JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags charles darwin , evolution , homosexuality , Joan Roughgarden

Reply
Old 4th November 2009, 04:26 PM   #1
jmcvann
Navel Gazer
 
jmcvann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 665
Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

I'm no scientist. I'm an artist. And while this article seems enlightened to me, I'm not sure about what's being said about Darwin.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...nimal_kingdom/

From the article: "Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection ...but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality."

Is the writer confusing early Darwinism and current evolutionary thought?
__________________
I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
jmcvann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2009, 04:33 PM   #2
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 6,993
I don't think Darwin said anything about homosexuality. Roughgarden's ideas are relatively new but it's weird that he - or, more likely, the reporter - keeps mentioning Darwin. Lots of work has been done on sexual selection since then.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2009, 04:34 PM   #3
jmcvann
Navel Gazer
 
jmcvann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 665
"When scientific theory says something’s wrong with so many people, perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people.”

What? Science says that?
__________________
I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
jmcvann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2009, 04:35 PM   #4
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 6,993
He must be talking about scientific theory from 50 years ago. Nothing spices up a news story like making up a controversy where none exists.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2009, 04:39 PM   #5
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 27,770
I don't see how sexual selection could be invoked to account for homosexuality. I'm quite certain Darwin did not make that claim.

As it's written, though, I don't think they're saying Darwin made that claim. Someone named Roughgarden is claiming that sexual selection fails because it doesn't account for homosexuality, which is a seriously flawed argument.

ETA: In the first place, Darwin did not propose sexual selection as a separate or "other" theory of evolution. Sexual selection is a subset of natural selection.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 4th November 2009 at 04:41 PM.
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2009, 06:04 PM   #6
blutoski
Philosopher
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 7,501
Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler View Post
I don't see how sexual selection could be invoked to account for homosexuality. I'm quite certain Darwin did not make that claim.
There's one hypothesis that has - ahem - limited credibility, called 'the gay uncle uncle hypothesis.' The theory is that there might be a community benefit to having some males who are not competing for females but nevertheless still have the strength to protect females and young from outsiders. &c.

Wikipedia: [Sexual orientation and evolution]




Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler View Post
As it's written, though, I don't think they're saying Darwin made that claim. Someone named Roughgarden is claiming that sexual selection fails because it doesn't account for homosexuality, which is a seriously flawed argument.
I'm not sure that Roughgarden is saying that sexual selection narratives are incorrect because they do not explain homosexuality: I got the impression that she simply said they do not explain homosexuality. ie: that another mechanism must be in play.





Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler View Post
ETA: In the first place, Darwin did not propose sexual selection as a separate or "other" theory of evolution. Sexual selection is a subset of natural selection.
It's probably a complication of terminology. Darwin's 'sexual selection' thoughts were trying to explain the development of sexual dimorphism itself, and tangentially, the spiralling arms race of resources that seem to be dedicated to signalling.


The writer has also created a misleading perception that the theory proposed to explain sexual dimorphism has been unchanged since Origin of Species was published - that nobody has questioned this until Roughgarden had some kind of epiphiny during a gay march ten years ago.

Seed magazine is one of my favourite magazines, but this one story comes across as pretty weak.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2009, 06:27 PM   #7
Furcifer
miscreant
 
Furcifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: hohm
Posts: 13,379
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
There's one hypothesis that has - ahem - limited credibility, called 'the gay uncle uncle hypothesis.
We're all friends here, feel free to PM me if you need to talk.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2009, 06:34 PM   #8
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe
Posts: 15,956
I think he said it's raining men

C'mon, seriously?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." - icerat
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 01:14 AM   #9
Aitch
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: StAines
Posts: 2,730
Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?

"I had to give it up because it made my eyes water."

Oh, no, that was Michael Gambon.
Aitch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 03:17 AM   #10
MikeSun5
Trigger Happy Pacifist,
 
MikeSun5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Just what did Darwin say about homosexuality?
He said in half a million years, your penis will be as useless as your appendix.
__________________
I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell.
--Daniel Tosh
MikeSun5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 07:32 AM   #11
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,442
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
There's one hypothesis that has - ahem - limited credibility, called 'the gay uncle uncle hypothesis.' The theory is that there might be a community benefit to having some males who are not competing for females but nevertheless still have the strength to protect females and young from outsiders. &c.

Wikipedia: [Sexual orientation and evolution]
I find the idea that having a strong sex drive is enough of a benefit to the species that the species it not hurt if a percentage of sex acts are not procreative. Like when a dog humps someones leg.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 09:05 AM   #12
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,313
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I don't think Darwin said anything about homosexuality. Roughgarden's ideas are relatively new but it's weird that he - or, more likely, the reporter - keeps mentioning Darwin. Lots of work has been done on sexual selection since then.
The article reads like a strawman argument, i.e. (Roughgarden )"Because I’m a biologist, I started asking myself some difficult questions. My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly. But if the purpose of sexual contact is just reproduction, as Darwin believed, then why do all these gay people exist?"

Darwin's The Descent of Man is discussion sexual/natural selection wrt the theory of evolution. Non-reproductive sex is ignored merely because as it is not germaine to his the subject at hand.

That Roughgarden's "discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly" is a problem with Roughgarden's education, not Darwin's papers, IMO.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage

Last edited by EHocking; 5th November 2009 at 09:06 AM.
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 09:29 AM   #13
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 44:57:19N, 73:16:18W
Posts: 5,508
In "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," Carl Sagan describes studies in zoos that show primate homosexual acts increase or decrease in parallel with increases and decreases in population density. The implication is that it is a sort of natural safety valve.
__________________
I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results. -- Thomas Jefferson

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. -- Thomas Jefferson
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 09:41 AM   #14
Jungle Jim
Muse
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
In "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," Carl Sagan describes studies in zoos that show primate homosexual acts increase or decrease in parallel with increases and decreases in population density. The implication is that it is a sort of natural safety valve.
Kinda like prison.
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 10:38 AM   #15
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: a little toolshed
Posts: 19,049
Who cares what Darwin said? That was 150 years ago.

~~ Paul
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

RIP Mr. Skinny
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 10:52 AM   #16
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 27,770
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'm not sure that Roughgarden is saying that sexual selection narratives are incorrect because they do not explain homosexuality: I got the impression that she simply said they do not explain homosexuality. ie: that another mechanism must be in play.
And I'd accept that. (I've not read Roughgarden other than what's provided in the OP. I was merely pointing out that the article doesn't seem to be saying that Darwin claimed homosexuality was explained by sexual selection.)


Quote:
It's probably a complication of terminology. Darwin's 'sexual selection' thoughts were trying to explain the development of sexual dimorphism itself, and tangentially, the spiralling arms race of resources that seem to be dedicated to signalling.
I understand that. My point is that the article quoted in the OP claims sexual selection is Darwin's "other great theory of evolution" separate and distinct from natural selection. Again, Darwin presented sexual selection as one specific type of natural selection.

At any rate, I agree the problem seems to be with the writer of the article and not Roughgarden.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 10:57 AM   #17
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 27,770
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
There's one hypothesis that has - ahem - limited credibility, called 'the gay uncle uncle hypothesis.' The theory is that there might be a community benefit to having some males who are not competing for females but nevertheless still have the strength to protect females and young from outsiders. &c.
Which reminds me of the Tralfamadorians' explanation of gender. (I wish I could find a quote, but I can't.) Not only are gay uncles advantageous (necessary, according to the Tralfamadorians) so are childless aunts, widows who remarry, and so on.

Really, the general point that humans' success came largely out of our sophisticated and complicated social groups seems very credible. Selection certainly can work at that level.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 11:34 AM   #18
Pup
Illuminator
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,581
Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler View Post
Really, the general point that humans' success came largely out of our sophisticated and complicated social groups seems very credible. Selection certainly can work at that level.
Yes, it should seem obvious that merely producing offspring isn't enough to select for those genes in the long run; the offspring need to survive long enough to produce offspring of their own.

It can apply to both the gay uncle hypothesis and the safety valve one. One allows for protection and nurturing to help the offspring survive, while the other allows a high sex drive to remain while not increasing overpopulation further.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 12:06 PM   #19
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 3,744
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
Who cares what Darwin said? That was 150 years ago.

~~ Paul
Exactly, Jesus said "love your neighbor" 2000 years ago and look were that got us !
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 12:38 PM   #20
blutoski
Philosopher
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 7,501
Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler View Post
Which reminds me of the Tralfamadorians' explanation of gender. (I wish I could find a quote, but I can't.) Not only are gay uncles advantageous (necessary, according to the Tralfamadorians) so are childless aunts, widows who remarry, and so on.
Menopause is also implicated.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 01:44 PM   #21
Ducky
Titanium Puprhero
 
Ducky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mayor of your front lawn.
Posts: 12,296
This thread is so gay.
Ducky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 03:05 PM   #22
athon
Philosopher
 
athon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,286
If sex was solely an act of procreation, I might see some validity in the question (aside from the fact that as others have pointed out, it's a strawman argument at best). And if sexuality was a dichotomy, again, I might hesitate to consider this line of questioning.

But it is neither. Sex is also involved with social interactions including the management of pecking orders, increasing social bonds and resource exchange. Rather than thinking of homosexuality as a perversion of 'normal', we should view all sexuality as a spectrum of bisexual practices, where individuals lie somewhere on a spectrum. Thus given that in biology variety is the spice of life, it becomes less of a confusing anomaly and more of a given that in many species, individuals will exist who lie on the 'mostly homosexual' end of that spectrum.

Athon
athon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2009, 03:50 PM   #23
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by jmcvann View Post
I'm no scientist. I'm an artist. And while this article seems enlightened to me, I'm not sure about what's being said about Darwin.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...nimal_kingdom/

From the article: "Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection ...but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality."

Is the writer confusing early Darwinism and current evolutionary thought?
I do not recall Darwin saying anything about homosexuality and would be very surprised if that recollection is wrong – he was concerned predominantly with supporting his *central* theses about evolution and doing so via general aspects of natural history and reproduction.

The question of the evolutionary origins of homosexuality is a topic which recurs on these fora and is a topic that has interested me. However, so it seems to me, there are always a good many misunderstanding about it and failures to address priorities. Roughgarden's work is an example.

I go into the origins of human sexualities on my web site http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk which makes extensive use of the idea of sexual selection.

So far as I know, obligate homosexuality (meaning sexual attraction *only* to one's own gender) is very rare in any species other than humans. Bisexuality, on the other hand, is well documented in many species and Bruce Bagemihl gave an extended list in his book "Biological Exuberance." Nonetheless, those examples were of bisexuality not homosexuality. It seems that one may regard human homosexuality as unique.

In reply to one person on this forum, I do not regard sexual selection as a subset of natural selection. From a data processing point of view, which is the bioepistemic way of looking at such issues, (and in my opinion the correct way) sexual selection is far more complex than is natural selection and, therefore, plainly not a subset of it.

However, sexuality has been discussed by Darwin's followers. Without emphasizing homosexuality as such, Julian Huxley did so in his essay "the uniqueness of man." He notes there that human sexual traits are quite unique. Human biology does indeed include a variety of unusual sexual traits, some of which plainly predispose us to non-reproductive sexual acts. In addition, there are several aspects of human sexuality (here meaning the psychological traits that lead to sexual acts) which also often generate non-reproductive sexual acts. Homosexuality is one example but it is a relatively minor part of this pattern. Hence, I suggest to you that the problem to be considered is larger than homosexuality. Indeed, it seems to me relevant that, given the choice, a significant proportion of the human population make conscious choices not to reproduce at all.

Therefore, in my opinion, the problem as it should be addressed is why humans have become so sexually unique that we often choose non-reproductive sexual behaviours. So, for example, one wants to consider why our heterosexual biology is so unusual and link that to why we are subject to the various sexual deviations. Those do include homosexuality but sadomasochism and fetishism are equally important and there are a variety of other such behaviours; masturbation might be considered in that group and does also merit consideration.

In summary, then, I find Roughgarden's work to make the same error as most discussion of sexuality. I find it to be much too focussed on the narrow problem of homosexuality. In effect, she sees a tree and asks how it grew, but does not seem to notice the forest of which that tree is a part or inquire into the origins of that forest. It seems to me she just asks the wrong questions.
__________________
Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk
A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat
.
http://www.habitoflies.co.uk
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2009, 05:04 PM   #24
athon
Philosopher
 
athon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,286
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
I do not recall Darwin saying anything about homosexuality and would be very surprised if that recollection is wrong – he was concerned predominantly with supporting his *central* theses about evolution and doing so via general aspects of natural history and reproduction.
I don't often nominate, I must admit, but this is essentially what I've thought but never managed to find the right way of expressing.

Nice post.

Athon
athon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2009, 06:08 PM   #25
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 5,844
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
In summary, then, I find Roughgarden's work to make the same error as most discussion of sexuality. I find it to be much too focussed on the narrow problem of homosexuality.
If you think Roughgarden's work is too narrowly focussed on homosexuality, I can only conclude that you have tried extraordinarily hard to ignore her work. She places homosexuality in the much wider context of all gender-variant behaviour.

Quote:
I do not recall Darwin saying anything about homosexuality and would be very surprised if that recollection is wrong
He didn't say anything about homosexuality, or even anything else that didn't fit into the 19th century ideas of femininity and masculinity, and that is the basis of Roughgarden's critique of his concept of sexual selection: because many relatively common behaviours do not fit well with the concept of sexual selection as originally penned by Darwin, she believes the whole concept should be replaced by the concept of "social selection".

While I like her concept of social selection, I believe her ideas go off the rails in a few ways:
  1. She seems to me to argue the old fallacy of evolutionary change as a moral judgement; she believes there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and gender-variant behaviours, notes that they are fairly common and therefore concludes that they somehow must have been evolutionary advantage.
  2. She assumes that such behaviours must have been passed on genetically from one generation to the next. I don't think there is much evidence to suggest this is true.
  3. Social selection is certainly a good concept, as species do adapt (even genetically) to the social environment in which they live. But in critiquing sexual selection it seems that she misses a possibility more obvious than the falsehood of sexual selection: sexual selection may be a subset of the broader concept of social selection.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2009, 06:41 PM   #26
Furcifer
miscreant
 
Furcifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: hohm
Posts: 13,379
Both Earthborn and John Hewitt IMHO have tip toed around an issue I recently had opportunity to debate with a psychology masters student. She vehemently objected to my classifying homosexuality as "deviant behavior".I made it clear that under no uncertain terms do I consider gays as deviants, I merely objected to the practice being thrust in my face as "normal".

I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I find myself objecting to anyone putting forth prejudices against anyone engaging in "deviant sexual behavior". The human animal is, under our current social standards, free to engage in sexual activities "between consenting adults".

Not acknowledging homosexuality for what it is seems to be a major stumbling block in eradicating prejudices. It's not "normal" but it's "acceptable", and so am I.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 05:55 AM   #27
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nova Roma
Posts: 8,613
One thing that makes this difficult to study is that it's not well understood even in humans. For example:

Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
So far as I know, obligate homosexuality (meaning sexual attraction *only* to one's own gender) is very rare in any species other than humans. Bisexuality, on the other hand, is well documented in many species and Bruce Bagemihl gave an extended list in his book "Biological Exuberance." Nonetheless, those examples were of bisexuality not homosexuality. It seems that one may regard human homosexuality as unique.
You're making what I think is an entirely unwarranted assumption: that "obligate" homosexuality exists in humans, and moreoever that it can be defined in some way relevant to human biology (rather than society). You should bear in mind that the idea of "gay people" is a modern construction - it didn't exist at all even a few centuries ago. A large fraction of gay (not bi) men and women have had sex with people of the opposite sex in their lives. At some point they choose to do so no longer, and most would probably say that they are not attracted to them. But attraction is a vague concept that's very strongly affected by circumstance, society, belief systems, etc., so it's not at all clear what these implies biologically, if anything.

Since we're on the topic there's a hypothesis that hasn't been mentioned so far: the "sneaky male" theory. The idea applies to species (horses, seals, etc.) where a successful single male has multiple female mates - a "harem". For males that can't or haven't yet acquired their own harem, there might be an advantage in "pretending" not to be attracted to females but instead to males, or in acting more like females so as to appear less threatening to other males with a harem. This could allow them to sneak in and mate with a female. The theory is that the tendency towards this might be exaggerated in some individuals to the extent that they are no longer very interested in mating with females at all.

I don't find it particularly compelling, but it does go to show that evolutionary explanations are not out of the question.

Last edited by sol invictus; 7th November 2009 at 05:57 AM.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 12:23 PM   #28
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
 
JoeTheJuggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 27,770
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
For males that can't or haven't yet acquired their own harem, there might be an advantage in "pretending" not to be attracted to females but instead to males, or in acting more like females so as to appear less threatening to other males with a harem. This could allow them to sneak in and mate with a female. The theory is that the tendency towards this might be exaggerated in some individuals to the extent that they are no longer very interested in mating with females at all.

I don't find it particularly compelling, but it does go to show that evolutionary explanations are not out of the question.
For that matter, there might be a group-level "gay uncle" advantage as group population increases. That is, childlessness might benefit the reproductive success of relatives' offspring simply by freeing up scarce resources when population pressure increases.

So the fact that "obligate homosexuality" is relatively rare in other species might say something about human overpopulation.

Again, not so compelling, but it's a thought.
__________________
"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons
JoeTheJuggler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 12:54 PM   #29
Ferguson
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 897
To me the "gay-uncle" hypothesis makes a lot of sense, and the idea that it "couldn't be passed genetically" is absurd. It's like saying ant workers and soldiers can't be sterile because sterility wouldn't be passed genetically. It would be "advantageous" to have a non-mating segment of population, which pass their genes by supporting their family.
Ferguson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 01:08 PM   #30
Terry
Zeitgeist-impaired
Technical Moderator
 
Terry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: logged in to the server
Posts: 6,450
Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem View Post
Not acknowledging homosexuality for what it is seems to be a major stumbling block in eradicating prejudices. It's not "normal" but it's "acceptable", and so am I.
How do you feel about left-handed people? People with red hair?
Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 01:25 PM   #31
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta
Posts: 13,906
Are these idiots forgetting that homosexuals have children? Even homosexual animals have offspring more often than not. Preferring one gender over another for sex doesn't mean sex with the other gender NEVER happens. And humans have surrogates, egg donation, sperm donation, etc.
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it.
the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey
my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke
The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 01:27 PM   #32
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 5,844
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Since we're on the topic there's a hypothesis that hasn't been mentioned so far: the "sneaky male" theory.
Not unheard of, though while it can explain some gender variant behaviour, it is hard to imagine how it relates to homosexuality. It isn't clearly visible that one isn't all that interested in females.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 01:28 PM   #33
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta
Posts: 13,906
And where homosexuality is taboo, of course it is going to be hidden, and a buch of kids will be sired out of a heterosexual union. Everyone forget about Brokeback mountain already??
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it.
the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey
my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke
The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 01:51 PM   #34
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
If you think Roughgarden's work is too narrowly focussed on homosexuality, I can only conclude that you have tried extraordinarily hard to ignore her work. She places homosexuality in the much wider context of all gender-variant behaviour.

...

While I like her concept of social selection, I believe her ideas go off the rails in a few ways:
  1. She seems to me to argue the old fallacy of evolutionary change as a moral judgement; she believes there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and gender-variant behaviours, notes that they are fairly common and therefore concludes that they somehow must have been evolutionary advantage.
  2. She assumes that such behaviours must have been passed on genetically from one generation to the next. I don't think there is much evidence to suggest this is true.
  3. Social selection is certainly a good concept, as species do adapt (even genetically) to the social environment in which they live. But in critiquing sexual selection it seems that she misses a possibility more obvious than the falsehood of sexual selection: sexual selection may be a subset of the broader concept of social selection.
You may be right - perhaps I am too harsh with Roughgarden. I tend to assume that her own history predisposes her to ideological positions; the whole gender and sexuality debate does tend to be located in a social scientific frame where such ideology is quite common.

What is more, those fields are even less inclined to define their terms than is the biological literature. I do tend to put such reading matter down quite quickly and, possibly as a result, I am unfamiliar with the actual mechanism she invokes by her use of the term "social selection."

I, myself, do agree that sexual selection can apply in a social context and, in humans, I regard position in the social group as a major phenotypic target of sexual selection. However, sexual selection, as understood by Darwin, can perfectly well apply in species that are essentially non-social - that is, to species whose socializing activities are limited to those involved in the mating process itself.

So, please explain to me, "what is the precise mechanism I should understand by the term 'social selection?'"
__________________
Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk
A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat
.
http://www.habitoflies.co.uk
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 03:18 PM   #35
Furcifer
miscreant
 
Furcifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: hohm
Posts: 13,379
Originally Posted by Terry View Post
How do you feel about left-handed people? People with red hair?
The way I feel about people is an entirely different thing all together. It has nothing to do with hair colour, sexual preference or which side of the plate you bat from.

There is evidence that red hair is genetic, so we can preclude this as deviant. Unless you are referring to people who dye their hair red? In that case there is room to consider some form of deviant behavior. If someone felt the need to constantly dye their hair red, and didn't feel comfortable otherwise I'd have to consider some sort of psychological factor influencing this behavior. Or maybe they just look better as a ginger.

Left handedness on the other hand isn't as clear. I'm not sure there are any genetic markers identifying people to that particular predisposition. Without it I'd have to say that left handedness could be considered deviant behavior. I write back handed, bat right handed, use left handed irons and right handed woods, skate goofy foot and shoot a puck from the left.

I'm the first one to admit this isn't normal behavior. I'm here, I'm ambidextrous get used to it!
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 03:28 PM   #36
portlandatheist
Master Poster
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,155
This assumes that there is a genetic component to homosexuality that natural selection could act upon. But if there is not a genetic component to homosexuality, then there can be no genetic pressures for or against it.
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 03:38 PM   #37
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta
Posts: 13,906
I think it can be genetic (caused by genes coding for them to react to the same gender's pheremones or whatever causes attraction), but it is not selected for, and slightly against. I believe and pose that less homosexuals have kids, and that is why it is not the dominant sexuality. They still have kids though.

Plus, it could be genetics that happens the way something like Down's syndrome does, when egg meets sperm (is because of egg or sperm have this or that mutation randomly because of varying factors), and therefore not really "selected for" or against, it just happens sometimes. A Down's syndrom person wouldn't automatically have a Down's Syndrome child if they did end up having a child because that mutation is an extra chromosome that ends up in egg or sperm while the egg or sperm is being made only.

I also suggest some people wouldn't know if a parent was gay if the parent never came out of the closet.
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it.
the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey
my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke
The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 03:44 PM   #38
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 5,844
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
So, please explain to me, "what is the precise mechanism I should understand by the term 'social selection?'"
The mechanism simply said is that often the reproductive success of an organism increases if it engages in cooperative strategies with other organisms rather than competitive strategies. You can hear Roughgarden herself explain some of it here.

Quote:
You may be right - perhaps I am too harsh with Roughgarden. I tend to assume that her own history predisposes her to ideological positions; the whole gender and sexuality debate does tend to be located in a social scientific frame where such ideology is quite common.
No doubt she has her ideological view, but she argues in the video that her detractors do as well.

Quote:
However, sexual selection, as understood by Darwin, can perfectly well apply in species that are essentially non-social - that is, to species whose socializing activities are limited to those involved in the mating process itself.
Social selection can as well.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 04:06 PM   #39
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta
Posts: 13,906
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
The mechanism simply said is that often the reproductive success of an organism increases if it engages in cooperative strategies with other organisms rather than competitive strategies. You can hear Roughgarden herself explain some of it here.
Awesome video. See, Darwin did consider these traits like antlers and peacock's tails. He did pretty good not knowing a darn thing about genes or genetics. My genetics teacher mused that it would have been quite a thing should Darwin and Mendel have ever met. We have learned a lot since then, and should never expect those who publish about something first knows every darn little thing about it. The greatest thing for us is that we can record what we learn so that others may build on it. And build on something like this we oh so can and have.
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it.
the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey
my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke
The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!

Last edited by Eos of the Eons; 7th November 2009 at 04:16 PM.
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2009, 04:38 PM   #40
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 5,844
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
See, Darwin did consider these traits like antlers and peacock's tails.
That's not something anyone disputes. He explained them however in a way in which males and females take on specific roles "with the rarest of exceptions", which turn out to have quite a few exceptions.

Quote:
He did pretty good not knowing a darn thing about genes or genetics.
No doubt.

Quote:
My genetics teacher mused that it would have been quite a thing should Darwin and Mendel have ever met.
Consider also that Darwin has considered things like love, friendship and cooperation, and didn't see evolution as just the struggle for survival in a harsh and uncaring world. Maybe if Darwin and Roughgarden had ever met they would have gotten along fabulously.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.