[FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality

Wed Jan 12 13:04:13 EST 2022

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.)
<echarles at american.edu>

============================

On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:13 PM ⛧ glen <gepropella at gmail.com> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220112/7ccf499b/attachment-0001.html>