Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

[jmcvann]

I'm no scientist. I'm an artist. And while this article seems enlightened to me, I'm not sure about what's being said about Darwin.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/

From the article: "Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection ...but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality."

Is the writer confusing early Darwinism and current evolutionary thought?

 

[godless dave]

I don't think Darwin said anything about homosexuality. Roughgarden's ideas are relatively new but it's weird that he - or, more likely, the reporter - keeps mentioning Darwin. Lots of work has been done on sexual selection since then.

 

[jmcvann]

"When scientific theory says something’s wrong with so many people, perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people.”

What? Science says that?

 

[godless dave]

He must be talking about scientific theory from 50 years ago. Nothing spices up a news story like making up a controversy where none exists.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't see how sexual selection could be invoked to account for homosexuality. I'm quite certain Darwin did not make that claim.

As it's written, though, I don't think they're saying Darwin made that claim. Someone named Roughgarden is claiming that sexual selection fails because it doesn't account for homosexuality, which is a seriously flawed argument.

ETA: In the first place, Darwin did not propose sexual selection as a separate or "other" theory of evolution. Sexual selection is a subset of natural selection.

 

[blutoski]

I don't see how sexual selection could be invoked to account for homosexuality. I'm quite certain Darwin did not make that claim.

There's one hypothesis that has - ahem - limited credibility, called 'the gay uncle uncle hypothesis.' The theory is that there might be a community benefit to having some males who are not competing for females but nevertheless still have the strength to protect females and young from outsiders. &c.

Wikipedia: [Sexual orientation and evolution]

As it's written, though, I don't think they're saying Darwin made that claim. Someone named Roughgarden is claiming that sexual selection fails because it doesn't account for homosexuality, which is a seriously flawed argument.

I'm not sure that Roughgarden is saying that sexual selection narratives are incorrect because they do not explain homosexuality: I got the impression that she simply said they do not explain homosexuality. ie: that another mechanism must be in play.

ETA: In the first place, Darwin did not propose sexual selection as a separate or "other" theory of evolution. Sexual selection is a subset of natural selection.

It's probably a complication of terminology. Darwin's 'sexual selection' thoughts were trying to explain the development of sexual dimorphism itself, and tangentially, the spiralling arms race of resources that seem to be dedicated to signalling.


The writer has also created a misleading perception that the theory proposed to explain sexual dimorphism has been unchanged since Origin of Species was published - that nobody has questioned this until Roughgarden had some kind of epiphiny during a gay march ten years ago.

Seed magazine is one of my favourite magazines, but this one story comes across as pretty weak.

 

[Furcifer]

There's one hypothesis that has - ahem - limited credibility, called 'the gay uncle uncle hypothesis.

We're all friends here, feel free to PM me if you need to talk.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think he said it's raining men

C'mon, seriously?

 

[Aitch]

Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

"I had to give it up because it made my eyes water."

Oh, no, that was Michael Gambon.

 

[MikeSun5]

Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

He said in half a million years, your penis will be as useless as your appendix.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There's one hypothesis that has - ahem - limited credibility, called 'the gay uncle uncle hypothesis.' The theory is that there might be a community benefit to having some males who are not competing for females but nevertheless still have the strength to protect females and young from outsiders. &c.

Wikipedia: [Sexual orientation and evolution]

I find the idea that having a strong sex drive is enough of a benefit to the species that the species it not hurt if a percentage of sex acts are not procreative. Like when a dog humps someones leg.

 

[EHocking]

I don't think Darwin said anything about homosexuality. Roughgarden's ideas are relatively new but it's weird that he - or, more likely, the reporter - keeps mentioning Darwin. Lots of work has been done on sexual selection since then.

The article reads like a strawman argument, i.e. (Roughgarden )"Because I’m a biologist, I started asking myself some difficult questions. My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly. But if the purpose of sexual contact is just reproduction, as Darwin believed, then why do all these gay people exist?"

Darwin's The Descent of Man is discussion sexual/natural selection wrt the theory of evolution. Non-reproductive sex is ignored merely because as it is not germaine to his the subject at hand.

That Roughgarden's "discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly" is a problem with Roughgarden's education, not Darwin's papers, IMO.

 

[Beady]

In "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," Carl Sagan describes studies in zoos that show primate homosexual acts increase or decrease in parallel with increases and decreases in population density. The implication is that it is a sort of natural safety valve.

 

[Jungle Jim]

In "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," Carl Sagan describes studies in zoos that show primate homosexual acts increase or decrease in parallel with increases and decreases in population density. The implication is that it is a sort of natural safety valve.

Kinda like prison.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Who cares what Darwin said? That was 150 years ago.

~~ Paul

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure that Roughgarden is saying that sexual selection narratives are incorrect because they do not explain homosexuality: I got the impression that she simply said they do not explain homosexuality. ie: that another mechanism must be in play.

And I'd accept that. (I've not read Roughgarden other than what's provided in the OP. I was merely pointing out that the article doesn't seem to be saying that Darwin claimed homosexuality was explained by sexual selection.)

It's probably a complication of terminology. Darwin's 'sexual selection' thoughts were trying to explain the development of sexual dimorphism itself, and tangentially, the spiralling arms race of resources that seem to be dedicated to signalling.

I understand that. My point is that the article quoted in the OP claims sexual selection is Darwin's "other great theory of evolution" separate and distinct from natural selection. Again, Darwin presented sexual selection as one specific type of natural selection.

At any rate, I agree the problem seems to be with the writer of the article and not Roughgarden.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's one hypothesis that has - ahem - limited credibility, called 'the gay uncle uncle hypothesis.' The theory is that there might be a community benefit to having some males who are not competing for females but nevertheless still have the strength to protect females and young from outsiders. &c.

Which reminds me of the Tralfamadorians' explanation of gender. (I wish I could find a quote, but I can't.) Not only are gay uncles advantageous (necessary, according to the Tralfamadorians) so are childless aunts, widows who remarry, and so on.

Really, the general point that humans' success came largely out of our sophisticated and complicated social groups seems very credible. Selection certainly can work at that level.

 

[Pup]

Really, the general point that humans' success came largely out of our sophisticated and complicated social groups seems very credible. Selection certainly can work at that level.

Yes, it should seem obvious that merely producing offspring isn't enough to select for those genes in the long run; the offspring need to survive long enough to produce offspring of their own.

It can apply to both the gay uncle hypothesis and the safety valve one. One allows for protection and nurturing to help the offspring survive, while the other allows a high sex drive to remain while not increasing overpopulation further.

 

[!Kaggen]

Who cares what Darwin said? That was 150 years ago.

~~ Paul

Exactly, Jesus said "love your neighbor" 2000 years ago and look were that got us !

 

[blutoski]

Which reminds me of the Tralfamadorians' explanation of gender. (I wish I could find a quote, but I can't.) Not only are gay uncles advantageous (necessary, according to the Tralfamadorians) so are childless aunts, widows who remarry, and so on.

Menopause is also implicated.