Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

Up above you will see that I have been arguing that point with Modulous. If we look at a single individual person, using the an evolutionary scale vantage point of passing on one's genes, then a person who only has sex with a member of the same sex could very well be said to be "weaker" than one who has sex with an opposite sex partner.HOWEVER, you are making an error to extend that to homosexuality as a preference, most specifically with regard to being weak "evolutionarily" such that they would eventually disappear through deselection. That is just wrong. First of all we don't know if it is a genetic issue. But assuming it is, then the gene which may "cause" homosexuality may have completely different functions which will continue its propagation. And I am not talking about "raising other people's kids", or something like that. It could be that it is a gene that a mother carries to aid in some part of child birth or something like that, and it just so happens she can also pass it on to a child which in combo with another gene (or lack of another gene) will lead to homosexual tendencies.As long as the gene which causes homosexuality is not selected out, homosexuality is not "weak". It may be superfluous, a product, an appendage, but not weak and certainly not cannon fodder.This is not to mention the fact that homosexuals can have sex in order to have children. They have in the past and they continue to do so. It may be sex of convenience rather than wholesale interest, but what difference does that make? Such activity mitigates the claims of "weakness" on both the individual and societal level.What's more is that you are skipping over that on the individual scale there are plenty of other interests which would then be "weak". People have already mentioned celibacy, which would rope in all priests, as well as apparently Jesus and pals. But it also refers to people that would prefer nonprocreative sex with opposite sex partners.And let me flip this over for you. According to that "individual" scale, the "strongest" would end up being people who are not monogamous, and enjoy as much procreative (perhaps to read unprotected) sex as possible.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You know damn all about biology don't you NJ?Worker bees are not male. That is the whole point. Workers are diploid females the male drones are only haploid. Drones develop from unfertilised eggs and because they are haploid there is no variability in their genetic contribution to offspring. Consequently worker bees are likely to be much more genetically related than offspring of two diploid parents.You haven't just failed to understand the argument RAZD presented about bees you have fundamentally misunderstood one of the most basic elements of bee biology.TTFN,WK

I haven't had time to read all of this thread, but 'homosexual' type behavior is prevalent in many animal species and clearly has all kinds of fitness-positive effects. However, most of this is 'facultative' homosexual behavior that either serves to reduce aggression, or to (indirectly) increase chances of mating with females.I just want to point out that only 'exclusive' homosexuality would be selected against by natural selection and that is the exception rather than the rule. The only way to demonstrate NS advantages for exclusive homsexuality would be through models of inclusive fitness.

To be fair, he said he hadn't read my posts yet (he just jumped in with both empty barrels blazing anyway) Don't you mean bee-all-ogy?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The continuance of any kind of evolutionary advance requires procreation. If nature actualy removed the very thing that causes its actuality, I can scarecyl see how the products of this would somehow be winners in the game of life. Now, please don't misunderstand me when I speak of winners and losers. I could give a whit for all of that personally, however, I see that many evolutionists place alot of stock in it. They've removed reason from life and have succesfully reduced the whole of life into life or death as the measure of success. So, if nature removes the desire to procreate with members of the opposite sex, then there is no way for them to pass on their genes, which again, is supposed to be the sole purpose of any organism that resides in a purposeless universe, right? Aid in childbirth? Really, what does any of those guesstimates have to do with the fact that the desire to pass on their genes have been removed? It sounds like someone is trying to find good reasons for why homosexuality exists when there just are no redeeming natural qualities actually found. Its kind of like the Sickle Cell Anemia and malaria trade-off in a population. Congratualtions, you've staved off malaria, but 1 out of four will contract it and 1 out of three of your offspring cannot properly oxygenate their cells. Its just not really a good trade-off that one could brag about from an evolutionary standpoint. Don't misunderstand to mean that homosexuals are somehow genetically inferior to heterosexuals. I'm not suggesting that at all. There is no physical difference whatsoever. However, if nature turns on or selects a gene that causes a male or a female not to desire heterosexual reproduction, how could they not be construed as 'weak?' Again, we are speaking soley from an evolutionary standpoint. I'm not saying that homosexuality wil breed out of existence, am saying the one who claims to be homosexual will not pass on their genes. The only way to overcome it is to go against the grain and usurp nature, in which case, what's the point? Why usurp nature? If you were to say that you are gay, then be gay. If you claim that nature created you to abate the population, then let it be your lot in life. You obviously derive some sort of pride from it. But don't undermine that by going out and having children through a willing suitor of the opposite sex which totally undermines your own argument. How can they have their cake and eat it too without being hypocrites of their own expressed nature? Is being a homosexual a natural occurance or is it a psychological manifestation? Yes, but I'm not an evolutionist. I happen to believe that life is more than mere procreation, survival of the fittest, etc. I happen to believe that life has purpose and meaning that extends beyond some biological function. Evolutionists of the atheistic persuasion, however, cannot see any purpose beyond gene selection. I'm using the argument against evolutionists because, as you can see by their responses, they have a difficult time attempting to reconcile the disparity.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I meant Drones not Workers. Aside from that, what kind of profundity am I supposed to extract from this argument as it relates to humans? I haven't read RAZD's post at all. But after all of this fuss I think I'll track it down and give it a gander.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Ask yourself this - why don't workers reproduce? How do they overcome the loss of fitness caused by their sterility?

On the other hand, Hamilton's (as modified by Trivers, et al) concept of inclusive fitness would seem to be a valid evolutionary explanation as to how natural selection could favor traits that caused a reduction in direct reproduction - and still increase overall population fitness. This is what EZScience mentioned above. Although the direct relationship with human homosexuality may be obscured by cultural affect, the genetic and evolutionary basis seems pretty solid. As Hamilton put it in his original paper (Hamilton WD, 1964, "The genetical evolution of social behavior", Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:1-52),

quote:

---

If natural selection followed the classical models exclusively, species would not show any behaviour more positively social than the coming together of the sexes and parental care.

---

In other words, your simplified version of what constitutes fitness - pure reproduction - leaves unanswered a lot of questions as to why and how sociality itself could have arisen. Since it does leave those questions unaddressed - and in the context of this topic I feel this is a major issue - you might consider that you're missing something.Since there IS an evolutionary explanation as to how non-reproducing members of a population can positively contribute to the overall fitness of the population, your argument that human homosexuality would be an evolutionary dead end - and hence impossible under the ToE - would appear to fall flat.Edited by Quetzal, : changed post title before Nosy hurts me

I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I do support evolutionary theory and I'm not sure why you think this is true. You can measure success in life many different ways. It is simply a statement of fact that reproduction is how genes are passed on, and a trait which is not well suited for an environment faces a disadvantage (perhaps fatal) toward continuation via reproduction. The language doesn't seem appropriate to describe the scientific theory of evolution at all. And if it is a purposeless universe, then reproduction can't be any being's sole purpose.In truth people can choose many different purposes. If anything the earth alone, much less the universe is overflowing with purpose. If a homosexual finds purpose in reproduction then they will likely engage in that act, regardless that it does not match their overall sexual preference.That said, I still agree that if a person simply will not have sex with anyone other than a same sex partner, they aren't going to be reproducing. If everyone "becomes" that way, though I am uncertain how that would occur, it wouldn't benefit humans in the reproduction department. Whoa whoa whoa. All I did was explain how a gene that might "cause" homosexuality could continue to propagate, even if it prevents reproduction. It could do so by not always causing homosexuality in every person that carries the gene, and having another purpose that might be beneficial in some way (healthwise). From what I understand genes can produce more than one effect in a living being. I totally admit there is something strange to claiming that gays have some purpose when at the same time you see them not doing so, and indeed struggling not to have to do so.But that is a problem with a specific group of gay advocates, and not with all gays. I don't buy what appears to be your argument that being gay requires anyone not have sex for procreative purposes. I guess I should add that I think its rare that anyone is 100% homosexual anyway. I'm an evolutionist and relatively atheistic (agnostic) and can tell you there is much purpose beyond gene selection. In fact I don't see how gene selection is much of a purpose if it could count as one at all.The only thing evolutionary theory sets out is how emerging life is shaped via physical environment working on generations worth of genetic changes during reproduction.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That is very interesting, and much different than the arguement presented to em about it, 2 years ago.rrhain argued that there are some birds that homosexually mate for life.

rrhain also argued that anuses naturally lubricate for anal sex. I think its safe to say one should regard any commentary rrhain had on homosexuality with healthy skepticism.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

quote:

---

Ask yourself this - why don't workers reproduce? How do they overcome the loss of fitness caused by their sterility?

---

Heh. To a stubborn creationist, that would be yet more proof against evolution.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

rrhain had a following of supporters. He never impressed me that much.
He is too emotional for someone supposed to be so logical, and I let him know that.

I am not aware of any reliable examples of exclusive homosexuality in animals. I would be interested to see any reliable scientific report to that effect, but I doubt any exist.EZ

I saw a news article recently related to my Message 70 and Message 72 and most interestingly - Message 74. I said: homosexuality link to fertility genes

quote:

---

A team led by Prof Andrea Camperio-Ciani, of Padua University, found that female maternal relatives of homosexual men seemed to have more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. There was no difference with female paternal relatives.

​

...

​

It implies that homosexuals should be more common in societies with declining birth rates, such as Italy, where the influence of this fecundity/gay gene is more significant.

​

...
Prof Camperio-Ciani writes: "When fecundity in general is high because every female reproduces as much as possible, these homosexual genes that enhance fecundity are not expressed significantly.

​

"But when the population is declining because of a decrease of fecundity (modern Italians) or birth control (ancient Romans), then these factors may well make the difference in relatively promoting fecundity - and therefore homosexuality - in the population."

---

So once again, any gay genes in the population may have side effects that allow for their propagation through other means. In this case a male homosexual gene increases a female's fecundity so she has more babies and thus passes on the homosexual gene to some of them too.