• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Here's why evolution hasn't eliminated homosexuality

Seems to provide a mechanism for what I've maintained for some time; that in a given population a certain percentage of homosexuality occurs. Doesn't matter particularly if it's adaptive or not.
Homophobes often make silly comments about homosexuals having to "recruit" people because they can't reproduce....Twaddle.
 
JohnTheRevelator said:
Here's why, even though homosexuality is genetic and homosexuals can't reproduce, evolution hasn't eliminated it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/
Click to expand...

The bolded point is a fundemental mistake in your statement. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing, indeed some have a drive to do so. Limiting your partners to those of the same sex for pleasure does not preclude sex for the purposes of reproduction with a partner of the opposite sex.
 
Not to mention the "homosexuality is genetic" part also being unproven.
 
Bikewer said:
Seems to provide a mechanism for what I've maintained for some time; that in a given population a certain percentage of homosexuality occurs. Doesn't matter particularly if it's adaptive or not.
Homophobes often make silly comments about homosexuals having to "recruit" people because they can't reproduce....Twaddle.
Click to expand...


No we do it for the toasters.
 
JohnTheRevelator said:
Here's why, even though homosexuality is genetic and homosexuals can't reproduce, evolution hasn't eliminated it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/
Click to expand...

I've always figured it was an adaption to limit population growth and avoid potentially society destroying constant states of starvation. One of those adaptions that's bad for the single organism but continues because of it's benefit to society. That explains it's coorelation to stress, the chemical coorelations, the multiple male birth coorelations, and everything else.

It has probably survived the last 1000 years just because they kept it quiet and bred like everyone else.
 
Last edited:
There are other reasons why it can be adaptive - this has come up several times in these forums.
 
CaptainManacles said:
I've always figured it was an adaption to limit population growth and avoid potentially society destroying constant states of starvation. One of those adaptions that's bad for the single organism but continues because of it's benefit to society.
Click to expand...
If by society you mean "kin-group" then I may be able to agree. If, on the other hand, it's a group selection theory, it comes up against some pretty serious difficulties. Not necessarily insurmountable, but quite real.
 
The theory is called "sexually antagonistic selection." It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other.
Click to expand...
I really don't follow the reasoning that it is implied that a condition causing male homosexuality must be helpful to the other sex, in terms of natural selection, though the data reported seem to suggest it is. This has a twinge of the evolution having a purpose arguments. It may be nothing more than an interesting artifact in the data whose cause could be just about anything...including after the fact compensation by female relatives.
 
I think until we identify the specific genes and know their effects this type of speculation is just that. Speculation. I guess people want to ascribe rules that genes follow. Okay that's fine but first we need to know what genes? Lots of people looking at this type of speculation including Dawkins seems to miss the point that most of our genes belonged to other species. It all seems premature to make guesses at this stuff without designing experiments to test it (since it appears to be untestable). I wait for data to support these ideas. Is there a gene for homosexuality? One for heterosexuality? What is the sequence of nucleotides for that gene and where is it's loci? My guess is that there won't be anything specifically human about these genes if they are found.
 
Olowkow said:
I really don't follow the reasoning that it is implied that a condition causing male homosexuality must be helpful to the other sex, in terms of natural selection, though the data reported seem to suggest it is.
Click to expand...
It isn't implied that male homosexuality must be helpful to the other sex. They only say that "The theory is called "sexually antagonistic selection." It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other."
We don't know that homosexuality is "reproductively harmful" to the male sex. But, if it is (in total), and it's also genetically determined, this is a mechanism whereby it could still be selected for.
It seems interesting to me, and cool that they're trying to test to find out if it actually is the mechanism involved.

This has a twinge of the evolution having a purpose arguments. It may be nothing more than an interesting artifact in the data whose cause could be just about anything...including after the fact compensation by female relatives.
Click to expand...

Sure, which is why it's worthwhile to continue to test their theory.
 
Dogdoctor said:
I think until we identify the specific genes and know their effects this type of speculation is just that. Speculation. I guess people want to ascribe rules that genes follow. Okay that's fine but first we need to know what genes? Lots of people looking at this type of speculation including Dawkins seems to miss the point that most of our genes belonged to other species. It all seems premature to make guesses at this stuff without designing experiments to test it (since it appears to be untestable). I wait for data to support these ideas. Is there a gene for homosexuality? One for heterosexuality? What is the sequence of nucleotides for that gene and where is it's loci? My guess is that there won't be anything specifically human about these genes if they are found.
Click to expand...

You could have said much the same thing about The Origin of Species.
 
Dogdoctor said:
No I couldn't have.
Click to expand...

Actually that is exactly what you said. Darwin hypothesized the Theory of Evolution based purely on observed traits, not on identified genes.

Homosexuality can be considered a trait, just like any other genetic trait. It's various models and hypotheses on its inheritance, dominance etc. can be tested and falsified.

There are a myriad of congenital traits that are known to be congenital but with no known identified genes. Do you consider the study of these traits "speculation"?
 
Thanks pax.

I probably should have been more clear about my meaning, but you said it well, so it's all good. :)
 
paximperium said:
Actually that is exactly what you said. Darwin hypothesized the Theory of Evolution based purely on observed traits, not on identified genes.

Homosexuality can be considered a trait, just like any other genetic trait. It's various models and hypotheses on its inheritance, dominance etc. can be tested and falsified.

There are a myriad of congenital traits that are known to be congenital but with no known identified genes. Do you consider the study of these traits "speculation"?
Click to expand...

Darwin observed species and made his theory on what he observed. No one is observing genes before trying to set up rules that genes follow. They are merely guessing at what they might do. Whatever homosexuality is or isn't remains to be discovered. If it is a gene which one(s)? What is the pattern of inheritance? We have no clue. Just guesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom