Is homosexuality genetic?
- Thread starter Drooper
- Start date
-
- Tags
- genetic homosexuality
bjornart
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,568
Drooper said:
No.
For the same reason that other 'bad' genes aren't precluded by evolutionary theory. All a 'bad' gene has to do is be recessive, or have a beneficial 'side-effect', or be a combination of several genes (making you gay only if you have 'this gene' and 'that gene'), and it can stick around forever.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Drooper said:
No it isn't how could it be, unless you prescribing to the thought the homosexual gene is carried and passed on like any other genetic marker ot trait?
How would that then go to explain a family history of continous 'hetrosexual 'people and then one day up pops a non hetrosexual person into the mix?
Re: Re: Is homosexuality genetic?
A recessive allele could do exactly that: "hide" for generations.
As for the "wouldn't evolution preclude this" argument, the short answer is no. The longer answer is that many unfit (in the evolutionary selection sense) alleles are maintained simply by a combination of mutation rates and genetic drift. The even longer answer is that you have to factor in human social factors which, for millenia, forced homosexuals into the closet. Many married and had children. Many continue to marry and have children before they finally discover their homosexuality and give up the heterosexual ruse.
To the direct question of what might genetically dictate this, I'd point your attention to the fruit fly mutation found in 1963. The mutant males attempted to mate with other males, and ignored females. The mutation was originally named fruity, but has since been renamed fruitless.American Scientist
Cheers,
Biker Babe said:
A recessive allele could do exactly that: "hide" for generations.
As for the "wouldn't evolution preclude this" argument, the short answer is no. The longer answer is that many unfit (in the evolutionary selection sense) alleles are maintained simply by a combination of mutation rates and genetic drift. The even longer answer is that you have to factor in human social factors which, for millenia, forced homosexuals into the closet. Many married and had children. Many continue to marry and have children before they finally discover their homosexuality and give up the heterosexual ruse.
To the direct question of what might genetically dictate this, I'd point your attention to the fruit fly mutation found in 1963. The mutant males attempted to mate with other males, and ignored females. The mutation was originally named fruity, but has since been renamed fruitless.American Scientist
Cheers,
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
In mammals sometimes genes develop that are social and don't necessarily effect direct procreative efforts. Compassion for the sick, dying and retarded have no evolutionary value for direct procreative efforts, but we have them anyway.
It's all a product of being a social being.
Besides {political incorrectness} where would we get our choreographers and interior decorators from? {/political incorrectness}
It's all a product of being a social being.
Besides {political incorrectness} where would we get our choreographers and interior decorators from? {/political incorrectness}
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Here's the best evidence yet for a genetic basis of homosexuality: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2266135.stm
Someone engineered a gene such that homosexual behaviour could be triggered by temperature. It's clear and reproducible. Oh, and it's in Drosophila fruit flies. Good luck extrapolating to human bahaviour.
Someone engineered a gene such that homosexual behaviour could be triggered by temperature. It's clear and reproducible. Oh, and it's in Drosophila fruit flies. Good luck extrapolating to human bahaviour.
Frenchy
Unregistered
F
If this so called homosexual gene pops up in a heterosexual 9th generation , are you claiming that they have been carrying it recessively, how is that possible?
I would be more inclined to go with a view that it is a hormonal and brain chemical change that cause this. It is not sex but a gender cause.
I would be more inclined to go with a view that it is a hormonal and brain chemical change that cause this. It is not sex but a gender cause.
I've read that the denser the population, the higher percentage of homosexuality. I haven't studied it, or seen any studies, but I have read about it. Have there been studies of percentage of homosexual behavior in animal colonies with high density vs low density?
If it is, in fact, there is a higher number of homosexual animals in denser populations then I think it would have an evolutionary advantage. That is, of course, if the animals do not reproduce. It allows for less offspring for competition on scarce resources.
Of course, the question would still remain if homosexuality is genetic or not. Maybe it's not tied to the genes but hormones that are bathing the fetus in the womb depending on the situation of the population.
If it is, in fact, there is a higher number of homosexual animals in denser populations then I think it would have an evolutionary advantage. That is, of course, if the animals do not reproduce. It allows for less offspring for competition on scarce resources.
Of course, the question would still remain if homosexuality is genetic or not. Maybe it's not tied to the genes but hormones that are bathing the fetus in the womb depending on the situation of the population.
Frenchy,
Let's take this away from homosexuality for a moment, and look strictly at recessive/dominant alleles. How can a recessive gene suddenly "pop up" after several generations? The simple answer is: it doesn't. The recessive allele was always there, not showing itself because it never had the chance. To express itself, a single individual would need to have two of the recessive alleles. All other individuals express the dominant allele.
Okay so far, so why does the recessive "hide"? Let's say that only 10% of the alleles in a population are this recessive one. To show the effects of the allele, an individual needs to have two such alleles. The probability of that happening is .1 x .1 = .01. That is, 10% of the alleles in the population can be this recessive, yet only 1% of the individuals will express the recessive trait.
Cheers,
Titananarchy
Unregistered
T
A: No there is no homosexual gene in mammals. If there was, then quite rightly, as someone has already pointed out, no way for that homosexual gene to be passed on to the next generation. The key to understanding passing on genetic traits is through the pathway of natural selection.
The cause of homosexuality is not genetic, but it is biological in origin, and it is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. It is also not related to environmental conditions, culture, race, creed or any other societal pressure.
The cause of homosexuality is not genetic, but it is biological in origin, and it is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. It is also not related to environmental conditions, culture, race, creed or any other societal pressure.
Titananarchy said:
Titanarchy,
Your first claim here is tantamount to claiming that no early-onset lethal genetic disease exists. This is patently untrue. Your second claim is that something can be biologic yet not genetic. This is also patently absurd. The basic flow of biological information is DNA->RNA->protein. For something to be biologically (rather than culturally) defined, it must perforce have its origins in the genes.
Cheers,
Titananarchy
Unregistered
T
BillHoyt said:
If the early-onset genetic mutation regularly kills the host before he/she/it is able to reproduce, then yes. There are genetic mutations such as cystic fibrosis, where people with only one half of the information are perfectly fine, but when combined from both parents will produce an early-onset genetic disease. That is different.
Wrong! Terribly sorry Bill, but there's a gap in your knowledge of mammalian reproduction, and in it is the answer to how homosexuality arises and why it is not related (directly) to genetics.
No Bill, it doesn't. There are other mechanisms which come into play with regard to brain structure and function whose origin is not directly the result of genetic mutation.
There is no gay gene. There is however, a biological reason why homosexuality appears in mammals (in general) and humans (in particular)
Sorry garys_2k for sounding too precise about it. Perhaps you unused to definite answers when social scientists and others positively embrace ambiguity and, dare I say it, ignorance. The question of the origin of homosexuality has been polarised between genetics and environmental causes. However mammalian reproduction introduces a third reason which is biological in origin but which does not require a genetic precursor to happen.
Titananarchy said:
There are lethal genetic defects that kill before puberty. Always have been. Always will be. The problem is you have an extraordinarily limited understanding of how evolution works.
Now do a bit of research on Duchene's Muscular Dystrophy, a lethal, X-linked characteristic. Male fetuses spontaneously abort. Females are born with DMD.
a bit on DMD
That's just the first example. If you like, I can more directly address your misunderstandings about evolution. If you care to persist in this idiotic line of reasoning, I will simply pepper you with more examples that refute your preposterous claim. Your move.
Straw man. I never said homosexuality in mammals was caused by genetics. I have spoken only to homosexuality in Drosophila and to the various erroneous claims about evolution that have been made here.
Balderdash. If it is biological, it is genetic, sir. Stop with the lame proclamations and get to marshalling evidence.
Cheers,
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
I don't know what he's getting at, but there is the possibility of it being developmental; i.e. due to environmental influence at specific stages of growth.BillHoyt said:
All in all he sounds much too certain of himself on a topic where the science is not clear.
arcticpenguin
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 5,687
Put up or shut up. You say there are mechanisms and reasons but so far have refused to name any.Titananarchy said: