Would this "unproductive genetic trait" be in the same line as heart disease?
homosexuality
by MataM 46 Replies latest members adult
-
-
NewChapter
It is not a favorable gentic trait for reproduction----------but many genetic traits are not favorable to reproduction, they survive. Some are even quite neutral, not good or bad for reproduction. Whether a trait is relevant to reproduction or not is not the scale for determining birth defects. A birth defect will hurt the health and long term survival of the afflicted. This is not true of homosexuality. It does not affect the health--it does not affect the survival of the individual.
How about a trait that does not affect reproduction, but affects health and survival? Is that preferable? Heart disease has genetic origins, but people will often reproduce before they are affected by it, so they are reproductively successful in spite of a trait that works against life. Yet we don't call heart disease a birth defect.
What if a genetic trait that makes individuals incredibly fertile, also kills them at age 40? They will be reproductively successful, have more children that survive, and eventually outnumber the less fertile but longer living individuals. Would we call that a favorable gene?
NC
-
PSacramento
Perhaps, it's hard to know for sure how the scientific community would see it and how much being "politically correct" would effect their statement on it.
Personally I would hope that it would just be viewed as a genetic trait that drives sexual urges to be towards the same sex and they would leave it at that, but I doubt it.
While sexual urges are always "news worthy", in the grand unfolding of life I think the issues of love and companionship are far more important.
I know a lovely lesbian couple that have two kids from artifical insemination and they love those little ones like mad and they love each other like mad.
How those kids will grow up to be is anyone's quess, but they won't be lacking love.
So while homosexuality MAY be a "genetic anomaly", it doesn't effect ones capacity to love and that is far more important I think.
-
NewChapter
Science, as an institution, will take a more neutral view of the findings. Rather than saying bad trait etc, they will simply look at the context and how this gene influences the area. In regard to differential fittness and reproductive success, it will rate low, in regard to survival of the indivdual, it probably doesn't affect it, in regard to natural selection, it may be a zero, in regard to being a trait that is genetic and passed on, it can continue to be passed even if some phenotypes are homosexual, the trait can be carried indefitinitely by heterosexuals.
NC
-
Quendi
I've enjoyed reading these posts and the exchanges taking place here. All of it made for very interesting reading.
Quendi
-
glenster
If anything seems like it could wipe us out and stop evolution, it's over-
population and related pollution, not homosexuality. It's not due to a birth
defect any more than single childless people are sociopaths.****
Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is biological-
ly determined, not chosen, cannot be changed, that prejudice and discrimination
against homosexual and bisexual people causes psychological harm, and that homo-
sexuality is not a mental disorder and is not in itself a source of negative
psychological effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomosexualityScienceDaily (Sep. 29, 2011) — Although sharply divided, public attitudes
toward gays and lesbians are rapidly changing to reflect greater acceptance,
with younger generations leading the way, research by NORC at the University of
Chicago shows.In addition to a plurality who now approve of same-sex marriage, Americans
overwhelmingly support basic civil liberties and freedom of expression for gays
and lesbians, in contrast to sharp division on such issues in the 1970s. Taken
together, the results show a clear "trend toward greater tolerance regarding
homosexuality," said Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey at
NORC and author of the NORC report, "Public Attitudes toward Homosexuality."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110928125403.htmEvolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality
There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual
behaviour, which is common in many species of animals"Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how
would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits
predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?"Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong.
Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to
penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other
animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic
development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants
linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this
is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it
became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries,
many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional
societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.Reasons why
Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in
some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to
male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive
success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better
chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the
opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response
to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs
raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female
pair.Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it
benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual
behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion.
One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews,
suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in
the bodies of others).For your health
Or perhaps homosexuality is neutral, neither reducing nor boosting overall
fitness. Attempts to find an adaptive explanation for homosexual behaviour in
macaques have failed, leading to suggestions that they do it purely for
pleasure.Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume,
there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene
variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects
such as boosting fertility in women, as one recent study suggests, just as the
gene variant for sickle-cell anaemia is maintained because it reduces the
severity of malaria. Homosexuality could also be a result of females preferring
males with certain tendencies - sexual selection can favour traits that reduce
overall fitness, such as the peacock's tail (see Evolution always increases
fitness).Given that, until recently, homosexual behaviour in animals was ignored or
even denied, it's hardly surprising that we cannot yet say for sure which of
these explanations is correct. It could well turn out that different explana-
tions are true in different species.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.htmlAlso see "The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Natural Selection and
Evolution, with a Key to Many Complicating Factors"
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/06/21/the-intelligent-homosexuals-guide-to-natural-selection-and-evolution-with-a-key-to-many-complicating-factors/ -
MataM
Pretty sure evolution goes along the lines of, the greater the chance of survival the more likely DNA is to passed on and thus predominant aspects of the genome take precedence over other aspects and these attributes thus then get passed on as the more people looking after smaller amount of children == Greater chance of survival and those attributes which lead to their children’s survival will be in their DNA kind of like a gene pool and I'm pretty sure its not the pope wearing jeans and pissing himself.