Evolution and Homosexuality

File: 6741405b-cf19-42e5-a29e-38def4530d11.jpg (20KB, 271x271px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 271x271px

>>7250465

Evolution is not intelligent design. It's just a series of accidents. Homosexuality is probably one of those accidents. Thankfully humans no longer rely on survival of the fittest to survive so a potentially bad accident like homosexuality or autism won't be weened out by survival of the fittest.
Of course, I have no specific evidence to back this up, it's just my theory.
This video gives an explanation of how evolution is crappy and kind of illustrates my point. https://youtu.be/P1Y9tG48Vos

For evolution (or anything really) to be able to explain homosexuality, we must first get an understanding of what it is.

>>7250553
Homosexuality is a trait found in many species.

Homosexuality has a need to survive inside a population in my opinion.

Could be the non essential byproduct and that is technically your point...

>>7250664
Homosexuality: sex with animals of the same specie of the same sex...

It's not that hard to define.

>>7250926
>It's not that hard to define.
Is that why you didn't answer the question?

Still haven't told me what it is.

>>7250553
if it's an accident, why does it feel so much better than heterosex ?

>>7250977
Still haven't told me what it is.

Homosexuality: sex with animals of the same specie of the same sex.
> here it is defined for you kind man... this will get a little akward cause I said it in this >>7250926 post

>>7251041
I can agree that a girl might have more talent than a guy in eating out

but anal sex, at least at first and in humans is pretty hurtful, moreover was used as a submission technique in antique Rome, and is used in the same way in lions.

>>7251228
>Homosexuality: sex with animals of the same specie of the same sex.
Not only is that wrong since bisexuals and drunk straight people exist, you also only told me what it looks like, not what it is.

Non-breeding males are a benefit to a family unit and better the chances of family offspring surviving. For 99.9% of human history women have been largely useless. They had a go being useful a few decades back but went back to being useless. Men are needed to hunt, grow food, protect women, etc.a non-breeding male would provide these services and increase the likelihood of female survival without fighting with the alpha breeding male.

Imagine if you had an alpha male and he had 10 breeding females. Males from elsewhere would try and usurp the male and breed with those females. A non-breeding male doubles the protection of those females without competing with the alpha.

Basically gay men evolved to be slaves for straight males. We should serve straight males and be a source for them to release their sexual tension while their women are with child.

>>7251374
But in ancient sparta the ruling class (citizen soldiers) were gay with each other, while the helots (slaves) did the work

>>7251316
>Homosexuality: sex with animals of the same specie of the same sex.

namely the act of copulation without any possible reproductive outcome, and here is where biology fails to explain it.

because that energy expenditure invested in that act is not really entering in the equation

Fitness = Reproduction x Survival

if you want a more wide and completely unrelated definition of what homosexuality is probably you should read the gender theories of Kinsey.

>>7251391
Greek had an other position on homosexuality.
Please expand on it if you know more.

>>7251391
You are thinking way too recently. I am talking about prehistory, when we were still evolving.

>>7251420
>and here is where biology fails to explain it.
Oh not at all.
With Bonobo's we have a very good biological explanation why they have so much "useless not reproductive" sex.
because it creates and supports bonds between group members.
Which actually means it's anything but useless.

But what it is you haven't told yet.
Because people don't know what exactly it is.
They don't know where to look for it, and thus they can't asnwer why it's there.

Which is why evolution or anything else for that matter cannot explain the existence of homosexuality.

>>7251420
This does not play into the social aspect of sex. Alpha wolves fuck beta wolves to show dominance. Young male dolphins fuck each other to build bonds.

>>7251473
>because it creates and supports bonds between group members.
That's what I asked tho...
who said that?

> Which is why evolution or anything else for that matter cannot explain the existence of homosexuality.

No there must be theories that at least try to explain it

higher group bonding, higher survival chance as a group, is a pretty good explanation.

> is there discrimination in bonobos and exclusion of the homosexual component (to simplify let's exclude bisexuals)?

>>7251516
>No there must be theories that at least try to explain it
All we have are some nature/nurture debates, with the ocasional tinfoil tocoplasma gondii coming along, but that's where it ends.

We have no idea what causes homosexual behavior in some and not in others.
We don't know what to look for, we don't know where to look for it, and without these answers we cannot explain the existence of homosexuality.

>>7250465
Nature is self correcting. As overpopulation becomes an issue, homosexual ism begins. As it sets in, bisexualism begins. As it takes over, pansexualism begins. Dont believe me? Reread this in 2021.

>>7251374
Everething makes sense but you're not giving me sources.

> Non-breeding males are a benefit to a family unit and better the chances of family offspring surviving.
This is ok, it fits perfectly

>r 99.9% of human history women have been largely useless
This is surely a blunder.

>Imagine if you had an alpha male and he had 10 breeding females.
Here is where theory fails brutally.
Humans are majorly Monogamous.

>>7251550
> We have no idea what causes homosexual behavior in some and not in others.
Again I'd love sources.

I'm sure that mathematical models can be done to explain at least why it would have a persistence in the human specie, and is pretty obvious why is condemned to be minoritary.

>>7251562
Calhoun experiments are not significative in any sense.

Since the mouse/human overcrowding is not comparable.

File: 1477641118726.jpg (444KB, 2146x1426px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 2146x1426px

>>7250465
One thing that people fail to understand is that homosexuals who want children will find a way to have them. In the past, being homosexual has only been mildly against evolution, because gay men would have relations with women and have sex with men behind thier backs. Today, gay couples with those men who want children, and previously would have had them with a woman, tend to adopt. So if there are genetic predispositions to homosexuality (I believe it's a combination of predisposition and early experiences that shape sexuality.) then currently homosexual traits are being systematically destroyed through an accepting culture and too many undeserving people who make children and put them up for adoption and gays taking the should be abortions into thier own homes.

Having sex behind someones back requires cunning and being emotionally manipulative to certain people. Strong traits for "survival of the fittest" especially in capitalist society.

>I'm going to get a surrogate and pass on my superior homosexual genes.
If i wasn't confident in my ability to become successful enough to achive a level of wealth and comfort i would fuck women for my biological children.

>>7251611
>Again I'd love sources.
There aren't any, which is the point.
All we have are a bunch of studies with twins that show that there's a certain likelyhood that if one twin is homosexual the other might be too, some brain scans that show that certain parts of the homosexual brain show some slight similarity to straight female brains, some theories about brothers hormones and the womb, and some about toxoplasma gondii.

That's it.
if there were an answer it'd be in the news everywhere, aln with the unavoidable debate of whether aborting potentially gay babies would be the morally right thing to do.

>I'm sure that mathematical models can be done to explain at least why it would have a persistence in the human specie, and is pretty obvious why is condemned to be minoritary.
Hardy-Weinberg is one, which requires quite a lot of assumptions to make it work.

>>7251701
I'm sure you're a pretty qualified biologist but:
> bunch of studies with twins that show that there's a certain likelyhood that if one twin is homosexual
gimme source

>some brain scans that show that certain parts of the homosexual brain show some slight similarity to straight female brains
gimme source

>some theories about brothers hormones and the womb
gimme source

>about toxoplasma gondii.
gimme source

So there are sources that tackle the problem

> Hardy-Weinberg is one
The equilibrium of Hardy-Weinberg is a tool to explain gene stability and frequencies.
Has nothing to do with homosexuality

>Hardy-Weinberg is one, which requires quite a lot of assumptions to make it work.
This sentence is thus void

>>7251685
You just made a big soup.
No sources.

adoption doesn't increase the homosexual male fitness, and is a huge altruistic effort to lower the biological preconception of rising your own genes in favor of the "specie".

Cheating is a well studied behavior and increases the heterozygosity (H) factor in the offspring in monogamous pairs.
Here again has not much to do with the homosexual behavior.

If you mean that an homosexuality in a population to survive needs to cheat, I would absolutely disagree with it.

>>7251796
Bailey JM, Pillard, RC (1991). "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation". Archives of General Psychiatry. 48 (12): 1089–96. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1991.01810360053008.
Swaab DF, Hofman MA (December 1990). "An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men". Brain Res. 537 (1–2): 141–8. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(90)90350-K. PMID 2085769.PMID 1845227.
Anthony F. Bogaert & Malvina Skorska (April 2011). "Sexual orientation, fraternal birth order, and the maternal immune hypothesis: a review". Frontiers in neuroendocrinology. 32 (2): 247–254. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.02.004.
None of these sources give anything other than "we guess, I mean it seems possible." as an answer.

>The equilibrium of Hardy-Weinberg is a tool to explain gene stability and frequencies.
>Has nothing to do with homosexuality
>This sentence is thus void
Did you actually use your brain for this one?
On the assumption(!) that homosexual behavior has its root in genetics(!), more specifically a homozygote recessive combination, then the continued existence of homosexuality as a very small minority in a general population could be explained with the Hardy-Weinberg principle.

Since you already ditched that idea before even looking at it, you should realise that the other ideas aren't gonna satisfy you either.

Which is why I said at the beginning that the theory of evolution or anything else for that matter cannot explain homosexuality.

>>7251825
>adoption doesn't increase the homosexual male fitness,
Right. I said exactly the opposite.

>>7251825
>Cheating is a well studied behavior and increases the heterozygosity (H) factor in the offspring in monogamous pairs.
>Here again has not much to do with the homosexual behavior.
Sure. In which case that doesn't have much to do with what i said.

I said homosexuals have relations with women and they pass on genes this way. Which is definitely true (assuming the twin studies are correct in assuming homosexuality is genetically predisposed) and not disproved, or even affected by your statement.

>>7251825
>If you mean that an homosexuality in a population to survive needs to cheat
No. That's not what i said. I said that it's one way that it's been done in the past. And that it's being done less now. I gave an example of a way i am /currently/ doing it.

You don't like to read so much as argue, do you.

>Sources
I doubt there are studies for something this current and hard to track. And you didnt cite any of your claims just now. Im not a researcher or scientist and I'm not going to either.

>>7251883
> Hardy-Weinberg is one, which requires quite a lot of assumptions to make it work.

In this sentence there's no mean to figure out your fundamentally wrong assumptions

> homosexual behavior has its root in genetics
yes probably it has but but this doesn't mean that would have conservative Hardy Weinberg equilibrium proprieties
Could be very well a QTL, epigenetics of some form
and could even not be genetic but a prion as far as we know.

>more specifically a homozygote recessive combination
see above why this is nonsense

Hardy weinberg has nothing to do here.


> Since you already ditched that idea before even looking at it, you should realise that the other ideas aren't gonna satisfy you either.

I read a paper once that tried to explain homosexuality from an evolutionary point of view. This was 10 years ago and I really have no remembering of neither
Journal, authors, or publication year

I thought somebody could provide it

>>7250465
Lot of reductionism ITT...the fact is, there are multiple plausible explanations, some of which are supported by specific evidence. I'm not going to look up any papers, but you can probably find exactly what substantiates each hypothesis by typing a few search terms into Google Scholar.

The most plausible idea, in my opinion, is the idea that homosexual gays offer some benefit to their family members, which is substantiated by findings that the female relatives of homosexual men tend to have larger families.

There are also findings that successive offspring increase the odds of an individual being gay or transgender,

>>7251949
You'll have to be more specific than that as you're not giving enough information to suggest a specific paper (or to suggest that you're looking for a specific paper), and the idea of 'explaining homosexuality from an evolutionary point of view' isn't well defined.
Do you mean that the paper argued that homosexuality had a reproductive benefit?

>>7251949
>I made this thread to say everything is terrible until i got the exact, very specific and probably outdated response i wanted.
Congratulations, you're autistic.

>>7251930
> I said homosexuals have relations with women and they pass on genes this way. Which is definitely true (assuming the twin studies are correct in assuming homosexuality is genetically predisposed) and not disproved, or even affected by your statement.

This implies that homosexuals and bisexuals share a common ground.

Yet as far as my understanding bisexuals are in vast minority than full homosexuals.
> might be wrong

Sources:
adoption doesn't increase the homosexual male fitness, and is a huge altruistic effort to lower the biological preconception of rising your own genes in favor of the "specie"
> Altruism in biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)
> Fitness = reproduction x survival
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

Cheating is a well studied behavior and increases the heterozygosity (H) factor in the offspring in monogamous pairs.
> Cheating and heterozygosity
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/nature01969.html

>>7251974
I didn't made for that, and really I thank you for >>7251883 this sources, will be very useful in my arguments.

I made a thread specifically looking for sources. about the topic.
>Can evolution explain homosexuality?
>If yes, which paper should I read?
>If not, who claim this?
>Whats your theory?
This is the original post if you recall it.

I prefer people to select the sources for me rather than google, I have a theory behind and if you want I can expose it but is OT.

>>7251967
>there are multiple plausible explanations
I'd love to hear the possible scholar school of thoughts about this.

>homosexual gays offer some benefit to their family members
Let's call it the nurture hypothesis and was mentioned. I'll definetly look it up.

> I'm not going to look up any papers
It's ok, what I'm searching is theories names, authors names, keywords something that will help me to pin point the modern view of homosexuality and evolution.

> Do you mean that the paper argued that homosexuality had a reproductive benefit?
I don't remember exactly the paper or I would look it up this is the point where I turn to the internet most bright board in random information and brainstorming.

>>7251993
>This implies that homosexuals and bisexuals share a common ground.
>Yet as far as my understanding bisexuals are in vast minority than full homosexuals.
Homosexuals aren't incapable of having sex with women. Many homosexual men have children with women. Sex doesn't require sexual attraction. Very few gay men are physically incapable of having sex with a woman. Those who claim they can't probably would under certain societal pressures that have been in place in the past. I'm a gay man and I've had sex with women.

>>7251993
>adoption doesn't increase the homosexual male fitness,
Again this proves my point???

>>7251993
>Cheating is a well studied behavior and increases the heterozygosity
This doesn't look at homosexual cheating. Most papers in the past have completely ignored homosexual behaviors because they dont lead to creation of offspring. This is completely irrelevant. Like i said before.

>>7250465
Here you go OP

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org.sci-hub.cc/content/271/1554/2217
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/10.1111/jsm.12847/full
http://www.sciencedirect.com.sci-hub.cc/science/article/pii/S1090513808000688
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513898000452

>The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic
component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the
population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600
individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female
maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The
study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male
homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have
more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on
male homosexuality.

>>7251588
>monogamy
Haha
Humans have larger testicles than other primates because we are not monogamous. Men's penis head flares so it can scrape out rivals sperm. Breeding females ovulate monthly similar to non-monogamous animals. Monogamy was invented because beta males were causing too much civil unrest when they weren't breeding.

>>7252206
So monogamy is directly coming from society?
You mean the one that Homo genera experienced probably millions before the specie sapiens arised or the modern sedentary society?

>>7252122
Very nice! Thx

>>7252206
>Men's penis head flares so it can scrape out rivals sperm
Some much more than others.

This is interesting, I wonder if there is correlation between how adept a penis is at pulling cum out of vaginas (how large and how flared a man's penis head is) and other traits like agressiveness or hypersexuality. And if these corralative traits would persist together through a long monogamous era.

Sexual antagonism and overdominance
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1809/20150429

seems like a good start.

>>7250465
Homosexuality is species wide beneficial genetic reaction to over population, proof none just pulled it out my ass, might be calling the puddle wet because of the bucket that poured it or might be linking two things with no cause correlation but it would make sense
maybe some defects that effect population are manufactured by people, maybe by nature who knows but it's working in keeping population from exploding too much
what we need is to bring back death penalty to weed out some of the population, that and maybe have some criteria for being legally allowed to reproduce
something that would help determine if the parents are fit to take care of a young person till it turns 20, same as they have with adoption and shit

>>7252730
> genetic reaction to over population
you might want to see the Calhoun experiment and his rat utopia
He finds an increase in homosexual behavior correlaated with overcrowding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM


From what I gathered now the Darwinian paradox of homosexuality isn't solved

Some hypothesis:
> Sexual antagonism / overdominance (Nathan W. Bailey)
> The genes for homosexuality do some other stuff too (Nathan Bailey)
> The nurturing role (Paul Vasey)
> Gay people have children passing down the gene line

This hypothesis and theories are mentioned sparsely through the thread.

>>7252730
>something that would help determine if the parents are fit to take care of a young person till it turns 20, same as they have with adoption and shit
The problem with this as population control is that it requires either forced abortion (lol not going to happen) or heavy fines. (fining poor mothers also isn't going to happen). Forced adoption doesn't make sense as population control.

Don't get me wrong. I would be in favour of forced abortion to irresponsible parents who don't pass, but it really isn't going to happen.

>>7252730
>>7252863
Also forgot to mention, but death penalty seems negligible in the grand scheme of population control.