Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cara Santa Maria. Richard Dawkins And The Evolution Of Homosexuality.
14 views
Skip to first unread message
theszak
Jan 15, 2012, 8:11:30 AM1/15/12
to
Cara Santa Maria
Richard Dawkins And The Evolution Of Homosexuality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/06/dawkins-evolution-homosexuality_n_1078714.html
My last post, The Gay Brain, really got some of you talking. The
central thesis of the video was that even though scientists have yet
to identify the "gay gene," the vast consensus in the scientific
community is that homosexuality has a strong genetic basis, based on
multiple studies that point to heritability of LGBT identification and
behavior. Many scientists believe that there is not just one gay gene,
but in fact a multitude of genetic markers that are either switched on
or off by a complex dance of epigenetic and environmental factors.
Either way, it cannot be denied that being gay is rooted in one's
biology.
At the end of the post, I asked what all of this means from an
evolutionary perspective. Chosenfew79 left a comment that summarizes
the questions that were raised by many of you:
If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior
does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way
since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through
natural selection? If this is not the case, can you please explain the
mechanism by which “homosexual genes” aid in survivability and are
then passed on to descendants?
If we look at this question from the perspective of modern humans, it
appears to be somewhat short-sighted, since we all know that gay men
and lesbian women can produce offspring just like heterosexual men and
women can. They have all of the requisite anatomy, capability, and
even the drive to have children, they just don't engage in the
behavior necessary to procreate. In addition, from a modern
perspective, we know that homosexuality is not a behavior per se, it
is an identity, a point that was raised, sensitively and beautifully,
by many commenters throughout this discussion.
But from the perspective of simple scientific curiosity, I think that
chosenfew79 raises an extremely valid query. Natural selection posits
that genes which increase reproductive success (those with higher
fitness) will be selected for by the changing environment, and those
with lower fitness will be selected against, ultimately washing them
out completely, or at least keeping their numbers significantly low in
a population. Neutral mutations (those that neither increase nor
decrease an organism's reproductive success) will remain in relatively
constant numbers throughout the population. From a modern perspective,
I am very cautious to apply Darwinian natural selection to the human
population, since we have decommissioned evolution in so many ways
(medicine, technology, etc.). I personally believe that we have become
a species of artificial selection pressures. But, from a historical
perspective, it is an interesting exercise to look at how genetic
contributions of homosexuality may have been preserved and passed down
by our ancestors.
Nobody knows evolution better than Dr. Richard Dawkins, and his take
on the evolution of the "gay gene" is fascinating, elegant, and quite
clever. Bear in mind, the language used in this interview may not be
safe for work.
sciencecara at huffingtonpost.com
scien...@huffingtonpost.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/06/dawkins-evolution-homosexuality_n_1078714.html
Richard Dawkins And The Evolution Of Homosexuality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/06/dawkins-evolution-homosexuality_n_1078714.html
My last post, The Gay Brain, really got some of you talking. The
central thesis of the video was that even though scientists have yet
to identify the "gay gene," the vast consensus in the scientific
community is that homosexuality has a strong genetic basis, based on
multiple studies that point to heritability of LGBT identification and
behavior. Many scientists believe that there is not just one gay gene,
but in fact a multitude of genetic markers that are either switched on
or off by a complex dance of epigenetic and environmental factors.
Either way, it cannot be denied that being gay is rooted in one's
biology.
At the end of the post, I asked what all of this means from an
evolutionary perspective. Chosenfew79 left a comment that summarizes
the questions that were raised by many of you:
If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior
does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way
since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through
natural selection? If this is not the case, can you please explain the
mechanism by which “homosexual genes” aid in survivability and are
then passed on to descendants?
If we look at this question from the perspective of modern humans, it
appears to be somewhat short-sighted, since we all know that gay men
and lesbian women can produce offspring just like heterosexual men and
women can. They have all of the requisite anatomy, capability, and
even the drive to have children, they just don't engage in the
behavior necessary to procreate. In addition, from a modern
perspective, we know that homosexuality is not a behavior per se, it
is an identity, a point that was raised, sensitively and beautifully,
by many commenters throughout this discussion.
But from the perspective of simple scientific curiosity, I think that
chosenfew79 raises an extremely valid query. Natural selection posits
that genes which increase reproductive success (those with higher
fitness) will be selected for by the changing environment, and those
with lower fitness will be selected against, ultimately washing them
out completely, or at least keeping their numbers significantly low in
a population. Neutral mutations (those that neither increase nor
decrease an organism's reproductive success) will remain in relatively
constant numbers throughout the population. From a modern perspective,
I am very cautious to apply Darwinian natural selection to the human
population, since we have decommissioned evolution in so many ways
(medicine, technology, etc.). I personally believe that we have become
a species of artificial selection pressures. But, from a historical
perspective, it is an interesting exercise to look at how genetic
contributions of homosexuality may have been preserved and passed down
by our ancestors.
Nobody knows evolution better than Dr. Richard Dawkins, and his take
on the evolution of the "gay gene" is fascinating, elegant, and quite
clever. Bear in mind, the language used in this interview may not be
safe for work.
sciencecara at huffingtonpost.com
scien...@huffingtonpost.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/06/dawkins-evolution-homosexuality_n_1078714.html
0 new messages