[FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality
Steve Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Sun Jan 9 11:30:16 EST 2022
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: thompnickson2 at gmail.com
> Date: 1/9/22 01:39 (GMT+01:00)
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> <friam at redfish.com>
> 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 5:57 PM
> *To:* FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> *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 <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of ⛧glen
> <gepropella at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 4:13 PM
> *To:* FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> *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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220109/33fdfa04/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list