Hey Bill Nye, "Does Homosexuality Make Evolutionary Sense?" | Big Think
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2015
- Does Homosexuality Make Evolutionary Sense
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Nye, scientist, engineer, comedian, author, and inventor, is a man with a mission: to help foster a scientifically literate society, to help people everywhere understand and appreciate the science that makes our world work. Making science entertaining and accessible is something Bill has been doing most of his life.
In Seattle Nye began to combine his love of science with his flair for comedy, when he won the Steve Martin look-alike contest and developed dual careers as an engineer by day and a stand-up comic by night. Nye then quit his day engineering day job and made the transition to a night job as a comedy writer and performer on Seattle’s home-grown ensemble comedy show “Almost Live.” This is where “Bill Nye the Science Guy®” was born. The show appeared before Saturday Night Live and later on Comedy Central, originating at KING-TV, Seattle’s NBC affiliate.
While working on the Science Guy show, Nye won seven national Emmy Awards for writing, performing, and producing. The show won 18 Emmys in five years. In between creating the shows, he wrote five children’s books about science, including his latest title, “Bill Nye’s Great Big Book of Tiny Germs.”
Nye is the host of three currently-running television series. “The 100 Greatest Discoveries” airs on the Science Channel. “The Eyes of Nye” airs on PBS stations across the country.
Bill’s latest project is hosting a show on Planet Green called “Stuff Happens.” It’s about environmentally responsible choices that consumers can make as they go about their day and their shopping. Also, you’ll see Nye in his good-natured rivalry with his neighbor Ed Begley. They compete to see who can save the most energy and produce the smallest carbon footprint. Nye has 4,000 watts of solar power and a solar-boosted hot water system. There’s also the low water use garden and underground watering system. It’s fun for him; he’s an engineer with an energy conservation hobby.
Nye is currently the Executive Director of The Planetary Society, the world’s largest space interest organization..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Jason Gots: Hi Bill. This is Jason Gots from Big Think. I’m reading a question that somebody submitted in written form who wished to remain anonymous. But it seemed like a question that it would be good to have you answer. "I have a question about homosexuality," he asks. "If the purpose of a species is to reproduce and survive, how would it make sense evolutionarily for humans to have same-sex preferences? Are humans the only ones who practice homosexuality? And if so does this mean that homosexuality is a product of human’s personal whim as opposed to instinct?"
Bill Nye: So when I was growing up, there was this controversial and super-bestselling book called The Naked Ape. And this guy, the author, Desmond Morris, claimed, I guess he documented that there is homosexual behavior among primates. And from what I remember - I haven’t read it in many years - was chimpanzees and Bonobo’s exhibit homosexual behavior. And the answer nowadays we give to everybody about this is it’s a spectrum. I don’t know about you, but I have known a great many gay men who are married, who have babies, who have kids. So apparently - I’m not an authority on this. I’m an observer of the human condition. Apparently there’s a spectrum. Some people are more inclined to have sex with people of their same sex than others. And I think if you just watch the news right now, you can see that for yourself. And so being somewhere on the spectrum of heterosexual with homosexual being on that it’s not genetically lethal; you still have kids anyway. And you’ll hear people talk about the feminine side. You’ll hear people talk about the masculine side. You’ll hear women use the expression, "Well she’s got a lot of balls which can’t literally be true, if we’re using balls in that conventional construction." So I would say that it’s something that happens in nature and I remember very well in this book - now I haven’t read it in a long time, but man it was a big deal. Openly talking about sex in the 1960s was a big deal that he claimed that there was more homosexuality in zoos than he observed in nature. And that may be just because we happen to capture a couple of homosexual Bonobos or whatever. In other words the sample size is way too small to extrapolate. So let’s celebrate being alive everybody. Apparently it’s just something that happens in nature and look, we’re all here.
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
This video title is misleading. Can you have higher ethical standards, and more science in the answers?
Bill legitimately scared me with that voice at the beginning, not gonna lie. I was like, "OH SHIT, WHAT DOES HE HAVE? BILL, NOOOOOO--oh."
It's ok, Bill's immortal
LordMoonaz He's a Time Lord!
Diego Mattos Bowties are cool...etc.
Diego Mattos Bowties are cool...etc.
Diego Mattos That is the real problem. If he dies from suffocation in the middle of a recording, his regeneration will destroy the Studio!
It will be unlikely for him to get a renovation for his segment after that (not mentioning the change of voice, face and personality).
I don't think the question was meant to be demeaning, it's just asking if homosexual attraction makes scientific sense from a reproductive standpoint. Of course though, political correctness prevents people from actually answering this question honestly.
So how about some honesty? I am a bi-sexual man and I do not believe my attraction to other men makes reproductive sense. Does that bother me? No. Am I offended by the question? No. Do I know this while still being attracted to men regardless? Yes.
We need to stop being afraid of exploring serious scientific questions just because we're worried about offending others. It's holding us back as a society.
Reproduction is a key factor of Evolution so yes, it needs to be addressed if asking a question of evolution...
This guy is asking if homosexuality affects evolution and bill nye answers that a homosexual man could produce ordinary children with a woman.
He mentioned that homosexuality happens in nature with animals and those in captivity
Its quite clear he is implying that homosexuality is as natural as how we eat, breathe or sleep
The problem is that you guys think that the answer his straightforward but as you know, many aspects of evolution is largely unexplored and thus, how do you expect bill Nye to give a definite answer?
+samuraikatana1
Homosexuality is a sensitive topic nonetheless so I can see him giving a politically correct answer. Its professional standard not to get anyone offended? I mean, he isnt some youtuber, but a professional scientist after all...
Not really... A homosexual could still produce sperm and reproduce through IV insemination, which requires no sex at all. There are many other non sexual ways of reproduction
Its feel it is the same question as asking, "Why we play video games." or "why we drink alcohol" and maybe "why we do art". Most of them have not much play in the survival of our kind and I feel this whole homosexuality thing should be answered in a social or a psychological standpoint...
The thing is, Nye isn't really avoiding the question. Its more like he's trying to answer a question that there is no answer to but still, giving his two cents on the matter.
Nye may be the science guy, but he isnt some super know it all...
***** You're misinterpreting me I believe. What I said had nothing to do with civil rights or social issues. Of course people in the LGBTQ+ community should have the same rights and respect as everyone else. No one in this thread is arguing against that.
The topic we were discussing is from a purely scientific standpoint. This topic isn't about civil rights or anything along those lines, or rather my other point was it shouldn't be.
Asking from a scientific standpoint whether homosexuality makes evolutionary sense is perfectly valid because there is no clear answer. The various diseases you brought up all have definable causes, such as genetic mutation or the like. With sickle cell for instance, there is absolutely zero benefit to having that particular trait so it is considered undesirable. That is in absolutely no way demeaning the person, that is simply stating a scientific fact. I doubt I'll ever meet someone who says they enjoy having sickle cell, so how can it be called anything but undesirable?
Homosexuality is different in that we still don't understand what causes it. We don't know if it's genetic, a chemical imbalance, or a completely natural variance. Since we do not know, asking questions about its benefit from a evolutionary standpoint is perfectly valid. Scientific questions do not conform to hurt feelings or trigger warnings because they can't. If scientific progress was beholden to making sure no one ever got offended, we would never advance as a species.
Lastly, your final paragraph where you seem to assign me an argument is just plain wrong. That is a gross misinterpretation of everything I said, and I am having trouble even discerning how you arrived at such a conclusion.
+Spotted Purple
Mate, that guy was asking if homosexuality affects our evolution in whole as a species in a scientific term, not much about all that civil social justice mumbo jumbo
But still, here's my two cents at your matter:
If you're gay and living what you want to be, good for you mate. If you are trans and happy, I'm happy for you too. I believe everyone regardless of whatever the fuck they are or have deserve their fair share of rights
Maybe katana guy was a little curious and asked how LGBT could affect our species and we could just share a bit of our thoughts and opinion on it, like I had.
So now, maybe I'd ask you: what's your opinion on this LGBT thing in relation to the survival and evolution of our kind?
Guardiansaiyan
Haha, true. Although I was being abit angsty tho. Good sign that we are getting less cancerous day by day :3
"I'm uhh... Asking for a friend"
LMAO
Brenden lol
Lmao
I know right. Come on dude.
Lmao
Am I the only one who thinks he didn't answer the question? The Q is 'Does homosexuality make evolutionary sense ?' His response was essentially 'it just happens, any gay people make great parents'.From an evolutionary perspective we are told all creatures have an innate drive to pass on their genes and (via the process of reproduction) homosexual sex does not serve such a purpose. However it could be that it has another survival function which I am not educated upon. I would like to clarify that I'm not homophobic i believe homophobia is for the small minded and hateful, other people's sexual orientation are non of my business
elky360 Evolution works like 'Can you survive? Ok, but can you have kids? You're good to go then.' This means that in other for a species to evolve a trait need to either create more offspring or outlive others. His answer was basically 'If the gays are actually bi, they could survive...'
Otávio Do Not Look Here Google They don't have to be bi. But that's more or less his point, basically gay people have kids too.
elky360 Let's look at China. They have changed tune on the one child policy and are planning to make further exceptions. Why? Because people are preferentially altering the ratio of male to females born. In 2012, the national government estimated that China has 40 million more males than females. By 2020, the Chinese government estimates that there will be at least 30 million men of marriageable age that may be unable to find a spouse. Now if this can happen in a few generations to China, is it not prudent to ask what the LGBT dynamic will do to the future? What will the social/reproductive environment look like later? What if other taboos are rescinded? It may not be our business on an individual basis, but I think it's worth considering on a national scale.
elky360 I though he was being clear about not knowing the answer, and simply said "it kinda works, so dont think about it too much". I agree with it, and if you dont agree, and you want to worry, then there's a lot you can read about the matter. But like others said, Nye is not the one you want to ask this particular question
Bill basically told us to go read a book written by someone else, because he himself can't recall what he read in it.
So... Uh... Let's... Let's celebrate being alive everybody...
Lmfaooooooooo !
+janky o1 I missed that in his answer. Seems simple and non-controversial: "I am not a biologist, so I cannot reliably answer this question. Sorry." instead of that awkward, trying to dodge the subject "Let's celebrate being alive".
ragnarox16 what's there to laugh about that statement? I think Bill summed up the answer to this question pretty well (or at least my opinion of it) which is that it's just something natural. So let's celebrate who we are
I'm all about celebrating, don't get me wrong... But KarstenOkk sums up what I was getting at quite well in his post.
only black lives matter ...
Mibb Does that count native indians, indians, hawians, mexicans and other races that can be dark too?
It is so. Freakin. Weird. To hear the guy I grew up with teaching me science on TV say, "She's got balls." So weird.
Col
(Chuckled out loud)
***** Kids today have no idea how lucky they are to have the information they have at their fingertips. When Bill Nye was on, it was like a special treat or winning a prize. I would stop whatever I was doing and run to the TV and sit there glued to it... If I would have had CZcams and Netflix as a kid, I probably would have built my own rocket ship by 15 years old or something, lol
***** At least you have Netflix or CZcams to watch it all on a binge fix!! Haha...we had to wait a whole damn week for the next episode...
He didn't answer the question. All he told us was that some scientist observed homosexual behaviors in the wild and in zoos.
That was slightly disappointing. But I think I remember reading that the male homosexuality gene gives rise to better maternal care in females. I don't know about females though. Or bisexuality.
he said that human sexuality occurs on a scale, he also stated that in many cases homosexuality doesn't detract from being evolutionarily fit, ie able to reproduce. In any event evolution is all about mutations, perhaps homosexuality is a mutation that remains a small percent of the population thereby having no adverse affect.
He didn't definitively say "Yes" or "No" but he presented the most relevant information and left it up to the viewer to go where they want. We can't positively say "Yes" or "No" to something we don't fully understand yet, that'd be ignorant of us.
His answer is that bisexuality exists.
What's the evolutionary purpose of having your sex organs right next to your anus? Why do we assume there is a purpose? Evolution is not driven by purpose, it is driven by circumstance... Random traits that prove beneficial under certain circumstances, and therefore get passed on more frequently. And what about the effects of the physical and social environment? Clearly some (not all) homosexuality is driven by psychology. Heterosexual men are more likely to engage in homosexual sex, for instance, when it is their only available option for sexual release (such as in prison, or Catholic priests). Julius Caesar saw the benefit of homosexual tendencies among his soldiers, noting that they were likely to fight with even greater passion if they are more deeply connected to the men they are fighting alongside. The bottom line is, trying to assert that homosexuality is abnormal because it "serves no evolutionary purpose" is naïve and overly simplistic, and it ignores the fact that sexuality is determined by more than just simple biology.
Evolution is more or less random, not deterministic. It is a process that has no obligation to make sense to human sensibilities.
I agree
elfbiter Evolution is not random.....Two similar populations in a similar environment under similar pressures will undergo similar evolutionary processes
AsifIcarebear3 If you means it is not like a random dice roll, I agree. One could also describe is at self-enforcing process. However, it does not _intentionally_ mould anything. Evolution is change and if that change creates something more fitting to the environment, the carrier of that feature has better chance to procreate .
However, those features are not _designed_ to fit into anything or they do not need to have a "purpose" in the human sense of the word. If the feature it not detrimental, the feature carries on to next generation. Homosexuality may be just that kind of a feature.
Also, evolution is "transmitted" by genes. As far as I have heard, homosexuality is not _genetic_ thing . It seems that sexual attraction may be determined during fetal development in the womb. So the evolutionary process has created a species that sometimes gives birth to individuals that have stronger attraction to their own gender that the other one. And not only in humans. That feature may not have a "purpose" at all.
***** So what? Mutation is just one of 5 of the major drivers. Migration, natural selection, random mating, etc are other factors that influence evolution.
***** "you can migrate and mate as much as you want but without randomly occuring mutations there won't be biological evolution " that's not true at all. Take a population of birds with short beaks and introduce 5 birds with long beaks. Now imagine only birds with long beaks can survive. All the short beaked birds will die and the long beaked birds will live. Next population will have evolved in respect to the prior one WITHOUT the need for any mutations.
First he picked this as a question. Then he avoided it completely. Come on dude... Science is science regardless of whom it may offend.
I understood his answer perfectly. Analyze it more if you don't get it
I don't get it. Please explain if you have the time.
+Alex Melillo There has already been extensive research into the question "is homosexuality a human whim?" and it was published in the 1960s in the book he mentioned. As it turns out, many close relatives of humans often engage in homosexuality. However, if homosexuality was punished by evolution with a guaranteed 0 chance of reproduction, then it is adsumed it would probably be less common than it seems to be. That is why we have come to understand it as a spectrum, that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not mutually exclusive, but blend in together
Very interesting. I'm just wondering why he didn't go much into detail about it. Well... I can only imagine why, but... You know. I just expected something more concrete from him. Thanks for taking to time to comment.
KarstenOkk I've often thought about that theory myself. That was what I was hoping to hear Bill talk about it
Attraction can serve more purposes than just reproduction. Bonding can offer psychological benefits as well as defensive and economic benefits. Common attraction can lead (in humans at least) to the proliferation of similar ideas and worldviews. Sticking together makes it easier to gain and protect resources.
Why is everything so black and white with so many people? We do not operate in a binary fashion. We are sloppy, messy meat machines and there is a lot of variety. Evolution will determine what comes next, but it doesn't decide...the most effective genes (and ideas) will propagate.
Because the question is designed and posed in an attempt to force a respected public figure to confirm that, scientifically speaking, homosexual behavior is contrary to our biological purpose and therefore not intended by nature.
The weakest debaters always try to reduce subtle, nuanced questions to simple binary ones.
LOL. So guys, I'm coming out as a 1, and a couple of my friends are actually 0s. What should I do?
As a social and highly intelligent species, humans are likely to exhibit a wide range of behaviors that contributes to the overall success of the species, rather than just the individual. As such, there are likely a multitude of benefits derived from homosexual traits, and the ratio of homosexual individuals within a population is probably kept in balance much as the ratio of males to females is kept balanced.
+Bryce William Everything I said was anti-science nonsense? So we are not social and highly intelligent? We don't exhibit a wide range of behaviors that contributes to our success as a species? There are not benefits to homosexual traits? There isn't a ratio of homosexuals to non-homosexuals in our population?
You don't get to claim that everything I said was "anti-science nonsense" simply because you happen to disagree with my opinion that homosexual traits impart some benefit to our social existence and the continuation of our species. That is one small part of what I said.
I would be imminently curious to hear your scientific explanation of how mammalian species' gender ratios is maintained, rather than hear your irrelevant tangent about how reptilian and other non-mammalian invertebrates achieve the same.
Human sex ratios under varying conditions is an area of active research. We have some evidence to explain changes to the sex ratio under different circumstances, such as the effects of viruses on the gestational environment and its subsequent influence on the ratio of males to females. However, there is no consensus among scientists on this issue.
We have insufficient evidence and many disparate theories that only explain one aspect or another, but we do not have a complete picture of gender ratios at birth, as a population matures, and as the environment changes.
There are times when looking at species from another family (e.g. reptiles or other invertebrates) can help us to generate and test theories about certain aspects of our biology. However, you cannot use one species' mechanism for achieving a 1:1 ratio of males to females to "prove" that there is no "balance" maintained at birth in another species.
Furthermore, in the example you gave about the fish changing their sexes when there is an imbalance in the male to female ratio fails to explain how this is achieved and what factors influence the change. When taken to the level of the individual, this is a single fish changing its sex based on imbalances in the population as a whole - which in turn effects its ability to find a mate.
Humans cannot spontaneously change their gender. Since we cannot do this, our species must adapt a different mechanism or set of mechanisms in order to maintain a healthy male to female ratio. It would not be out of the realm of possibility that the number of homosexual individuals in a given human population might vary in order to maintain this ratio. This would, of course, have to be tested in a scientifically rigorous process of experimentation, observation, publication of results, and replication that eventually would create a consensus on the matter.
I was floating theories in what I wrote previously, I never claimed or even suggested that what I said was scientifically accurate. I meandered around in my mind palace of knowledge and put forth an idea to test. I never claimed to be right.
BUT you seem to have all of this in hand, so could you please point me to the publications that *proves* that since fish can change their gender AFTER birth, then humans have no mechanisms for gender equalization AT birth.
Oh, and throw in something about how the crocodile thing fits into the argument so that it doesn't merely hang in the air as an interesting bit of trivia.
P.S. My bit of trivia for you is this "The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive." You ASSERTED that there IS NO gender balance maintained at birth in humans. Please share that proof with us.
+Bryce William yeah, science is pesky that way, with all it's words and long explanations. You should take your own advice with the correlation =/= causation. Sorry I couldn't dumb it all down into a Tweet for you.
starting a band called Homosexual Bonobos, anybody in?
Not really
yes, definitely, absolutely.
homobo
I can drum.
onarionaa do you need a rapper?
The answer you gave was unsatisfactory, i you give off the impression that you're hiding something.
3p1cBlu3 It's common biological knowledge that homosexuality is exhibited in thousands of species. It's the percentage that's very difficult to determine.
Homosexuality just happens and since it doesn't has a negative effect, it just stuck and was passed on, since mutations happens at random, the same could be said about certain practices and behaviors, so as long as their practitioners can still pass those tendencies to a next generation the thing just continues presenting itself, just like many other apparently useless and non-practical parts of life keep surviving till our days.
That's in essence what Bill said, is a thing that just happens.
+RoarOfDamnation
You say it like homosexuality is hereditary or something...?
3p1cBlu3 I think he just gave the impression that he's not an evolutionary biologist, which is the truth, ask him about rockets, that's way closer to his area of expertise, not that he's actually a rocket scientist either but his expertise has a lot more overlap with rockets than it does with biology and evolution.
3p1cBlu3 To sum up, Since it's a spectrum it doesn't particularly hinder evolution.
Keeping in mind evolution has no goal, it's just an observed effect on animals, so for it to be "hindered" is a dumb proposition.
The rest was basically him saying: We're just people though and it doesn't matter if it hinders evolution or not, so just live and be happy.
Should have asked Dawkins, not to dish Nye (got love for him too!). But I have heard Dawkins's answer to this and it is better due to it being his cup of tea.
Brian b Where can you find Dawkin's answer?
Brian b I do like Nye's answer. he suggests a spectrum which would mean that homosexuality is not a "real" thing but a mere category through which we make sense of the world. Likely there is no gene having the exact effect of making someone homosexual but many genes that govern to whom we are attracted. In specific configurations these genes can cause a human to be attracted to the same sex only but in most configurations they cause him/her to be attracted to a different group of people (let's say people with big noses) which may include women[edit: the other sex].
If human attraction is caused by the interplay of several genes, none of them will be specifically selected against because none of them specifically makes a person gay.
pacrii What are you talking about, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. Nye is an engineer, not a scientist. He is the one who translates science for lay people.
Hal Incandenza Lets not forget that genetics probably isn't the only factor governing sexuality. Id say that environmental factors during our lives have a larger role in deciding where we lie on 'the spectrum' due to the fact that environmental stimuli have an overwhelmingly large impact on human psychology
pacrii Whait, what? Dawkins has a doctorate from Oxford (and some honorary ones), as well as scientific books about evolution published by Oxford University Press. As scientific as it gets. Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer with a few patents and accomplishments, as well as a lot of experience in explaining science to the masses. If he knew the answer it would probably be easier to listen to, quote and understand - but Dawkins had a much better chance at actually knowing.
"When I was growing up" very unexpected, caught me off guard. Nice to start the day coughing up almonds.
It’s the first video I have watched of him since like his Bill Nye Show, and I was like
“wow, his voice did not age well.”
I always wondered if it was natural a way to prevent overpopulation.
that’s a really good point.
@Charles barr To me it's perfectly fine as long as it's between two consenting adults and when the relationship is healthy and doesn't just consist of sex.
@Charles barr
Fifty billion? The Earth can only hold 9 to 10 billion people what are you going on about? You need to do some research cupcake it is obvious you don't know what you're talkin about.
Link- www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
Right now we're at 7 billion and in most countries we are overpopulated for example of the U.S., India, Russia, Mexico, Guatemala Etc.
Deformality? Well that's one good deformality right there because children are being adopted and it's helping with overpopulation.
You are either really young to where you can't understand or you're just an troll one of the two.
@@animationdramanation5730 Overpopulation is a myth. It all depends on our ability to produce goods for the population. Whether we can fit 5 billion or 20 billion people entirely depends on how we live and what types of energy we use. On top of that, the US is nowhere near overpopulated. You might be able to make an argument for India though. Being homosexual means that you don't provide much of anything to humanity other than labor. It's not genetically favorable and is not a "natural way of combating overpopulation". Most animals simply just fuck whatever in hopes that it'll get pregnant. It's a brute force way of reproduction basically. Humans just tend to degrade the meaning of sex into merely an act of pleasure. Anyways, overindulgence is not good for humans, especially in a world where everything is handed to you and readily availible.
@@howardman3926
1. Do you not know basic science?
Earth can only hold 9 to 10 billion people on earth it's a fact and don't argue with me or argue with the scientist who say it's a fact.
Link- amp-livescience-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQA#aoh=15602190274669&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescience.com%2F16493-people-planet-earth-support.html
2. The U.S has already overpopulated do some research. Especially when it comes to resources.
Link- www.fairus.org/issue/population-environment/united-states-already-overpopulated
3. Being homosexuals means you don't provide much?
Okay how about the orphans you know the children that need to be adopted because people don't want to take them in.
4. If were going by that logic that homosexuals don't do much how about those females that can't give birth to children or what about the men who don't have enough sperm are they useless?
Let me guess this is where you start being a hypocrite right?
5. Sorry honey but the second you said "overpopulation is a myth" I'm not going to take you seriously come back when you know basic science and actually know how to debate?
Thank you ❤
lol @ the guy claiming to be reading another person's question who wishes to remain anonymous. total BS, it's his own question.
+Steven Tyler the fact that you used @ to say at confuses me. you had to press shift and 2 to do that while you could have just pressed a and t to get the same result as well. weirddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
and you just wrote a paragraph about it, wasting even more time than pressing shift + 2.
+Steven Tyler touché
kernel fleak
lol
+Steven Tyler Is a paragraph wasted more wasted than would be saved by adjusting? :3
Why are there so many likes ? I grew up watching Bill just like all you guys , but he did a terrible job explaining this ! Do people really just like the video because it's Bill Nye, even though he in debaters terms , completely evaded the question? I felt as though the man asking the question already felt as though he knew the answer , and he wanted to heat and/or was challenging Bill Nyes response , and Bill gave a cheap, not even scientifically accurate answer .
Tighe Philbin Yeah, he didn't handle this question well at all. I'd usually like a video just because he was in it, but on this one I just refrained from disliking it because of the respect I have for him even though I was disappointed with such a poor answer.
Fair enough, maybe it doesn't deserve a dislike , but I was disappointed in his response , especially because it is a very legitimate and interesting question .
Tighe Philbin I don't really agree that it is a 'legitimate and interesting' question. A rudimentary understanding of biology illustrates that evolution is as much a game of chance as it is one of efficiency. Not every trait has a distinct and purposed heritage. Further, there is still a wide landscape of research to be parsed through before anyone can safely assess the genetic harbingers of homosexuality -- whether it is inheritable, i.e. evolutionary, or if it is an emergent property occurring by chance through the activation of specific hormonal genes, or so on and so on.
Note that I disagree with the terms 'legitimate' because the question (and as is the case when it is asked commonly) seems to be making some assumptions already. That a trait must necessarily make 'evolutionary sense' in order to be justified. Hence I feel Bill's response is actually rather intellectually responsible; he is acknowledging that certain things occur in nature that do not adhere to basic logic, or that cannot be explained immediately through evolutionary terms.
The purpose of my point was to point out that is not a well explained answer , which it isn't , he rambles, and to Point out that this video still had a huge amount of likes when the purpose of the video was to answer the question that was asked , especially from a channel called big think , and that purpose was not fulfilled , in fact , as you mentioned , they had someone with an engineering degree to answer the question , so isn't this entire video a bit pointless and bullshit ? Considering the lack of explanation, lack of time spent on the answer , the rambling and the fact that they didn't have a credible biologist or something of relation to the topic to answer the question . But people like it anyway because they have 4 minute attention spans and they grew up watching Bill Nye .
Congrats on avoiding that question
Indeed Mr. Nye side-stepped the question.
no he didn't. He said "apparently it's something that happens in nature."
That's him saying YES it's fucking natural.
+doublestrokeroll Where? Where has homosexuality ever been observed? If it is natural it must have a purpose? What purpose does homosexuality play in nature?
Ethan Mitchell oh...I get it...now I see your agenda.
So you answered you're own question the moment you realized it was a stupid one.
But to further answer it...it's ALL OVER the animal kingdom.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Check out Dolphin blow hole penetration.....lol...
so yeah dude...it ranges from the minor to full on proper penetration by the same sex.
And you're equating throwing shit with predetermined biological sexual behavior? lol....seriously? Do I really even have to explain why that is the most fucked up logic ever?
Grow up dude. Educate yourself. It's natural.
Remember that this is not Nye's expertise. He knows all about physics, thermodynamics, aeronautics, material stress, fluid dynamics, pneumatics and hydraulics and the like as a mechanical engineer. What he is not is a biologist.
A biologist (or even better an evolutionary biologist) would have a much more thorough answer to the question. Frankly, I'm surprised how much of an answer Nye gave given that it would be like asking Stephen Hawking, an astrophysicist, a question about disease propagation. There is an answer, and there are people who study it, but Stephen Hawking is not among them. If you want an answer, talk to a infectious disease specialist in the medical field, rather than an astrophysicist.
i THOUGHT WHENBILL DID THE OLD VOIC AT THE BEGINING IT WAS HIS REALY VOICE I WAS LIKE JDBEJSJS
What a convoluted fucking answer XD
J- YO Glad I'm not alone with that opinion, lol sounded like he just didn't want to offend anybody. He basically weaseled his way around the question.
J- YO He's an engineer not a biologist
J- YO How? He just said that being gay doesn't get in the way of the evolutionary process. How is that "convoluted"?
J- YO Explain what is convoluted about that answer? He answered your shitty question with a study. This isnt his field of science and doesnt claim to know it.
Arist Channels
> Bill's transition from referencing Desmond Morris for his documentation on homosexual behavior among primates to the proposed spectrum of sexuality in humans was weak at best
> Talking about knowing many great gay men with children was a pointless anecdote and didn't fit
> Then talks about how society discusses feminine and masculine sides: "she’s got a lot of balls." which didn't even address the question
> Finally he talks about how homosexuality is "something that happens in nature" and proceeds to reference a book which he later discredits for a having a sample size that is too small
Look, I am a fan of Bill Nye and know this is not his area of expertise. But his answer was all over the place and hard to follow, which is the very essence of "convoluted." If you look at other comments below you will see that I am not the only one dissatisfied with his "answer."
"Let's celebrate for being alive." !
He avoided answering the question like a vegan avoids meat.
No, he answered the question as best he could. He's not an evolutionary biologist, so, by no means is Bill an expert. But neither are you. Do some research
He did answer the question. He said that this has been observed in nature and Zoo's. He also mentioned that despite being gay some of these people still choose to have children meaning that just because their sexual orientation is towards same sex doesn't mean they don't have the instinctual urge to reproduce and have children of their own.
You act like there's something wrong with not eating meat.
+Luke Walker Cmon dont be blind he clearly tried to avoid the question to be 'politically correct'
He did answer the question? Just because a person doesn't give you a straight up yes/no doesn't mean they didn't answer the question.
Lol, that was a very unscientific answer, in fact he didn't answer the question at all, instead he chose to go with whats politically correct
Tell me, what would be the "un-politically correct" answer...
Follow up question, what exactly is wrong with political correctness?
nothing... just that he sidestepped the question.
He was asked to comment on nature's preference for survival and how that relates to homosexuality, not whether homosexuality should be accepted.
*****
Thought it...
Didn't wanna say it...
I agree with you Tuko, he choose to not answer whats the outcome of same-sex intercourse on humans or animals totally
Guys ,he's not a biologist , plus,maybe there isn't a answer to it.there are too many factors that could cause this.I think Bill is doing the right thing for not being an arrogant asshole ,and giving the' right answer'
My understanding is that we presently don't have an evolutionary explanation for this, as this is a trait that would be quickly selected against, due to the lower probability of producing offspring.
Eugene Khutoryansky SciShow had a video about this, where they cited a sociological study of homosexual men in Brazil that showed that their female relatives had many more children. Since you share genetic material with them, it's thought that a gene, or combination of genes, might increase sexual attraction towards men, and in males it results in homosexuality. A trait can persist if it gives an evolutionary advantage to one's genetic information, not necessarily the individual (ex. alarming meerkats, they're more likely to die from a predator when calling, however this alarm often increases the survival of their close kin.)
Eugene Khutoryansky In species (such our own) where community is a relevant subject I could see it making sense. It might be more usefull for the group if some its paricipants use their recources to other things instead of mad dash for children, especially if supporting high population is already becoming cumbersome.
Eugene Khutoryansky Actually the answer was so close to being explained by Bill. There is more homosexual behavior in Zoos because there's less space. Apparently, as a species gets over populated, they start to exhibit more homosexual behavior in their off spring. It's like a natural release valve to stem over population. Which would also explain why there are more homosexuals in Cities vs the Country side.
Also, as Bill said, it's a spectrum. So it's not a trait that would just get reproduced off. So clearly, it's a natural population control, one that we seem to be hitting pretty hard. That should really tell us something about what we are doing to this planet if you ask me.
The best explanation I can think of is that it must somehow be a common mutation. Something about this particular gene(s) is very malleable, and can easily be switched one way or the other. Might it possibly have something to do with the fact that we change genders in the womb?
I'm on mobile so I can't edit
Another interesting thing to test would be to see if homosexuality exists in reptiles like crocodiles, whose gender depends on the temperature of the nest they are born in.
I feel like he avoided the question.
PC fucked up this video. He didn't really answer the question.
Akash Kumar He couldn't admit that science has a far from complete understanding of homosexuality so instead he said let's just all be happy and enjoy ourselves. Which is lovely and all but doesn't in any way address the question.
It's not that hard to determine that homosexuality is a mutation, just like any other mutations.
Akash Kumar please check this video for the scientific explanation:
czcams.com/video/4Khn_z9FPmU/video.html
Well I'm pretty gay and he answered it fine. Is it unique to humans - No, other animals express this behaviour. And that it is just a part of nature, the person asked a pretty general question and Bill Nye answered in a respectful, truthful, scientific and fact based way. He can't embellish beyond that because he doesn't have anything else to add? But he didn't avoid the question which some of you are insinuating. He said all there is to say. What do you want him to do? Make up some statistics?
@dumbassfromseattle
It's too bad you're not gay because you certainly don't need to be reproducing.
Our high school biology teacher, back in the 1980s, was a retired MD who went back and got a teaching certificate. We had to read Desmond Morris, the naked ape, the Kinsey reports, Margaret Mead's books and yes, Charles Darwin. Class discussions were quite lively and A BUNCH of parents got their knickers in a twist. The last ten minutes of every class he would stop lecture and answer any question that we put in his drop box. These videos remind me of that class.
Good job!
Alfred Kinsey? Isn't he the guy who researched orgasms in boys aging from 5 MONTHS old to 10 years old? Sounds like a normal human being who is very trustworthy and should be included in high school discussion. Totally not a quack.
"There's more homosexuality in zoos." Yeah Bill, I heard that about prison too...
I was holding my breath hoping that bill wasn’t homophobic.
It might be beneficial to some social species. Building trust and bonding between males in packs improves their chance of survival. There's a necessary balance between rivalry and harmony in a group, which has been fine-tuned by natural selection.
I agree with you and extend that argument to include females too........
What stupidity. Wokeists really do not know how to scientifically rationalize homosexuality, so they reach for the most ridiculous methods
He's basically answering the question with "No, it doesn't make evolutionary sense, but as exhibited by other species, it just happens naturally." I also love what he said at the end, thanks Bill :)
It's hard to say "We don't know." Perhaps the sample size or time period is too small for openly gay men (homosexual women could also have been married and had kids in present and past). There was talk years ago about a gene that a gay man might have that he shares with his gay maternal uncle. Or that when a woman has a lot of sons, the youngest son was more likely to be gay, perhaps because the womb environment after several sons was more hostile and flipped a switch in the brain.
In my opinion there also might be historical survival advantage for the offspring of a non-macho gay man who doesn't go off to war and die, so sires children among the widows. Or perhaps someone like that wasn't considered a threat when Genghis Khan and his sons and grandsons came to town spreading their genes, so he lived to sire children too.
Or one of the consequences of having women be heterosexual, without coming into estrus, is that it results in a small number of men who are homosexual.
Bill has such a dry and sarcastic sense of humor and I love it
In other words "I don't really know, but here's my opinion anyway."
I read a study years ago about mice and rat populations. They found that when mice populations became overpopulated they would continue to breed till they all died. However in rat populations they would begin pairing up with the same sex, effectively keeping the population within sustainable means. I think this would be a better example to answer the question. Humans live in dense populations, so dispite the social stigma, there is a survival purpose for said behavior.
That's a good point. But was it true 10,000 years ago?
I feel like the question he asked came from him.
"Im asking for a friend" is a dead giveaway 😂
he should've said that no it does not seem to make evolutionary sense, but it's also not a bad thing considering people aren't exactly on the endangered species list
A lot of animals exhibit gay sex however it is rarely strictly gay sex for example male bottlenose dolphins will gang rape other male dolphins from smaller species. And it's not just gay sex that happens penguins will have sex with other dead penguins that obviously has no evolutionary value
The sense is basic, we are a social creature. The group survives and we succeed. Not everyone in the group needs to breed for success, especially males. There is even a possibility that the gene that has some women want to have more children is connected to the gene that has some sons be predisposed to being gay, this is still being studied, but the possibility explains why gays are in the population of successful species.
So....can I go around killing people and fucking infants and family members? Murder, pedophilia and incest exist but people aren't exactly on the endangered species list....
Those all actively contribute to the demise of human society in factual, scientific ways. Killing people is killing people off. Fucking infants isn't productive, they can't have children of their own, and incest leads to genetic genocide. Whereas being homosexual doesn't impact anybody but yourself and your partner.
Your argument is fatally flawed and utterly stupid.
You can't reduce a population by not having children. Also, what about all of the straight couples who decide to not reproduce?
Bill Nye, you did not answer the question.
i wish scientific questions could be answered logically and scientifically. what a shame everything has to have a politically correct spin to it.
Since when is Bill Nye an expert on everything?
Do you know who bill bye is?
+Mark Brand his first word was: Expert
Since he was Bill nye
+ML Wilson He is more informed than most people on this planet. Having a piece of paper doesn't make you a smart person. Obtaining useful and advantageous knowledge and spreading it, becoming aware of social and ethical issues in our world, and being simply educated makes you a smart person. He is allowed to have an opinion on nearly any topic, I and many others value the opinions of a great man like Bill Nye.
+Idontagree1 👍👍👍 yes
That was a fleeting answer that a politician not wanting to offend either side would come up with... It didn't really seem like he had the answer to that question either and just rambled on about something that is relevant to the topic. Nonetheless, Bill Nye is not all knowing, we are human after all...
Heizenberg Jr. Don't make excuses for him. He shouldn't have bothered making this video if he knows nothing on the subject.
Heizenberg Jr. He clearly thought the question was silly. And he answered it by saying that homosexuality does not get in the way of the evolutionary process. How more clear can a person be without being rude about it?
Heizenberg Jr. He literally answers the question at 1:40 how is that so hard to grasp...
***** Perhaps, but he talks about it being on a spectrum. One isn't necessarily either Straight or Gay, and there are men and women who you would define as being gay who still have children of their own someway or another.
Heizenberg Jr. It was an ignorantly phrased question in the first place. Does it make evolutionary sense lol.
I love this! Growing up and looking up to Bill, it means a lot to hear him answer like this
terrible answer
Care to explain?
Vladislav Dracula he danced around the question and the ending
Hmm. Cannot see my own comment. Has it been removed?
it's more "avoiding confrontation" since this is a sensitive subject where either a homosexual themselves or straight antihomo folks could easily get triggered.
Here's the real answer: No. It doesn't make evolutionary sense, it just makes sense. Some people find men attractive, some people find women attractive, some find both attractive, some find neither attractive. Makes sense. Now those folk attracted to inanimate objects? Not to rag on anyone, but that's just odd. Sorry folks.
campbellsoup93 Perfect answer 😂👏🏽
True lol
Honestly the only answer that anyone should use lol
I'm attracted to my car, i put my pipi in the muffler
Im atrracted to my computer. But im cheating on it with my phone 😥.
That was a really long way of not answering the fucking question. Good job Bill.
My sister had a guinea pig who seemed to think she was a guy, or at least felt like one. She kept making male guinea pig noises and flirted with all the ladies and had fights with the men. Just saying it's definitely not just humans who have LGBT people.
The best advice “let’s celebrate being alive everybody”
Translation: Don't kill the gays?
'That can't be true if we're using "balls" in a conventional construction'
best quote 2016
Even when he voice was monotone, when Bill said "balls," I broke out laughing and I don't know why XD
i have a theory that homosexuality may be a triggered gene activated by population density. unfortunately, it is difficult (for me anyway) to really look into this because it is difficult to get the information needed. but imagine NYC having 30% more homosexuality than a farm town. i just pulled that number out of the air for an example. Now here is the issue with the information. farm towns are closer communities that often revolve around religious individuals. so homosexuals would be less inclined to be open about their sexuality, thus, squing the data. also, in NYC, many people move to the city for a more accepting population.
let me finish with this though. imagine we find the homosexual gene... once and for all proving beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuality is real, natural and the individual was born that way.
sexuality is one of the things i would never change about my potential child. removing illness, defects... sure, get that shit out of the genepool, but sexuality... never.
aside from that, by the time we have that kind of control over the genetics of the unborn, science will put rules and regulations on what can be changed. limited to health concerns. government may get involved, and only bad things can happen from there.
+Spotted Purple I think you're overreacting. Anti-gay people are generally against gene alteration, so I don't think they'll actually do something like that. And if they were rational people, they'd see that in the long term, a lower population size would benefit humanity. Why do we necessarily need 7 billion people if 4 billion suffice?
colonies on mars... one of the dummer ideas humans have come up with
Guardiansaiyan ?
Murray Kitson Sorry bud. That logic is flawed. You don't just put "homo" and "phobia" together and assume the meaning of that word is each literal meaning combined. I'm sure there is someone who is irrationally scared of homosexuals. But generally, when we say homophobia, we mean somebody who hates and/or discriminates against homosexuality and homosexuals.
ho·mo·pho·bi·a
ˌhōməˈfōbēə/
noun
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
Great answer Bill! You actually took this to the bottom line concept and nailed it.
Zoos are prisons for animals. You know what happens in prisons... There is your answer.
Funnysterste
I am sorry if it sounded like I said it's a bad thing. Yes, it's more likely for inmates to have homosexual relationships, not to "turn gay", hehe. I know how prisons work. And I think there is a similarity. It's not just because of the separated sexes, the whole mindset of a person, or animal, in captivity changes... Anyway, I might be talking nonsense, but the video doesn't really explain why animals in captivity are more likely to have homosexual behavior, so I try to find some explanation myself. No prejudice.
gh0st sh3ll
Don't be naive, I did not assume that. The guy in the video just gave this info, that animals in captivity are more likely to display this behavior, that's why I was trying to rationalize it. I didn't make it up.
What about two lady bugs in a jar? Will they become to man bugs lol sorry couldn't help it....
Sam V Of course, I never disputed this fact. Why did you misunderstand me?
That's a very simplistic analogy. Mr. Nye says, "the sample size is too small to extrapolate."
On my walks around the block (it's 3.4 km around and includes several ranch areas) I've seen bulls mount other bulls, and the ranchers tell me that about 10% of their male sheep (buck or tup) do the same thing.
Doesn't necessarily mean they are homosexual...animals, humans included) all get urges.
+Rand Huso I doubt they're targeting males to mount though. Horny males will mount anything. Another male, a human, a couch, anything.
Yes and my dog will mount my leg if I move it around violently. Most animals will hump anything that moves. It's ignorant to say said animals are exhibiting an emotional or sexual preference every time they get on top of something.
+Rand Huso lol 10% bullshit
Regardless if it was natural or not, does it matter? Let people fuck who they want. You're goin to die anyway so why does it matter what comes after. Live life the way you want to here and now.
It would matter greatly if one would suffer for eternity for such frivolous things as being homosexual, bisexual, not worshipping a specific higher power, and so forth. Also to allow one to exist contrary to what your beliefs demand when you are charged with spreading those beliefs and the _"correct"_ way to exist comes into play. At least this is the justification for those that are against it due to a religious/spiritual reality model.
I in no way condone such hateful beliefs and find it silly no matter how you slice it, spiritually or secularly(they have their own equally invalid arguments against lgbt).
***** so what? There is plenty of things that humans do that aren't natural. Mind your own damn business and let others live their life the way they want to as long as they don't hurt anyone.
You're right, RealMetalGaming, but the scientific community is largely in agreement that homosexuality and bisexuality are likely innate. This means you are likely born with it. Mostly because evidence against it has been labelled moot.
“There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.” - American Academy of Pediatrics (June 2004)
"Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice.” - The American Psychiatric Association (January 2013)
I love Bill Nye .From back when I use to watch his show as a kid to growing up and seeing that he's a diverse Progressive and still insanely intelligent guy who doesn't seem to have a mean bone in his body makes my day. keep being awesome for ever man.
Unless you’re dancing…
Most giraffes have same sex attraction
I wish Bill Nye had pointed out that by having a variety of behaviors for males and females it increases the chances for survival of a species. If all men, or all women must behave in one way, then that group is more vulnerable to being wiped out from something that targets that behavior. Diversity is powerful and necessary.
It is like myopic eyesight, once it was a death sentence. Now mankind has adapted.
LS Imperial But don't you think that we would have died out as a species long ago if it was evolutionarily detrimental? Gay people make up only a small percentage of the human population, and from what can be seen in the observable data that we have, that percentage hasn't increased by much at all. I think OP has a point. It could be biologically integral for that small percentage of humans to exist within our species. Even if everyone in the world was gay, we possess the means to correct the population issues. Men can give their sperm, and women can be artificially inseminated. It happens all the time, these days. I don't see our species being wiped out anytime soon :)
LS Imperial Hmm, that is a fair and well thought out point. It's not something I can really argue against. Even as a gay guy, I agree on all accounts. That was worded much better than your original comment.
One thing though; please don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth if you're going to put words right back in mine. I never said "OP is right". I said "OP has a point", meaning, OP had a point which was considerable enough to spark an interesting discussion about it. My original reason for thinking you essentially said "detrimental" was because in your original comment, you said "gay sex has absolutely no benifit and would be an evolutionary dead end if the species became completely gay". When you say "evolutionary dead end", in my mind, that translates to: "homosexuality at its core is detrimental to evolution". So perhaps I misinterpreted?
LS Imperial Prison rape has nothing to do with gay sex and you can easily look up that it is a crime of domination and humiliation. If you check History you will find similar examples of it as armies invaded a town and they raped women and men to defeat their spirits and shame them to be submissive.
Your idea that a hetrosexual man raping and dominating another straight ma who might be weaker or less "masculine" would "turn gay" is ridiculous, and you can easily look up that straight men return to sex with females at the earliest opportunity when released.
Death threats and beatings have a way of making weak or slightly effeminate but STRAIGHT men in prison comply to sexual acts they don't want yes. That does not make them "gay" but makes them survivors who don't want to die. Often men who get raped repeatedly against their will never recover mentally to have normal lives again if they are released and the last thing they want s more abuse from men.
There definitely is that usual percentage of men who ARE gay in prisons and they become victims as well of course.
The reason that almost all psychologists and psychiatrists in North America gave up trying to change the sexual orientation of people with therapy is that it only worked in about 1% of cases where people were borderline bisexual anyway.
There lots of good info on that out there and I suggest you do a bit of digging into things like the organization Exodus which tried for years to change gay men to be straight and admitted they had practically no luck with it and so the organization disbanded.
There are rare cases where deep religious indoctrination can persuade a gay person they are not gay by using the brainwashing of the mighty "power of belief" by magic invisible jesus, but studies show that while on the surface these people act straight they still react to gay porn in medical studies showing it is just a mind trick caused by the neurotheology if the religion. Many of the religious so called "conversions" end up as unexplained suicides as the person can not deal internally with leading a false life as a straight person. lots of info out there if you'd like to look it up.
peace
LS Imperial Okay, I understand what you mean; in which case, very fair points, and even as a gay man, I must say, I agree.
Bill Nye is getting up there in years. Hopefully he is around a lot longer, we need more people like him in the world.
Eew
let's celebrate being alive everybody (:
everytime i hear bill talk about anything it motivates me to be a better person.
Culture plays a huge part in the evolution of social species, and other species vicariously. Altruism is extremely important in this situation.
Gay men, for instance, would generally be more welcome in patriarchal tribes, as they would offer the same benefits of having another male around, without the threat of losing a mate.
Being gay is not only supported by evolution. It's a part of the success of our species.
knowledge If you are gay or transgender or know someone who is, this is important information! It has been determined that sexual orientation is determined in the womb during fetal development. Various hormones such as testosterone are introduced at specific times & amounts which determine physical, biological & psychologic features of the fetus. It is, therefore, not a choice by the fetus or mother & consequently not a sin & not immoral. It is a natural path of life’s evolution & found commonplace in nature. Extensive medical research clearly explains this process. Those who believe it is an abomination do so based not on facts but on religious authority. I totally accept that this is their right to believe this and I understand. It must be made clear however, it is based on religion not science. If you are truly interested in the truth based on knowledge, facts & research, the book Gay, Straight & the Reason Why by Dr. Simon Levay explains this with numerous research articles. If you want to understand the truth & have respect for others & yourself, this book will help. It also has, unlike the bible written over 2000 years ago by men that had, unfortunately, no understanding of science, an extensive bibliography. I strongly recommend the book if you want solid factual understanding. If you chose to respond to me, please read this book &/or the numerous articles referred to in the reference section beforehand. I do not want to waste your or my time if your claim to understanding is based on religion. The public must be exposed to facts & knowledge. It is an obligation for those who know the truth & defend it. Don’t let the religious pull you down to their level of ignorance & intolerence. Peace
Speaking in terms of evolutionary benefits, having homosexual individuals and couples helps the population by having a couple be able to take care of possibly orphaned infants and furthering the populace.
뿡뿡! ^__^ That was extremely rude and uncalled for.
Not all homosexuals are inclined to adopt kids, just like not all heterosexuals are inclined to adopt or reproduce. Adopting a kid is not necessarily a biological intervention. It's not like orphan children are unable to reproduce unless they are adopted. And once they are adopted does not mean they'll choose to have kids in the future
뿡뿡! ^__^ You have some sand up your arse or something, old sport?
***** nobody was speculating if it's "correct" or not, if they should be allowed to be homosexual. We're speculating on how/why NATURE has allowed homosexuality to persist, in the same way people speculate about why women loose their fertility in their 40's even though they're still otherwise in good health.
뿡뿡! ^__^ Example: Cygnus atratus - The Black Swan. 25% of all the monogamous pairs are homosexual and the chicks they raise have better survival rates because 2 males can secure a more territory and feed them better.
Giraffes are also pretty gay - something like 90% of all giraffe sex is gay sex.
Should have been a question for Richard Dawkins
Please teach me how to edit my video to look like it is watched in a laptop *please!*
In my country, Norway, there is a party that wants to stop homosexual marige. in my eyes that's the same as saying: "you are not allowed to love this person, go fuck yourself if you like it so much"- That's not just me reffering thats an actual quote from a politician.
They sound like the life of the party, at least if it was held at the morgue.
I think its proof of how little freewill people actually have, compared to how much they think they have. Most people spend their entire time claiming to be unique, and yet spend their entire time being a victim to their own limitations of free will. Via internal or external forces.
Its like asking if murder is bad for society.... and you answer "Well, other creatures murder, and they've been already for while".... its not a question of whether or not we are going into extinction.... its a question of whether or not this is beneficial for human evolution... which it obviously isn't.... Regardless, I don't buy the macro evolutionary hypothesis based on the evidence we have regardless. But it still does make for a really interesting conversation. I think its sorta sad how homosexuality isn't really justified from any predominant world view (religiously, and Darwinism), they both sorta frown down on it (not on the people, on the idea) either outwardly or inwardly.... That doesn't dismiss the fact that all people deserve to be treated with love and respect, even people that do horrible things.... I'm a Christian (here's your chance to hate me even if you were agreeing with everything I said up until now) and so survival of the fittest is not a methodology that I live by.... I believe its unhealthy and ultimately destructive. I think that if all people simply loved everyone, it would literally be heave on earth.... think about it for a second.... And the only way you can ever get there (not saying we ever will fulfill this) is by being the love you want to see.
leon scott Survival of the fittest is a fact for everyone. If you're alive then you were once a sperm that out swam a couple million other sperm. They ended up on a tissue in a bin and you're alive.
In animals killing the weak / cannibalism etc is advantageous. Eg. The Beta male lion has just defeated the former dominant male and drove him out of the pride. The 1st thing he does is to kill all the cubs of the former male. Why? Because the females cannot go into heat while breastfeeding. The fact that he has defeated the former alpha means his genes are superior and in killing all the cubs with inferior genes, their mothers can conserve their energy to use raising his cubs with superior genes. This ensures the next generation will be stronger and more resilient and more likely to survive.
You also are thinking of sex only in reproductive terms. The fact is most of the times we have sex the last thing we want is pregnancy - thus we use birth control. So most of the times we have sex (unless you're the Duggars) it will only be for pleasure and companionship. I haven't heard anyone make the argument that gay sex is less pleasurable or that a gay partner a less suitable companion - usually its the opposite.
Religions and societies are to serve people not the other way around. IMO a sign of a mature society is having a healthy recognition and integration of all aspects of human nature. So if you look at ancient societies they usually knew gays existed had places for them.
leon scott Video games is not for the benefit for human evolution either but that doesn't mean we should stop playing. Homosexuality has many causes ( like around 5). One of the causes IS for an evolutionary benefit called the Balancing Selection Hypothesis. It is the explanation that when family members produce a lot of children, nature compensates for the increase in population by decreasing future population by creating gay sons. This has been indicated by numerous studies which found that gays have aunts and other family members who have a lot of children.
dothedeed I agree with everything you said.... except that you didn't give evidence as to why you believe we were sperm millions of years ago... you gave me correct present day observations, but you cannot use present day observatons to assume I was a sperm a million years ago
DarkTriad you are assuming that homosexuality is a biological trait.... its not, its psychological... how does evolution account for social and psychological paradigms. By the way, I don't believe that evolution holds its wait, and I believe that homosexuals are beautiful and awesome people that deserve as much respect as everyone else even though I don't believe homosexuality is a good thing.
leon scott I don't understand your question. Humans didn't exist millions of years ago - our specie is only like 200k yrs old. However, the evolutionary tree model has all living things branching from 1 original cell.
I just love Bill. So glad he's back in the spot light.
It concerns me he couldn’t answer the question. He got a little nervous lol
How bill changed, but he still looks good 👍
Wow*
It's actually better the way you wrote it originally
Bill Nye the not so science guy
He really didn't express this as eloquently as I thought he could have. He sounds very unsure about what he's saying. It's like he knows what people want him to say. Basically, what I got out of this was: 1. Primatologists have seen some gay shit. 2. *Apparently* some humans are gay.
WiseFool 😂😂
"Let celebrate being alive everybody"
The ultimate answer to all these questions.
This might piss people off, but someone has take care of the children straight people abandon. lol In all seriousness, the world can't take care of what it has. Do we really need to add more people? Be fruitful and multiply certainly made sense in the days of Adam and Eve. But does it make sense now... Perhaps homosexuality is an evolutionary solution.
Currently 7.4 billion and counting.
It's crazy to think that only 100 years ago, we had ~1.6 billion. Before that, we've had less than 1 billion. So, when Jesus was supposedly born at 0 AD, we only had a maximum of 300 million people on the entire earth.
So in 0.05%, that's 5 / 10,000 years of our human history, our population growth went from less than 4%, then suddenly to over 30% in that TINY time slice.
I agree.
+Buffoonery Premarital sex has become more and more acceptable. As it stands now, the human race is going to explode if something isn't done about it.
Jordan W.
Thank you for your response.
From what I see, I don't think premarital sex is the problem. One example is Japan. It has a low birth rate and yet they don't have very many marriages.
However, in places like in Africa, where people have a high birthrate without marriage, this is probably due to the lack of education, higher number of rapes, lack of contraception, and a very stressful environment; they all add to the likelyhood of having children.
So, in my opinion, one of the biggest ways to prevent population growth is to educate, and to give access to contraceptives. This moves the number to around 1-4 children as it should be.
Marriage can sometimes encourage people to have children, because of what is expected of them. In my eyes, you should get to know and trust your partner wholeheartedly (including sex), before you marry them. Many people don't do this, and because of this, divorce rates are extremely high.
Things happen in life, sometimes after having sex, the "love" can be lost. In this case, it would be a terrible idea to have been married. It's hard, especially for less experienced people to "know" who the right person is to get married to.
Buffoonery Yeah I agree, I really didn't spend enough time typing that to get every problem down, premarital sex definitely isn't the primary cause for overpopulation. I said that because as far as the United states goes, pregnancy and premarital sex have both become more acceptable. As far as Japan, sex is looked down upon for the most part. They're pretty classy over there and society is more strict than over here. The world as a whole has become more lenient with sex. It used to be that if some young girl was seen pregnant, she would be shamed. And shame isn't really the primary reason either. But it is a big reason. There's less shaming in a lot of countries.
Red not really, as a country gets more developed, birth rate and fertility rate decreases, as seen in USA or Europe for example without migration population would almost decrease. as underdeveloped countries begin to develop their population will reach a maximum until really every single country experiences this and world population begins to stagnate then decline
This doesn't really explain if it makes evolutionary sense (Maybe I am stupid and didn't really understand the video) to me. Even if homosexuals still have babies, I would have thought the chance of them reproducing and passing on their genes would be a lot lower than heterosexuals. This would suggest that homosexuality would not exist today (Or it would be vary rare) unless it: has a benefit in regards to reproduction and passing on genetic information, or if it is unrelated to genetics (Though some genes have been found to be linked to the chance of homosexuality). My thoughts are that it is similar to the genetic disease that causes red blood cells to become sickle-shaped, where it has a benefit (As sickle cell anemia provides a natural defense against malaria) which increases chance of survival and passing on genes while also making people with it weaker (Which would cause some people to survive that would have died, but also some people to die that would have survived). I think it is likely that there is a benefit to homosexuality in regards to survival and reproduction (I haven't found any detailed/reliable sources on said benefit, but there was some information about how homosexuality can cause people to be more fit). Simply put, I think it does make evolutionary sense. If the benefit outweighed the negative, the majority of people would be homosexual, but as the benefit outweighs the negative at the moment, the majority of people are heterosexual.
Not sure why I wrote this comment, the question interested me as I found myself thinking 'Why have I never thought of this question before?'. Please correct me on any incorrect information, I did very limited research while writing it so it is possible that this comment is completely wrong.
simple, evolution does not actively remove not-harmful traits. It does favor beneficial traits but it just doesn't eliminate all other traits, even more when the traits are complex, as bill said Homo-Hetero is a continuum, so it mean that the trait is intertwined with more behaviours.
As an example we can use Pareidolia, the trait being selected is how well can we find patterns, this leaks and generates false-positives.
My personal opinion is that homosexuality comes from our social nature and our empathy towards those we consider 'us'
not to mention what is considered "beneficial" or not as a trait is highly dependent on environmental circumstances. When the environment changes, what might have been beneficial in one situation is now "harmful". Physiological and behavioural diversity are both necessary for a species to survive over evolutionary time.
"They captured a couple o' homosexual bonobos" Bill Nye.
I wonder if homosexual inclinations are proportional to how social a species is? There are some albatross colonies with populations of several thousands, where up to 25% of nesting pairs are same-sex couples, and the birds literally trade eggs for fertilization, so that 2 females and 2 males can raise their own chicks.
I recall once reading somewhere (I don't remember where), that one purpose of homosexual behavior is to ease sexual tension in largely single-sex populations. If a bunch of males are alone in the woods together with very few or no females to get their groove on with, or vice-versa, it is advantageous to be able to groove with each other rather than fighting amongst themselves.
More importantly, though, is even if homosexuality has no "practical" purpose in terms of evolution, you don't need to be a biologist to see that it does no real harm to a society either. So people are committing to relationships in which they can't reproduce; big freaking deal, so what? There are over 7 billion other people on the planet, I think the species can go on quite healthily if these two people don't make a baby. One man's choice to shag other men has no effect on the society as a whole, anymore than a hetero couple's decision to get married and not have kids. Nothing justifies the bigotry short of some old, bigoted book.
What you are describing are not homosexuals or gay males. They are heterosexual males who aren’t able to be around the opposite gender so they mate with the same gender to meet their mating needs. A gay male, like me, has never had any interest in or any attraction to females at all, so even if a gay person or gay animal has access to every female around, we will not bond or wish to be with females and simply reject them for someone of the same gender.
Bill Nye the SJW guy.
I like how this guy makes it known that he is "asking for a friend" essentially. lol
I died at the first 3 seconds bill talked with that voice crack
His last response was basically "There are much bigger issues we have to solve than a person's sexual preference". He is a grown man with experience and wisdom, he doesn't have time for petty triviality.
THIIISSS!!!
nah he just ducks a legitimate question because it makes him uncomfortable and because he doesn't have an answer. "There are much bigger issues we have to solve" is a really bad line of thinking btw. this way any question anyone asks about anything because they are want to know can be shut down by saying "well we just have bigger things to worry about!". congratulations, you just killed one of the most basic human instincts: curiosity.
You claim to be quoting Bill Nye, but his last few sentences didn't say what's in quotes. It's a question worth investigating, and we just don't know. If there's a spectrum then there might be multiple types of homosexual men and women for different reasons, which there appears to be.
Read the Selfish Gene, it explains things altruism and homosexuality in detail.
perhaps "explores" would have been a more fitting verb. It does enlighten us on some aspects in detail.
I'm an evolutionary biologist and I was asked this very same question once. It is true that selective pressures should act against homosexuality if it does not provide any fitness benefits, which leaves us with two possibilites: either homosexuality provides a fitness benefit we are unaware of (for example females having greater attraction to males with homosexual tendencies and vise versa), or homosexuality does not induce a reduction in fitness that is so great selection acts heavily upon it. As for the question of genetics it is entirely possible for a homosexual 'gene' to be passed down from heterosexual parents. Consider that each person has two copies of each gene (alleles), if both parents possessed one allele for homosexuality and one for heterosexuality it is highly possible they could conceive a child that inherits the homosexual allele from both parents and thus expresses homosexual behaviour. Of course this is an extremely simplified example as genetic inheritance and expression is very complex, but hopefully it suggests how such an event is possible.
Great answer Bill Nye! You totally didn't dodge the part of his question where he asked if homosexuality is evolution friendly!
It makes perfect sense. If every member of a species was completely heterosexual, the population of that species would balloon to absurd levels, stretching food, living space, and other resources paper thin. This is why you find homosexuality all throughout the animal kingdom, not just in humans, and it's not even just in mammal species. Yet humans are the only species with a negative response to it. Other species just see it as less competition for mates.
Bill Nye the not so science guy~
I forgot how old this video is
What happened to bill’s voice at 0:42??
No fo gay Jesus
short answer... "NO" duh
Read about the concept of a "sneaky bi gene", you'd be surprised.
But if there's a gene that makes a person gay ....then how can we hold anyone accountable for anything that they do.... because they could just as easily be it racism Gene and a hatred Gene and a gene that makes you want to kill people.... and a gene that makes you want to rape little kids it's not their fault that they're attracted to kids.... if their genes that control people's actions then by that argument , we all are puppets
Most likely there is a racist gene, the question is not about "if you have the gene you are not responsible for anything, otherwise you are responsible for everything".
The issue is how does one deal with their urges. I for example would have no problem if a racist individual would buy some sort of racist computer game and play it. And as for having sex, as long as the other party is willing, what's the problem.
Saying that "Homosexuality is ok" is not the same thing as saying "Nobody who has homosexual sex does anything bad". Let's say that you go out and rape some men, our society will not accept your homosexual urges as the reason not to try to stop you. Just like if some heterosexual person were to rape members of the opposite sex, that is just as wrong.
My thoughts are as follows... Anything that is not a "physical anatomical manifestation" (ie hair, skin color etc) ...is a choice, I have had urges to punch someone in the face, however... I ultimately have the choice to do it... I become annoyed when people say that they are born to commit a action... That they have no choice... Illogical... There is no gene that can cause me to hate anyone... Period... However, as it relates to homosexuality... We are a species which reproduces through sexual organs designed (by GOD or evolution) to work in combination with each other... This is incontrovertible...
Not only is this controvertible, but it's been disproved. There is a direct correlation between genes and sexual orientation.
He got really emotional when he started talking about his time "growing up"
But managed to contain it pretty well afterwards.
I can't seem to find the journal article I was reading that mentioned the discovery of two separate genes that were linked towards the individual's attraction. From my understanding of their findings, one gene caused a predisposition to an attraction to males along a spectrum(you could think of it as a 0%-100% value), and the other gene caused a predisposition to an attraction to females along a spectrum(another 0%-100% value). Each person contains two sets of each gene(one from the mother, the other form the father) but usually only has one active(akin to many other genetic traits). The article went on to state that the state of one gene was unrelated to the state of the other gene. This seems like a plausible explanation for many of the real world situations people are in.
For clarity, the child of each set of parents gets one of the two genes with regards to male attraction from their mother, one of the two genes with regards to male attraction from their father, one of the two genes with regards to female attraction from their mother, and one of the two genes with regards to female attraction from their father.
On another note, there are numerous cases of animals, amphibians, fish and such that have exhibited homosexual behavior. Additionally, on a somewhat related note, there are cases of fish changing gender in order to make sure the species can propagate.
Bill Nye the sell out guy! He is now the shame of every kid who ever watched him in the 80's.
Anthony Wallace great debating skills, moron
Simple answer: It's not a hereditary trait. So by being heterosexual, doesn't mean your baby can't be homosexual, and the opposite also holds true. Even if a gay person chooses not to reproduce, there will still be gay people since hereditary genetics isn't what determines sexuality. Instead it's more likely related to the exposure of hormones within the womb, which can cause a child to have a non-hetero sexuality regardless of whether the parent is straight or not.
Why did Bill Nye's voice sound odd when he started talking?
He was impersonating an old person, who often start their tales with phrases like "when I was growing up" or "In my days"
@@Alkis05 Yes, of course. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I'm a little slow sometimes. 😊
@@heidigone I did notice that you took 4 weeks to type that =P
@@Alkis05 hahaha lol!
this is interesting to think about. why from an evolutionary point of view does this happen? its gotta be at the very least a benign trait mutated somewhere that doesn't hurt the species survival and thus doesn't matter to evolution or in some way it works to benefit.
I have that book! I've not read it, I had no idea it was a big deal. lol It's just been sitting on my shelf.
The whole problem is that people always think that everything has to make sense, but the universe is random, it doesn't have to make sense, things just happen. And over time systems will arise which will grow more complicated and complicated. There's no reason for it, it just is. Asking why does homosexuality exists if it doesn't make evolutionary sense is like asking why is there evolution in the first place. It just happens, and over time things randomly change, chemically, doesn't mean there is an error it just means it changes.
I never thought I would hear innocent old bill say "balls"
"Im asking for a friend who wishes to remain anonymous" yeah right lmao you aren't fooling anyone buddy.