Evolutionary drive of homosexuality - Page 3

On November 30 2010 08:41 VIB wrote:
Now that I think about it. Could anyone give one example of homosexuality on other animals that is exclusively homosexual and not bisexual? I mean, if you raise two male dogs together they will inevitably hump each other. But if after years of humping each other you introduce a female, they will hump the female as well. I don't remember seeing or hearing about any animal that will specifically only hump males and not females. Which makes me believe that it's indeed a chosen preference due to human social interactions which are not present on other animals.

Or am I wrong?

On November 30 2010 08:42 night terrors wrote:


I contend that exactly what you've quoted of him saying is inadequate. He is saying that it has no place. Im saying that is not so. Religion often has part in this area precisely because the human beings behind that are not machines which execute hard math and are capable of some sort of objecive analysis of the "observed phenomenom". You will find that many times religion has a part in these discussions. Im not saying that this discussion should be headed by religion. Im saying that that statement and a few others along his post make me cringe.

On November 30 2010 08:34 _Darwin_ wrote:


LOL you just quoted an ABC anchor zzz... must have been peer reviewed atleast 1000 times.

"To say that genetic differences are relevant to hetero- and homosexuality is not, however, to say that there are "genes for homosexuality" or even that there is a "genetic tendency to homosexuality."

- Richard Lewontin 11/2/1995

On November 30 2010 07:45 mikado wrote:


As with every psychological behavior, the answer to the question must lie in genetics

On November 30 2010 08:44 _Darwin_ wrote:


Right- I've read many Lewontin/Gould books and dozens of articles. That quotation affirms my conclusion. Let me know if you need me to bold some parts and stuff.

On November 30 2010 08:42 L wrote:
The evolutionary drive towards homosexuality is incredibly clear on a genetic level. Past looking statistics show that for the majority of human life, 80% of women pass on their genes, whereas only 40% of men pass on theirs. The resulting glut of young, socially constrained males normally leads to increases in intra-species violence and fighting as a result. Subsequently, forces which reduce and pacify lower level males become a net benefit at the group level as members of the society are removed from the competition to become sexually successful, much like menopause does.

Grandmother effect, in essence.

On November 30 2010 08:50 Sleight wrote:
2) The trait, while reproductively harmful to the individual, provides a greater advantage to the community, and so is evolutionarily favored. The benefits must always outweigh the costs to be evolutionarily supported. As evidenced by the observations of homosexuality in sheep, in particular, the prevalence of homosexual males within a herd is associated with greater reproductive success than those without homosexual males present or with an overabundance.

On November 30 2010 08:57 Enervate wrote:
Why does there have to be evolutionary drive behind the trait? Can it not be due only to natural variation? Harmful genetic mutations and maladaptive behavior are not uncommon.

Note: I am NOT saying homosexuality is a disease and that there is anything wrong with it. I mean harmful only in the evolutionary sense of reproduction and the passing of traits because obviously homosexuality prevents reproduction.

On November 30 2010 09:00 mikado wrote:


So you ignore the first half and accept the second. How can you distinguish which part 'homosexuality' falls into; the random or genetically influenced? Even Lewontin can't and admits it so in his books, I suppose you would know.

Without going into what these specific random events are, both points he makes in the quote affirm that it's a biomolecular interaction that results in this phenomenon and it's not a conscience choice. Moreover, this phenomenon is widely seen in other animals, developments of which work in different ways.

Lewontin strongly opposes genetic determinism anyway, attacking whole scientific fields like evolutionary psychology and sociobiology in the process.

On November 30 2010 09:03 Deletrious wrote:


Taking you at face value, one would expect a merely maladaptive trait, especially one that stops you from procreating, would quickly be bred out as unfit. Homosexuality has survived among various species, and therefore there must be some valuable result, either to the species as a whole, or to individuals in other ways. Like how one post pointed to homosexuality being akin to sickle cell, and another post suggested that in women, the gene that causes homosexuality makes women procreate more.

On November 30 2010 08:41 VIB wrote:
Now that I think about it. Could anyone give one example of homosexuality on other animals that is exclusively homosexual and not bisexual? I mean, if you raise two male dogs together they will inevitably hump each other. But if after years of humping each other you introduce a female, they will hump the female as well. I don't remember seeing or hearing about any animal that will specifically only hump males and not females. Which makes me believe that it's indeed a chosen preference due to human social interactions which are not present on other animals.

Or am I wrong?

On November 30 2010 09:09 Owarida wrote:
Just because its passed down and seen in multiple species does not make it inherintely good for reproductive success of the community or individual. Not relating gays to down syndrome, but chromosomal defects are found in multiple species. Common mutations in genes exist, some are more apparent than others. Homosexuality may be a genetic defect. Not to say that homosexuals are bad, but we are clearly different. I don't see why it cant be a defect that is not advantageous for reproductive sucess that has carried on.
PS I identify as a bisexual, so don't flame as gay bashing.

On November 30 2010 09:08 _Darwin_ wrote:


Right, I was arguing that homosexuality is not necessarily genetic, as you said it MUST be in the op. I wasn't stating that it's a "choice."

Well now, don't forget to quote this form my previous post either:
'And recent studies have affirmed that most of the random events produced in the blastocyst or the foetal stages of development are in correlation with activation/deactivation/variation of portions of the so called junk-DNA sequences.'

At the very basic level again, biomolecular interaction --> genetics. Unless you're saying eating bananas (exposure to some chemical, etc) will make your baby gay, I don't see how you can't tie it down to genetics. There's whole fields dedicated to studying genetic influence over complex social behavior, let alone primal instincts and urges; we're way ahead of confirming genetic influence on such processes.

Please read my prior post. This is not likely and not consistent with the evidence available. There have to be ill effects due to homosexuality, which is not consistently observed. Almost universally the presence of homosexuality is indicative of a reproductively successful community.