While reading through this topic I thought of a question that might be worth thinking about.
1. Is attraction to a specific gender (regardless of an individuals gender) a heritable trait? Just a thought. Patrick Mears On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Martin Meiss <[email protected]> wrote: > Here are what I see as some problems with the idea that homosexuality in > humans is rooted in the genetics of kin selection, as proposed earlier in > this thread. > > 1. Suppose an individual is born with a mutation that makes him/her > inclined to homosexuality and to avoid reproduction. If this individual > then "helps around the nest" he/she may enhance the survival of near > relatives WHO DO NOT BEAR THE GENE, since the mutation is new. How would > this mutation enter the population? > > 2. Insofar as the kin-selection mechanism requires restricted gene flow, > how can we assume that this condition prevailed for our wondering, > hunter-gatherer ancestors? Wondering groups don't have to be in contact > very long to exchange mates or rape each other. > > 3. It's not clear that an individual's personal inclination to engage in > mating behavior would have much to do with whether they actually mated. I > refer, of course, to rape, but also other forms of social persuasion. > Also, just because a few males in the group may prefer each other to > females, that doesn't mean the remaining males couldn't keep all the > females pregnant, thus favoring their genes over the non-players. > > 4. The hypothesis, as presented in this thread, seems to rely on early > populations having been resource-limited, so they would benefit from > decreasing the number of mouths to feed. But isn't it also possible that > they were NOT resource limited. If migratory groups were expanding into > new territory, they might have faced abundance of resources, especially as > their tools and weapons made more things available to them. Also, given > the defenselessness of naked humans or pre-humans when unarmed, and the > dangers of hunting nasty animals when armed, it is quite possible that > those early populations were limited by predation and traumatic injury. In > that case, limiting reproductive output would seem to be very unfavorable. > > I realize that some of these hypothetical conditions, if they obtained, > might tend to contradict each other, or cancel each other out, but I > nevertheless believe they indicate against ready acceptance of the > kin-selection mechanism. > > Martin M. Meiss > > 2013/3/28 Mitch Cruzan <[email protected]> > > > This neglects that fact that homosexuality is not an accident of history > > or just a artifact of modern human societies. This trait is too > widespread > > and occurs at too high a frequency in human populations to be explained > by > > chance - there must have been a selective advantage in the past. The > > widespread nature of this trait across human populations suggests that it > > must have been present in the human lineage by at least the time of the > > second major migration of hominids out of Africa around 60,000 ybp. The > > inclusive fitness argument mentioned several times by contributors to > this > > listserve is probably the best explanation for the maintenance of > > homosexuality in human populations. > > > > Mitch Cruzan > > > > > > On 3/28/2013 7:46 AM, Culliney, Thomas W - APHIS wrote: > > > >> I was referring to strict homosexuality in humans. Granted, there > >> probably are cases in which children of a (perhaps deceased) sibling or > >> other close relative would be raised by a homosexual, thus raising his > or > >> her inclusive fitness, but such cases would be rare. The Darwinian > fitness > >> of a strict homosexual is, as a rule, zero. Helpers at the nest do forgo > >> their own reproduction to help relatives raise offspring, but, as far > as I > >> know, there is no requirement for them to be homosexual. > >> > >> Tom Culliney > >> > >> From: Jonathan Colburn [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:05 AM > >> To: Culliney, Thomas W - APHIS > >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Exclusive homosexuality > >> > >> > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> Respectfully, the Darwinian fitness sounds like inclusive fitness, which > >> is often measured by reproductive success. However, reproductive > success > >> of a homosexual is not always a good measure of their inclusive fitness > >> (e.g. helpers at the nest). Ultimately, any action that staves off > >> fixation of alleles to zero is about as close as we can come to > determining > >> that something is inclusively fit... > >> On Mar 28, 2013 9:20 AM, "Culliney, Thomas W - APHIS" < > >> [email protected].**gov <[email protected]> > >> <mailto:Thomas.W.Culliney@**aphis.usda.gov< > [email protected]>>> > >> wrote: > >> I note that the albatross article mentioned the words "natural" and > >> "normal." Homosexuality certainly is natural, as it occurs in nature, in > >> animals from groups ranging from arthropods to mammals (who knows what > goes > >> on in the plant kingdom?). In all cases, there appears to be an adaptive > >> reason for the behavior. However, in its reproductive consequences, > >> exclusive or strict homosexuality, as exhibited in humans, cannot be > >> considered normal sexual behavior. The Darwinian fitness of homosexuals > is > >> zero. To the extent that there is a genetic component to the behavior in > >> humans, with their diverse sexuality, the trait undoubtedly persists in > the > >> population largely through the actions of bisexual individuals leading > to > >> the production of offspring. > >> > >> The above is an argument strictly from a biological perspective, and is > >> not a moral judgment. What two consenting adults do in private is their > own > >> business and no one else's. > >> > >> Tom Culliney > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: > >> [email protected].**EDU <[email protected]><mailto: > >> ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.**UMD.EDU <[email protected]>>] On Behalf Of > >> Kristen Dybala > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:55 PM > >> To: [email protected]<**mailto:[email protected].**EDU< > [email protected]> > >> > > >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Expedition notice and question > >> > >> Laysan albatrosses are a fairly well-known example. Here's a (lengthy) > >> article describing it: > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/**04/04/magazine/04animals-t.** > >> html?pagewanted=all< > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all > > > >> > >> -Kristen > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Merav Vonshak <[email protected] > >> <mailto:mer**[email protected] <[email protected]>>> wrote: > >> > >> This story reminds me of a similar story - a male pair of Griffon > >>> vultures (Gyps fulvus). They incubated eggs and reared other pairs' > >>> youngs as part of a breeding in captivity effort in Israel some years > >>> ago. > >>> Merav > >>> > >>> Merav Vonshak > >>> Postdoctoral Fellow > >>> Gordon Laboratory > >>> Department of Biology > >>> Stanford University > >>> Stanford, CA 94305-5020 > >>> > >>> Phone: 650-725-6791<tel:650-725-6791> > >>> email: [email protected]<mailto:m**[email protected]< > [email protected]> > >>> > > >>> http://www.stanford.edu/~**mvonshak <http://www.stanford.edu/~mvonshak > > > >>> > >>> On 27, Mar2013, at 12:08 PM, Montblanc, Genie wrote: > >>> > >>> WT, > >>>> > >>>> Since I don't study this, I'm giving a, "What I've heard in the news," > >>>> > >>> response. There were two stories awhile back, both relating to > >>> animals in captivity, about homosexual pair bonding. One was with > >>> penguins, I think they also raised a chick together, and the other was > >>> with dolphins. Given that long-term pair bonding only occurs in 8-11 > >>> species in the entire animal kingdom, the question might be moot > anyway. > >>> > >>>> That is my inexpert response. Have a great expedition! > >>>> Génie > >>>> > >>>> Eugénie MontBlanc > >>>> Great Basin Fire Science Delivery Coordinator University of > >>>> Nevada/Mail Stop 0186, Reno, NV 89557 > >>>> Phone: 775-784-1107<tel:775-784-1107> (Fax: -1109) > >>>> Email: [email protected]<mailto:emb@**cabnr.unr.edu < > [email protected]> > >>>> > > >>>> Web: www.gbfiresci.org<http://www.**gbfiresci.org< > http://www.gbfiresci.org> > >>>> > > >>>> Twitter: @GBfirescience > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: > >>>> > >>> [email protected]<**mailto:[email protected].**EDU< > [email protected]>>] > >>> On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > >>> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:32 AM > >>>> To: [email protected]<**mailto:[email protected].**EDU< > [email protected]> > >>>> > > >>>> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Expedition notice and question > >>>> > >>>> [NOTE:] I will be on expedition (with a stop at the National Native > >>>> Seed > >>>> > >>> Conference in Santa Fe NM on April 10) until the two weeks at the end > >>> of April and the first week of May, then gone again beginning the 2nd > >>> week of May until around May 24. I will not be checking email during > >>> those periods, but will respond to as many email messages as possible > >>> during those hiatuses. A third expedition following those is likely, > >>> but the period of hiatus is iffy.] > >>> > >>>> Here is my parting question. Please feel free to post it on other > lists. > >>>> > >>>> Re: Homosexuality in animals other than Homo sapiens. We know that > >>>> > >>> homosexual behavior occurs in other species in some forms (Bonobo > >>> chimpanzees [Pan paniscus], for example), and we know that > >>> hermaphrodites of some species fertilize each other simultaneously. > >>> But my question is in which species other than humans, does EXCLUSIVE > >>> homosexuality, especially in the form of pair bonds, occur? > >>> > >>>> WT > >>>> > >>>> I'll pick up my answers in late April. If I have time, I may be able > >>>> to > >>>> > >>> respond to some today. Please respond on-list, and not to me > personally. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------**---------------------------- > >> Kristen Dybala, Post-doctoral Researcher Museum of Wildlife and Fish > >> Biology University of California, Davis [email protected]<mailto:ke > ** > >> [email protected] <[email protected]>> > >> (415) 218-9295<tel:%28415%29%20218-9295> - cell > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA > solely > >> for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this > message > >> or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the > law > >> and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe > you > >> have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete > >> the email immediately. > >> > > > -- Patrick Mears Research Scientist Assistant Department of Marine Science University of Texas at Austin
