Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Jimbee on 12/07/2014 06:26:10
-
BTW, I have several medical theories. And maybe I will share them with you from time to time.
This one involves homosexuality--and evolution. My theory, simply, is that homosexuality benefited our species in some way, hence the fact a substantial amount of people (which varies, depending on who you ask) have it.
How could it benefit us, if people who have it essentially don't pass it on, because they don't reproduce? Oh, but you are being so linear, when you say that. Many ants in ant colonies don't reproduce, but that doesn't make their importance to the colony trivial. Homosexuals still can effect society in many ways. Take Leonardo Da Vinci. He influenced human culture in many ways, that still resonate down to modern times.
Plus, I would just add that, in fact, homosexuals DO reproduce. They simply find someone of the opposite sex, and voilĂ , you have a baby. They may not enjoy it the same way as a heterosexual. But sometimes you just have to make that sacrifice. And people do what I just described now--and I'm sure they did it in the past too thus carrying on the gene, if it is a dominant gene. (Of course, if it is a recessive there's no problem. It passes on even if the person is not gay.)
BTW, I am gay. But that is not the only reason why I am fascinated by this theory. What do the rest of you think?
[:)]
-
May be some net genetic advantage to limiting the number of heterosexual brothers ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation
e.g. it reduces the odds of brother fighting brother for control of resources (like a harem).
Siblings (who carry the same genes) injuring/killing one-another is a bad idea from the gene's point of view ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
[ Theories on homosexuality should apply to all animals , not just humans, ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals ].
-
I am by no means an expert in evolutionary biology. That said, I would like to remind people that sometimes the links between traits, genes and evolutionary advantages are much more indirect than we imagine.
**Purely hypothetically**, imagine that there is a mutation that, say, increases the ability to think creatively, and simultaneously increases the probability of being homosexual (let me point out that: a) there is probably not a single "homosexuality gene," and b) sexuality is a whole spectrum, and breaking it down into a binary homo vs hetero categorization might obfuscate some of the actual mechanism). Let's just say that those with the gene are 20% more likely to be attracted to those of the same gender than those without the gene. In this hypothetical example, the evolutionary advantage comes from the creativity, and whether the homosexuality is neutral, beneficial or detrimental, the effect is much less than the change in thought process, so the gene gets amplified from one generation to the next...
-
What if the human condition, the extent of the perceived resources, the technical developmental progress changes physical and behavioral outcomes. Then the human condition mutates the physical makeup of future generations to cope or respond to broad stresses on a population. Fish in a fishbowl do not overpopulated the extent of their world, but put them is a larger world and their population begins to grow again. We can either respond to the stresses consciously or allow Mother Nature to do it for us.