What about the evidence that sexual orientation may be associated with testosterone or estrogen concentrations in the womb during pregnancy. These may interact with unspecified genetic factors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/ --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 7:50 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > You’re probably right. > > > > Perhaps bonobo sexuality is the primitive state. > > > > “Bub” > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:33 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality > > > > Nick, > > No, no, no... you have the pedagogical point backwards... They are > starting with some weird view that homosexuals are people who are > absolutely exclusively sleeping with members of the same sex. You can't > start from that and be like "Yeah, but once you're in the harem, there you > are! Am I right!" Forget that fact that a huge number of gay men you and I > know were at one point married and have kids, that's no the student's > starting point (or at least it wasn't 20 years ago). If you start with the > harems, then they will knee jerk "That's not real homosexuality, that's not > what I'm talking about." To avoid that knee-jerk, you need to start by > pointing out that even if their naive take on the phenomenon is correct, it > still might not be that hard to explain evolutionarily. > > > > Once they are reminded that it's pretty easy math to have helpful-for-kin > traits selected for, then you can offer the intermediary > spandrel/exaptation option which gets them thinking that maybe there might > be more to the discussion than they originally thought, and THEN you can > point out that their initial premises might also just be complete garbage. > > > > Also, re Marcus's take: I think that would be a variation of the > spandrel/exaptation explanation..... Look, bub, it's pretty important to > get natural selection going that people want to have sex. So you need a > very reliable method of creating attraction, and you generally want it to > be men attracted to women and women attracted to men. But the first part, > the "attracted to someone" part is probably far more important than the > "exactly who are you attracted to" part. As such, it's really not all that > surprising to find men attracted to men and women attracted to women, and > it's not clear that any special explanation beyond that is needed. > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:32 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Eric, > > > > I think this an excellent capper to an excellent discussion. I wish > somebody would scrape it, perhaps edit to make it more readable, and file > it somewhere amongst Friam’s Greatest Hits. Somewhere, somebody should > have reminded us that GenesFur X are really just genes that, in some > devious say or other, make X more likely. Is a genefur grooming a gene > for maintaining group resistance to parasites, a gene for, building social > relationships or both. If you asked the gene, it would say, “I really > don’t care.” > > > > Still, I might divide things up a bit differently. > > > > *1.** Homosexuality benefits the homosexual.* By hanging around the > harem, ostensibly interested only in sex with the haremmor, he has > unfettered access to the haremmees. Given the high reproductive rate of > haremmees, he only has to “slip up” a couple of times to be in good shape, > reproductively. This assumes that the haremmers have pretty much locked up > the females in the group. Game theorists call this the sneaky fucker > strategy. > > *2.** Group Selection Arguments: *Group level adaptations could be > triggered facultatively when infant and juvenile individuals receive cues > that their particular individual future reproductive environment is bleak. > > > 1. *Homosexuality benefits the Parents of the homosexual. *This is > the kinselection argument laid out by Eric, with its group selection > element made explicate. Homosexuals assist in the reproduction of their > siblings. Here the group is the relatively efficient offspring- group > of > gene-bearing parents. > 2. *Homosexuality benefits the small group of which the > homosexual’s family is part. *Groups with one or more strongly > bonded males are more productive of offspring than groups without. > Think > Slime molds. > > I wasn’t sure that erics #3 isn’t so much an alternative as the cultural > level description of the consequences of the others. > > > > N > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 12, 2022 12:04 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality > > > > Re potential evolutionary explanations for homosexuality: They really > don't have to be very convoluted at all. > > > I prepared a worksheet for a class 15 or so years ago, after a bunch of > students starting trying use homosexuality as proof that evolution couldn't > explain (any) behavior. I'd rather just link to the blog... but to make > things easier for other's, I'll also copy-paste below: Fixing Psychology: > Evolution and Homosexuality > <https://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/03/evolution-and-homosexuality.html> > > > > ==================== > > > Evolution and Homosexuality > > > Evolutionary theorists could potentially explain homosexuality using three > distinct methods. The first two take the modern notion of homosexuality at > face value, the third questions it. > > 1. Explain homosexuality as a benefit in and of itself. > > The most straightforward way to explain the presence of *any *trait using > evolutionary logic is to tell a story about how individuals with that trait > reproduce their genes better than those without the trait. In the case of > exclusive homosexuality, that is difficult, because homosexuals do not > reproduce. However, it is still possible. > > For example, a costly traits may be so helpful to your relatives (i.e., > your kin) that it more than makes up for the cost you pay. This is called > “kin selection”. Your children will share 50% of your genes, so we can give > them a value of .5 in terms of your reproduction. A full sibling’s children > share 25% of your genes, so we can give them a value of .25. That means > that if you posses a trait that makes you have one less child on average > (-.5), but you get three more nephews or nieces in exchange (+.75), natural > selection will favor that trait (= .25). On average, the next generation > will have more of your genes by virtue of your possessing a trait that > makes you have fewer children. This explanation could be even more powerful > when applied your own parents, i.e., helping raise your brothers and > sisters, with whom you share as many genes as your own children (both .5). > > If that was the explanation for human homosexuality, what might you also > expect to be true of homosexuality? > > > 2. Explain homosexuality as a byproduct of other adaptive mechanisms. > > There are many types of explanations compatible with evolutionary theory, > but that do not explain the traits under questions as adaptations in and of > themselves. In one way or another, these explanations explain traits as the > byproduct of some other adaptive process. The trait in question could be a > necessary byproduct of two evolutionarily sound items; for example, an > armpit appears when you combine a torso with an arm, but no animal was ever > selected specifically for having armpits! Alternatively, the trait in > question could be the result of an adaptive mechanism placed in an unusual > context; for example, evolution favored humans that desired sweet and fatty > food in an environment where such things were rare; now that we are in an > environment where such things are plentiful, this desire can cause serious > health problems. Homosexuality could be explainable in terms of biological > or psychological mechanisms acting appropriately in odd circumstances, or > as a byproduct of selection for other beneficial traits. > > If that explanation were correct, what types of traits might humans have > been selected for that could result in homosexuality when pushed to the > extreme or placed in unusual circumstances? > > 3. Reject the notion of homosexuality as it is currently conceived and > offer new categories. > > Evolutionary thinking often necessitates a rejection of old categories and > the creation of new ones. The current systems of dividing the world may not > be relevant to answering evolutionary questions. The labels “Homosexual” > and “Heterosexual” may be good examples. The modern notions of strict homo > vs. hetero-sexuality arose relatively recently. It has never been bizarrely > uncommon for women or men to live together or to set up long term > relationships with members of the same sex. What is relatively new is the > notion that this can divide people into types, some who exclusively do one > thing and some who exclusively do another. A so-called homosexual man need > only have sex with a woman once to have a baby, and visa versa. While this > is now the stuff of comedic amusement, it may be a much more natural > context for homosexuality. There may be no reason to think that so-called > homosexuals of the past got pregnant, or impregnated others, less often > than so-called hetersexuals. > > If this is the case, would there necessarily be any selection for or > against preferring the relatively exclusive company of same-sex others? > What possible benefits could there be to raising children in a “homosexual” > environment? (Hey now, don’t bring moral judgment into this, it is only a > question of surviving and thriving.) > > > > ============================ > > > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:13 PM ⛧ glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/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/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/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/
