A couple of things as yet not obviously (to me) introduced into this
discussion:
1) Survival of the Fittest might better be Legacy Survival of the
Fittest. Evolution depends on successful *reproduction* and in
fact, a string of successful reproductions. I have a number of
childless friends who came from parents with large families... but
who only had 2 or fewer siblings themselves and have few if any
nieces and nephews. Their grandparent's "fecundity" has officially
petered out. I'm not saying this is a good nor a bad thing, just a
break in the "survival of the fittest" and an illustration that
simply being good at spawning lots of children isn't enough... they
have to survive and then reproduce themselves, rinse, repeat.
2) Heredity/Evolotion 101 in college made the point that the
"selfish" gene for men suggests that one's nieces and nephews by a
maternal sister are (closer to) guaranteed to share 1/4 of his genes
than the (best case) 1/2 for his own (presumed) children (worst case
0%). The same (almost) logic applies to women who are childless
(for whatever reason)... their sister's children are a genetic
legacy for them. Entirely anecdotally, many of the (childless) gay
men and women I know are pretty good aunts and uncles... (though
this can be explained many ways).
3) And of course, the object of heredity has shifted from the Gene
to something much larger, more fuzzy, and perhaps (much) more
interesting? What *cultural* traits might be positively correlated
with being homosexual or more aptly ambi/bi/pan/poly sexual? It is
no longer exclusively the case that being gay deals you out of being
a parent (raising adopted children, en-vivo, en-vitro fertilization,
etc), so one's contribution can be to a continued *cultural* or
*memetic* legacy of a "way of being" which is very Lamarckian.
On 1/9/22 3:15 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
This topic is a minefield, because it is related like the
controversial "race" term to the personal identify. Black people for
instance score higher in 100m or 200m runs than white people as the
data clearly shows, which means their genes somehow must give them
more power for this particular competition. Still all people belong to
the same race. As you know this topic is very controversial and
precarious. For sex it is similar.
There are genes for the two major sex hormones, estrogen for women and
testosterone for men. Males have one X and Y chromosome, females have
two X chromosomes. Therefore there are clearly genetic differences
between men and women.
Just how girls who are subject to estrogen develop an affection for
boys is unclear. The same for boys who are subject to testosterone in
their development. My hypothesis is that the mechanism works like
"develop an affection for those who look the same but different"
during the time the sex hormones start to work. Once they have a
preference, addiction mechanisms kick in which tell the individuals to
do more of that which they like. Something like that where the target
of affection is path dependent and not completely hardwired.
In general I would say that homosexuality is a byproduct of the mating
process. This would explain why homosexuality continues to exist in
evolutionary systems although these individuals have less or no
offspring. Like coal power plants which produce CO2 and nuclear power
plants which produce nuclear waste, the mating process produces losers
who lost for whatever reason in the competition for mates and have no
offspring. Among those some may pick a mate of the same sex, because
the sex drive is hard to ignore and not completely hardwired.
This is just my rough idea how it could work in principle. It can be
wrong and it is a delicate topic. There are many books about the
sociologal and psychological aspects of it. In the library I usually
ignore them because it is not a topic I am especially interested in.
Therefore my knowledge is incomplete in this area, and someone else
here can probably explain it better.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: [email protected]
Date: 1/9/22 01:39 (GMT+01:00)
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
Well, first things first. Is there any evidence for a genetic basis
for homosexuality. You can, of course, have a trait that it is
chromosomally determined (if not genetically so) and still not
heritable. Sex, for instance. Sex is not heritable.
My assumption has always been that homosexuality might be influence by
innate factors, but not be heritable.
I haven’t read up on that subject for 2 decades.
Anybody know any facts?
n
Nick Thompson
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
<https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
*From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
*Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 5:57 PM
*To:* FriAM <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
It seems like such a dumb question to ask. Why should any preference
have a genetic basis? How about look for a gene that encodes a
preference for plush carpeting or a preference for Flamenco music?
And what about those men that like short women?! Maybe a man is
kind of like a tall woman, on average? And why would anyone expect
that it would be bimodal? If it were what would that tell us? One
could imagine homosexuality is just one manifestation of cognitive or
emotional flexibility. That by itself would explain why it is
enduring, because those properties would give a person an advantage
over less flexible people. Some fraction of the people with that
property have heterosexual or bisexual relationships, and they
reproduce and raise children that thrive. The rigid (heterosexual)
types in comparison are prone to making the same kind of mistakes over
and over and their children suffer for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of ⛧glen
<[email protected]>
*Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 4:13 PM
*To:* FriAM <[email protected]>
*Subject:* [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
I'm in an ongoing argument with a gay friend about how tortured
Darwinian arguments are in accounting for homosexuality. He claims
they're VERY torturous. I'm inclined toward the first mentioned here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486
But, were group selection and/or cultural evolution a thing, then my
friend would be more right. Anyone here have a strong opinion?
--
glen ⛧
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
