PROSPERING GAY ANIMALS: Male chinstrap penguins, such as the famous Roy and Silo of the Central Park Zoo, have paired and even cared for eggs.
Image: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS/NOAA
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Homosexual behavior seems pointedly un-Darwinian. An animal that doesn't pass along genes by mating with the opposite sex at every, well, conceivable opportunity, seems to be at an evolutionary disadvantage. So what’s in it for the 450-plus species that go for same-sex sex?
Two evolutionary biologists from University of California, Riverside, set out to answer that question in a paper published today in Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
"It's been observed a lot," says Nathan Bailey, a post-doctoral researcher at U.C. Riverside and lead study author, of same-sex sexual behavior in animals. "But it took people a long time to put it in an evolutionary context."
After studying dozens of published articles on the topic, Bailey and his colleague Marlene Zuk concluded that, in addition to being an adaptational strategy, "these behaviors can be a force," Bailey said. "They create a context in which selection can occur [differently] within a population."
In the Laysan albatross, for example, previous research has shown that a third of all bonded pairs in a Hawaii colony are two females. This behavior helps the birds, whose colony has far more females than males, by allowing them to share parenting responsibilities. It also gives more stability to the offspring of males, already bonded to a female, who mate opportunistically with females in a same-sex couple. Such a dynamic, then may force gradual changes in behavior and even physical appearance of the birds, the authors note.
Other researchers, however, aren't convinced that everything must fit into the evolutionary, adaptive rubric. "You have to think outside of that," says Paul Vasey, who studies Japanese macaque monkeys as an associate professor at the University of Lethbridge in Canada.
His work has shown that in female macaque monkeys at least, same-sex sexual behavior doesn't seem to have any adaptational advantage, which "doesn't jibe with how people want to think about it," he says. But, he concludes, "You can't impose your perspective on the species you're studying. Attempt to understand the world on its own terms."
What does all this mean for discussions about human homosexuality? To be sure, says Bailey, "there can be crosstalk" between the disciplines of human and animal study, and both arenas promise to be fertile ground for further research.
See what we're tweeting about
95 Comments
Add CommentSuch a dynamic, then may force gradual changes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, what a challenge, to be forced to choose which to give up: the orthodox Darwinism or homosexuality! The two don't seem to jibe together, even for some politically correct "scientists". So, the forces of darkness (part of which, sadly, un-Scientific American has become) employ this illiterate writer, K. Harmon, who writes a totally vacuous article and cannot even master most basic grammar: "Such a dynamic, then may force gradual changes" (there must be no comma between the subject and the predicate).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease note that every time homosexual behavior is mentioned occurring in animals, it refers to interaction that does not implies the exclusion of opposite sex relationship on those animal. Normally it refers to seasonal behavior or social bonding behavior. We have to take this in to account to compared in a right manner this occasionally non exclusive behavior with the exclusive, monogamous, long term homosexual behavior in that occurs in humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am curious as to what sort of creature will mate with you. Meanness is a turn off in my book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy hasn't anyone asked if its nature's way of biologically dealing with over population?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn some animals "homosexual behavior is Bisexual behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot all behavior has to confer an evolutionary advantage, some behavior may lead to extinction, or be neutral.
Whales beaching, lemmings following old migration routes come to mind.
Homosexuality in human sons has been linked to extra fertility in female relatives,mothers to be precise.
Still, conferring evolutionary benefits on behavior is sometimes just speculation.
@teller: The article does not force any choice between "orthodox" Darwinism and homosexuality (within either the human or animal context). Rather, it notes that we simply don't currently understand whether/how homosexuality in a population confers a survival advantage upon that population. Attempting to force a choice between an explanatory theory (i.e., Darwinian evolution) and a descriptive set of data (i.e., the study of homosexuality in a population) is premature given our understanding of both. If evidence contradicts the predictions of a theory then your choices are to (1) question the validity of the evidence and/or its underlying methodology, (2) revise or discard the theory, or (3) evaluate the manner in which the evidence is being related to the theory. The examples cited in other comments and the article itself of facially sub-optimal behavior highlight our relative ignorance of the full array of forces relevant to evolution, and the infancy and paucity of the canon of research on human and animal homosexuality highlights our ignorance there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Not all behavior has to confer an evolutionary advantage, some behavior may lead to extinction, or be neutral."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll right, it's clear (and tautological) that any behavior which leads to extinction will result in extinction; good enough.
However, will even neutral behavioral patterns be able to survive in a long run, as they have to compete with evolutionarily advantageous types of behavior (such as producing offspring)?
"the infancy and paucity of the canon of research on human and animal homosexuality highlights our ignorance there"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"an explanatory theory (i.e., Darwinian evolution)"
Just a theory with a paucity of data? I have no problem with such a description. The problem with un-Scientific American is that it has been trying, for many years already and with great insistence, to present the theory as fact!
As for this latest article, just as I wrote, the problem with it is that it is quite vacuous (i.e., devoid of any new ideas) and written by an obviously illiterate author.
One possible explanation of this "mystery" is obvious: every once in while, self-destructive and other suboptimal types of behavior pop up here and there just at random. Even though any given line of generations of individuals exhibiting such suboptimal behavior cannot survive in a long run, other such lines will arise, again at random, due to the destructive entropic pressure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the struggle: Life against entropic destruction and death. Sadly, un-Scientific American has been in recent years part of the destructive, deadly forces.
Many published papers have been written on homosexuality, over population and the connection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt actually was a pretty vacuous article. On the one hand, the writer failed to usefully distinguish human and animal behaviors. On the other, she writes as though sexual behavior comprehends and colors the entire continuum from mate-seeking to mating to bonding to various parenting and nurturing behaviors -- and there's no reason to presume this, either in humans or in animals. I found myself wanting a lot more clarification about the actual behaviors observed in each species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not to say that teller isn't some kind of creepy intelligent-design Republican mindsucker. But it wasn't a very good piece. (grin)
Oy - teller and others...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHomosexuality benefits ALL humankind...
We are productive, educated members of society who contribute while limiting overpopulation. We are often more educated than our straight counterparts as family do not stand in the way of our studies or productivity.
Our taxes subsidize schools and healthcare for your children.
You want to argue that it's destructive because your mind cannot see how you can benefit from something you despise.
Even your arguments for survival don't float because those homoes are unencumbered by family when resources become limited or scarce. Plus gays are better equipped to handle survival situations as more of us spend time camping and hunting than our straight counterparts.
Just because you don't like homosexuality doesn't automatically make you right that it's wrong. It just means you're unable to open your mind enough to realize that someone else's mating behaviors are really none of your business.
Instead - because you don't like it... you MAKE it your business.
I've long wondered whether homosexuality might benefit the species as a whole by increasing the diversity of behaviors and talents available to contribute to the common good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho's this "Teller"? His comments are arrogant and I wish he (it can't be a she) would just go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow is it gay when they pair up and help each other out? Does that make a pride of lions a male lion in a group of lesbians? Why can't it be something like 'I'm a single mom, you're a single mom, we have kids. Can you watch mine while I get us food and I can watch yours? I mean, they are on the same soccer team and have bonded with each other, like practically siblings!'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo how is that homosexual? Do they try to mate with each other? If so, is it exerting dominance? Why is it just a black or white thing here? Oh no! They're either gay or there's Darwinism. If they are actually homosex gay, then why is it not part of evolution? So the males take advantage of the females who like each other, he's not bonded up to a single female, he gets to propagate his genes further than the males bonded to one female, they get to wear flannel and boots, everyone's happy.
And who says the male just doesn't just go ahead and do his thing? I mean if we're personifying these animals here, I might as well take this leap. Men in our society do rape women, and they do rape gay women. So an aggressive male comes in and does his thing, his offspring get his genes, and she's left crying with her lover who suffered the same fate.
So what if homosexuality is part of Darwinism's population control? What if there aren't any aggressive males around to do his thing? So we have two females that now have opted not to add to the gene pool. With that said, that means that they're not going to send those genes down the line, which is ending that heritage, not extinction. If they were to go extinct, there wouldn't be any 'straight' pairs because some how they've all gone to the disco to be drag kings and queens. Okay. So they can't extinct themselves. The ones mating are the ones who like the opposite gender. The ones opting not to mate are the ones who like the same, so with that mindset, straight bird genes get passed on while gay bird genes get to sit aside and say 'Well, I'm bored of these breeders, I heard those gulls were saying some nasty things about us'
So it's population control in a sense. Stats say for humans, or that the rumor that's gone around for decades, is that 1 in 10 people in a group is gay. To extinct ourselves, 10 in 10 would have to be gay. So how would this cause extinction?
I cannot stand the shit that they put up as factual when it's blatantly ignorant and one sided. No one seems to think for a bit without jumping to retarded conclusions and writing a paper on it because they can. Think people!
Teller, you're using the colloquial meaning of "theory" which does not apply in a scientific context.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, even if you take homosexuality to be a completely genetic condition (though there is a lot of evidence that it's as much due to prenatal developmental factors as anything else) being a direct impediment to survival reproduction does not necessarily mean anything. And number of conditions (sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, for example) pretty much prevent reproduction, but they persist in their host populations because the partial forms all protect against more serious environmental factors or diseases.
If there are survival advantages to a group for having homosexual members or reproductive advantages to individuals for having homosexual siblings, then the overall traits do still get passed along by the heterosexual members of the group/family.
Neutral and even mildly harmful traits are consistently passed along; look at how many people are born with an appendix still. Completely neutral at this point, even harmful if it gets infected, even a risk. But because they're not an active detriment, they do nothing to affect survival enough tp eliminate them.
It's important to remember that Darwinian evolution is not nature's moral judgment. From a moral perspective, it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is evolutionarily advantageous, destructive, or neutral.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis morality vs. genetics issue is readily evident when considering anyone who has a genetic disorder running in her family: there's no legitimate claim that it makes her morally inferior, even if the genetic disorder is itself a death sentence.
I'll also preemptively counter any arguments that I'm presuming homosexuality is evolutionarily maladaptive. I'm not making any claims right here about the evolutionary adaptiveness.
One would think that a preference for ignorance and hate, fear of the unfamiliar, and overdependence on blind belief /faith over rationality, while possibly beneficial to survival early on in mankind's development, would be strong negative factors to survival/reproduction as mankind moves forward in evolution...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...but somehow those factors, as demonstrated in so many posts here, remain strongly entrenched in the organism....
Whenever a Christian tries to impose their mythology on the natural world of behavior I have to laugh. Christians simply are unaware (tragically, terminally unaware) that their belief system has no application outside the confines of their skulls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTeller argues ad hominem
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTeller argues ad super natura
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTeller every once in while, self-constructive and other superoptimal types of behaviour pop up here and there just at random. Even though any given line of generations of individuals exhibiting such superoptimal behaviour cannot survive for sure in a long run, other such lines will arise, again at random, due to the constructive eutropic pressure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the struggle: Entropy with constructive life and destructive death. Gladly, super-Scientific American or Scientific super-American has been in recent years part of the constructive, lively forces.
Teller;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder why this article offends you to the point of viciously attacking the writer on a simple punctuation error. Your pretentiously written comments do not convey an intellectual superiority, as intended, but rather a social inferiority. This blatant display of immaturity and social impotence definitely falls under the category of "self-destructive, suboptimal behavior . " You are even further away from "evolutionarily advantageous behavior" than the homosexuals; you have to attract a mate (which means being likable) before you can produce offspring.
For all we know, homosexuals could have been imperative to our survival as a fledgling species, when it was normal for people to die at 25-30 yrs old. Considering that women would be fertile from 12 or so until death, and the fact that the population DID grow, would lead me to believe that there had to be more children than adults at all times, and many of them would obviously have to be orphaned. Maybe childless adults were necessary to care for the orphaned kids so the adult to child ratio could be more evenly disbursed ... It makes as much sense as any other theory if you think about it. Children would have a better chance at survival if they were cared for by a childless couple rather than another family with 6 kids of their own. Our basic instinct tells us to care for our own first, so having those without around to take on the responsibility makes pretty good sense. Yup.
I like Paul Vasey's comment on accepting and studying the world on its own terms. There is a fallacy that every genetically conferred trait must confer an advantage or disadvantage to be propagated but i think this ignores the possibility of adaptively neutral genes that can affect behaviour without sufficient affecting reproductive success to be selected out of existence and of pure chaos; random mutations that regenerate behaviours that would otherwise be filtered out by natural selection and bring them back into the gene-pool for another roll of the dice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have homosexuality in all of nature and humans since the beginning of our species on this planet. Can you produce evidence that the end result of homosexuality, or any form of sexuality, have been the termination of a species? Apparently, all sexual behaviors are needed for the survival of earth's living. Just because a behavior conflicts with your behavior does not make it a non-nessary behavior. If this planet did not need homosexuality...then it would not exist. That goes for any form of behavior. It doesn't matter what nasty label you pin on the different sexual behaviors, they are all needed and necessary or they would not exist. My dad use to tell me not to judge, or condemn, until you have walked a mile in their shoes. Hetersexuals have never walked a mile in the homosexual's shoes or anyone's shoes. That non-act will always leave your research flawed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a footnote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure of the actual numbers, especially for men, but I do know that many gay/lesbian people DO have children. My mother had two.
bo66ie - it's VERY common for gay men to have children in the midwest!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike many other gay midwest males, I tried to appease family by suppressing my homosexuality... and dating women.
Fortunately, I saw the damage it did to families when a gay uncle and friend came out to their families... and it forced a confrontation with my own sexual nature.
I'd say 1/3 of my gay friends have kids... and I'm always surprised at how good their parenting skills are compared to my family & straight friends. They're usually much more in-tune, communicative, and involved).
So - being gay isn't necessarily a genetic dead-end... because often gays have & raise children before realizing their desire for a same-sex partner isn't going away.
@bo66ie & @Pokester -- Anecdotal support for the modern propagation of LGBT individuals' genes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy straight parents had three kids -- one straight daughter, one gay son, and one lesbian daughter.
The straight sibling has three kids; my lesbian sister has one child with her partner, using my sister's egg and a donor's sperm; my partner and I are considering using one of our sister's eggs and the other family's sperm (to avoid 11 toes).
Assuming the lesbian sister (she loves it when I call her that) and I each have two kids, by virtue of modern technology my parents may soon have 3 grandchildren from their heterosexual daughter, and 4 from their homosexual kids. If my partner's sperm fertilizes the lesbian sister's egg, that child will even have two out homosexual biological parents.
Noting that the more genes you share in common with a gay individual, the more likely you are to be gay (roughly speaking, and paraphrasing from the print edition of Scientific American Mind's latest issue), then at least in modern humans, if homosexuality has a genetic component, it appears that the traditionally understood confines of Darwinian evolution are being intentionally eroded on a small scale.
If you add these births to the number of births that would not have occurred world wide _but for_ technological intervention (difficult conceptions, pregnancies, and births), then it may be that we, as a species), are already quite departed from the traditional conception of Darwinian evolution and have been for quite some time. Hence, whether or not penguins can get gay married may have increasingly little relevance to the human rights questions affecting the LGBT community today.
or even more taboo than that, natural selection at it's finest.... those with genes that would not improve the pool and lead to a better species are not able to mate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point of this article is that this is evolutionarily not productive. These types of changes happen over centuries, not generations, and no one doubts the effectiveness of two men earning money and two women raising children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese types of behaviors are entrenched in human kind, and permeate all species, actually. Bears in the woods attacking humans because they think we're food, sharks attacking humans in the water because they think we're food. Hating what's different has been evolutionarily advantageous since the beginning of time. However, it's our cognitive ability that should make it more likely for us to limit this behavior in ourselves. But, none of this has anything to do with the fact that there definitely are impacts on species because of homosexual behavior. Whether they are good or bad yet, we don't know. We've only been openly talking about this subject for the last 25 years... only a blink in the evolutionary time scale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat an intelligent, articulate post. Thank you for that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisactually, you're wrong, too, teller.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this""Such a dynamic then may force gradual changes" is just as wrong! it must read thusly: "Such a dynamic, then, may force gradual changes."
It seems to me to be a no-brainer, since once living organisms had discovered sex as a means of increaing genetic diversity, every permutation possible is to be found in nature, including aquatic species whose gender is variable according to surrounding water temperature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe emotional problems in dealing with the study of sexuality in fauna, as opposed to flora, I believe to be due to the fact that every human scientist comes from a particular cultural environment, all of which have various social taboos on sexuality, allied to which each is themselves a sexual adult, with their own personal slant on how their own sexuality functions as an integral part of their own personality.
Two millennia of influence from the dogmatic desert religions, themselves an attempt to codify the transition from hunter-gatherers to more sedentary societies following the domestication of wheat have obfuscated what already is a very emotional and complicated personal interaction with the universe for every individual.
It is interesting to see the debate along lines of Darwinian principles or not, especially as it relates to other studies on animals regarding the thorny issue of morality and the concept of, conscious or not, self-sacrifice and noble behaviour.
I think the key may lie in regressing ourselves intellectually and emotionally from the artificial division between human beings and the rest of nature, to see how sexuality permaetes every cell of every organism more complicated than an amoeba.
If we boil it down to the idea that every organism needs to reproduce, and for many plants, insects and animals, this urge is stronger than self-preservation, we can arrive at a framework wherin the more complicated and socially interactive the organism is, the more possiblities are available to fulfil this.
Taking a giant leap from basic principles back to our own social environment, it is obvious that human sexuality performs a myriad functions, including recreation, pleasure, protection, status (perceived or not), financial security, curiosity, group expectations, compensation, psychological imperatives, and at the very end, actual reproduction. It is the very fabric of culture and our own attempt to fathom the meaning of our existence.
Why should there be any surprise that other species are motivated by any less complex set of urges and needs?
I feel obliged to point out that the conversation up to this point fails to recognize the differences between homosexual behavior and homosexual preference. Assuming for the sake of argument that genes affect human homosexual behavior, I would assume that such influence is strongest among the 10% or so of U.S. males who identify themselves as primarily or exclusively homosexual. For the remaining 90% who display a broad mix of behaviors, I propose that the larger influence is entirely cultural. If that is so, human homosexuality is an example of evolution according to Lamarck, not Darwin, and explains why it changes according to custom, fashion, fad, religion, geography, education, expectations and opportunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case, the point of the article for me is that homosexual behavior may have a counter-intuitive survival benefit for some species, possibly including humans. I believe Scientific American, as a magazine for scientific enquiry, is obliged to publish such thought-provoking articles, and I am thankful they did in this case as well.
I didn't think there was such a thing as overpopulation in Darwinian theory. The way to deal with excess individuals is to kill them off, not prevent them from coming into being in the first place. Darwinism is explicitly Malthusian in character.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the first, Darwin identified overpopulation as one of the many competitive pressures individual face. For animal populations, competition for finite resources (food and living space) increases as the population increases. Also chances for disease increases. The responses of individuals to these pressures (and others) determines their success or failure to contribute to the next generation. The basis of evolution is not to decimate a population randomly, but to naturally select individuals more "fit" to the existing conditions, ie survival of the fittest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgree, really article looks completely empty, without any point or meaning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Most straight female penguins live lives of quiet desperation".....So let me see if I can get this, er..., straight...so if a married guy penguin cheats on his wife with a partnered lesbian penguin, it's better for the kid as opposed to just having the guy knock up a single baby mama penguin?? Hmm..or maybe the lesbian penguins don't hook up until after one of them gets pregnant. OK maybe so, but doesn't that still encourage cheating?? ;-) It may be good for the kids, but the wives probably aren't too happy, if they find out....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt looks like un-Scientific American kicked me out, at least for a while.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Homosexuality benefits ALL humankind... We [...] contribute while limiting overpopulation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that homosexuality limits overpopulation. About the value of the overall contribution, it's something to consider. For now, I'll just focus on your arguments.
"We are often more educated than our straight counterparts as family do not stand in the way of our studies or productivity."
But I thought that gay people in general are fighting to have fully recognized families, complete even with children, and things seem to be moving in that direction. What will happen then with this presumed advantage of having no family?
"Our taxes subsidize schools and healthcare for your children."
I really don't think so. Just for one thing, the government takes many times more from me (and millions of people like me) than it gives me back. Moreover, your movement, acting to a large extent as a monolith block, has played a very significant role in advancing big government; therefore, the cumulative effect over all these decades is that I have lost significantly more because of your movement than I would have lost without it.
"Even your arguments for survival don't float because those homoes are unencumbered by family when resources become limited or scarce."
I think I have already addressed this no-family argument.
"Plus gays are better equipped to handle survival situations as more of us spend time camping and hunting than our straight counterparts."
Is there really a significant positive correlation between homosexuality and camping? I wonder why it would be so.
Anyway, it should be quite clear that I was not at all concerned with individual survival. I was writing about survival in generations of offspring, that is, one can say, in terms of evolutionary genetics.
Cooperation among members of the same sex does not mean homosexual. A 'band of brothers' fighting a war, a hunting party, a sewing group, roommates, etc...by this definition these cooperative relationships are 'homosexual.' This article is science in the service of scientism: the facts are bent in service of a particular political point of view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnimal behavior and even physical mutation do not serve any evolutionary purpose. They are not deliberate adaptations. This his how evolution works: A RANDOM mutation in mice for example, which gives them a highly acute sense of hearing appears in a population, it so happens that in that period this quality is advantageous. Let's say that it allows them to hear those pussy cats creep up on them. So this mutation spreads the the population because more mice with this mutation survive and pass on the mutation. Idiots (basically all science writers) then postulate, "the acute hearing in mice is an adaptation to allow them to hear those sneaky cats." Mutations which are TOTALLY RANDOM, and might carry more than one characteristic. Let's say that those mice with good hearing also inherit a taste for S&M with the mutation. The hearing and the penchant for a little rough action just randomly happen to be carried with the same mutation. So the hearing thing which just happens to confer a selective advantage for this group of mice that live on an island with a lot of very quiet cats, also enjoy a bit of the rough stuff (which in this case does not happen to confer any survival dividend). Now a bunch of overly determinitive science writers try to come up with some purpose for the S&M trait. You know how they would do it in the Science Times: "Studies suggest that the sexual predilection among the Bornean elf-mouse for bondage gives him an evolutionary advantage over his competitors as his mates are tied up and he can impregnate them with more sperm." Let's all repeat: Evolution has no purpose, no intention, it is the result of random mutations meeting particular geographical, environmental, and bio-historical circumstances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnimal behavior and even physical mutation do not serve any evolutionary purpose. They are not deliberate adaptations. This his how evolution works: A RANDOM mutation in mice for example, which gives them a highly acute sense of hearing appears in a population, it so happens that in that period this quality is advantageous. Let's say that it allows them to hear those pussy cats creep up on them. So this mutation spreads the the population because more mice with this mutation survive and pass on the mutation. Idiots (basically all science writers) then postulate, "the acute hearing in mice is an adaptation to allow them to hear those sneaky cats." Mutations which are TOTALLY RANDOM, and might carry more than one characteristic. Let's say that those mice with good hearing also inherit a taste for S&M with the mutation. The hearing and the penchant for a little rough action just randomly happen to be carried with the same mutation. So the hearing thing which just happens to confer a selective advantage for this group of mice that live on an island with a lot of very quiet cats, also enjoy a bit of the rough stuff (which in this case does not happen to confer any survival dividend). Now a bunch of overly determinitive science writers try to come up with some purpose for the S&M trait. You know how they would do it in the Science Times: "Studies suggest that the sexual predilection among the Bornean elf-mouse for bondage gives him an evolutionary advantage over his competitors as his mates are tied up and he can impregnate them with more sperm." Let's all repeat: Evolution has no purpose, no intention, it is the result of random mutations meeting particular geographical, environmental, and bio-historical circumstances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnimal behavior and even physical mutation do not serve any evolutionary purpose. They are not deliberate adaptations. This his how evolution works: A RANDOM mutation in mice for example, which gives them a highly acute sense of hearing appears in a population, it so happens that in that period this quality is advantageous. Let's say that it allows them to hear those pussy cats creep up on them. So this mutation spreads in the population because more mice with this mutation survive and pass on the mutation. Idiots (basically all science writers) then postulate, "the acute hearing in mice is an adaptation to allow them to hear those sneaky cats." Mutations are TOTALLY RANDOM, and might carry more than one characteristic. Let's say that those mice with good hearing also inherit a taste for S&M with the mutation. The hearing and the penchant for a little rough action just randomly happen to be carried with the same mutation. So the hearing thing which just happens to confer a selective advantage for this group of mice that live on an island with a lot of very quiet cats, also enjoy a bit of the rough stuff (which in this case does not happen to confer any survival dividend). Now a bunch of overly determinitive science writers try to come up with some purpose for the S&M trait. You know how they would do it in the Science Times: "Studies suggest that the sexual predilection among the Bornean elf-mouse for bondage gives him an evolutionary advantage over his competitors as his mates are tied up and he can impregnate them with more sperm." Let's all repeat: Evolution has no purpose, no intention, it is the result of random mutations meeting particular geographical, environmental, and bio-historical circumstances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, for my accidental 3-peated submission. The most recent one has a few typo corrections, please delete, ignore the first two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts important to keep in mind that existence here pertains to the species and not to any single individual. Neutral behavior insofar as an individual is concerned may contribute to the prolonged existence of the species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"'Neutral' behavior insofar as an individual is concerned may contribute to the prolonged existence of the species."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile in general this may sometimes be true, in concrete applications of this thesis one would have to answer a number of questions, such as the following:
(1) Is the behavior truly neutral (I addressed this question to some extent in a previous comment)?
(2) To what extent (say, in terms of the number of individuals with such a behavior pattern) is that "neutral" trait beneficial or tolerable to the species?
E.g., if a species (or subspecies, or society) fails (by widely adopting a supposedly neutral behavior) to produce enough offspring, what will happen to it, sooner or later? What is happening in many parts of the "enlightened" and "progressive" Europe of today is a good illustration of this concern.
"Animal behavior and even physical mutation do not serve any evolutionary purpose. They are not deliberate adaptations."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with this and would further like to stress the following.
It is only natural that most of the mutations are deleterious and caused by the destructive entropic pressure, according to the Second Law of thermodynamics. Life (the embodiment of order) must necessarily be fragile. The more it is developed (i.e. the more complex it is in its functions), the more fragile it must be, alas.
One does not have to worry much about the survival of viruses or bacteria or cockroaches. The continued existence of man is highly questionable.
It is much easier to destroy than to build or create. There are usually many easy ways to destroy almost anything, but only few (usually very deliberate and nontrivial) ways to create a complicated mechanism.
Highly developed life is very fragile and deserves our utmost effort to protect and preserve it. Fight the entropic destruction in all its manifestations -- however "fun", easy to adopt, and seductive they may appear!
In your opinion, what behavior(s) qualify(ies) as "neutral" that also contribute to not producing enough offspring? In this context, it seems to me the two conditions are mutually exclusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Let's all repeat: Evolution has no purpose, no intention, it is the result of random mutations meeting particular geographical, environmental, and bio-historical circumstances."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour point is valid, but I try not to get too bent over casual use of anthropocentric metaphors. After all, Copernicus long ago pointed out the Sun does not rise, but I am glad Ernest Hemmingway didn't use the title "The Earth Also Rotates".
"In your opinion, what behavior(s) qualify(ies) as "neutral" that also contribute to not producing enough offspring? In this context, it seems to me the two conditions are mutually exclusive."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, it was not I who introduced this term into the discussion. I don't particularly like it and a number of times even put it in quotes.
Indeed, the meaning of "neutral" is relative to the objective in question. What is neutral relative to a certain objective of a certain individual may not be so relative to, say, the objective of protecting and preserving highly developed life (which is mainly my concern). So, if one uses this term, "neutral", loosely (i.e., without specifying the corresponding objective), then appearances of contradictions may arise.
It is extremely difficult to identify what is neutral. The perspective of our assessment inevitably effects our conclusion. Evolution is not encumbered by the same need for perspective. It is simply a mechanism, or more precisely our explanation of the mechanics by which species evolve. It inherently considers all variables, neutral, beneficial, and deleterious impartially. The result of which exists today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is quite possible that bacteria do not just survive because they are simple, but that it is due to their numbers or rate at which they proliferate. And these characteristics have evolved. One might say that they proliferate because they are simple, but these factors are not necessarily related. Examples of bacteria that reproduce relatively slowly exist as do the experiments that show their complete annihilation when isolated in environments with bacteria that reproduce faster.
Evolution just is; nothing we have only come to consider now takes away from that.
I guess my point is that the title of the article is a play on words.
"the exclusive, monogamous, long term homosexual behavior in [sic] that occurs in humans."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think yours is a valid point *except* for your assumption that exclusive homosexuality is the primary form of homosexuality.
Sexuality is not in itself binary. Most people, whether "gay" or "straight", are at least occasionally attracted to members of the sex other than that of their "usual" partners. But we have set up a social structure that obscures that; we expect every post-adolescent to settle into one or the other exclusive category. (We do allow for a category of "bisexual", but it's ill-defined and looked down upon from both sides as an inability to "make up your mind".)
I should emphasize that this dynamic is perpetuated *both* by the straight and by the gay communities. But the real point is that exclusivity in sexual orientation is socially influenced. It is no more "natural" than lifelong monogamy.
Perhaps our understanding of human sexuality could be improved by giving some credit to the applicability of animal sexuality -- rather than trying to understand animal behavior through the lens of human convention!
(Full disclosure: I identify myself as having a "non-exclusive" sexual orientation and refuse to accept any of the mainstream labels. Which obviously has an impact on my perspective.)
It is extremely difficult to identify what is neutral. The perspective of our assessment inevitably effects our conclusion. Evolution is not encumbered by the same need for perspective. It is simply a mechanism, or more precisely our explanation of the mechanics by which species evolve. It inherently considers all variables, neutral, beneficial, and deleterious impartially. The result of which exists today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is quite possible that bacteria do not just survive because they are simple, but that it is due to their numbers or rate at which they proliferate. And these characteristics have evolved. One might say that they proliferate because they are simple, but these factors are not necessarily related. Examples of bacteria that reproduce relatively slowly exist as do the experiments that show their complete annihilation when isolated in environments with bacteria that reproduce faster.
Evolution just is; nothing we have only come to consider takes away from that. I guess my point is that the title of the article is a play on words.
Heh. An article from last June discusses exactly what I was trying to say in my post below:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species
"Evolution just is; nothing we have only come to consider takes away from that. I guess my point is that the title of the article is a play on words. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you mean that evolution, as in evolution of species by natural selection, is a fact like gravity is a fact, then I suppose so. Beyond the simple recognition of a phenomenon's existence is the how and why of it, and I assume the title refers to that using a necessary shorthand.
"One might say that they [bacteria, etc.] proliferate because they are simple, but these factors are not necessarily related."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally, what is simpler in functioning is simpler to build and maintain; so, it should be generally easier for the simpler life forms to multiply. Exceptions are possible, as you write:
"Examples of bacteria that reproduce relatively slowly exist as do the experiments that show their complete annihilation when isolated in environments with bacteria that reproduce faster."
Yet, again according to you, such exceptions are prone to annihilation.
On the other hand, similar exceptional simpler forms are likelier (than more complex forms) to arise again, after or while other such unstable forms are annihilated. Why? Again, because they are simpler to build!
"Well, it was not I who introduced this term into the discussion. I don't particularly like it and a number of times even put it in quotes. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI allow as a hypothetical that human behaviors exist which neither enhance or detract from one's evolutionary fitness, that being a working definition of "neutral" in this context. On the other hand, you present a logical contradiction of terms, and then propose that some behaviors in Europe are examples of it. Again I ask you, what behaviors? Or do you simply reject the hypothetical altogether?
"I allow as a hypothetical that human behaviors exist which neither enhance or detract from one's evolutionary fitness, that being a working definition of "neutral" in this context."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFine, but as I wrote, I am not at all concerned with indivudual fitness or survival.
"On the other hand, you present a logical contradiction of terms"
No, I don't. Again, as I explained, once you specify the objective relative to which a trait or behavior may or may not be neutral, any contradictions disappear. Now you've specified that you are talking about an individual's objectives. On the other hand, I am talking about the objective of protecting and preserving highly organized life in general. So, "your" "neutral" is not "mine". We are just talking about two different things, OK?
Anyway, again as I said and as this very exchange demonstrates, "neutral" appears to be an inconvenient term to use (as you need to specify the corresponding objective for it to have a definite meaning). So, I hope this term won't be used ever more in this discussion, unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
Homosexuality is a genetic dead end. Like the article states dont try to change nature to fit your own personal views. Deal with it. Something about nature and evolution doesnt fit your ideals? Get over it. Nature doesnt care one way or the other why should you? I swear if we had to model our politics after evolution we would have to do away with any sort of welfare system because it is so utterly un-darwin like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Like the article states dont try to change nature to fit your own personal views. Deal with it. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe must both deal with it, yes? As the article also states, since homosexual behavior is common across multiple species, it's useful to consider the counter-intuitive possibility that it provides an evolutionary benefit.
"I swear if we had to model our politics after evolution we would have to do away with any sort of welfare system because it is so utterly un-darwin like. "
Natural selection is apolitical. Politics is Lamarckian. Social Darwinism is double-think.
"Fine, but as I wrote, I am not at all concerned with indivudual fitness or survival. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat IS what natural selection is concerned with.
" "neutral" appears to be an inconvenient term to use "
I have no particular problem with it in this context.
The articles on this site blow. Homosexual behavior is an evolutionary mutation ( relative to the majority) which may or may not have some evolutionary favor under certain -as of yet- unforeseeable circumstances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's no point in trying to understand something like an evolutionary mutation of behavior under current conditions. A mutagen may not be pro-active from a Darwinian standpoint at one instance in time but as any scientist should comprehend, the world outside of a lab is not static; the environment and conditions are constantly changing therefore the appearance of seemingly unproductive mutations will persist until certain conditions arise that may find them favorable.
That's all that needs to be said and understood? Why would anyone try and explain this otherwise under specific contexts? It IS a part of evolution.
The articles on this site blow. Homosexual behavior is an evolutionary mutation ( relative to the majority) which may or may not have some evolutionary favor under certain -as of yet- unforeseeable circumstances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's no point in trying to understand something like an evolutionary mutation of behavior under current conditions. A mutagen may not be pro-active from a Darwinian standpoint at one instance in time but as any scientist should comprehend, the world outside of a lab is not static; the environment and conditions are constantly changing therefore the appearance of seemingly unproductive mutations will persist until certain conditions arise that may find them favorable.
That's all that needs to be said and understood? Why would anyone try and explain this otherwise under specific contexts? It IS a part of evolution.
The articles on this site blow. Homosexual behavior is an evolutionary mutation ( relative to the majority) which may or may not have some evolutionary favor under certain -as of yet- unforeseeable circumstances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's no point in trying to understand something like an evolutionary mutation of behavior under current conditions. A mutagen may not be pro-active from a Darwinian standpoint at one instance in time but as any scientist should comprehend, the world outside of a lab is not static; the environment and conditions are constantly changing therefore the appearance of seemingly unproductive mutations will persist until certain conditions arise that may find them favorable.
That's all that needs to be said and understood? Why would anyone try and explain this otherwise under specific contexts? It IS a part of evolution.
" 'Fine, but as I wrote, I am not at all concerned with indivudual fitness or survival.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat IS what natural selection is concerned with."
If so, then I would not be concerned with natural selection (and I never mentioned it before). Yet, it looks like, at least since Darwin, natural selection has concerned species rather than individuals. (Even though every time I feel obliged to respond to this thread, I find this continued dispute about terminology and semantics rather unproductive and leading astray.)
Anyway, it should be quite clear that, if an individual -- however fit in whatever sense -- does not produce offspring, he/she will no longer be part of any natural selection (in the sense of evolutionary genetics).
"I find this continued dispute about terminology and semantics rather unproductive and leading astray."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad you have given up on "un-Scientific American" and K. Harmon's "illiteracy" so soon. Personally, I think you are very entertaining, if only as a distraction. On the other hand, if you stopped your political rants for even a few minutes, and tried to actually understand the article, your postings would be more productive, although possibly less entertaining to me. Don't let that (r)evolving door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
"The articles on this site blow."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the risk of sounding irreverent, I want to ask; do you think its all the articles, or just the ones that mention homosexuality, that "blow"?
Enquiring minds want to know.
"The articles on this site blow."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the risk of sounding irreverent, I want to ask; do you think its all the articles, or just the ones that mention homosexuality, that "blow"?
Enquiring minds want to know.
I was wondering when the moment will come when your arguments however remotely related to the subject matter are exhausted -- and only hard to control, blinding anger and a personality attack are left. Frankly, it came sooner than I expected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Don't let that (r)evolving door hit ya where the good lord split ya."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was wondering when the moment will come when your arguments however remotely related to the subject matter are exhausted -- and only hard to control, blinding anger and a personality attack are left. Frankly, it came sooner than I expected.
"I was wondering when the moment will come when your arguments however remotely related to the subject matter are exhausted"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're too funny.
Teller, I apologize for upsetting you. I have gone over and over your posts, but I simply can't figure out how they relate to the subject of the article. That is entirely my fault. My limitations prevent me from seeing how your comments on Katherine Harmon's "illiteracy" and "un-Scientific American's" politics relate to - how did you say it - "the objective of protecting and preserving highly developed life" I thought I might get a clue when I asked what you meant by "what is happening in many parts of the "enlightened" and "progressive" Europe", but when you said you never said it, I figured you just didn't want to talk about it. But now you say you do. So, Teller, please, accept my apology. Give the entire un-scientific american community another chance - one more time - and say what it is you want to talk about. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Teller, I apologize for upsetting you." -- But I am not (and was not) at all upset; why should I be?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I simply can't figure out how they [teller's posts] relate to the subject of the article."
As I understood it, the article poses (but never answers) the question of how one can re-concile evolution and homosexuality. Indeed, if an individual -- however fit in whatever sense -- does not produce offspring, how can he/she be part of any natural selection (in the sense of evolutionary genetics)?
I believe that my most interesting contribution to this discussion is the following model, which, if good enough, would help to resolve this "mystery":
"every once in while, self-destructive and other suboptimal types of behavior pop up here and there just at random. Even though any given line of generations of individuals exhibiting such suboptimal behavior cannot survive in a long run, other such lines will arise, again at random, due to the destructive entropic pressure."
That's it. I was interested in constructive criticism of this model. Instead, posters here have tried to engage me in such distracting matters as the semantics of various terms, including "neutral" or "natural selection", which I had never used.
But most of all, many posters were interested, not in the question posed by the article, but in my personality in general ("who is this teller anyway?") and various particular aspects of it, such as whether I do (or can) have a mate (the answer: my wife is the best woman in the world!), to what party I belong (the answer: none), etc. Of course, none of these posts makes me personally offended; I am just disappointed by posters' inability to stay focused on the subject matter.
Teller, there's no mystery here. If you had instead posted the above or similar beforehand, I and others would have responded differently. Guaranteed. Am I really telling you something you don't already know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour understanding as you wrote above is close to mine, so we do have a basis for dialog. From what you wrote above, you seem to not realize that individuals of many species do in fact critically contribute to the successful reproduction of their genes, even though those individuals do not and can not reproduce themselves. I know this sounds crazy and counter-intuitive, but it's a fact nevertheless. It's not sub-optimal or self-destructive or here-and-there. It happens in hundreds of very successful and long-lived species, both plants and animals, from simple to complex. You don't have to take my word for it. If your interested, you can easily research lots of examples for yourself.
In addition, there are many species whose individuals practice what can be casually described as homosexual behavior. Again, I understand this sounds crazy and counter-intuitive. I am also very aware many people find this upsetting and repugnant and refuse to believe it. But again, it's still a fact nevertheless And again, it's not sub-optimal or self-destructive or here-and-there. It happens in hundreds of very successful species, and is likely an essential part of reproducing their genes. And again, please don't just take my word for it. It's fairly easy to find outside confirmation of the facts in the article. You can look it up for yourself if you want to.
With the above firmly in mind, it seems reasonable to me to consider the question if homosexual behavior increases reproductive success in humans, and if so, how. Yes, I also noticed that the article didn't attempt to answer the question one way or the other. I do not fault it for that, because as we have seen, its hard enough for one column to just ask the question without people overreacting with their own agenda.
Thank you for the opportunity to reply to a refreshingly cogent post.
"If you had instead posted the above or similar beforehand, I and others would have responded differently."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, all I did in my last post was quote from my earlier posts (especially from the one of 06/16/09 at 05:36 PM) and briefly review much of this discussion.
"you seem to not realize that individuals of many species do in fact critically contribute to the successful reproduction of their genes, even though those individuals do not and can not reproduce themselves."
How can this possibly happen? By helping their brothers and sisters reproduce their, similar genomes, maybe? (Genome appears a more relevant term here than genes.) Yet, why would such help be critical? And also, that would not exactly be reproduction of their own genome.
"If your interested, you can easily research lots of examples for yourself."
I don't even know where or how to begin such research. Any examples, references, leads?
"In fact, all I did in my last post was quote from my earlier posts (especially from the one of 06/16/09 at 05:36 PM) and briefly review much of this discussion. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, that is one of your many posts which include yet another political rant. That you don't mention it here suggests to me you understand how its inclusion causes confusion.
So. You can continue to deny it and post your old way, and your replies will likely remain "unproductive". Or you can continue to make an effort to post cogently. It just depends on what you want. Am I really telling you anything you don't already know?
"How can this possibly happen? By helping their brothers and sisters reproduce their, similar genomes, maybe?"
Very good. Half of your gene(ome) comes from each parent. When you try to reproduce in an environment that practically guarantees failure with only your mate, you are more likely to pass on more of your gene(ome) by helping your parents and/or your siblings raise more children.
"I don't even know where or how to begin such research. Any examples, references, leads?"
You could start with your own insight above. Or you could look at the links in the article itself. I found many hits by searching on selflessness, altruism, and game theory. But I have to point out this is relatively advanced stuff. To me you seem to be uncomfortable with basic evolutionary theory. And if you believe Darwin was inspired by Satan, you might want to work on that first.
> a theory with a paucity of data
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are conflating two separate ideas in order to support your argument: paucity of data re homosexual behavior in animals and evolution (for which there is a wealth of supporting data).
You can't say evolution is wrong because there are some things we don't understand (yet).
As adrianofnyc pointed out, in science you don't get to choose the data to accept (because it fits your preconceptions) and discard the rest because you disagree with it.
"> a theory with a paucity of data
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are conflating two separate ideas in order to support your argument: paucity of data re homosexual behavior in animals and evolution (for which there is a wealth of supporting data)."
Wealth? Then why is it that every time they discover a missing fossil link, it is such big news?
In fact, even a brief reflection shows that (despite un-Scientific American's continued insistence that evolution is fact) no amount of empirical supporting evidence can possibly make any theory a fact.
A simplest illustration of this thesis is from mathematics. Trying every x=0, 1, ..., 39, one finds that the corresponding value of the quadratic polynomial x^2+x+41 is every time a prime integer; so, an empiric conclusion could be that x^2+x+41 is prime for any natural x; yet, value of x^2+x+41 at x=40 is obviously not prime, as it is divisible by 41. Or, take the polynomial is x^6+1091, which isn't prime for any x=1, ..., 3095, but which is prime for x=3906. Or take Newton's mechanics, supported for centuries by all available evidence, and which yet had to be replaced by the better theory (of relativity).
Remarkably, Einstein's theory was based on thought (rather than material) experiments. My own papers concerning relativity are not based on any "real-life" experiments, either. What you rather try to do every time is come up with a logically simplest, most plausible, and easiest to test theory.
As for evolution, my paper on evolution modeling in the Proceedings of the Royal Society was based on such purely speculative thought experiments, guided by the three principles stated above (simplicity, plausibility, testability). Frankly, my familiarity with any data is quite limited, and I care little about data per se. However, it later turned out that my model describes relevant facts better than previous (coalescent) models, which were based in the prevalent evolutionary tree reconstruction practice in systematic biology.
But could I have ever thought or insisted that my model is a fact -- given that it was the fruit of pure speculation?
One of the things of which so many people lose sight is that true Darwinists, and scientists for that matter, are not resistant to new or conflicting facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, new and conflicting facts are the foundation of science. Any theory that cannot bear the weight of new data must be changed.
Only religion and insanity chooses to discard fact to preserve theory.
"When you try to reproduce in an environment that practically guarantees failure with only your mate, you are more likely to pass on more of your gene(ome) by helping your parents and/or your siblings raise more children."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK. This looks somewhat similar to the situation when someone goes blind and tries to compensate for this disability by developing other senses and faculties. In some cases, such a person can even become an over-achiever. Still, blindness by itself remains a disability, an effect of destructive forces.
Actually, the subject matter of this discussion may be rather different from that of (non-hereditary) blindness, as in the former case one would be trying to pass affected genes to new generations and thus perpetuate the negative impact.
So, overall I don't see how your arguments contradict my little model:
"every once in while, self-destructive and other suboptimal types of behavior pop up here and there just at random. Even though any given line of generations of individuals exhibiting such suboptimal behavior cannot survive in a long run, other such lines will arise, again at random, due to the destructive entropic pressure."
Leaving for a vacation. Good bye, everybody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravity is a fact. Einstein described a theory to explain that fact. Evolution is a fact. Darwin described a theory to explain that fact. Both theories were tested by evidence from the real world and modified to fit the facts, not the other way around. Theory and fact are not the same, and to conflate the two is disingenuous at best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am curious to know if Teller's alleged submission to the Royal Society was successfully tested against real-world facts, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for him to say, and even if he does I won't believe him without separate verification.
"OK. This looks somewhat similar to the situation when someone goes blind..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAcquired blindness is in no way similar, in this context or in any other. You know it.
"Actually, the subject matter of this discussion may be rather different from that of (non-hereditary) blindness"
So it's "unproductive" for you to bring it up. Thank you for making my case for me.
I feel like Diogenes...
This discussion reminds me of a less emotional subject. Left-handedness. Evolutionary arguments may be irrelevant if the behaviour is due to birth trauma or womb environment. Far more births are accompanied by "damage" than is generally realized. This not really random...we just don't know all the factors involved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right, there are many congenital conditions that are not strictly hereditary. Handedness may be one, and homosexuality may be another. I also agree, since humans depend less on instinctive behaviors than most other animals, it's harder to identify the heredity of human behavior than physical characteristics like eye color. Still, there is some evidence that some human behaviors are affected by heredity to some degree (whew), and so to that degree effect evolutionary processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this�is there any study linking the 450 species identified as homosexuality capable with social species?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a loner species like most cats had homosexuality linked individuals, it would be a disadvantage, since they only bond to reproduce, but if it is a social species thing it might be something useful to the community (as a previous article that states evolution has been discovered to operate in a community level), a homosexual male is no competition for females, while he is strong enough to go hunting that humongous mammut, a homosexual female is no competition for available males, but can also carry a fruitbasket kind of thing.
The sentence in question with regards to the grammatical error is flawed, although not for the reason you mentioned. The comma is not intended to separate the subject from the verb, but is separating 'then' from the rest of the sentence as an interrupter, like 'however' or 'consequently,' which may be used in the beginning, middle or end of a subject or predicate. The mistake is that it should be surrounded by commas. This type of oversight occurs in all levels of published writing and doesn't mean the author's logic or intent is flawed, and if that's the only grammatical flaw in the article, it stands to reason that the author is hardly 'illiterate.' Your phrase 'jibe together' is a redundancy; not part. egregious, but should that undermine your point or imply illiteracy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sentence in question with regards to the grammatical error is flawed, although not for the reason you mentioned. The comma is not intended to separate the subject from the verb, but is separating 'then' from the rest of the sentence as an interrupter, like 'however' or 'consequently,' which may be used in the beginning, middle or end of a subject or predicate. The mistake is that it should be surrounded by commas. This type of oversight occurs in all levels of published writing and doesn't mean the author's logic or intent is flawed, and if that is the only flaw in the article, then by definition the author is hardly 'illiterate.' Your phrase 'jibe together' is a redundancy; not part. egregious, but not the work of a master, either. Does it disqualify your entire entry?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForum rookie here, BTW, in case that's not obvious! Sigh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne commenter asked about same-sex pairings as a means to relieve pressure brought on by overpopulation. I have heard of studies on rats that came to this conclusion (told to me by a former colleague, in regards to a professor's work while in Medical school), but I don't have any cited references or knowledge of published data. If so, what is the mechanism by which this would propagate through some susceptible subset of the population? Possibly secondary effects on pregnant females as a result of environmental stressors? This is a conclusion that can be inferred from studies in the UK on human mothers who conceived during the WWII years correlated to the rise in homosexual male offspring in the population (I remember seeing this in a documentary on Discovery channel or TLC back in mid-1990s, but again no citable published research....) jd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for a nice share you have given to us with such an large collection of information. Great work you have done by sharing them to all. simply superb.<a href="http://www.kineticpromos.com" >Customized Mug</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it be that maybe our planet is becoming over populated, and animals are evolving to reduce the population? These creatures cannot have children, yet they are attracted to the same sex, and mostly still want to carry children. Is this "animal adoption?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissounds like it to me.