[News] Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction

[Moontanman]

Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction

 

ScienceDaily (Feb. 4, 2010) — Male homosexuality doesn't make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. It appears that the trait is heritable, but because homosexual men are much less likely to produce offspring than heterosexual men, shouldn't the genes for this trait have been extinguished long ago? What value could this sexual orientation have, that it has persisted for eons even without any discernible reproductive advantage?

 

Potential evolutionary role for same-sex attraction

[lemit]

This unmarried heterosexual male in his sixties found that report very encouraging for the future of his kind.

 

Nurturing, it seems to me, is as important an evolutionary trait as sexual attraction. As I have said before, I've always had a strong feeling that an individual can be fairly profoundly affected by events following his or her birth.

 

(The "h" key on my laptop is sticking, so I may 'ave some Cockney language interspersed. If so, I apologize.)

[HydrogenBond]

The fact that homosexuals don't reproduce should imply that the gay phenomena is not exactly genetic. For example, pick another genetic trait, eliminate reproduction as a means to pass this genetic trait forward, and see what happens to those genetics. Will it remain consistent in the gene pool as we add genes?

 

Evolution is based on selective advantage and passing down genes. Even if homosexuality had a key selective advantage, the final genetic result would be no different than all the males who don't get to reproduce after the mating olympics. If genetic osmosis does works, that would mean the dominant male barely makes a difference, in terms of the final genes passing forward, since all the others can move genes forward without needed to use reproduction. Gay genetics refutes an aspect of evolutionary theory since it implies that reproduction is not needed to pass genes forward. Or, consistent genes pass routinely, such that genetic transmission is not exactly random.

 

What this logic seems to imply, gay is actually more consistent with learned behavior, since this does not require specific genes, it does not require transfer of genes by reproduction, doesn't need genetic blocks to transfer consistently, and can be renewed, forever, simply by learning.

[Moontanman]

The fact that homosexuals don't reproduce should imply that the gay phenomena is not exactly genetic. For example, pick another genetic trait, eliminate reproduction as a means to pass this genetic trait forward, and see what happens to those genetics. Will it remain consistent in the gene pool as we add genes?

 

Evolution is based on selective advantage and passing down genes. Even if homosexuality had a key selective advantage, the final genetic result would be no different than all the males who don't get to reproduce after the mating olympics. If genetic osmosis does works, that would mean the dominant male barely makes a difference, in terms of the final genes passing forward, since all the others can move genes forward without needed to use reproduction. Gay genetics refutes an aspect of evolutionary theory since it implies that reproduction is not needed to pass genes forward. Or, consistent genes pass routinely, such that genetic transmission is not exactly random.

 

What this logic seems to imply, gay is actually more consistent with learned behavior, since this does not require specific genes, it does not require transfer of genes by reproduction, doesn't need genetic blocks to transfer consistently, and can be renewed, forever, simply by learning.

 

Being gay is not learned behavior HB, and there are many examples of animals who do not pass down their genes but still contribute to the whole. Ants, wasps, bees, termites, aphids, and naked mole rats come to mind.

[Buffy]

What this logic seems to imply, gay is actually more consistent with learned behavior, since this does not require specific genes, it does not require transfer of genes by reproduction, doesn't need genetic blocks to transfer consistently, and can be renewed, forever, simply by learning.

Repetitively mis-stating how Evolution works does not make theories that require it to not work that way more true.

 

No matter how many times you try to repeat it.

 

It's even more embarrassing when you don't even acknowledge the content of what has been discussed.

 

The argument presented is actually quite obvious when you think about it: having a genetic predisposition to having gay uncles will in fact be selectively beneficial because it provides a larger/stronger family support group for offspring than those who do not have this trait.

 

I know this is really hard to comprehend, and it's especially difficult when people have irrational fear of gays, but it's something that is worth considering.

 

You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you, :eek:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

I am not saying that having a nice gay uncle, to lend support to the children, can not provide an advantage to a family. But after he dies, all his good will is not passed forward via genetics. Unless this is through genetic osmosis. What will be passed forward are his memories, his kindness, and the lessons of life one learned from him. The brain of those effected may continues the memories of the uncle, even when his genetics are cut off and he is long gone.

 

From that learning, one of the children, who adored him, may remember how nice he was compared to all the others who can act as models, and decides to be more like that uncle, honoring him and his memory. The osmosis was not via genetics but via the mind.

 

Evolution centers itself on reproduction, since this is how genes are passed forward and how new genetics form through combinations. But by its very nature, gay is attracted to something that detaches from this combination process. But we also have the human mind, which through learning can mold the personality to be anything. This molding may have selective advantage becoming the kind gay uncle. But since this is not based on genetics, it does not have to breed to perpetuate. One good gay uncle example, if enough to create a mini-me, especially if the good is being treated meanly. That will make what it called good, not so good.

 

If the gay effect was an actual physical characteristic like an extra arm, lack of breeding would not continue to produce extra arms. But when the effect is of the mind and brain, one can wear a coat that has an extra arm and keep this tradition going, even without the original genetics. I am not passing moral judgement about homosexuality, just there is a conceptual inconsistency for a genetic argument.

 

Being gay is not a prerequisite of being a good uncle, like the articles does not say, but tries to focus the "brain" that way. It shows how the mind works based on what you want to see and already have a soft spot. Selective advantage would make more sense if good uncle straight not only passed forward via his memory, but also by direct genetic breeding to his children. The nice gay uncle, who may not have his own children, will be better able to focus on the nephews and nieces since there is not jealousy from his own children. This makes his influence stronger than the good uncle straight, helping pass his memory forward so he can perpetuate.

[Moontanman]

I am not saying that having a nice gay uncle, to lend support to the children, can not provide an advantage to a family. But after he dies, all his good will is not passed forward via genetics. Unless this is through genetic osmosis. What will be passed forward are his memories, his kindness, and the lessons of life one learned from him. The brain of those effected may continues the memories of the uncle, even when his genetics are cut off and he is long gone.

 

From that learning, one of the children, who adored him, may remember how nice he was compared to all the others who can act as models, and decides to be more like that uncle, honoring him and his memory. The osmosis was not via genetics but via the mind.

 

Evolution centers itself on reproduction, since this is how genes are passed forward and how new genetics form through combinations. But by its very nature, gay is attracted to something that detaches from this combination process. But we also have the human mind, which through learning can mold the personality to be anything. This molding may have selective advantage becoming the kind gay uncle. But since this is not based on genetics, it does not have to breed to perpetuate. One good gay uncle example, if enough to create a mini-me, especially if the good is being treated meanly. That will make what it called good, not so good.

 

If the gay effect was an actual physical characteristic like an extra arm, lack of breeding would not continue to produce extra arms. But when the effect is of the mind and brain, one can wear a coat that has an extra arm and keep this tradition going, even without the original genetics. I am not passing moral judgement about homosexuality, just there is a conceptual inconsistency for a genetic argument.

 

Being gay is not a prerequisite of being a good uncle, like the articles does not say, but tries to focus the "brain" that way. It shows how the mind works based on what you want to see and already have a soft spot. Selective advantage would make more sense if good uncle straight not only passed forward via his memory, but also by direct genetic breeding to his children. That would create a fail safe.

 

HB, you either don't have a clue as to how genetics works or you are so homophobic you don't care. The gay uncles genes are in his nieces and nephews, genetics is more complex than yes no , on off, come back to the discussion when you read something about genes that wasn't approved by the 700 club.

[HydrogenBond]

The buzz word "homophobic" is designed as a discussion ender. It creates the image in the mind that all arguments, away from the new traditions, are all biased due to some philosophical agenda such as the 700 club. You should know, I am not part of any agenda but like to challenge dogma with news ways to look at it. I am not married to this idea, I have too many and might even change tomorrow. But I am good at seeing conceptual inconsistencies that defy common sense.

 

Again, without breeding, genetics can be transferred. Maybe one way this is possible, is if gay is something fundamental within genetics that is fixed in place. For example, we all get a heart, head, etc., whether you breed or not, since this is a fixed part of the DNA, and not subject to quantum changes into something entirely different. Being conservative and fixed it is more detached from quickly changing genes and the needs of breeding, which is more for the fringe of change.

 

In this scenario, gay would be in all human genetics, like the heart and therefore would continue appear with or without breeding. But one could also argue that straight is also wired the same conservative way since it too appears even if gays breed. The distribution of gay to straight sort of holds steady over time, through some other fixed genetic factor, like the heart or head, that doesn't change. I suppose.

[Moontanman]

The buzz word "homophobic" is designed as a discussion ender. It creates the image in the mind that all arguments, away from the new traditions, are all biased due to some philosophical agenda such as the 700 club. You should know, I am not part of any agenda but like to challenge dogma with news ways to look at it. I am not married to this idea, I have too many and might even change tomorrow. But I am good at seeing conceptual inconsistencies that defy common sense.

 

Again, without breeding, genetics can be transferred. Maybe one way this is possible, is if gay is something fundamental within genetics that is fixed in place. For example, we all get a heart, head, etc., whether you breed or not, since this is a fixed part of the DNA, and not subject to quantum changes into something entirely different. Being conservative and fixed it is more detached from quickly changing genes and the needs of breeding, which is more for the fringe of change.

 

In this scenario, gay would be in all human genetics, like the heart and therefore would continue appear with or without breeding. But one could also argue that straight is also wired the same conservative way since it too appears even if gays breed. The distribution of gay to straight sort of holds steady over time, through some other fixed genetic factor, like the heart or head, that doesn't change. I suppose.

 

HB, if you have no agenda then why do you totally ignore all the posts we have had discussing this where the way being gay is passed down genetically? you keep repeating the same misconceptions about genetics over and over as though repetition makes it true. i honestly do not feel like I should keep counterpoint your constant rants because i know you will simply ignore them and go on.

 

Gay is not like eye color, it has several genetic components that come together to allow it to happen. Not a simple on off Bb or dominant recessive, If you can read about genetics you know most things are far more complex than eye color or even skin color. Your constant repetition of misconceptions do not make them true, it makes you look like you have an agenda of homophobia straight from he 700 club or some similar ax grinding bunch of nit wits.

 

Go back, read the posts about being gay and how it can be transfered and then come back with a rebuttal if you want but do not simply keep repeating the same tired old crap that does not apply to the situation!

[Buffy]

Apparently it is very difficult to comprehend that the mother that has the child with the gay uncle is carrying THE SAME GENES THAT CREATED THE UNCLE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

Sorry for shouting, but sometimes it's very hard to get through very well entrenched personal--but unsubstantiated--beliefs.

 

Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong,

Buffy

[Moontanman]

Has anyone else noticed the main concern seems to be around gay males? No problems with the gay aunt? For some reason male homosexuality seems to be paramount in most of the people who can't understand how "gayness" can't be natural or genetic or what ever the main problem is.

[DougF]

I have lived most of my life around gay people and to me it is no more unnatural then short or blond or fat people, in fact it was like having another sister or brother we would hang out and play games it wasn't till she started to fill out that I even .......

 

 

Back on track: I have heard it said that it is genetic or a chemical imbalance, hell some of my gay friends say they prefer the same sex because they have so much in common,

I don't think this will be resolved any time soon as we don't know enough about how the brain works and what motivates humans in this. :hihi:

[Yoron]

Don't be silly. Homosexuality exist in all species, not only humans.

 

It has to be genetic, although all kind of other factors also play a role. Like if you're an Aussie you will be recognized as an Aussie all over the world :) that's not genetics, its environment. So use common sense when thinking of it, not prejudices or 'vulgarDarwínism' as a friend used to call that kind of reasoning, a little like 'Highlander' "Only one can survive" or whatever it was he said :)

 

And our genes may be related to our survival but there are all kind of combinations and some of them may just kick in under very narrow certain circumstances, like starvation f.ex. And there are so incredibly many combinations of those genes, be cool.

[HydrogenBond]

Part of the problem, with coming to the truth in this matter, are all the possible studies are not allowed to be presented. Here is my logic. There have to be so called homophobes in science, who could devote their energy creating science pieces to support their POV, like we have in this study. Yet one will not see many or any such studies, because there is a filtering of science to stack the deck for PC. What we call science is very one sided, being defended using a religious angle against anything that is not politically correct. It is hard to find the truth, when there is no middle.

 

Without balanced studies, pro and con, what is left is devotion to blind dogma or some logic and common sense. The following is only being presented to draw an argument parallel and is not being presented to compare anybody. (no need for PC melt down). Technically, there is no need for any major change in genetic/psychological arguments, needed to support both gay and bestiality behavior. One can use the same arguments for both. If we switch it, one can get a more realistic reaction because bestiality is not PC sanctioned. For example, humans have depended on animals for survival, companionship, livestock, beast of the burden for thousands of years. As such, having a close relationship between man and beast could create an advantage for the tribe or culture. This could explain the genetic basis of this. I can do the genetic argument and show other animals in nature do this, but I will stop here.

 

Besides creating a unsanctioned parallel, to help make one more objective, there are other arguments, such as connected to obsessive and addictive behavior. Becoming an alcoholic, for some, only takes some exposure to alcohol, followed by repetitive or habitual reinforcement. Some people take less reinforcement, with that first urge to drink all its takes. If one has other humans in their life, to pull and/or push toward the drinking behavior, this helps too.

 

Once one is addicted, it almost becomes like another instinct, which can become the center of that person's reason to be. If we did not know its origins, in the bottle, we might assume genetic since the behavior is very strong and almost natural looking. If they first though about drinking at 3-4 it had to be genetic. Gay is not a drug, so without a chemical, we assume this has to be different, for PC.

 

If we called such a person a drunk or slosh, this would not be enough to deter the behavior. This genetic instinct is too strong. This instinct is connected to the selective advantages that thousands of years of drinking and partying gave to the cultural group. This not only gets people to come together in festivity, it also makes the ladies more willing, which is good for breeding. If we prevent such name calling, and build it up to its historical and genetic purpose, we will spare feelings, and will allow them to drink easier, so they can reach the thresh hold of addiction faster, satisfying the genetics. Thats makes us sort of look smarter, too we got the data to fit like PC needs.

[Yoron]

If we look at alcoholism f.ex like you just did HydrogenBond :)

 

In Sweden where I come from even the poorest homes used to have a bucket filled with strong spirit at the threshold . The first thing you did as you came in was to take a drink. Now, that custom is gone now but Swedish scientists use this example to explain why some society's can take (hold) so much drink. the idea behind it is that the combination of genes that didn't are more or less gone, as those people was the one dying of drinking too much. I don't know if this hold true but I know that when Captain Cook first came to the islands he introduced hard liquor to people that never had tasted it before. And the reports from those natives drinking was that this liquor somehow acted as a hallucinogenic on them, making them see both colors and shapes as they became drunk. Another example is the American Indians who also was unused to the effects of drinking.

 

As for the addiction to alcohol it seems to be still there even after the possible deaths of those that couldn't take alcohol genetically. but as that type of behavior isn't directly deadly, except when in the case of both an oversensitivity (genetical?) plus that predisposition to developing an alcoholism (also possibly due to genic factors), we might expect that to survive even if it is true that both cases is genetic.

[Moontanman]

Part of the problem, with coming to the truth in this matter, are all the possible studies are not allowed to be presented. Here is my logic. There have to be so called homophobes in science, who could devote their energy creating science pieces to support their POV, like we have in this study. Yet one will not see many or any such studies, because there is a filtering of science to stack the deck for PC. What we call science is very one sided, being defended using a religious angle against anything that is not politically correct. It is hard to find the truth, when there is no middle.

 

Without balanced studies, pro and con, what is left is devotion to blind dogma or some logic and common sense. The following is only being presented to draw an argument parallel and is not being presented to compare anybody. (no need for PC melt down). Technically, there is no need for any major change in genetic/psychological arguments, needed to support both gay and bestiality behavior. One can use the same arguments for both. If we switch it, one can get a more realistic reaction because bestiality is not PC sanctioned. For example, humans have depended on animals for survival, companionship, livestock, beast of the burden for thousands of years. As such, having a close relationship between man and beast could create an advantage for the tribe or culture. This could explain the genetic basis of this. I can do the genetic argument and show other animals in nature do this, but I will stop here.

 

Besides creating a unsanctioned parallel, to help make one more objective, there are other arguments, such as connected to obsessive and addictive behavior. Becoming an alcoholic, for some, only takes some exposure to alcohol, followed by repetitive or habitual reinforcement. Some people take less reinforcement, with that first urge to drink all its takes. If one has other humans in their life, to pull and/or push toward the drinking behavior, this helps too.

 

Once one is addicted, it almost becomes like another instinct, which can become the center of that person's reason to be. If we did not know its origins, in the bottle, we might assume genetic since the behavior is very strong and almost natural looking. If they first though about drinking at 3-4 it had to be genetic. Gay is not a drug, so without a chemical, we assume this has to be different, for PC.

 

If we called such a person a drunk or slosh, this would not be enough to deter the behavior. This genetic instinct is too strong. This instinct is connected to the selective advantages that thousands of years of drinking and partying gave to the cultural group. This not only gets people to come together in festivity, it also makes the ladies more willing, which is good for breeding. If we prevent such name calling, and build it up to its historical and genetic purpose, we will spare feelings, and will allow them to drink easier, so they can reach the thresh hold of addiction faster, satisfying the genetics. Thats makes us sort of look smarter, too we got the data to fit like PC needs.

 

HB, it's bad enough that you assert that because scientific studies disagree with your religious homophobic mindset they must some how be flawed but then you say that homosexuality is equated with bestiality? Homosexuality is the same as alcoholism? HB, you are a piece of work, is your homophobia so important to your world view you have to not only distort reality you have to slander any one and every one who disagrees with you? Do you really think everyone is born male or female?

[HydrogenBond]

My gut feeling has to do with the impact of PC social engineering on science. This particular area of science seems off center, so we can all feel warm and fuzzy in science fiction. Let me ask a question. How many journals would dare publish negative reports on the matter? It is not like these angles don't exist out there. Who would dare fund them? One would get censored and boycotted, since balancing the warm fluffy with cold thorns might have an impact on PC science.

 

For example, most of the first hundred thousands victims of AIDS were gay men. But there is no correlation one could present. Instead we will get illogical back peddling trying to tell how this is not what we should be looking at. This data would not benefit the warm fuzzy and needs to be ignored, even if it is part the phenomena. Is this was not human but a tree, we would include it as part of the analysis.

 

I see the same PC template having been tried with manmade global warming, since it seemed to have slide by with gay. The pretend science already had the answer it wanted to set up structural changes. The resources were then subjectively stacked and the opposition was censored and ridiculed. The consensus of science got it wrong, betting on what was suppose to be a fixed horse race. I have nothing against same sex attraction, but I don't science fixing the outcome. My gut tells me this is fixed like a vegas prize fight so the bookies win. The PC is the mob.

 

I used some of the gay arguments for alcoholism. I also used a selective advantage argument like this propaganda fluff piece. It does not sound so good when those who I was fluffing are not traditionally given the same level of PC warm fuzzy. Although PC did try to get science to make it a disease instead of a mind effect. If they had a better PC warm fuzzy, one would say that is a good argument and science would publish. Most of this is empirical which means, whatever is in vogue.

 

Here is another genetic argument that is not PC protected by science. If we look at nature, there are many animals that steal to survive, such as the hyena. Since there is a genetic basis for stealing among many animals, that means we should condone thieves since this is genetic. We can not expect them to control what they feel, being rooted in genetics and if we single them out it would hurt their feelings. This genetic animal argument does not carry the same weight since PC does not put them on the list. It would expect will power, environment and choice to weigh more than genetic arguments.

 

I have seen animals defend against other animals who try to hump them. Is this the genetic basis for what we call "homophobia" and does that make it a valid POV since this is genetic based? One can argue that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Mother animals protecting their young will often attack even if not intentionally provoked. They will set a perimeter of defense and will even attack an animal who means no harm in they invade that space. These two genetic arguments for homophobia are not PC condoned, so science will not stack the deck.

 

These arguments are not my belief. I was showing how the deck is not consistent across the board. Science bends over for certain things and not for others.

 

I also think the genetic card is overplayed. There is never any requirement of tangible proof with genes that show this cause and effect. What we can show are actors who can generate any behavior using only the brain. I am not saying any of this is an act, but rather showing can simulate the same things with only the brain. The root only has to come from an unconscious place and hook into the same places the actor uses, to a get a reality show. Why do you think acting is possible in the first place; the wiring are already there to create any special effect.