[FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality

[glen]

But why would this "evolutionary explanation for X" be any more bizarre than any other question? That's what's interesting to me. I don't see people claiming that asking about, say, a new virus variant is a bizarre question to ask. Why does the subject of homosexuality evoke accusations of "dumb" or "bizarre"?

My guess is it's yet another manifestation of how sensitive the topic is.

On 1/12/22 13:36, David Eric Smith 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.)
>>   <mailto:echarles at american.edu>
>> ============================
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:13 PM ⛧ glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto: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 <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
Theorem 3. There exists a double master function.