Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bubba · 12-09-2002, 06:02 PM

On another bullitin board we're debating the old Homsexuality is fatal to darwinism idiocy. I just need to know if something is possible. Is it possible that a gene that would somehow make females stronger or better able to adapt (and thus an evolutionary advantadge) could also cause homosexuality in men as perhaps a recessive trait?

I know we've discussed homosexuality and evolution before but I've never been interested enough to read those threads. Hopefully this won't just be hashing over old info.

Bubba

cricket · 12-09-2002, 06:06 PM

Yes.

Also could cause men greater reproductive success, if they had such 'gay genes' but in recessive form.

These are the theories I have heard.

cricket · 12-09-2002, 06:10 PM

If it's in hetero men, it supposedly could make them more <charming, verbal, higher sex drive, etc> and hence make them more successful in evolutionary terms.

Yet there would be no trace of homosexuality in these gay gene "carriers", in fact, they would be the most successful hetero's of all.

Doubting Didymus · 12-09-2002, 06:21 PM

Its definitely possible that genes might exist that are a detriment to the individual if they benifit close relatives. The primary theory from this perspective is that 'gay genes' might be working similarly to sterile insects. The idea is that the genes for homosexuality benifit close relatives by providing individuals that help out the family and aid in raising children, but do not increase the size of the population.

This theory relies on a number of assumtions:
1) that homosexuality is neccesarily genetic is not established well enough for my liking.
2) that homosexual individuals are neccessarily helpful to relatives (at least, helpful enough to outweigh the setback of not breeding)is also not certain.
3) An explanation is required for why homosexual tendencies would evolve instead of simple sterility.
4) Many homosexuals desire children, and employ methods of acheiving them. The above theory should predict a pronounced lack of desire for children. In fact, it is not certain that homosexual individuals are evolutionarily significantly less likely to breed one way or the other.
5) This theory does not explain the many cultures where bisexuality is overwhelmingly prevalent. Bonobo chimpanzees, for example, are heavily bisexual.

So in theory, it is possible that homosexual genes are a selective advantage, but in reality and at least for humans, it seems that there must be some other explaination.

pz · 12-09-2002, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bubba:
<strong>Is it possible that a gene that would somehow make females stronger or better able to adapt (and thus an evolutionary advantadge) could also cause homosexuality in men as perhaps a recessive trait?
</strong>

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo! I really hate the ol' genetic basis of homosexuality crap...there's no evidence that it's genetically based at all.

However, to answer the narrower question above: the answer is yes. Look for a copy of Ridley's Genome at your local library. It has an excellent discussion of this topic in one chapter (I think it's called "Conflict" -- the one on the X & Y chromosomes). Basically, it is to the X chromosome's advantage to harbor traits that promote the production of girls rather than boys, because girls carry twice as many X chromosomes as do boys. Homosexuality would be one such trait, if it were genetic.

Doubting Didymus · 12-09-2002, 06:30 PM

Quote:

there's no evidence that it's genetically based at all.

How would you even test that, anyway?

Nic Tamzek · 12-09-2002, 10:35 PM

A brief observation:

Homosexuality is just as big a puzzle on (1) culturally determinist theories and (2) Christian/religious theories.

Considering that <a href="http://duke.usask.ca/~elias/left/genetics.htm" target="_blank">we don't even know if handedness is "genetic"</a> I wouldn't expect a clear answer anytime soon...

Although look here:

<a href="http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2001/12/121001_lefthanded.jhtml" target="_blank">http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2001/12/121001_lefthanded.jhtml</a>

Bubba · 12-09-2002, 11:09 PM

Thanks!

Bubba

Hypernovean · 12-10-2002, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Many homosexuals desire children

Really? Where did you get that from? You wouldn't be generalizing from a very small group, now would you?

MrDarwin · 12-10-2002, 05:02 AM

Just try asking them how genes for hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, Tay Sachs, and various other inherited diseases have existed for hundreds or thousands of years and continue to be passed on.

You might also ask why babies with Down Syndrome continue to be born, even though we know the cause is genetic.

The risk with this tactic is that it tends to frame the debate as if homosexuality were a disease. But it does underscore that the genetics argument is overly simplistic.

12-09-2002, 06:02 PM	#1
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Homosexuality and Genetics On another bullitin board we're debating the old Homsexuality is fatal to darwinism idiocy. I just need to know if something is possible. Is it possible that a gene that would somehow make females stronger or better able to adapt (and thus an evolutionary advantadge) could also cause homosexuality in men as perhaps a recessive trait? I know we've discussed homosexuality and evolution before but I've never been interested enough to read those threads. Hopefully this won't just be hashing over old info. Bubba

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2002, 06:06 PM	#2
cricket Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St Louis MO USA Posts: 1,188	Yes. Also could cause men greater reproductive success, if they had such 'gay genes' but in recessive form. These are the theories I have heard.

12-09-2002, 06:10 PM	#3
cricket Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: St Louis MO USA Posts: 1,188	If it's in hetero men, it supposedly could make them more <charming, verbal, higher sex drive, etc> and hence make them more successful in evolutionary terms. Yet there would be no trace of homosexuality in these gay gene "carriers", in fact, they would be the most successful hetero's of all.

12-09-2002, 06:21 PM	#4
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Its definitely possible that genes might exist that are a detriment to the individual if they benifit close relatives. The primary theory from this perspective is that 'gay genes' might be working similarly to sterile insects. The idea is that the genes for homosexuality benifit close relatives by providing individuals that help out the family and aid in raising children, but do not increase the size of the population. This theory relies on a number of assumtions: 1) that homosexuality is neccesarily genetic is not established well enough for my liking. 2) that homosexual individuals are neccessarily helpful to relatives (at least, helpful enough to outweigh the setback of not breeding)is also not certain. 3) An explanation is required for why homosexual tendencies would evolve instead of simple sterility. 4) Many homosexuals desire children, and employ methods of acheiving them. The above theory should predict a pronounced lack of desire for children. In fact, it is not certain that homosexual individuals are evolutionarily significantly less likely to breed one way or the other. 5) This theory does not explain the many cultures where bisexuality is overwhelmingly prevalent. Bonobo chimpanzees, for example, are heavily bisexual. So in theory, it is possible that homosexual genes are a selective advantage, but in reality and at least for humans, it seems that there must be some other explaination.

12-09-2002, 10:35 PM	#7
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	A brief observation: Homosexuality is just as big a puzzle on (1) culturally determinist theories and (2) Christian/religious theories. Considering that <a href="http://duke.usask.ca/~elias/left/genetics.htm" target="_blank">we don't even know if handedness is "genetic"</a> I wouldn't expect a clear answer anytime soon... Although look here: <a href="http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2001/12/121001_lefthanded.jhtml" target="_blank">http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2001/12/121001_lefthanded.jhtml</a>

12-09-2002, 11:09 PM	#8
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Thanks! Bubba

12-10-2002, 05:02 AM	#10
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Just try asking them how genes for hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, Tay Sachs, and various other inherited diseases have existed for hundreds or thousands of years and continue to be passed on. You might also ask why babies with Down Syndrome continue to be born, even though we know the cause is genetic. The risk with this tactic is that it tends to frame the debate as if homosexuality were a disease. But it does underscore that the genetics argument is overly simplistic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.