Darwin's theory

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

It's a common mutation, to use an unfortunate word.

Mutation is the driving force of ALL evolution.

Red Nissan

Like of it like Apple.

They make an iPod.

They make a better iPod.

They make a better iPod.

They make an iPhone including an iPod.

They make a better iPhone including a better iPod.

They make a bigger iPhone and call it an iPad including an iPod.

GreeBo

Turtwig wrote: »

Or there's a trade off in play. It's not about survival; it's about survival to reproduce and then it's only still a probability distribution. All sorts of traits can carry benefits and risks. Some, far more obvious and clear cut than others.

Agreed, but you can't reproduce if you don't survive.
Survival to reproduce by being gay doesn't seem to make logical sense, to me anyway.

It's probably, but the whole point is that more of the survivors have the good traits, that's why they survive, that's what makes it a good trait.

GreeBo

smcgiff wrote: »

Mutation is the driving force of ALL evolution.

Beneficial mutation is, mutation that's not beneficial is an evolutionary dead end.
Perhaps someone needs to bone up on evolutionary theory?

Cianmcliam

smcgiff wrote: »

Mutation is the driving force of ALL evolution.

But only if it can spread itself! How could a gene that actively disrupts the procreation of the individual spread through a population? If anything it should bounce back the other way, ie. people who are gay but can tolerate hetero relationships pass on their 'toleration' genes until selection brings their descendants eventually back to heterosexuality.

GreeBo

smcgiff wrote: »

Remind us again. What point are you trying to make?

That just because some things survive between generations doesn't make them useful.
You said "yet here they are" regarding homosexuals as if that implied it was a useful trait, we all have appendix, so you think that's an evolutionary trait that's useful?

Roger Hassenforder

GreeBo wrote: »

Because how does a population pass on "some" people are gay for the good of the population? A hive with a single queen could as queens who have some gay offspring would likely have an offspring who also had some gay offspring, all assuming it's a trait that can be passed on.

Things survive between generations because it's useful, more of those with the useful trait survive.
I don't see how some being gay can be passed on?

homosexuality might confer some advantage for a gene. the theory of sexual antagonsim is gaining traction: male homosexuality is more common in males belonging to the maternal line of male homosexuals and females in this line are more fertile than average (i.e.have more babies). if it makes the female carrier more attractive to males, it will have an obvious advantage for females, although male carriers would become homosexual. here as well

Roger Hassenforder

Cianmcliam wrote: »

How could a gene that actively disrupts the procreation of the individual spread through a population?

what if it enhances the genes chances of being reproduced in a population of individuals?
genes are very selfish.
or so they say.

aidoh

GreeBo wrote: »

They don't necessarily do anything to increase the organisms chances of surviving and processing, which is the point of all organisms.
Yet, they exist.

Biologist gonna chime in here.
Organisms don't have a point,first of all.

Secondly, being gay doesn't increase or decrease your chances of 'processing' - I don't know a percentage but an awful lot of gay men certainly seem to get married and have kids before coming out as openly gay. So that's their 'processing' done anyway.
Does it mean they've passed on a 'gay gene' to their kids?
Maybe but probably not.
Homosexuality (or 'same-sex sexual behaviour' as it's referred to in most scientific publications on the topic) occurs in a plethora of animal species. Sometimes it's genetic (look up examples of 'gay' Drosophila). Sometimes it's environmental (look up examples of 'gay' rats).

In humans, the preference for one sex over the other seems to be plastic meaning that, given the right 'gene' or some other heritable component, as well as possibly the right social environment, 'gayness' can be expressed in an individuals behaviour, which totally makes sense in terms of human evolution.

Knasher

GreeBo wrote: »

Things survive between generations because it's useful, more of those with the useful trait survive.
I don't see how some being gay can be passed on?

Traits aren't passed on, genes are. And some combinations of those genes are predictive of different traits. For example, there are 15 different genes involved in eye colour, some of those genes are also involved in skin and hair colour, and are more broadly linked with things like albinism. You may inherit some of these genes from your mother, and some from your father. The same thing can happen across the way chromosomes join, predicting different things. Nobody knows how many genes are involved in human sexuality, or what other human traits these genes might also be linked to. Given all that, it is a massive generalisation to say that traits that reduce reproduction will be simply selected against, the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that.

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

Survival to reproduce by being gay doesn't seem to make logical sense, to me anyway.

I'm going to give an example as to how I can see having a homosexual Uncle/Aunt could have evolutionary benefit.

Say there are two brothers (sharing the same parents). Let's say John and James. John is gay. James is straight, marries and has a son Jerry.

John adores Jerry and looks after him (keeping all the nasty dinosaurs away). Jerry now has both John and James looking after him instead of just James.

Jerry carries half of the DNA that John has. That half of the DNA might include genes that orientate towards being gay, therefore passing on gayness.

Meanwhile Josh and Justin are both straight, Justin has a kid, but Josh is too busy minding his own child and Justin wasn't able to fight off the T Rex on his own and his offspring (and genes died out).

mad muffin

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Because Battlestar Galactica.

Cianmcliam

smcgiff wrote: »

I'm going to give an example as to how I can see having a homosexual Uncle/Aunt could have evolutionary benefit.

Say there are two brothers (sharing the same parents). Let's say John and James. John is gay. James is straight, marries and has a son Jerry.

John adores Jerry and looks after him (keeping all the nasty dinosaurs away). Jerry now has both John and James looking after him instead of just James.

Jerry carries half of the DNA that John has. That half of the DNA might include genes that orientate towards being gay, therefore passing on gayness.

Meanwhile Josh and Justin are both straight, Justin has a kid, but Josh is too busy minding his own child and Justin wasn't able to fight off the T Rex on his own and his offspring (and genes died out).

There was a study on this in an evolutionary psychology journal a few years ago, the results were negative, gay relatives don't on average invest more in the children of their brothers and sisters.

Cianmcliam

Knasher wrote: »

Traits aren't passed on, genes are. And some combinations of those genes are predictive of different traits. For example, there are 15 different genes involved in eye colour, some of those genes are also involved in skin and hair colour, and are more broadly linked with things like albinism. You may inherit some of these genes from your mother, and some from your father. The same thing can happen across the way chromosomes join, predicting different things. Nobody knows how many genes are involved in human sexuality, or what other human traits these genes might also be linked to. Given all that, it is a massive generalisation to say that traits that reduce reproduction will be simply selected against, the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that.

True, however there has been a much higher selection pressure on males than females as they were more likely to die childless in wars etc. and many populations featured polygyny so that few male lines had great representation in following generations.

Roger Hassenforder

smcgiff wrote: »

I'm going to give an example as to how I can see having a homosexual Uncle/Aunt could have evolutionary benefit.

Say there are two brothers (sharing the same parents). Let's say John and James. John is gay. James is straight, marries and has a son Jerry.

John adores Jerry and looks after him (keeping all the nasty dinosaurs away). Jerry now has both John and James looking after him instead of just James.

Jerry carries half of the DNA that John has. That half of the DNA might include genes that orientate towards being gay, therefore passing on gayness.

Meanwhile Josh and Justin are both straight, Justin has a kid, but Josh is too busy minding his own child and Justin wasn't able to fight off the T Rex on his own and his offspring (and genes died out).

the creationists are loving this metaphor!
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1175610/thumbs/o-CREATION-MUSEUM-ZIP-LINES-facebook.jpg

GreeBo

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

homosexuality might confer some advantage for a gene. the theory of sexual antagonsim is gaining traction: male homosexuality is more common in males belonging to the maternal line of male homosexuals and females in this line are more fertile than average (i.e.have more babies). if it makes the female carrier more attractive to males, it will have an obvious advantage for females, although male carriers would become homosexual. here as well

Does that article also imply that the more fertile a mother the greater the chance of her male offspring being gay?

I'm scanning it on my phone so might be misinterpreting it.

smcgiff

Cianmcliam wrote: »

There was a study on this in an evolutionary psychology journal a few years ago, the results were negative, gay relatives don't on average invest more in the children of their brothers and sisters.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

This BBC article is from this year - In particular read about the Samoan studies.

smcgiff

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

the creationists are loving this metaphor!
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1175610/thumbs/o-CREATION-MUSEUM-ZIP-LINES-facebook.jpg

Hah! I was waiting for that, but it being AH I thought I'd throw in some humor

Swan Curry

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

GreeBo

aidoh wrote: »

Biologist gonna chime in here.
Organisms don't have a point,first of all.

Secondly, being gay doesn't increase or decrease your chances of 'processing' - I don't know a percentage but an awful lot of gay men certainly seem to get married and have kids before coming out as openly gay. So that's their 'processing' done anyway.
Does it mean they've passed on a 'gay gene' to their kids?
Maybe but probably not.
Homosexuality (or 'same-sex sexual behaviour' as it's referred to in most scientific publications on the topic) occurs in a plethora of animal species. Sometimes it's genetic (look up examples of 'gay' Drosophila). Sometimes it's environmental (look up examples of 'gay' rats).

So you disagree that the point or purpose of an organism is to procreate?

I strongly disagree that being gay doesn't decrease your chances of procreating.
You state yourself that some gay people get married and some of them may even have children.
I'd wager those odds are less than the odds of straight people procreating.

Roger Hassenforder

GreeBo wrote: »

Does that article also imply that the more fertile a mother the greater the chance of her male offspring being gay?

I'm scanning it on my phone so might be misinterpreting it.

not sure either, i think so. the last paragraph is a bit vague. Very early days yet though, and sample size was small. And Italian only IIRC.
one to keep an eye on though.

Knasher

Swan Curry wrote: »

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

I have.

Cianmcliam

smcgiff wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

This BBC article is from this year - In particular read about the Samoan studies.

It's interesting but it hasn't been replicated in any other population. Samoa also has a very strong warrior culture, such that it may have made sense for some men to be kept back from the warrior culture (the 'third gender' only being a superficial pretext) so small groups were not drained of men through wars of attrition.

Red Nissan

Generally it's about opportunity.

What was to become man was a tiny shrew living in a world dominated by giant beasts who ruled the world for some 300 million years during a climatic period that suited them.

If they had not developed when they did, man, man that spawned on Earth at least, could have spawned many millions of years ago.

Evolution goes in stages of opportunity, it never stops but dominant species often kill off rivals and potential equals.

When the climate on this planet no longer suits us, something else will come along, perhaps the dinosaurs will rule again in the future.

GreeBo

Knasher wrote: »

Traits aren't passed on, genes are. And some combinations of those genes are predictive of different traits. For example, there are 15 different genes involved in eye colour, some of those genes are also involved in skin and hair colour, and are more broadly linked with things like albinism. You may inherit some of these genes from your mother, and some from your father. The same thing can happen across the way chromosomes join, predicting different things. Nobody knows how many genes are involved in human sexuality, or what other human traits these genes might also be linked to. Given all that, it is a massive generalisation to say that traits that reduce reproduction will be simply selected against, the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that.

I don't disagree, but passing on genes results in traits or some parts of traits being passed on.

I didn't say they will be selected against, I said that things are passed on by procreation, if you don't procreate how are they passed on?

Sure you can have kids if you are gay, but I don't think your genes are relying on you having asexual reproduction.

smcgiff

Cianmcliam wrote: »

It's interesting but it hasn't been replicated in any other population. Samoa also has a very strong warrior culture, such that it may have made sense for some men to be kept back from the warrior culture (the 'third gender' only being a superficial pretext) so small groups were not drained of men through wars of attrition.

You said it, the Samoa culture is more warrior like, so has most of our cultures for most of our evolution. Evolution takes a long time. Maybe it's less important now, but it would take a very long time to filter out.

Edgarfrndly

endacl wrote: »

Welcome. I admire your intent, but be warned, you may end up tearing your hair out. The question has been addressed many times in many ways by many posters, to no avail. Check out the 'Origin of Specious Nonsense' thread for a lesson in futility.

I contributed about 100 posts to that thread. I'm all too familiar with it

-dlofnep

GreeBo

smcgiff wrote: »

I'm going to give an example as to how I can see having a homosexual Uncle/Aunt could have evolutionary benefit.

Say there are two brothers (sharing the same parents). Let's say John and James. John is gay. James is straight, marries and has a son Jerry.

John adores Jerry and looks after him (keeping all the nasty dinosaurs away). Jerry now has both John and James looking after him instead of just James.

Jerry carries half of the DNA that John has. That half of the DNA might include genes that orientate towards being gay, therefore passing on gayness.

Meanwhile Josh and Justin are both straight, Justin has a kid, but Josh is too busy minding his own child and Justin wasn't able to fight off the T Rex on his own and his offspring (and genes died out).

I get the example and how it can be beneficial, I just have a problem accepting the mothers genes resulting in "some" gay kids.
The probabilities will be that at some generation the mother will have no straight kids.
I don't think the benefits of having an extra minder outweigh the drawbacks to having less chances of one offspring going on to have their own kids.

GreeBo

smcgiff wrote: »

You said it, the Samoa culture is more warrior like, so has most of our cultures for most of our evolution. Evolution takes a long time. Maybe it's less important now, but it would take a very long time to filter out.

Doesn't that argument also mean that being the gay minding uncle is also no longer required and will be filtered out?

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

The probabilities will be that at some generation the mother will have no straight kids.

It's probable that the 'gay gene(s)' that contribute to a gay trait are recessive.

So, even if two parents had recessive gay genes (but be straight themselves), then there would be an approximate chance of 1 in 16 of having a gay child.

To be clear, if someone has gay genes they themselves would not necessarily be gay. That's important to understand how gay genes can transfer to the next generation.