Evolution of Homosexuality: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Evolution of Homosexuality » Evolution of Homosexuality

Evolution of Homosexuality

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Evolution of Homosexuality

GreenFleshyFlower
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 05, 2003
Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 330

Posted 12/10/04 - 07:40 AM:	#1
How is it possible for homosexuality to become prevalent in animals? Homosexual behavior has been observed in many different species of animals, so the trait must be either have a neutral or a beneficial effect on the species. If the trait is beneficial, what is it? Is this trait still beneficial in humans? If homosexuality as it is manifested in humans now continues, (sexual activity only with members of the same sex, as opposed to in animals which exhibit homosexual behavior, which also have sex with members of the opposite gender) and the behavior is mostly gene-based, will homosexuality eventually become extinct in humans? I dismiss any argument that says there is a specific homsexual "gene" in humans, because if there is one it must also be present in all the other animals which exhibit homosexual behavior, and so I think it's probably a large collection of genes, along with other factors, that lead to homosexual behavior.

Exponent
Blithe Absurdist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2004
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 150

Posted 12/10/04 - 07:58 AM:	#2
My mostly uneducated guess is that homosexuality among humans and animals is pretty much neutral; it neither harms nor helps the group. And I would also guess that it exists in the first place because sexual attraction in general is a much less complicated and difficult thing to produce than sexual attraction to the opposite gender. So humans and animals first and foremost have a sexual attraction, period. Beyond that, they also have a sexual attraction specifically to the opposite gender. However, although humans and animals do have a reasonably consistent attraction to the opposite gender, to get any better than it already is takes a much longer period of time, and any group that does indeed increase this rate closer to 100% doesn't have enough of an advantage over any group that doesn't, and thus, both groups continue to propagate normally, both genetically as well as socially. In short, our likelihood to be attracted to the opposite sex is pretty much as high as it needs to be. It is practically useless for evolution to weed out the cases where attraction to the same sex occurs.
Quote by Gassendi1: "You think that because something depresses you it cannot be true?"

filter
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Location: blighty
Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1706

Posted 12/10/04 - 12:55 PM:	#3
If homosexuality does have a genetic component (which is by no means certain), it could be related to 'social fitness' in gregarious species. That is, in species that survive in hierarchical groups, staple evolutionary beneficial attributes such as strength, or foraging skill, may be complemented by 'sociability'. I believe it is bonobo monkeys that practice regular homosexual activities, and I would theorise that this is to do with intragroup bonding. This would render it 'beneficial', in terms of selection. It could well be that homosexual tendencies are inherent in most humans, and it is the pervasive power of culture which forces us to repress these urges. Homosexuality is universal, across cultures at least. Some condemn it more than others (those with a judeo-christian root). f
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. - Henry David Thoreau

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 12/10/04 - 01:28 PM:	#4
I think that Rachel in the other homosexual thread, produced a neat little study explaining how homosexuality might be beneficial to the species, because the same gene(s) that make men horny for men also make women horny for men (so in the end it all evens out). Seems plausable to me. Everything is connected as a whole, and the abscence/presence of a single gene can have weird effects in so many different places. I just read an interesting article in Discover mag about how some guy bred foxes for docility and they developed droopy ears and hair spots/whorls (a trait that all domesticated animals share, surprisingly). And it certainly isn't implausable to see the same genes in different animals, after all we are all related, ultimately.

filter
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Location: blighty
Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1706

Posted 12/10/04 - 02:10 PM:	#5
Klaatu wrote: And it certainly isn't implausable to see the same genes in different animals, after all we are all related, ultimately. We share 44% of our genome with Drosophila melanogaster, a fruit fly. I can believe that more for some than others f
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. - Henry David Thoreau

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 18

Posted 12/10/04 - 02:38 PM:	#6
Genes are many levels below social behavior, therefore are unlikely (but not impossible) to be affected. Genes are simply not aware (neutral) of almost all other behavior either, unless some trait has been bred out, as in dogs. One should never expect evolution to positively select any trait for survival (as if selection were a kindly old soul), as it only works negatively, by eliminating traits that are disadvantageous for survival of the species.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . .

filter
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Location: blighty
Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1706

Posted 12/10/04 - 03:01 PM:	#7
yadda wrote: Genes are many levels below social behavior, therefore are unlikely (but not impossible) to be affected. So, what determines the variability of gregariousness in social primate species? I am not suggesting that genes determine behaviour, but they must influence them in some way. Genes are simply not aware (neutral) of almost all other behavior either, unless some trait has been bred out, as in dogs. Yet if some behaviour affected an individual's reproductive behaviour, it would have genetic ramifications. One should never expect evolution to positively select any trait for survival (as if selection were a kindly old soul), as it only works negatively, by eliminating traits that are disadvantageous for survival of the species. I would imagine that both positive and negative selection occur - if a mutation is positive but is only present in a small percentage of a population, it will be selected 'for' (i.e. positively) if it increases the fitness of the individuals within which it is present. f
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. - Henry David Thoreau

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 12/10/04 - 03:13 PM:	#8
GreenFleshyFlower... Unless this thread intends to discuss Homosexual Mathematics or Gay Science as related to some new Philosophy of Queerness.. (Aka 'Queer eye for the straight Sci " then this thread should really be in Anthro...
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

filter
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Location: blighty
Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 1706

Posted 12/10/04 - 03:19 PM:	#9
Gramm wrote: this thread should really be in Anthro... Seems to be taking the direction of a discussion of a genetic basis for homosexuality - evolution is about as science as you can get, no? f
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. - Henry David Thoreau

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 12/10/04 - 03:31 PM:	#10
Perhaps...but I always thought that a working definition of Philosophy of Science and Math concerned itself with the theoretical underpinnings of knowledge, experimentation, interpretation and application. But never mind we can leave the thread here and set a precedent. In which case, I am sure it won't be long before we get numerous "Feminist analysis of patriarchical scientific establishment" type questions being lodged in this forum... Once you open the flood gates to pseudo...science....oh-well... So even though the decision is not mine in anycase, I still believe this thread should be in Anthro....
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.