors have no correlation with sexuality.
My thought on it was this: Back in history people persecuted homosexuals if they were figured out. So, people that were gay acted strait and had children. This process carried on for many, many years. And then here we are today!
Sounds possible but i bit too elaborated. Plus its consequence is that the sexual revolution will eventully reduce gay population and as far as I know its increasing.
Ricardo Andrade Camacho the gay population isn't increasing per se, it is just more people coming out and being accepted. There will always be the same amount of gay people being born but obviously there will be more as population increases.
Roninjuh Population won’t “increase” if it keeps going the way it is.. Gay couples cant reproduce, we now also have more man mutilating themselves to become women...so they can’t reproduce! And woman who do fall pregnant, are going to abortion clinics and having them slaughtered!! Literally MILLIONS of babies are being killed every year! Also in China.. Families want baby boys because they’re more useful to the family than girls are. So most who end up having girls, get them sent away to die or get them killed right there and then! How is the population supposed to increase with all that shit going on!??
and once again we see an atheist trying to understand and accept another group of individuals and christians saying "They're sinners and are all going to hell"
He didn't mention the most convincing and well-supported theory of them all: sexually antagonistic selection. The theory suggests that if some men have greater attraction to men, then their sisters will also have greater attraction to men. This increases the chance that the sisters will reproduce and pass on `gay genes'. It has been supported by studies looking at the number of children that sisters of gay men have, and the number of children that brothers of gay women have. The other purely genetic theories he mentioned have evidence against them. However, his environmentally-dependent theory is quite interesting.
This theory relates directly to what he said about the gay gene having different manifestations depending on circumstance. It is a female fertility gene, which also produces males who may be homosexual. Their sisters may carry this gene and hence be more fertile. We are all looking at it as a gay gene, but in tribal society, it is a fertility gene.
Peopl;e are finally reading and understanding the science but if the teaching of the ancient Israelits has a strong hold on them they will never want to be educated further oir eassily give uothier prejudices
When times are really tough, that is when natural selections clears the decks. Imagine say a plague, or a famine. If you as a child have a childless gay uncle or aunt, and your parents are wiped out, you still have a backup parent. If you did not have such an uncle, your entire family would be wiped out.
I think it is very unusual that religious people who listen to Dawkins more often than not still refuse to accept or even realize that he's talking absolute sense. Everything he says is so logical and factually supported.
Did you not hear the crap that came out of his mouth!?? He actually said.. “So that means the ‘GAY GENE’ was passed on, in the bodies of the children, who were being protected by the gay uncle..” So.. “Genes” are like freakin contagious now...like the damn chicken pox!?? It’s just like saying that uncles with Down syndrome, actually passed on that gene IN THE BODIES of the children...just by watching over the children!! You’re actually BORN with your genes, they are determined at the time of conception!! This is the most ridiculous and dumb thing I’ve ever heard! Not to mention the fact that scientists, have actually discovered that there is NO such thing as a “gay gene” and that no one is actually born gay! Seriously.. Am I the only one who picked up on this ridiculous and illogical crap!??
Here is what I think about homosexuality: Sex was not just used for reproduction, but it was also a tool to invoke feelings of loyalty in both participants. It would hold a tribe together and increase the likelihood of survival. Going by that hypothesis most if not all alpha males were actually bi-sexual and had sex with other males.
+abschussrampe Perhaps there's some truth to that under certain circumstances. In ancient Greece for example, Spartan men were encouraged have sex with each other because it supposedly created a greater bond. At the same time ancient Sparta is considered one of the most alpha, military minded civilisations in known human history.
+abschussrampe i don't see why a theory needs to be devised for why some people take themselves out of the race if anything it frees up space thanks you idiots
trenton gregory why do you need a theory for why some people take themselves out of the process of reproduction as if from the perspective that there's a reason it's done?
Well, I used to work on a cruise ship and 85% of the staff below deck were Filipino men, young men, all married with children back home, supporting their families, quite a lot of them were quite handsome and very party-going (most got drunk any chance they had, because sanity on a ship is in short supply and you go nuts if you don't vent). They were almost all gay. Blatantly so.
Indeed, I was surprised that Dawkins talked about a "gay gene" at all when AFAIK the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is determined by the hormones of the fetus and mother during gestation.
Afaik is not very far, i'm afraid. That is not the consensus at all. I am not sure where you got that information. There is no consensus, not afaik, rather, in fact.
he was theorising and clearly you didnt pay attention. Bear in mind also that this man has dedicated his life to the study of biology and is therefore far more educated than yourself, perhaps you should take that in to account before writing it off as BS
To further Chitrayudh's explanation slightly, he's suggesting that the uncle has a genetic relation to the children, and that his brother or sister may have that same gene, simply because it wasn't active, that sibling had kids. The gene was passed on, and it was protected in the environment by the gay uncle. Say 5 kids were produced and 1 or 2 of them were gay, they went on to protect their nieces/nephews in turn, which share genes with them via their parents(bro/sis), it works, it's logical.
@@phillbenjamin4715 His own theory was that the gene got passed down because in archaic times it functioned differently in that environment, and could have made a human "...good at tracking animal prey, or something...", Well that means it wasn't a gay gene yet it somehow mutated into one once the carrier was exposed to the modern environment. Sounds like balderdash to me. Remember this guy is a disciple of Scientism, the church of masonic bullshit. I'd like to see religion erased from humanity too but not to be replaced by the big bang, dinosaurs, planet earth, evolution, and all the other lies the control system foist upon us. I'm not sure why people are gay, but I trust Dawkins as much as I would trust any freemason carrying out "the Great Work".
@@sophiafake-virus2456 hmmm... I would tend to disagree. I certainly don't want to offend you in any way nor let my ego claim I'm right, but I've spent a lot of my time.doing science and I definitely see it's merits. Yet there's things science will never do, and can never do. Science will never replace the actions of a cat that can make us smile. Science will never replace what it feels like to scuba dive along a reef. Science will never replace what it feels like for me to spend time with a woman I love. But science isn't meant to do any of that either. Science simply attempts to explain the data before us. How is it that the behaviors of a monkey can be so like that of a human? Why is it that time always passes forward, never the reverse? Why do things fall towards the earth rather than away? How do we explain people's propensity towards violence in some situations while they exhibit great caring and compassion in others? Science strives to answer these sorts of questions but never to replace what it is to be a human, what it feels like, what love does for our minds, what a clear beautiful day does for our mood. The explanations that science seeks are not, and never will be, the things themselves...
@@neilarmstrongsson795 Ya know, I can’t say that I had any idea ten years ago that I’d be back here ten years later waxing poetic about it in response to a reply. Wild.
None of it makes any sense. If you have reproductive organs, your genetic code INSTINCTLY is attracted to the opposite sex. No one is born gay, they're confused or have given up pursuing the opposite sex.
While I'm not a Professor of either Physics or Biology, I'm taking my shot at the homosexual issue and its origins. To think about it, it's amazing how Physics will affect everything, including the biological development of species throughout generations. An example of this is homosexuality. Heterosexuality is the prime sexuality for procreation in sexually dimorphic species; a member of a species is attracted to a member of the same species which they can procreate with. This is undeniable. But, according to Newton's Third Law, "every action has an equal, and opposite, reaction." Therefore, if heterosexuality can exist (as an action in this case), then so too must its equal and opposite, homosexuality. So, in the end, homosexuality would be a naturally occurring action amongst a heterosexual populace, despite what some homophobes (with usually religious-based reasoning) would tell you. Food for thought.
I newtons law had anything to do with this then atleast the 50% of people would be gay. I thought the whole gay gene thing was debunked over a decade ago. I thinks its all psychological.
So, we are suggesting that gay men exist as helpful baby sitters and can be trusted with mama while dad is out hunting? My question would be, how would these sexually complete, but with homosexual desires, individuals be able to be trusted with small male children??? It seems contradictory.
Really interesting stuff. I think the main influence would be under the third hypothesis. Since genes are sometimes triggered by the environment I could imagine a scenerio in which this would happen. The latest idea I've heard is that it is influenced by hormones supplied by the placenta inutero but I've yet to look into it.
Being gay sucks, I wish I was straight, would love to know what it's like to be straight, things must be so much easier, I would love a wife and children but it's not to be.
Red shirt guy is a bit slow isn't he... Repeating what Richard says (usually twice), in a more puerile way. He just can't hang and he tried his best to appear interesting but it didn't work.
Ha, thank you! I can honestly say I'm not one of those people who hears 'Muslim' and thinks 'Terrorist'. Still, I think that fanatic Christians looking over to certain Muslim ruled countries and getting ideas would be terrifying. Actually, fanatic Christians learning anything other than some morals and getting a decent education is terrifying.
That's largely just because we just don't know as of yet, we have studies indicating which genes specifically deal with that behavioral norm but when we start asking "well, why is this gene preserved?" we simply weren't there to see, the best we can offer up for those kinds of "why" as opposed to "what" questions is hypothesis and educated guesses. Some behaviors may offer more likely scenarios, but ultimately we simply can't know that sort of thing in any concrete way.
+Dax Wagner Unfortunately, as a Richard Dawkins fan, he is completely off on this one. Homosexuality is the result of estrogen and testosterone filtrating the fetus in the womb. For instance, a homosexual male was exposed to a lot of estrogen and the markers on epi-genes was simply expressed differently. This is not 100% proven yet - but there is alot of research being done on this and it is pretty much almost settled that this is the case. But, in order for it to be a fact - we would need to do tests - and the only way to do so is to mechanically expose a child to the opposite hormone which is immoral to do. So no tests have concluded this - so it could all be false, but not likely.
***** Comedy of errors, sorry I meant to say potentially closest for siblings and as for the gene being dominant/recessive it hasn't been isolated so I doubt they can make a call on that. What I meant to say was that it had not materialised in the parent.
dzonobraz Genes are something you can decide. Well fuck me . I have decided that I will now have blue eyes. Uh Oh ...now I have decided that I don't have the free will to decide to have blue eyes. Fuck fuck fuck fuck .......
I'm not a science person, so don't take me seriously XD but, considering that we all were born a female first before the Y chromosome kicks in but what if there's a different concentration on the Y chromosome if that's even possible like... lacking concentration of the Y chromosome meaning the baby is more feminine? Sounds crazy but I kinda just thought of that XD
I'm unsure what you mean by concentration of chromosomes, since chromosomes are either there or not there, they don't vary in quantity. Each cell in a normal male has 1 Y chromosome. The number of chromosomes per cell is fixed. Some people are born with more Y chromosomes per cell than average. They do not turn gay, they just get birth defects. If you have no Y chromosome, you will be a woman. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome The genes on the chromosomes DO differ in how 'turned on' they are (a gene tells the cell how to make a particular protein, and the amount of protein that's made from that gene can vary between individuals). Some things linked to homosexuality (e.g. fetal testosterone exposure) are known to alter how much protein is made from certain "imprinted" genes, so it's possible that the concentration of certain gene products can make you gay. However, it's probably not genes from the Y chromosome, if anything that would explain transsexuals
We weren't born female. Unless females have only one x chromosome which they don't. We start off with an x. Having one x does NOT make you female, having two does
Michael Alizzi Actually he does have a point. X chromosome is a "female" chromosome, and the Y chromosome is a male chromosome. At the start, as an embryo, we are all female because the Y chromosome doesn't kick in yet. That is why men have nipples. If the foetus were to have a Y chromosome (i.e. be male) then it would override the X chromosome and cause the baby to produce more testosterone resulting in male traits, making the baby male. If there is no Y chromosome, the X chromosome's instructions are followed, causing the production of oestrogen. So everyone does start out as a female by default, but become male if the Y chromosome is present. And you don't need 2 X chromosomes to be female, there are females with just the one X chromosome, but this causes Turner syndrome which results in infertility (and shorter height), so you are partly correct that females need 2 to function properly as a female.
There is no "gay gene". You aren't born with a sexual preference, it is developed over time through experiences and the way in which you are exposed to sex in relation to the inevitability that you will feel horny someday as your hormones start to take effect. There are people that are sexually attracted to the tentacles of octopuses and get off on the fantasy of an octopus suctioning their genitals. What gene caused that? Seems more like a discourse in the trajectory of experiences that could've shaped that preference whereas a majority of people are more likely easily integrated into normal sex because the odds are in favor of developing heterosexual tendencies. It takes the right habitat and circumstances in someone's life to develop an abnormality in sexual preference. Just an example, I'm sure there are many but take a culture that views being vocal about sex among family members as taboo coupled with a mother of a to be gay little boy who displays behavioral characteristics of being incredibly uncomfortable when a sex scene comes on tv causing her to shield the eyes of her young boy child. This warps the mind of the boy who now cringes at the thought of fucking a girl because his first examples of women are of ones that inadvertently made him repulsed at the thought of a women figure in the act of sex because his mind now relates them too figures of purity and relates sex to an act of impurity no matter what. So even if he is exposed to more women who aren't that way, the damage has already been done. Whereas maybe the men in that culture are more confident and vocal about their desires to fuck which leaves men open to the young boy's mind to be freely sexualized. This is assuming the young boy has also been overly coddled and views himself as weak and therefor feminine which would set the stage for the fetish of relating more to wanting to be the girl in the first straight online porn video he watches. Being the man in the act of straight sex would be out of character for the young impressionable coddled weak feminine young boy. I could go into ethnicity, physical shapes and dimensions but that's enough about my theory which seems a lot more probable than there being a "gene" to explain everything.
Why does he keep saying "the gay gene" when there is no gay gene... lol hilarious. Direct me to the name of the gay gene so I can do further research on it... lol
varun009 it's not vague at all. He describes from an evolution perspective how gays could pass on the gene... what did you want him to say? Name the name of the first prehistoric gay?
I heard all theories discussed here and I find hard to accept that a human being can be bi-sexual, either one is homosexual or heterosexual, of course one day Science will prove me wrong only Science. Prof Dawkins is a GENIUS. I just love the way he addresses our very difficult questions about our SHORT existence on this planet. Thx for uploading this here.
+SALAH KHARTOUM Yeah you're right. He's a very brilliant man, and a capable speaker. But on the topic of homosexuality, he never had very convincing arguments. I suppose we still have to wait for science to understand it better, right now he's just speculating.
Liz Clegg When research states that there might be environmental causes linked to homosexuality, just keep in mind that they're talking about epigenetics triggering inside the womb during gestation (the environment being the womb of the mother). Homosexuality can't be acquired due to external factors during childhood, so many studies checked that out already. So while it may not necessarily be one specific gene, it has nothing to do with how you grow up. Studies back this up heavily.
What a load of rubbish this video is......clutching at straws now to try and make sense of this topic. You can explain or justify anything with this sort of approach. There is no substance behind this theory
+KuriousKoopa Troopa I'm not a fan of his. I watch a lot of debates between atheists and Christians and find him to be quite malicious. He acts like someone who has been hurt by the church or religion and now has an agenda against God. It seems very personal to him and his arguments reflect that. I love debating the topic but find it unfortunate when people can't be Nice about it 😀
Just Plain Nuts very well said. I have to commend u for saying that, I believe character in answering questions is better than the answer itself. And ur right, he acts quite egotistical in debates. I think that's wut ppl like about him lol XD I agree with neither tbh, I'm a muslim
Just Plain Nuts Yeah....although being gay myself and believing it's not a choice, I find his theories kind of confusing a bit all over the place. Still though, it makes more sense than God just straight up calling it an abomination in my opinion.
3.: PS: I should also add having a certain percentage of gays in a big group/community of humans makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view. Less males competing for women. Other group animals have different methods to avoid this kind of tension in a group and keep the peace. For example, supressed puberty or one alpha male growing stronger and bigger than the ones that are yet lower in the hirachy.
He doesn't push it as a scientific fact, these are just possible scenarios. His use of "theory" should be watered down to "hypothesis". Don't get your panties in a twist.
l no, a theory is something that there is evidence for but is not totally proven. A law is something that is totally proven.
2 ปีที่แล้ว +1
That last one was very spot-on and logical. Also corresponds with the "Universe 25" experiments, where changing environment changes behavior, interests, regulates reproduction, etc... gays of the modern society and urbanism could be maybe the "best javelin throwers" in the stone age.
These are great conversations not just because we're trying to debate what may or may not be "right" or "wrong' but because we have realized we all have one life and we're trying to understand ourselves from top to bottom in order to make it better...sexuality is just the most recent wall to get knocked down...and we're ALL the better for it!
You're free to contest the content of "Cutting consciousness down to size" by Tor Norretranders. To your core question - 'how do you know that?' For this I'll make use of a simple induction. An object with no (present or activated) perception is ignorant of information, and thereby unconscious. An object which perceives, categorizes and interprets information, is conscious. It is clear that the faculty by which consciousness is determined is the brain. However, staying conscious is a choice.
Biologists have found many genetic markers in homosexual men and women that are different than in straight people. Some are female markers present in men, others are male markers present in women. It's interesting.
he didnt explain it too clearly, but i think the point was that both 'brother' would have gene (one recessive and one not) so although the uncle only looked after the kids, the dad passed his recessive gay gene onto them
No one is suggesting that it is the only influence. It is fully accepted that a 'gay gene' will predispose rather than mandate. This is why the the 'safe uncle' scenario could work, the gay uncles genes are represented in the offspring of his brother, a brother who shares his genes to a large extent, even possibly the gay gene that in that case wasn't expressed.
Gah, our attention spans are diminishing. I hate that by the time he got to his 3rd theory...my attention veered off, and I realized that I hadn’t even listened to his 3rd theory, even though I was looking at the screen. I was thinking about feeding the damn cat 😂. Now I have to rewind and listen again.
Genes can be dominant or recessive as alleles, your entire genotype almost never gets represented in your phenotype. You might even have the gay gene yourself, that does not mean that it has to be active within you.
Don't forget too during ancient cultures, the "cradle(s) of civilization," it was common for other males to be left to guard the harem of females in these palaces. They were not just any males, though. I know in many cases they were eunuchs but it never occurred to me that perhaps a lot of them could have been homosexual.
My question for Richard would be: If evolution is based on survival and reproduction, how could evolution gave us homosexuality when that stops survival and reproduction of humanity??
There hasn't been any "gay gene" discovered , homosexuality is paradoxical to the theory of evolution, you're right that this would have been selected out generations ago.
"Sneaky fucker" is what he said. It's why they chose eunuchs to guard the harem but I guess sneaky fucker eunuchs still wanna have fun. "Science works - bitches!" is another fav' Dawkins quote.
Dawkins makes perfect sense. Thirty thousand years ago, the biggest threat to the tribe's wealth -- the "wealth" being the women and children -- was large predators and other humans. Leaving less "butch" men behind to defend the most vulnerable and valuable was a genetic survival priority. Even the strongest, fastest women were no match for a hungry lion or pack of wolves. Plus, the women were usually either pregnant or nursing babies. There's no way they could match the bone and muscle mass of the men. Example: A pride of lionesses and cubs menaced by a pack of hyenas or unfamiliar male lions will often roar for the big males. Very VERY few hyenas are stupid enough to take on an angry male lion -- and those that are don't live long enough to breed.
Uncontrollable reproduction is not a desirable trait in a species to keep the natural balance intact anyway. And homosexual behaviour was never meant to "simulate" reproduction, it is just another form to assert dominance and can also be a surrogate fo a non-dominant male to engage in sexual activity.
I don't like any of these hypothesis. In fact, I don't think there is a single identifiable "gay gene". I hope Dawkins was just speaking about scenarios because he was asked not necessarily because he believes them; otherwise, I'd be very surprised. There is no "gay gene" because there is no single gene for almost any complex characteristic. There is no "left-handed" gene, no "frowning" gene, no "screaming" gene, etc. Most phenotypes are polygenetic meaning they come from a complex interplay of many different genes and can happen in various combinations. Homosexuality or the sexual affinity towards the same-sex is certainly polygenetic thus we will never find a single "gay gene". Homosexuality is something that just happens, like left-handedness due to a coincidental combinations of genes that resulted in that trait.
Benny Corona I agree - I think Dawkins was trying to dumb down for the general audience, but unfortunately, some essential parts were not specified in his explanations.
Benny Corona You're right, the single most important study on the causes of sexuality found that the most influential factor (at least for men) was specific environment in the womb, at around 61-66% of the variance, and then genetics, at around 34-39% of the variance. So it doesn't seem as though there is a single gay gene. In order to solve the paradox of evolution (that if being gay has genetic origins then it would be an undesirable gene and have died out), another study was conducted that linked genes responsible for fertility in women to genes that are responsible for homosexuality in men, and there are a bunch of other explanations out there. But yeh, no gay gene.
***** Like hemophilia homosexuality is inherited throughthe female line. With medical intervention few males need die these days from hemophilia. To prevent homosexuality one would need to stop all female relatives of homosexuals from breeding. Impossible of course. We would not want to do that beause homosexual have contributed to society so much since they are often artist writers inventors like Michaelangelo, Caravagggio, and the brilliant man (name forgotten)who saved Britain from the Uboat menace by solving the problem of the German code machine Enigma. Anyway if you leave the homosexuals alone they won't hurt you or anybody else just don't have sex with them or fact with anybody without a condom except your wife or steady partner you respect.
There IS quite a lot of evidence suggesting sociopathy/psychopathy is genetic, we don't have any conclusive absolute proof mind you, but if you're interested we do have many studies that point to that being the likely key guilty party. It also doesn't mean such a predisposition will make one sociopathic necessarily, but that if one carries such a gene it may or may not have some requisite environmental context (age for example) in order to cause the end condition.
The gay twins study, where genetically identical twins exhibit opposing sexual orientation, suggests that orientation might be determined in utero from the hormones and nutrients reaching the babies from their mothers.
TheThirdHeaven2010 You have your theory and I have mine sweet heart. You have a very dark message to the millions of gay teens out there . They need support to accept their sexuality and to be HAPPY like you were for 22 years. Satan has nothing to do with gay folk.
***** Homosexuality is completely against evolution!, if you are gay your not going to be able to pass any genes onto a woman. Read about former atheist/lesbian professor of English Rosaria champagne butterfields amasing conversion. shes now a happy christian and married to a man.
85Aheadstix Did you really think you could throw "Atheist" in there and get away with it? Fucking fundamentalists are so god damned dishonest I swear. Muslims and Christians will lie lie lie for their god. She was a Unitarian. Essentially a religious hodge-podge deist religion.
The first theory gets more traction because females who gave birth to a boy have an statistical increased chance to have a gay second boy. The number of gays that are second or third sons is statistically higher than firstborn gays. So maybe it was beneficial to have a male that doesn't mate with females but has the power to protect the family. But we also have lesbian males, but I don't know if there is a similiar "first/second daughter" statistical difference.
It was just great hearing Dawkins say the words "Sneaky fucker." That was great
+Ali Ashraf that has nothing on him reading his hatemail, if you haven't seen that one yet.
bigmikeystyle Oh ive seen it
When is passion for Happiness/Love, not fueled by our choice in Hope?
Selflessly,
Ps. Love is a continual belief in the variable choice as Hope (not its result) for Happiness. _Human Nature Pattern
(E.O Pursuit of Happiness) facebook.com/notes/eternal-optimism/eo-pursuit-of-happiness-1st-read/10159904079405720/
He's translating into Gay
omfg
when a highly intelligent, eloquent, British professor just blatantly says "the sneaker fucker theory"
+M3Lucky lol "sneaker fucker"
Meow
♩ Every party needs a pooper, that's why they invited you.. ♩
♩♩ party pooper..party pooper.. ♩♩
M3Lucky Middle class people swear just as much
M3Lucky Yup! It's a proper Evolutionary biologist's term!
M3Lucky lol yes I burst out laughing I'm surprised that guy held it in
"The Sneaky Fucker Theory". I fucking lost it. 0:56
Ismael Machado Hearing richard dawkins say that without a hint of humor added quite a bit of comedic value to it
Ismael Machado Shit I knew it was coming after reading your comment and still lost it
Lmao 👾
razzdarkstar also loved his little smirk, like yeah, i heard myself say that, fuck you im a scientist though, and this is a real theory im positing. Wink wink.
razzdarkstar
Within science itself, Dawkins himself is often referred to as a sneaky fucker and so the stigma of it has been lost by now.
Sneaky fucker theory! hahahahaha
This actually Dawkins describing himself. He has exploited the young,still developing minds of college students who are naive enough to take his message as the gospel.
@@terrylunsford352 LOL Dawkins is right, religious freaks like you are just worried about young people finding out the truth instead of being brainwashed by religious bullshit
@@terrylunsford352 "This actually Dawkins describing religious parents. They has exploited the young,still developing minds of college students who are naive enough to take their message as the gospel."
I think you meant to say this?
Parents naive enough to leave their kids in the care of priests and youth councilors.
Sneaky fuckers. Yep.
I know it's childish but I did giggle when he said sneaky fucker!
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahah
Thers something so hilarious about hearing a proper English professor saying " the sneaky fucker theory".
Classic! Richard Dawkins rocks!
+Crass Frazier Lmao you Christians and your crazy beliefs make me laugh.
Crass
Get a life. I respect him for much, much, more than that. I just found sneaky fucker funny. Get a sense of humour while you're at it.
+Crass Frazier You are One Sad Man; but it makes me laugh to think that while you're strutting about sneering at everyone else, someone is rogering your girlfriend. Oh? You don't have one? Now there's a shocker!
No no,it was,,sneaker fucker,,hes a foot fetishist👟👞👠
They're the WORST ;-)
For all you Richard Dawkins haters : first of all, the title of the video is wrong. Richard doesn't explain how the gay gene was preserved. He talks about three POSSIBILITIES, or three HYPOTHESIS, on how homossexuality survived Darwinian evolution. That's it !! He's not certain. In NO MOMENT he claims to be sure about a gay gene, or if there is one, how it survided. He's talking about ideas. He's discussing possibilities. He's open to questions about it. It's 100% OPPOSITE of religious fanatics who claim to be 100% sure that their God created the universe, the Earth, and men, and etc. RD is humble and willing to admit he doesnt know, but he'll keep studying and debating. For you haters ... there's no "debate", there's just closing the ears and eyes and shouting "la la la la la la".
You are wrong. How he can talk about POSSIBILITIES if we haven't presented a gay gen? First a gen, and when possibilities about his origion.
Are you talking about a tee pot on the Jupitier opbit although it is not conffirmed as a fact?
Looks like Dawkins made up the argumentation on the same bases on which made it his religious opponents: imagination. Very funny)))))))))
Al Pack If you do / believe / act in any way, genes are involved. He is talking in generalizations, as scientists do before they have any data in the relevant area. Homosexuality could be one gene, a set of genes working together or a gene / genes working in combination with a set of environmental factors.
However genes will be involved in some way, as genes are essential to life down to the last plant cell.
But he is working under the assumption that he could be wrong and cannot say for sure. It has no relevance to Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot analogy.
thejolf No. You are wrong. Genes has nothing to do with things like homosexuality or zoophilie or what ever crazy things the people make. If you like football it has nothing to do with genes. That is something over. The phenomenon of our thinking. The way we do it.
The reason why Dowkins are lying and pretending not to know this bullshit very obvious - he just do a favour to homosexual community. A great one. Because I can understand how hard for him to do it.
But if we won't be honest with some things why on Earth he criticize the religion? The other things? I don't like - toPartlyHonest. It is worse then be a coward and lyier.
The true and logic doesn’t need homosexual allies to proof themselves.
I have lost my respect for Mr. Dowkins. Alas!
fpsqt I really hate that you see Creationists that way. I assume you experienced closed mindedness from some Creationists. I wish it weren't that way. I also hope that you didn't allow your antagonism towards them share the way you saw their arguments. Additionally, I really don't want to cause any argument but I've seen quite a bit of Dawkins stuff as I've been researching quite a bit on his way of thinking. He's brilliant but from what I've seen he's not humble. But since you mentioned it, where do you (serious question, not being sarcastic) get your idea of humility as a virtue? And please allow me to recommend something (I know I'm nobody to you, just out of respect, take it or leave it.) Please ensure that your emotions are not clouding your judgment towards Creationists or Creationism. Again, nothing but respect here.
fpsqt I meant *shade* not share
It's so easy to understand Prof. Dawkins when he speaks. It's so clear and illuminating. What a great teacher!
This is called proper elocution.
Dawkins: Uncle theory is one..
Interviewer: Yeah it makes sense..
Dawkins: sneaky fucker theory is one..
Interviewer: yeah it makes sense..
Dawkins: you are gay too
Interviewer: yeah it makes sense...
And now kiss (☉ ͜ʖ☉)
Lol
made me lol hard
made me lol hard
@@madarauchiha-xx5gp
As long as it didn't make you hard lol
Richard Dawkins dedication to promoting intelligence through rational thinking is an advancement to mankind. Thank you for sharing this video.
very well worded, and surely very true.
Check out a channel called ‘cosmic skeptic’. He’ll be doing the same one day.
Lots of rationality not much empiricism, the curse of 21st century “intellectuals” conmen.
@@iraqiimmigrant2908elaborate
Dawkins could also theorise about rape as being one way (cruel) this gene was spread. Religion made almost mandatory to marry and reproduce, for a long time in history. Ironicly religions was so much against it but helped to increase gene incidence for it.
Why does the other guy summarize
because he watches too much "This Old House."
He wants to feel relevant.
kingBRANDONcastle It's a interview technique. It's to make sure he understood the answer.
Because he's a colonist and they struggle with not talking for more than 3 seconds.
kingBRANDONcastle he thinks he needs to be relevant just cuz he's here
The term “sneaky fuckers” was coined by evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith to describe subordinate males who take advantage of the opportunity to mate with females while dominant males are otherwise occupied, leading to their reproductive success (Smith, 1993
Alexa Corabrynth ::
Thank you for the explanation ! I was just about ready to forget it until I read your explanation !
( Google was of no help ! Kept taking me to soccer terminology. )
ThKs ! ⬜⬜⬜
Dawkins doesn't even mention John Maynard Smith ; as a result, I was left wondering ( from his _first_ hypothesis ) ::
How the hell are they passing on "gay" genes to kids they are babysitting, who have already been born w / o any conception-participation on the part of the babysitter ?
I don't know what's it like on your end, Alexa, but on my end, the video starts in the "middle" of the conversation, like I missed an important part. He doesn't mention "bi-sexuality" until his _second_ hypothesis !
Lmao, it's actually hilarious how it came about
I don't know that I can go all in on The Sneaky Fucker Hypothesis as Its not entirely necessary
I have a gay uncle and he did take care of me when I was a kid.. love my gay uncle.
That sneaky fucker comment completely caught me off guard hahaha!
don't know, could be Dawkins likes to drop his pants and fuck tennis shoes
0:56
***** yes
***** lmao thug life
***** Dawkins must be a sneaky fucker LMAO
***** He dah Gangsta mahn
***** He's the OG
Richard Dawkins - a man of true love, compassion and great kindness and opposer of cruelty, tyranny and unreason. How could any genuine, loving person despise him? Thank you for all that you have taught me, sir.
Gotta love the guy. In a non homosexual way of course 😂
@@vladimirerfan7721 Hey maybe that is how that gene manifested usefully under past circumstances - the ability to better love intelligent people for their teachings and heed them.
Not blaming the gay guys, but I feel that ability is diminishing. :D
"The so-called sneaky facker theory.." All in perfect queens english. Brilliant
okay let me just replay Dawkins saying sneaky fucker over and over again
That interviewer was pretty annoying, he was just repeating everything Dawkins said and agreeing with him.
Yeah, but you kind of have to give him a break because he's not a scientist. He's just a Gay rights activist and supporter. He probably wasn't sure how to respond, conversationally, or to take it in as a lecture.
That's what journalists do nowadays, isn't it.. ?
I agree.
Richard Dawkins is the interviewer.
Like every atheist
Wait a minute... Did I just hear Richard Dawkins postulate on what he calls a 'sneaky fucker theory'!? This is absolutely hilarious!!! hahahaha!
P.S.- who is this interviewer who keeps sharing his random, possibly not so well informed opinion on the matter?
M3Lucky some moron.
***** one could assume being bi/gay makes you meet other bi/gay people more often. how weird.
M3Lucky Yeah, I too felt like the interviewer was too uneducated to partake in that conversation.
+Enkidu61 You what !
Hope you went to bed early Justin Morton....12 year olds shouldn't be watching adult programs....Loser
"Richard Dawkins explains how *a* gay gene *could be* preserved". That would be an honest title for this video.
Triggered?
That gay gene would be in the children's genetics, when they had kids it passed on.
This was my immediate thought lol they shouldn't twist what Dawkins means.
science is about narrowing down hypothesis over time, science still doesnt have the definitive answer yet. we DO know that environmental factors have no correlation with sexuality.
@NAATH KABOOTREE i dont think you understand how evolution works, friend.
My thought on it was this:
Back in history people persecuted homosexuals if they were figured out. So, people that were gay acted strait and had children. This process carried on for many, many years. And then here we are today!
Sounds possible but i bit too elaborated. Plus its consequence is that the sexual revolution will eventully reduce gay population and as far as I know its increasing.
Ricardo Andrade Camacho the gay population isn't increasing per se, it is just more people coming out and being accepted. There will always be the same amount of gay people being born but obviously there will be more as population increases.
Roninjuh Population won’t “increase” if it keeps going the way it is..
Gay couples cant reproduce, we now also have more man mutilating themselves to become women...so they can’t reproduce!
And woman who do fall pregnant, are going to abortion clinics and having them slaughtered!!
Literally MILLIONS of babies are being killed every year!
Also in China.. Families want baby boys because they’re more useful to the family than girls are. So most who end up having girls, get them sent away to die or get them killed right there and then!
How is the population supposed to increase with all that shit going on!??
Roninjuh Also, no one is “BORN GAY.”
Scientists have proven that’s impossible and that there is no such thing as a “gay gene” either!
and once again we see an atheist trying to understand and accept another group of individuals and christians saying "They're sinners and are all going to hell"
+Emma Chekwa Yep; that's modern Christianity; Hate Your Neighbour; Never Forgive Anybody Anything.
They have the same imaginary friend.
+Andrew Heenan true, just one just recently got banned from behesding people or torturing anyone who doesn't believe what they believe: Christianity.
Emma Plays Yeah if only christians were as accepting of gays as muslims are.
Well, being gay is not really a belief...
He's the most believable promoter of codswallop in modern times.
He didn't mention the most convincing and well-supported theory of them all: sexually antagonistic selection. The theory suggests that if some men have greater attraction to men, then their sisters will also have greater attraction to men. This increases the chance that the sisters will reproduce and pass on `gay genes'. It has been supported by studies looking at the number of children that sisters of gay men have, and the number of children that brothers of gay women have. The other purely genetic theories he mentioned have evidence against them. However, his environmentally-dependent theory is quite interesting.
This theory relates directly to what he said about the gay gene having different manifestations depending on circumstance. It is a female fertility gene, which also produces males who may be homosexual. Their sisters may carry this gene and hence be more fertile. We are all looking at it as a gay gene, but in tribal society, it is a fertility gene.
Peopl;e are finally reading and understanding the science but if the teaching of the ancient Israelits has a strong hold on them they will never want to be educated further oir eassily give uothier prejudices
0:57 How Dawkins kept a straight face when saying "the sneaky fucker theory", I will never know LOL
its a real thing, male feminists is a perfect example
When times are really tough, that is when natural selections clears the decks. Imagine say a plague, or a famine. If you as a child have a childless gay uncle or aunt, and your parents are wiped out, you still have a backup parent. If you did not have such an uncle, your entire family would be wiped out.
I think it is very unusual that religious people who listen to Dawkins more often than not still refuse to accept or even realize that he's talking absolute sense. Everything he says is so logical and factually supported.
Did you not hear the crap that came out of his mouth!??
He actually said..
“So that means the ‘GAY GENE’ was passed on, in the bodies of the children, who were being protected by the gay uncle..”
So.. “Genes” are like freakin contagious now...like the damn chicken pox!??
It’s just like saying that uncles with Down syndrome, actually passed on that gene IN THE BODIES of the children...just by watching over the children!!
You’re actually BORN with your genes, they are determined at the time of conception!!
This is the most ridiculous and dumb thing I’ve ever heard!
Not to mention the fact that scientists, have actually discovered that there is NO such thing as a “gay gene” and that no one is actually born gay!
Seriously.. Am I the only one who picked up on this ridiculous and illogical crap!??
Do you people just listen and believe everything the guy says, without even thinking about what he ACTUALLY SAID!?
Here is what I think about homosexuality:
Sex was not just used for reproduction, but it was also a tool to invoke feelings of loyalty in both participants. It would hold a tribe together and increase the likelihood of survival. Going by that hypothesis most if not all alpha males were actually bi-sexual and had sex with other males.
+abschussrampe Perhaps there's some truth to that under certain circumstances. In ancient Greece for example, Spartan men were encouraged have sex with each other because it supposedly created a greater bond. At the same time ancient Sparta is considered one of the most alpha, military minded civilisations in known human history.
+abschussrampe i don't see why a theory needs to be devised for why some people take themselves out of the race
if anything it frees up space
thanks you idiots
The theory suggest that alpha males might also have male supporters who are not competing for the same females.
trenton gregory why do you need a theory for why some people take themselves out of the process of reproduction as if from the perspective that there's a reason it's done?
***** i don't know why though
why would they make that assumption?
I Think they miss the fact of Gene Carriers, not necessarily active genes could pass through generations being inactive.
he didnt even remotely forget that
Well, I used to work on a cruise ship and 85% of the staff below deck were Filipino men, young men, all married with children back home, supporting their families, quite a lot of them were quite handsome and very party-going (most got drunk any chance they had, because sanity on a ship is in short supply and you go nuts if you don't vent). They were almost all gay. Blatantly so.
Indeed, I was surprised that Dawkins talked about a "gay gene" at all when AFAIK the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is determined by the hormones of the fetus and mother during gestation.
Afaik is not very far, i'm afraid. That is not the consensus at all. I am not sure where you got that information. There is no consensus, not afaik, rather, in fact.
Please don't click read more, I wrote something really racist.
Something really racist.
omenakookos lmao
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+thomas elvidge You're icon is a troll. That's tells me something about you.
+thomas elvidge what did you write?
Pi Niata Something really racist.
I am atheist but this scream bullshit to me .
How about you research it and find out yourself whether its true or not?
he was theorising and clearly you didnt pay attention. Bear in mind also that this man has dedicated his life to the study of biology and is therefore far more educated than yourself, perhaps you should take that in to account before writing it off as BS
>talking about genes
>"im an atheist but..."
So fucking stupid. Does it matter if you're an atheist?
He means that he mostly agrees with Dawkins but finds the things said in this video particularly illogical.
To further Chitrayudh's explanation slightly, he's suggesting that the uncle has a genetic relation to the children, and that his brother or sister may have that same gene, simply because it wasn't active, that sibling had kids.
The gene was passed on, and it was protected in the environment by the gay uncle. Say 5 kids were produced and 1 or 2 of them were gay, they went on to protect their nieces/nephews in turn, which share genes with them via their parents(bro/sis), it works, it's logical.
The last one is the most likely.
Agree... See what happens when people start taking and acting rationally and using reason and logic? It definitely makes sense, that last theory.
Except it doesn't make sense, because it wasn't a gay gene at all.
@@sophiafake-virus2456 what do you mean? If there's a gay gene then it definitely makes sense. Elaborate?
@@phillbenjamin4715 His own theory was that the gene got passed down because in archaic times it functioned differently in that environment, and could have made a human "...good at tracking animal prey, or something...", Well that means it wasn't a gay gene yet it somehow mutated into one once the carrier was exposed to the modern environment. Sounds like balderdash to me.
Remember this guy is a disciple of Scientism, the church of masonic bullshit. I'd like to see religion erased from humanity too but not to be replaced by the big bang, dinosaurs, planet earth, evolution, and all the other lies the control system foist upon us.
I'm not sure why people are gay, but I trust Dawkins as much as I would trust any freemason carrying out "the Great Work".
@@sophiafake-virus2456 hmmm... I would tend to disagree. I certainly don't want to offend you in any way nor let my ego claim I'm right, but I've spent a lot of my time.doing science and I definitely see it's merits. Yet there's things science will never do, and can never do. Science will never replace the actions of a cat that can make us smile. Science will never replace what it feels like to scuba dive along a reef. Science will never replace what it feels like for me to spend time with a woman I love. But science isn't meant to do any of that either. Science simply attempts to explain the data before us. How is it that the behaviors of a monkey can be so like that of a human? Why is it that time always passes forward, never the reverse? Why do things fall towards the earth rather than away? How do we explain people's propensity towards violence in some situations while they exhibit great caring and compassion in others? Science strives to answer these sorts of questions but never to replace what it is to be a human, what it feels like, what love does for our minds, what a clear beautiful day does for our mood. The explanations that science seeks are not, and never will be, the things themselves...
Interviewer: "Oh yeah it does make sense."
Interviewer: "Ahh yes indeed, it DOES make sense."
Interviewer: "That makes sense."
Not exactly the sharpest tool in the box is he.
@@neilarmstrongsson795 Ya know, I can’t say that I had any idea ten years ago that I’d be back here ten years later waxing poetic about it in response to a reply. Wild.
None of it makes any sense. If you have reproductive organs, your genetic code INSTINCTLY is attracted to the opposite sex. No one is born gay, they're confused or have given up pursuing the opposite sex.
While I'm not a Professor of either Physics or Biology, I'm taking my shot at the homosexual issue and its origins. To think about it, it's amazing how Physics will affect everything, including the biological development of species throughout generations. An example of this is homosexuality. Heterosexuality is the prime sexuality for procreation in sexually dimorphic species; a member of a species is attracted to a member of the same species which they can procreate with. This is undeniable. But, according to Newton's Third Law, "every action has an equal, and opposite, reaction." Therefore, if heterosexuality can exist (as an action in this case), then so too must its equal and opposite, homosexuality. So, in the end, homosexuality would be a naturally occurring action amongst a heterosexual populace, despite what some homophobes (with usually religious-based reasoning) would tell you.
Food for thought.
Montana Bobinski Completely agree with you. But must add that in this case, Newton has nothing to do about it.
Duuuude noooo. Every action has a reaction meaning if you punch a wall the wall will get damaged but your hand will also get hurt.
I newtons law had anything to do with this then atleast the 50% of people would be gay. I thought the whole gay gene thing was debunked over a decade ago. I thinks its all psychological.
So, we are suggesting that gay men exist as helpful baby sitters and can be trusted with mama while dad is out hunting? My question would be, how would these sexually complete, but with homosexual desires, individuals be able to be trusted with small male children??? It seems contradictory.
The interviewer is really incompetent. Plus, he bashes bisexuals a bit.
The interviewer is lying. He's had at least a gay thought in his lifetime. Be bold and stop throughing others hypocritically under the bus.
Wrong again
@@davidbloxham5062 interviewer claimed to have never had a STRAIGHT thought lol. Interviewer was openly gay.
Really interesting stuff. I think the main influence would be under the third hypothesis. Since genes are sometimes triggered by the environment I could imagine a scenerio in which this would happen. The latest idea I've heard is that it is influenced by hormones supplied by the placenta inutero but I've yet to look into it.
Being gay sucks, I wish I was straight, would love to know what it's like to be straight, things must be so much easier, I would love a wife and children but it's not to be.
Nothing is easy. Everybody has their own problems. Be gay, be happy, adopt some children.
do what men have been doing for years, take a wife and be gay on the side
Never thought I would hear the words "sneaky fucker" from Dawkins.......so funny
How about the "shit happens and exceptions confirm the rule"-theory?
Red shirt guy is a bit slow isn't he... Repeating what Richard says (usually twice), in a more puerile way. He just can't hang and he tried his best to appear interesting but it didn't work.
Ha, thank you!
I can honestly say I'm not one of those people who hears 'Muslim' and thinks 'Terrorist'. Still, I think that fanatic Christians looking over to certain Muslim ruled countries and getting ideas would be terrifying. Actually, fanatic Christians learning anything other than some morals and getting a decent education is terrifying.
The sneaky fucker theory... Lol
Wow there are so many genetics deniers in these comments...
"Richard Dawkins explains how the gay gene could have been preserved"
He says this is a possibility, not absolute truth :)
@david stewart - Right, first sexual experiences tend to set the pattern.
I've enjoyed picking my nose for as far back as I can remember. I must have gotten this gene from my father.
I like putting dicks up my ass must of got that gene from my mother.
That's largely just because we just don't know as of yet, we have studies indicating which genes specifically deal with that behavioral norm but when we start asking "well, why is this gene preserved?" we simply weren't there to see, the best we can offer up for those kinds of "why" as opposed to "what" questions is hypothesis and educated guesses. Some behaviors may offer more likely scenarios, but ultimately we simply can't know that sort of thing in any concrete way.
Interesting. I don't often get to hear him speaking without someone interrupting and spoiling things.
"no one is born gay"
Dr Neil whitehead ph.D in Biochemisty.
Wait a minute. This pre-supposes that a "gay gene" actually exists. Is this settled science?
+Dax Wagner Unfortunately, as a Richard Dawkins fan, he is completely off on this one. Homosexuality is the result of estrogen and testosterone filtrating the fetus in the womb. For instance, a homosexual male was exposed to a lot of estrogen and the markers on epi-genes was simply expressed differently. This is not 100% proven yet - but there is alot of research being done on this and it is pretty much almost settled that this is the case. But, in order for it to be a fact - we would need to do tests - and the only way to do so is to mechanically expose a child to the opposite hormone which is immoral to do. So no tests have concluded this - so it could all be false, but not likely.
+SacredTankX I'd like to see where you found this information. I've heard of no such thing being settled, so forgive my skepticism.
Yes it is in atheist fantasy land. They all say it's not a choice.
The Sneaky Fuckers Theory. LMAO. I love Richard's way of saying things.
The 'gay gene'. Am I the only one who thinks that this sounds completely ridiculous?
***** Comedy of errors, sorry
I meant to say potentially closest for siblings and as for the gene being dominant/recessive it hasn't been isolated so I doubt they can make a call on that. What I meant to say was that it had not materialised in the parent.
Patrick Mahoney I think it is something you can decide. Technically free will is also a gene.
dzonobraz Genes are something you can decide. Well fuck me .
I have decided that I will now have blue eyes.
Uh Oh ...now I have decided that I don't have the free will to decide to have blue eyes. Fuck fuck fuck fuck .......
It sounds ridiculous to me too and I'm gay. I don't know the cause but I do know it wasn't a choice.
Did i just witness richard dawkins trolling?!
>gay population grows exponentially alongside gay acceptance
>Still arguing that it's nurture
:^)
not population, more are just coming out about it.
Yea, they come out because it's gaining acceptance so it appears that gays are popping out of the ether.
its good because it means our oversized population goes down but then again living with hundreds of gay people would be weird
Hundreds? Try millions. You've been living with gay people all these years and you didn't even know.
that's weird
Maybe when the cameraman develops Parkinson's, he could use a tripod.
Is he trolling or what?
I'm not a science person, so don't take me seriously XD but, considering that we all were born a female first before the Y chromosome kicks in but what if there's a different concentration on the Y chromosome if that's even possible like... lacking concentration of the Y chromosome meaning the baby is more feminine? Sounds crazy but I kinda just thought of that XD
how exactly do you think you could concentrate or dilute a chromosome?
that would be one of the best theories Ive ever heard and Im serious. I never thought of that.
I'm unsure what you mean by concentration of chromosomes, since chromosomes are either there or not there, they don't vary in quantity. Each cell in a normal male has 1 Y chromosome. The number of chromosomes per cell is fixed.
Some people are born with more Y chromosomes per cell than average. They do not turn gay, they just get birth defects. If you have no Y chromosome, you will be a woman.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome
The genes on the chromosomes DO differ in how 'turned on' they are (a gene tells the cell how to make a particular protein, and the amount of protein that's made from that gene can vary between individuals). Some things linked to homosexuality (e.g. fetal testosterone exposure) are known to alter how much protein is made from certain "imprinted" genes, so it's possible that the concentration of certain gene products can make you gay. However, it's probably not genes from the Y chromosome, if anything that would explain transsexuals
We weren't born female. Unless females have only one x chromosome which they don't. We start off with an x. Having one x does NOT make you female, having two does
Michael Alizzi Actually he does have a point. X chromosome is a "female" chromosome, and the Y chromosome is a male chromosome. At the start, as an embryo, we are all female because the Y chromosome doesn't kick in yet. That is why men have nipples. If the foetus were to have a Y chromosome (i.e. be male) then it would override the X chromosome and cause the baby to produce more testosterone resulting in male traits, making the baby male. If there is no Y chromosome, the X chromosome's instructions are followed, causing the production of oestrogen. So everyone does start out as a female by default, but become male if the Y chromosome is present. And you don't need 2 X chromosomes to be female, there are females with just the one X chromosome, but this causes Turner syndrome which results in infertility (and shorter height), so you are partly correct that females need 2 to function properly as a female.
There is no "gay gene". You aren't born with a sexual preference, it is developed over time through experiences and the way in which you are exposed to sex in relation to the inevitability that you will feel horny someday as your hormones start to take effect. There are people that are sexually attracted to the tentacles of octopuses and get off on the fantasy of an octopus suctioning their genitals. What gene caused that? Seems more like a discourse in the trajectory of experiences that could've shaped that preference whereas a majority of people are more likely easily integrated into normal sex because the odds are in favor of developing heterosexual tendencies. It takes the right habitat and circumstances in someone's life to develop an abnormality in sexual preference.
Just an example, I'm sure there are many but take a culture that views being vocal about sex among family members as taboo coupled with a mother of a to be gay little boy who displays behavioral characteristics of being incredibly uncomfortable when a sex scene comes on tv causing her to shield the eyes of her young boy child. This warps the mind of the boy who now cringes at the thought of fucking a girl because his first examples of women are of ones that inadvertently made him repulsed at the thought of a women figure in the act of sex because his mind now relates them too figures of purity and relates sex to an act of impurity no matter what. So even if he is exposed to more women who aren't that way, the damage has already been done. Whereas maybe the men in that culture are more confident and vocal about their desires to fuck which leaves men open to the young boy's mind to be freely sexualized. This is assuming the young boy has also been overly coddled and views himself as weak and therefor feminine which would set the stage for the fetish of relating more to wanting to be the girl in the first straight online porn video he watches. Being the man in the act of straight sex would be out of character for the young impressionable coddled weak feminine young boy. I could go into ethnicity, physical shapes and dimensions but that's enough about my theory which seems a lot more probable than there being a "gene" to explain everything.
I had a gay uncle. In school when other kids were opening frogs 🐸 he was opening up flys! 😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😊😊😊😊😊
Why does he keep saying "the gay gene" when there is no gay gene... lol hilarious. Direct me to the name of the gay gene so I can do further research on it... lol
SLITRK6
Dawkins explanation is so drab and vague. The other guy's commentary is just fucking pointless.
varun009 it's not vague at all. He describes from an evolution perspective how gays could pass on the gene... what did you want him to say? Name the name of the first prehistoric gay?
Samsara Moriarty Not as good as the standalone video he made on the subject.
this helped me so much. . i can now know for certain Richard dawkins is full of it.
I heard all theories discussed here and I find hard to accept that a human being can be bi-sexual, either one is homosexual or heterosexual, of course one day Science will prove me wrong only Science. Prof Dawkins is a GENIUS. I just love the way he addresses our very difficult questions about our SHORT existence on this planet. Thx for uploading this here.
I feel the same way. Taking someone's word for their sexuality is not remotely scientific.
@@TryingtoTellYou what about very feminine men?? you know just by looking at them.
@@rirala1 I am not saying you can't take an educated guess. I am just positing that you'd never be certain.
Dawkins is a quack!
delon a
Dawkins is world famous and you are a nobody, probably a bathroom attendant at Wal-Mart.
A quack? For discussing multiple hypothesis that may or not be true?
Richard dawkins is a legend
I watched most of the videos of Dawkins but i have never seen him providing such aweak argument...
+SALAH KHARTOUM Well it's obvious it is speculation. Not a 'theory' in the sense of fact, but just a supposition.
+SALAH KHARTOUM Yeah you're right. He's a very brilliant man, and a capable speaker. But on the topic of homosexuality, he never had very convincing arguments. I suppose we still have to wait for science to understand it better, right now he's just speculating.
+SALAH KHARTOUM I agree. Its as if he's desperately trying to find a theory for a gay gene. There is no gene that makes you gay, it is environmental.
Liz Clegg When research states that there might be environmental causes linked to homosexuality, just keep in mind that they're talking about epigenetics triggering inside the womb during gestation (the environment being the womb of the mother). Homosexuality can't be acquired due to external factors during childhood, so many studies checked that out already. So while it may not necessarily be one specific gene, it has nothing to do with how you grow up. Studies back this up heavily.
+SALAH KHARTOUM i've never seen him produce a strong argument.
Anyone got a link to the whole thing? What is this? I'd like to see the long version.
What a load of rubbish this video is......clutching at straws now to try and make sense of this topic. You can explain or justify anything with this sort of approach. There is no substance behind this theory
Just Plain Nuts thank you, I was looking for someone to say this omg. I usually like Richard Dawkins, but this video is nonsense
+KuriousKoopa Troopa I'm not a fan of his. I watch a lot of debates between atheists and Christians and find him to be quite malicious. He acts like someone who has been hurt by the church or religion and now has an agenda against God. It seems very personal to him and his arguments reflect that. I love debating the topic but find it unfortunate when people can't be Nice about it 😀
Just Plain Nuts very well said. I have to commend u for saying that, I believe character in answering questions is better than the answer itself. And ur right, he acts quite egotistical in debates. I think that's wut ppl like about him lol XD I agree with neither tbh, I'm a muslim
KuriousKoopa Troopa ahhhh my enemy......hahahaha. Are you a committed practising Muslim or just a Muslim by tradition? 😀
Just Plain Nuts Yeah....although being gay myself and believing it's not a choice, I find his theories kind of confusing a bit all over the place. Still though, it makes more sense than God just straight up calling it an abomination in my opinion.
What an embarrassment to our world this man is.
Wow! This has to be the least scientific conversation I've ever heard in my life. I'm genuinely surprised to hear such open rubbish from Mr. Dawkins.
You think this is rubbish? You should read one of his books.
3.:
PS: I should also add having a certain percentage of gays in a big group/community of humans makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view. Less males competing for women. Other group animals have different methods to avoid this kind of tension in a group and keep the peace. For example, supressed puberty or one alpha male growing stronger and bigger than the ones that are yet lower in the hirachy.
Literally the biggest bullshit I've ever heard in my life
He doesn't push it as a scientific fact, these are just possible scenarios. His use of "theory" should be watered down to "hypothesis". Don't get your panties in a twist.
Still sounds like bullshit
He hasn't kept up with the literature on the subject. That is myway of putting it but your way is OK too.
yongtaufooboy
Yes. "Theory" in science means something that is proven. "Hypothesis" is a questionable possibility.
l no, a theory is something that there is evidence for but is not totally proven. A law is something that is totally proven.
That last one was very spot-on and logical. Also corresponds with the "Universe 25" experiments, where changing environment changes behavior, interests, regulates reproduction, etc... gays of the modern society and urbanism could be maybe the "best javelin throwers" in the stone age.
These are great conversations not just because we're trying to debate what may or may not be "right" or "wrong' but because we have realized we all have one life and we're trying to understand ourselves from top to bottom in order to make it better...sexuality is just the most recent wall to get knocked down...and we're ALL the better for it!
You're free to contest the content of "Cutting consciousness down to size" by Tor Norretranders.
To your core question - 'how do you know that?'
For this I'll make use of a simple induction.
An object with no (present or activated) perception is ignorant of information, and thereby unconscious. An object which perceives, categorizes and interprets information, is conscious. It is clear that the faculty by which consciousness is determined is the brain. However, staying conscious is a choice.
Biologists have found many genetic markers in homosexual men and women that are different than in straight people. Some are female markers present in men, others are male markers present in women. It's interesting.
Brilliant Richard Dawkins. An honest discussion that doesn’t help ideologues on any side of the conversation.
What twin studies? THe ones I have seen are not convincing. Links please? Thank you
he didnt explain it too clearly, but i think the point was that both 'brother' would have gene (one recessive and one not) so although the uncle only looked after the kids, the dad passed his recessive gay gene onto them
I love how he has this whole one eyebrow raised slightly smirk when he has one of his thug life moments 😂
No one is suggesting that it is the only influence. It is fully accepted that a 'gay gene' will predispose rather than mandate. This is why the the 'safe uncle' scenario could work, the gay uncles genes are represented in the offspring of his brother, a brother who shares his genes to a large extent, even possibly the gay gene that in that case wasn't expressed.
Gah, our attention spans are diminishing. I hate that by the time he got to his 3rd theory...my attention veered off, and I realized that I hadn’t even listened to his 3rd theory, even though I was looking at the screen. I was thinking about feeding the damn cat 😂. Now I have to rewind and listen again.
Its not an a attention span thing, the 2nd guy was babbling
Genes can be dominant or recessive as alleles, your entire genotype almost never gets represented in your phenotype. You might even have the gay gene yourself, that does not mean that it has to be active within you.
Don't forget too during ancient cultures, the "cradle(s) of civilization," it was common for other males to be left to guard the harem of females in these palaces. They were not just any males, though. I know in many cases they were eunuchs but it never occurred to me that perhaps a lot of them could have been homosexual.
My question for Richard would be: If evolution is based on survival and reproduction, how could evolution gave us homosexuality when that stops survival and reproduction of humanity??
Well it does not. Obviously.
There hasn't been any "gay gene" discovered , homosexuality is paradoxical to the theory of evolution, you're right that this would have been selected out generations ago.
"Sneaky fucker" is what he said. It's why they chose eunuchs to guard the harem but I guess sneaky fucker eunuchs still wanna have fun. "Science works - bitches!" is another fav' Dawkins quote.
Dawkins makes perfect sense. Thirty thousand years ago, the biggest threat to the tribe's wealth -- the "wealth" being the women and children -- was large predators and other humans. Leaving less "butch" men behind to defend the most vulnerable and valuable was a genetic survival priority. Even the strongest, fastest women were no match for a hungry lion or pack of wolves. Plus, the women were usually either pregnant or nursing babies. There's no way they could match the bone and muscle mass of the men.
Example: A pride of lionesses and cubs menaced by a pack of hyenas or unfamiliar male lions will often roar for the big males. Very VERY few hyenas are stupid enough to take on an angry male lion -- and those that are don't live long enough to breed.
Uncontrollable reproduction is not a desirable trait in a species to keep the natural balance intact anyway. And homosexual behaviour was never meant to "simulate" reproduction, it is just another form to assert dominance and can also be a surrogate fo a non-dominant male to engage in sexual activity.
But that doesn't explain at all how such a gene could have been passed on to our day.
Émeric Houde actually it does, you mistake being gay for being impotent, gay uncles still had sex with women and procreated.
What documentary is this from?
I don't like any of these hypothesis. In fact, I don't think there is a single identifiable "gay gene". I hope Dawkins was just speaking about scenarios because he was asked not necessarily because he believes them; otherwise, I'd be very surprised.
There is no "gay gene" because there is no single gene for almost any complex characteristic. There is no "left-handed" gene, no "frowning" gene, no "screaming" gene, etc. Most phenotypes are polygenetic meaning they come from a complex interplay of many different genes and can happen in various combinations. Homosexuality or the sexual affinity towards the same-sex is certainly polygenetic thus we will never find a single "gay gene".
Homosexuality is something that just happens, like left-handedness due to a coincidental combinations of genes that resulted in that trait.
Benny Corona I agree - I think Dawkins was trying to dumb down for the general audience, but unfortunately, some essential parts were not specified in his explanations.
***** I know you are trying as well, but no matter how stupid and irrelevant your comments are, reality will never make use of them.
Benny Corona You're right, the single most important study on the causes of sexuality found that the most influential factor (at least for men) was specific environment in the womb, at around 61-66% of the variance, and then genetics, at around 34-39% of the variance. So it doesn't seem as though there is a single gay gene. In order to solve the paradox of evolution (that if being gay has genetic origins then it would be an undesirable gene and have died out), another study was conducted that linked genes responsible for fertility in women to genes that are responsible for homosexuality in men, and there are a bunch of other explanations out there. But yeh, no gay gene.
***** Like hemophilia homosexuality is inherited throughthe female line. With medical intervention few males need die these days from hemophilia. To prevent homosexuality one would need to stop all female relatives of homosexuals from breeding. Impossible of course. We would not want to do that beause homosexual have contributed to society so much since they are often artist writers inventors like Michaelangelo, Caravagggio, and the brilliant man (name forgotten)who saved Britain from the Uboat menace by solving the problem of the German code machine Enigma. Anyway if you leave the homosexuals alone they won't hurt you or anybody else just don't have sex with them or fact with anybody without a condom except your wife or
steady partner you respect.
Donald Edward "Like hemophilia homosexuality is inherited throughthe female line."
=> source please.
There IS quite a lot of evidence suggesting sociopathy/psychopathy is genetic, we don't have any conclusive absolute proof mind you, but if you're interested we do have many studies that point to that being the likely key guilty party. It also doesn't mean such a predisposition will make one sociopathic necessarily, but that if one carries such a gene it may or may not have some requisite environmental context (age for example) in order to cause the end condition.
The gay twins study, where genetically identical twins exhibit opposing sexual orientation, suggests that orientation might be determined in utero from the hormones and nutrients reaching the babies from their mothers.
I think being gay is a spiritual thing and comes from a previous life's emotions.
TheThirdHeaven2010
You have your theory and I have mine sweet heart.
You have a very dark message to the millions of gay teens out there . They need support to accept their sexuality and to be HAPPY like you were for 22 years.
Satan has nothing to do with gay folk.
TheThirdHeaven2010 p.s. stop stalking me on every comment!
***** Homosexuality is completely against evolution!, if you are gay your not going to be able to pass any genes onto a woman.
Read about former atheist/lesbian professor of English Rosaria champagne butterfields amasing conversion.
shes now a happy christian and married to a man.
85Aheadstix LOL
85Aheadstix
Did you really think you could throw "Atheist" in there and get away with it? Fucking fundamentalists are so god damned dishonest I swear. Muslims and Christians will lie lie lie for their god.
She was a Unitarian. Essentially a religious hodge-podge deist religion.
The first theory gets more traction because females who gave birth to a boy have an statistical increased chance to have a gay second boy. The number of gays that are second or third sons is statistically higher than firstborn gays. So maybe it was beneficial to have a male that doesn't mate with females but has the power to protect the family. But we also have lesbian males, but I don't know if there is a similiar "first/second daughter" statistical difference.
"The sneaky fucker theory".....lol
As soon as he says "butch men" you can tell he's thinking "oops, I can't now describe the gay brothers as feminine".