|
 Canberra
Mushroom enthusiast
Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 1,953
Loc: Melbourne
Last seen: 7 minutes, 13 seconds
|
 If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? 
#16096254 - 04/16/12 05:44 AM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out through natural selection? Genuinely interested, not trying to troll
--------------------
|
 Delicious Apes
Registered: 10/31/08
Posts: 3,589
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Canberra]
#16096306 - 04/16/12 06:27 AM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It isnt, necessarily? but that doesn't mean it was a choice. I'm amazed this subject can be thought of in such a cut & dry way. Humans and their interpersonal/individual development are/is complex enough that it's just bound to occur in the rate of frequency that it do.
|
 Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,394
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 9 days
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Canberra]
#16096359 - 04/16/12 06:58 AM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out through natural selection?
I was unaware that homosexuals were unable to have children.
> I'm amazed this subject can be thought of in such a cut & dry way.
QFT.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Canberra
Mushroom enthusiast
Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 1,953
Loc: Melbourne
Last seen: 7 minutes, 13 seconds
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Seuss]
#16096414 - 04/16/12 07:29 AM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm pretty sure that the rate of childbirth among gays is a lot lower than among heterosexuals
--------------------
|
King Klick
That Guy Everyone Knows
Registered: 11/13/11
Posts: 4,165
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Canberra]
#16096480 - 04/16/12 08:17 AM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Natural selection ensures that the species will be stronger than others and better suited to survival. Being gay won't make it any less so.
--------------------
Your god is dead, and i killed him.
The moment you refuse the human rights for just a few, what happens when that view includes you?-Chuck D.
The X I got won't find you treasure, it'll leave you rollin so hard you leave in a stretcher-Chris Webby
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,394
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 9 days
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: King Klick]
#16096554 - 04/16/12 08:48 AM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> Natural selection ensures that the species will be stronger than others and better suited to survival. Being gay won't make it any less so.
I believe the OP is trying to say that homosexuals don't reproduce; therefor, any genetic traits that lead to homosexuality will be removed from the gene pool by natural selection. Obviously, life is a bit more complex than this...
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 20,388
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Canberra]
#16096608 - 04/16/12 09:18 AM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Canberra said:
If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out through natural selection?
1. Because gays breed
2. Because, possibly, homosexuality could be linked to recessive traits and therefore not manifest in most individuals
3. Because evolution isn't finished: homosexuality hasn't been bred out yet. Perhaps it will be one day. Or perhaps it won't.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 16,596
Loc: Americas
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Canberra]
#16096970 - 04/16/12 12:15 PM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Canberra said:
If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out through natural selection? Genuinely interested, not trying to troll
Because it doesn't inhibit the survival of the genetic group that has the homosexuality trait- of course. That's pretty much the answer for any evolution question.
One of the most common false notions you here about evolutionary theory and natural selection is that the fittest indivual is the one who survives. This is not true- the selection pressure if for the propogation of genes rather than the survival or organisms.
So what must exist is some selectable benefit for a genetic group with gays. I could think of several:
1. Gays might be able to watch the group's children while the other men are off hunting- this would provide extra child rearing help as well as stronger defenses for the children should a threat emerge. Straight males would likely not be trusted to stay at home with the females and children, so they would be forced to join the other males hunting. (Remember, humans are born pretty much worthless and take a lot of effort to get to the point where they stop being a severe burden. Contrast that with even gorillas whose babies can cling onto their mother's soon after birth).
2. Males with homosexual traits might have a reproduction advantage. In the situation above- the gay male could mate with any of the females while the others are off hunting. Even if an entirely homosexual male is not a survival benefit, if that trait is a combination of multiple genes and learned behaviors than its likely far more common for males to be slightly gay and thus disposed to mate with the females.
Those are two examples that make sense to me, but the point is that the way many people get taught evolution in highschool or on TV is simply wrong. Its not much of a disadvantage to die young so long as your genes are passed on.
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
Canberra said:
If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out through natural selection?
1. Because gays breed
2. Because, possibly, homosexuality could be linked to recessive traits and therefore not manifest in most individuals
3. Because evolution isn't finished: homosexuality hasn't been bred out yet. Perhaps it will be one day. Or perhaps it won't.
2. itself wouldn't provide an explanation as the trait would still not be selected for if it where negative. Either the trait carriers provide some genetic advantage or the homozygous individuals do. From what I've heard of non-human primate behavior, its sees homosexuality is pretty natural and well represented, so I would think it either has to be an advantage in some way or a consequence of unrelated traits that are.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 20,388
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: johnm214]
#16097012 - 04/16/12 12:32 PM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
koraks said:
1. Because gays breed
2. Because, possibly, homosexuality could be linked to recessive traits and therefore not manifest in most individuals
3. Because evolution isn't finished: homosexuality hasn't been bred out yet. Perhaps it will be one day. Or perhaps it won't.
2. itself wouldn't provide an explanation as the trait would still not be selected for if it where negative. Either the trait carriers provide some genetic advantage or the homozygous individuals do.
I always understood that it isn't so much that traits are selected for - but rather those traits that carry a disadvantage are weeded out. It seems like a semantic difference, but in nature where in principle, anything goes, it isn't. If you (as a species) are more inefficient than others, then you'll cease to be. Still, homosexuality could be considered inefficient, so your argument still stands.
Quote:
From what I've heard of non-human primate behavior, its sees homosexuality is pretty natural and well represented, so I would think it either has to be an advantage in some way or a consequence of unrelated traits that are.
Well, I think you have a point there. It is entirely possible that homosexuality carries an advantage for the species, e.g. because there are some individuals available to care for those that reproduce, while they in themselves don't. This practice can be found in several species, so apparently it works. But more importantly: having a recessive genetic allele that codes for homosexuality (if it only were so simple...) does not involve a clear disadvantage. There is only a disadvantage if it is combined with the same recessive allele, resulting in a homosexual individual. Naturally, that won't breed, but its siblings will. The only disadvantage is that the family with the recessive, homosexual allele will produce at a lower rate than families/lineages that don't have this allele. But then still, it's a matter of the gay-alleles keeping up with the rest or not. If they do, then the gay-allele won't disappear as a result of 'natural selection'.
Alternatively (and more likely), homosexuality isn't as simple as one allele (or even a handful of alleles) coding for becoming gay. It seems more likely to me that it's a combination of genetics, epigenetics and conditions in the womb. If epigenetics and maternal health characteristics play a role, then the whole genetics-based discussion above pretty much goes out of the window.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 16,596
Loc: Americas
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: koraks]
#16097085 - 04/16/12 12:54 PM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koraks said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
From what I've heard of non-human primate behavior, its sees homosexuality is pretty natural and well represented, so I would think it either has to be an advantage in some way or a consequence of unrelated traits that are.
Well, I think you have a point there. It is entirely possible that homosexuality carries an advantage for the species, e.g. because there are some individuals available to care for those that reproduce, while they in themselves don't. This practice can be found in several species, so apparently it works. But more importantly: having a recessive genetic allele that codes for homosexuality (if it only were so simple...) does not involve a clear disadvantage. There is only a disadvantage if it is combined with the same recessive allele, resulting in a homosexual individual. Naturally, that won't breed, but its siblings will. The only disadvantage is that the family with the recessive, homosexual allele will produce at a lower rate than families/lineages that don't have this allele.
But that isn't necessarily a disadvantage- indeed it far less energy, time, and effort to support nine babies than ten, for example. If your genetic group (say, tribe) with the homosexual trait(s) have more offspring surviving, than you likely have a benefit. Its far better to have 9 children with seven surviving to sexual maturity than eleven with five surviving to maturity. The tribe with the gays could therefore be far more efficient (additionally, the male at home could prevent males from other tribes from mating with the females, protect them from attacks, and so on).
Quote:
Alternatively (and more likely), homosexuality isn't as simple as one allele (or even a handful of alleles) coding for becoming gay. It seems more likely to me that it's a combination of genetics, epigenetics and conditions in the womb.
Taking just the heritable components, I agree that its more likely a complex behavior like sexual preference/orientation is probably a result of many genes, but makes the advantage of having the homosexual alleles more apparent. If we imagine the individual with all the alleles for homosexuality don't reproduce, then most having the gay traights will be capable of reproduction. Along with the male's ability to stay at home and mate with the females secretly, this could represent an advantage for the gay alleles. While the non-reproducing male wouldn't be useless, even if he would be, he would not be selected out necessarily due to the benefit of the alleles.
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 18,224
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Canberra]
#16097216 - 04/16/12 01:34 PM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out through natural selection?
The propensity of some people to live celibate lives as monks hasn't been bred out either, maybe for similar reasons.
And some gay people do have children. There's also the so-called "Gay Uncle Theory" that suggests a gay member in the family disproportionately helps the gay offspring of his siblings over the other offspring, not necessarily intentionally. If true, it could give gay offspring a slight survival edge.
But like others have said, I doubt it can be explained in any simple way.
--------------------
Believe those who are seeking Truth. Doubt those who find it.
|
Odd_Nonposter
Unrecognizable
Registered: 06/26/10
Posts: 429
Loc: Ohio 
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Diploid]
#16101913 - 04/17/12 02:57 PM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Male Homosexuality Placed in Darwinian Context
tl;dr: The matrilineal ancestors of homosexual males show higher fecundity (read: childbearing) rates than hetero-exclusives.
Meaning that females that carry the gay-man gene have a reproductive advantage.
A male with a single gay-carrying allele likely doesn't express homosexuality, since it's a recessive trait, but if he mates with a female that carries the same allele, there is a 1/4 probability of a male child (so, 1/8 probability total) being born with two copies and expressing homosexuality.
Assuming that only half of the males that a heterozygous female could mate with are also heterozygous, this means that her probability of bearing a homosexual male child further drops to 1/16. (6.25%) And since not all females carry gay-man genes, the overall rate drops even further.
This falls in line with the number of homosexual males being around 3-10% in some polls.
In the end, the female's greater childbearing rate is more advantageous (for the gene) than the occasional nonreproductive male.
--------------------
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
-Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"
|
Canberra
Mushroom enthusiast
Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 1,953
Loc: Melbourne
Last seen: 7 minutes, 13 seconds
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Odd_Nonposter]
#16103741 - 04/17/12 10:11 PM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Interesting read. Does it attempt to explain anywhere why females with the gay gene have more children?
--------------------
|
daussaulit
Forgetful
Registered: 08/06/02
Posts: 2,882
Loc: Earth
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Canberra]
#16110325 - 04/19/12 08:09 AM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Looks like the other posts have it covered, but I'll throw one out there that hasn't been mentioned.
Gay men marrying women and having children because it is what society "expected" from them?
Remember Ted Haggard? A married evangelical who was busted for paying for male prostitutes and doing meth.
Remember Mark Foley? A married Senator that was busted for soliciting sex in the men's room at an airport.
Remember Bob Allen? A married Florida Representative, arrested for offering an undercover male cop to blow him for $20.
Remember Roy Ashburn? A married Senator with kids that received a DUI after leaving a gay bar.
Remember Jerry Sandusky? A married(with adopted kids) former Penn State coach molesting small boys in the shower room.
Remember Mark Foley? A married Representative, sending explicit e-mails to young boys and possession of child porn.
This is a small slice of the stories that we hear about, so this must be happening on a significantly larger scale.
|
Freedom
Will swim for food
Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,024
Last seen: 22 days, 4 hours
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Canberra]
#16117843 - 04/20/12 10:53 PM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'll just add another one in for fun
Perhaps homosexuality is not caused by one gene but by a bunch of genes. In this scenario its not that you need a specific combination, but you just need enough gay genes to cross the gay threshold. (This would also help explain bisexuality). Perhaps having a gay gene is beneficial to the individual whether or not they are gay. So all the different gay genes could increase fitness and thus be spread more, individually even if the gay combination decreases fitness. It could be a particular gay combo as well.
In addition gayness may be acquired from both genes and experience.
This is the kind of thing that is thought to cause autoimmune disorders.
--------------------
|
tymoteusz3
Registered: 09/08/10
Posts: 7,731
Last seen: 4 hours, 13 minutes
|
Re: If homosexuality is something you're born with, why hasn't it been bred out thru natural selection? [Re: Freedom]
#16128781 - 04/23/12 04:25 PM (1 year, 1 month ago) |
|
|
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
