[FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality

Wed Jan 12 17:36:07 EST 2022

Your first and last paragraphs sound like in person conversations that Nick
and I have had.  Sorry, Nick.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:37 PM David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu> wrote:

> The framing that this question has has always felt so bizarre to me, but I
> have struggled to explain why, and what would not be bizarre.  It feels
> like a bunch of set-theoreticians sitting in armchairs arguing about what
> “awareness” “must be like” so that they can predict it from their habitual
> formulations in mathematical logic.
>
> Why do male mammals have nipples?  Because mammals have nipples.  Why
> isn’t that odd, that a strict suppression of all the developmental
> machinery that creates nipples might not be “encoded” in some wildly fancy
> collection of genes all localized within a Y chromosome?  Because who the
> hell would bother with all that, when one can just form them and not use
> them in half the members, and not think about it further.
>
> Correspondingly, what the hell is “attraction to men” or “attraction to
> women” (in real, nuts and bolts operational terms?). Do we know?  Does
> “evolution know?”  If nobody knows what it is, how could there ever be some
> maniacal effort to localize it onto a sex chromosome?  And even more, what
> to do when sex determination isn’t alternation of chromosomes, but
> something bizarre and asymmetric like XX/XY systems?
>
> But if “nobody” knows what it is, and much of whatever “it is” is drawing
> from lots of stuff across autosomes, then:
>
> Why are some men attracted to men?  Because lots of women are attracted to
> men.
> Why are some women attracted to women?  Because lots of men are attracted
> to women.
> How is the argument any different from any of D’arcy Thompson’s arguments?
>
> If fish can determine sex facultatively according to environment, then the
> overall project of getting two mating types (as the genders are referred to
> in yeast) out of what is broadly “one genome” (+/- Y and +/- mitochondria)
> is a pretty complicated, plastic, and signalable capacity.  It seems like
> just the kind of thing that wouldn’t repay the cost of hammering it down
> into some strict program like nematode cell division or the lobster
> stomatogastric complex’s operations.
>
> The whole bizarreness in this seems to me like it comes somehow from what
> people assign as “traits” and then insist there must be “explanations
> for”.  It would be as bad as taking a word (like “emergence”) and then
> going on and on arguing about what it “really means”.  Oh, sorry… that was
> a different hobby horse.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> On Jan 12, 2022, at 1:04 PM, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ffixingpsychology.blogspot.com%2f2012%2f03%2fevolution-and-homosexuality.html&c=E,1,fjB6y7zacZOW2c99wRxey5Lby--zc7qrZ3QNS4epbVLVKj_YkeEkujyM9uAGrhOPS5wAlhjLdkWXrmPWxwBRI48IRm6U1Birh_yrq8AhxQB74qgzHQzsT2TH_mpF&typo=1>
>
> ====================
>
> 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
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,VgzO5tEZf_Wv7GScs3N4zpTDLWvXmT6IYMS23iDXu2RxSh4jjGBx-XD7QpguNsqaZVyCN70RJLzO6lE6IeoHsWPjBP7bnvDNGnqLDBYPC-c,&typo=1>
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kGiVoy5wW3LeNwlNyictDkL-LTMUraxxMySpGxdbEBxwQVjv2Xp3eWq80sYFKPBRX1oNdCOWKug73qzyEaN-j_htuzAtZz14KOQ5DHj2CA,,&typo=1>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,vVWEkGWKzKhpFrp6uKQR1Ml2y0cTDhfn5YwDnV7OYZi_b0bg52H5iTIlWBJH_CV2fIlS1RWVeFH57DG2p5oAAV4dMXWOFXv6uhq-e0oAnh2j63guiZmjPAwtoA,,&typo=1>
>> archives:
>>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,eVxaLuEGpoecRaxFwTDeciRc3uzbBjw7BLering8Fz1s7OaiURpk3wil90fhGLxQ_cBmcmWnTKOMq6ogzxxabixv_xIFnpEsrrQnaF-G34kfcZk9MkKRIUmwqg,,&typo=1>
>>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,rr8psXnKqUt1T7kFEY8TwYB6iKzl7FFgbItg17K_COtz_BimvANU-4oh3_2_OPfVywln5W5vID3pzTLrQ4H8n9Fjjo6R_CHZ48iQPRvp1lgmiw,,&typo=1
> un/subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1rGe0VWwkOP9mUOu-tn8HWqJNRUbLnpbAqeonfXkYtBTqBEC88wLdJR9gmsC4XwIiIJOGXB6BNwRHi_84pEHyiheGqlQLKYPXWz83HgG4w,,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,quXtGRK10sA_thJRjJi9iMJoKEzw44WYkAcwnkgjIQx8NdFYO-EoaarZ-TJCENot1d_kArnTE-phfx6icCtcfhq0lqCpthpRYB1SwGc_Rz7mBmy4BJo,&typo=1
> archives:
> 5/2017 thru present
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,u8ybMJvNwfahy9wlCz7-8GhNVErD1oGIYKwcXEUsyJUAiFZTB0Ih8UK15-Y7AK3cqFuF7Z1yfYfET80Hm_YMed9i921V0LwTVAZp3cfOufClQ4na-hM,&typo=1
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220112/19678aeb/attachment.html>