Homosexuality as an evolutionary adaptation

mountainyman

Perhaps the reason that homosexuality exists is as an evolutionary adaptation from the days when we lived in small and related groups.

By crearing a small number (4 or 5 say) adults in the tribe who did not have children of their own the survival of the tribe as a whole was improved. This was because there was a population of men who would have surplus meat foods to share with their cousins children, their friends children and so on.

If this is true are gay marriage and adoption not in fact betrayals of the purpose of homosexuality? Rather than seeking families of their own homosexuals should seek to help the broader community as this is LITERALLY their function in the species.

MM

Galvasean

Can't say i agree with you there. Having males who don't actively try to reproduce ever in a small tribe would limit said tribes gene pool, which could prove quite detrimental to the tribe in the long run.

Reflector

Hi Montainyman,
yes I am aware of this theory and I have to say that I am in agreement with the theory anyway. Yes I would say that homosexuality is an evolutionary thing that has allowed to persist as it had helped the species to propagate. Also another theory is that a younger son in a family is more likely to be gay as the womb knows how many male offspring has been produced and the chances of successive male babies being gay is greater. this would tie in to your theory.
I don't however agree that gay men should be happy to be childless. We dont live in small hunter gatherer communities and although gay people might be have an attraction to the same sex does not mean they don't have a biological urge to procreate. So in a way because modern society has progressed to a level where gay people no longer have that role they should be allowed to adopt as to provide care and support to children whose parents have been unable to do so, if they so wish and are suitable.

Rev Hellfire

Must say I'm in agreement with Galvasean on this one.
It seems like a theory wedged in to make homosexuality somehow 'scientifically' more acceptable. Surely people can accept homosexuality without the need to find new ways to justify it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

For this to work the gay men or women would have to cause their siblings to have twice as many siblings as normal as their nephews nieces share 25% of their genes rather than 50% their sons/daughters. Or their cousins to have four times as many children. Seems a bit too much of a stretch to ,e.

I think it's more likely that the gay leaning/bi members might have had similar responsibilites in the tribe as women, meaning more time alone with women to develop relationships etc. And possibly the odd drunken ride. Their methods of contraception were probably less reliable than something the Catholic church would provide. Lesbianism is also rather easy to explain as a gay female couple could just ask someone for sperm in return for sex.

By crearing a small number (4 or 5 say) adults in the tribe who did not have children of their own the survival of the tribe as a whole was improved. This was because there was a population of men who would have surplus meat foods to share with their cousins children, their friends children and so on.

If this is true are gay marriage and adoption not in fact betrayals of the purpose of homosexuality? Rather than seeking families of their own homosexuals should seek to help the broader community as this is LITERALLY their function in the species.

Evolution is down to the individual/closely related family members, not a tribal group. That second part is sheer nonsense. There is no "literal" function of any species it's just what happened.

Are you suggesting Heteros should stop getting married, create tribes and hunt wild animals, because that's is LITERALLY their function in the species?

Reflector

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Must say I'm in agreement with Galvasean on this one.
It seems like a theory wedged in to make homosexuality somehow 'scientifically' more acceptable. Surely people can accept homosexuality without the need to find new ways to justify it.

Well it's interesting and I think it's normal to ask why. I'm a firm believer that homosexuality is a natural phenomenom and it has developed in humans for a reason. I don't think any one theory would hit the nail on the head.
Also as a specied we can only be described as bisexual. homosexuality comes in many forms and many men sleep with men exclusively or women exclusively and then varying degrees in between that. I would say that for humanity to become a successful species an ability for same sex individuals to tolerate eachother was needed. this manifests itself in the ability of humans to love eachother regardless of gender. now love does not always involve a sexual relationship many men "love" their male friends although this word is usually not used until many many drinks are necked.
This human trait has caused this spectrum of sexuality to emerge which is infinite as everyone responds differently sexually.
Dolphins also tolerate male companionship and have displayed homosexual tendencies in the wild.

mountainyman

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think it's more likely that the gay leaning/bi members might have had similar responsibilites in the tribe as women, meaning more time alone with women to develop relationships etc. And possibly the odd drunken ride. Their methods of contraception were probably less reliable than something the Catholic church would provide. Lesbianism is also rather easy to explain as a gay female couple could just ask someone for sperm in return for sex.



Evolution is down to the individual/closely related family members, not a tribal group. That second part is sheer nonsense. There is no "literal" function of any species it's just what happened.

Are you suggesting Heteros should stop getting married, create tribes and hunt wild animals, because that's is LITERALLY their function in the species?

Maybe we would all be better off if we all did live in tribes. Tribal groups would have been very closely related anyway.

OK Just a thought.

mountainyman

Galvasean wrote: »

Can't say i agree with you there. Having males who don't actively try to reproduce ever in a small tribe would limit said tribes gene pool, which could prove quite detrimental to the tribe in the long run.

But if you are all brothers and sisters or cousins the gene [pool] would be limited anyway. Just a thought not trying to cause offense.

Rev Hellfire

Reflector wrote: »

Well it's interesting and I think it's normal to ask why. I'm a firm believer that homosexuality is a natural phenomenom and it has developed in humans for a reason. I don't think any one theory would hit the nail on the head.

Absolutely and I'd totally agree with you that it is an observable phenomena within nature.
But there is no reason to believe that its cause is any more 'special' within the human population than among other mammals. Its simply an aberration, which is fine.

The human population has many defects such as short sightedness, but we don't go around attempting to claim that there's a evolutionary reason behind it that allowed people to read books close up for longer

These theories seem to me to pop up to justify something which if we're honest doesn't need justifying.

azezil

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Absolutely and I'd totally agree with you that it is an observable phenomena within nature.
But there is no reason to believe that its cause is any more 'special' within the human population than among other mammals. Its simply an aberration, which is fine.

The human population has many defects such as short sightedness, but we don't go around attempting to claim that there's a evolutionary reason behind it that allowed people to read books close up for longer

These theories seem to me to pop up to justify something which if we're honest doesn't need justifying.

So you believe homosexuality is a mistake, a genetic defect?

hot2def

mountainyman wrote: »

If this is true are gay marriage and adoption not in fact betrayals of the purpose of homosexuality? Rather than seeking families of their own homosexuals should seek to help the broader community as this is LITERALLY their function in the species.

MM

so, following this, its wrong for women not to have as many children as possible in their lifetime, as this is LITERALLY their function in the species?

and while we're at it, we should stop lengthening the lives of older people, since they are a burden on society, plus weaker children should be allowed to to die in that case...

Rev Hellfire

azezil wrote: »

So you believe homosexuality is a mistake, a genetic defect?

I wouldn't use the word mistake, more an aberration. As for it been a genetic one or a psychological I suspect it can be both.

That's not to say its morally wrong though, morals don't come into it.

So I guess the answer to your question is yes, it is a mistake in the strict sense of the word.

qwertyphobia

There is some evidence to show that the female siblings of gay men are more fertile and have more kids. This could easily cause homosexuality to survive through the generations. In this case the genes effect that cause it's survial has nothing to do with homosexuality that is just a side effect in evoluationary terms.

Heres one link but there is a better article in New scientist just can't find it on the web at the moment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

Aard

Recently I've been thinking that homosexuality may have developed as a response to overpopulation. With ~8% of the population not reproducing, there are enough resourses to go round for everybody. I guess this is in line with the OP's thinking. So yes, I do believe that homosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Aard wrote: »

Recently I've been thinking that homosexuality may have developed as a response to overpopulation. With ~8% of the population not reproducing, there are enough resourses to go round for everybody. I guess this is in line with the OP's thinking. So yes, I do believe that homosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation.

No, evolution works for the individual, never a group. Richard dawkins has a book "The Selfish Gene" based on this.

Bottle_of_Smoke

azezil wrote: »

So you believe homosexuality is a mistake, a genetic defect?

It's illogical to describe anything in evolution as a mistake. It's really more a description of how life came to be.

Genetic defects generally refer to something that causes an illness/condition. I don't think a sexuality can be described in that manner

unreggd

sexual attraction is there as a push for human reproduction

I think homosexual people have the wrong "attraction bit"

So IMO its a biological defect, but that doesnt mean its morally/socially/politically etc wrong

LegacyUser

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No, evolution works for the individual, never a group. Richard dawkins has a book "The Selfish Gene" based on this.

Just 'cause Dawkins says it is so doesn't make it so.
Anyway my point is the the homosexuality gene is beneficial genes within the host organism because the homosexual will provide food and probably high value meat food to the children of his extended family which will make them more likely to reproduce. And thus to perpetuate his genes.

Also having an adult without his own biological children makes it possible for him to step into the breach as provider.

This seems to contradict my original assertion. Perhaps gays should now be FORCED to adopt as this it seems is their biological role.

Does a consideration of homosexuality as an evolutionary adaptation lead us to
A Gays must not be allowed to adopt children
or
B Gays must be forbidden to adopt children

?

MM

Reflector

unreggd wrote: »

sexual attraction is there as a push for human reproduction

I think homosexual people have the wrong "attraction bit"

So IMO its a biological defect, but that doesnt mean its morally/socially/politically etc wrong

There may be trouble ahead, but I agree but feel that you have over simplified. it's not good for my genetic individuality to be passed on to the next generation to be a gay man. But that would be more true if we were mindless savages just bent on reproduction with no other function in life (Coppers on a Saturday Night).

unreggd

Indeed, but why cant it be simple?

We're a species, and a species has all these things set in to keep itself goin without us noticing

and its not just down to genetics, it could be hormonal, a random tiny bodypart still not discovered, theres LOADS of possibilities

anyways this is all MY OPINION, so no decapitations please

Reku

unreggd wrote: »

Indeed, but why cant it be simple?

We're a species, and a species has all these things set in to keep itself goin without us noticing

and its not just down to genetics, it could be hormonal, a random tiny bodypart still not discovered, theres LOADS to consider

anyways this is all MY OPINION, so no decapitations please

Could even be down to events in life, if we date a blonde and the relationship goes well might we not learn to find blondes more attractive? So if someone has good times with those of the same gender and bad with those of the opposite gender it is perhaps possible that homosexuality could be a learned trait during the stage of life before we really develop sexually (anyone who try to advocate twisting this about to try "reprogramme" peoples' sexuality should be shot IMO), or even later (as per happily married straight people who decide that they are in fact gay).
Too many possibilities that are not mutually exclusive to ever know and if we did find out there'd always be some twit spouting that it's sinful and we should use this knowledge to stop it.:(

Don't normally come to this part of the forums but this thread caught my eye on the main page;
it is something I've pondered over, what evolutionary purpose might homosexuality serve...
is it a throwback to single sexed organisms we evolved from?
is it just something that happens, nothing to do with evolution?
is it preparing for the return to single sexed organisms (the y-chromosome is supposed to be shrinking, with the expected outcome of it disappearing completely)?
is it an attempt at population control, since it reduces the reproductive drive of the population on the whole?
etc....
soooo many possibile reasons, some being for mankind's betterment, others not so much...
Perhaps just not our place to know.

Bottle_of_Smoke

farohar wrote: »

Don't normally come to this part of the forums but this thread caught my eye on the main page;
it is something I've pondered over, what evolutionary purpose might homosexuality serve...
is it a throwback to single sexed organisms we evolved from? I wouldn't think so, doubt they wouldn't have had a need for sexual attraction
is it just something that happens, nothing to do with evolution?pretty much everything has to do with evolution
is it preparing for the return to single sexed organisms (the y-chromosome is supposed to be shrinking, with the expected outcome of it disappearing completely)?No, evolution doesn't think. And if the y-chromosone did shrink there'd be no need for sexual attraction.
is it an attempt at population control, since it reduces the reproductive drive of the population on the whole?Certainly not, as I said, evolution doesn't think. And it works on the basis of individuals.
etc....
soooo many possibile reasons, some being for mankind's betterment, others not so much...
Perhaps just not our place to know.

/

Puteq

mountainyman wrote: »

Rather than seeking families of their own homosexuals should seek to help the broader community as this is LITERALLY their function in the species.

MM

There are a few people who seem to not understand evolution on this thread, though i'm going to single you out OP since you started this thread.

Evolution is the process by which we came to be as we are, so in examining it we can derive from it an explanation for our behaviour, biological makup, etc. This is NOT to say that we should examine it, derive explanations for how average behaviour came about, and then try to confirm to that! that would make no sense, understanding evolution simply helps us know why we came to be how we are, evolution is not some kind of map for how we should act. Homosexuality may be explained by evolution, but evolution does not in any way outline how homosexuals should act.

Also, anyone who identifies homosexuality as a 'defect' (even if they are speaking strictly from an evolutionary perspective and not in any offensive way) may be technically correct, however by that retionale as another poster pointed out, then looking after the old, the sick, the poor, looking after others less fortunate is a defect as well...

LegacyUser

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It's illogical to describe anything in evolution as a mistake. It's really more a description of how life came to be.

Nonsense.

The fundamental mechanism of evolution are the random mutations, or mistakes, which o in the copying and transmission of gene sequences during reproduction. These mutations (or mistakes) when advantageous, in that they increase the organism's ability to procreate, then persist. It can therefore be stated that everything in terms of the progress of evolution can be seen as a mistake, it's just that some mistakes were more advantageous than others and hence are now not seen as "mistakes" at all.

who is this

mountainyman wrote: »

If this is true are gay marriage and adoption not in fact betrayals of the purpose of homosexuality? Rather than seeking families of their own homosexuals should seek to help the broader community as this is LITERALLY their function in the species.

Yes because people are robots and don't have free will or desires of their own. Those that do should be decommissioned and recycled so as to make better use of their component parts.

Those homos are running amok, I say!


And your quite right that it is a betrayal. Sure, nature intended us to reproduce as much regardless of who with. Married people (generally) don't.

Nature also intended us to evolve through survival of the fittest: a child whose parents die of disease would rightfully likely die in the wild thus removing weakness against such diseases from the gene pool. Not so with that pesky adoption system!

So feel free to advocate the abolition of marriage and adoption in general, since they are not things nature intended. But if we have opposite-sex marriage, why not same-sex?