http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm
If people are 'born gay', where does this leave those religions which disapprove of homosexuality? Are gay people 'a divine mistake'?
I'm no biologist, but from an evolutionary viewpoint, how would the "gay" genes be passed on?
If homosexuality was in the genes it would be bred out. ???
Perhaps external factors (ie, not genes) can cause a person to be born gay.
The male 'gay gene' could be passed down through the female line so something like that could survive being bred out.Originally Posted by ZERO
And you're right, it doesn't have to be something under genetic control (genes influence development rather than control it anyway). Developmental conditions in the womb could give rise to brain differences which lead to homosexuality (if indeed they do).
I think there are cases of identical twins where one of them is gay and the other isn't.
.
There are a number of potential evolutionary explanations. The obvious one is that it could be a secondary effect of something that has a primary advantage, like sickle-cell anaemia.
Most identical or monozygotic twins are, erm, identical. But around 25% are mirror-images of each other. It has been alleged in the past that in mirror twins, one is straight and one gay. This never seemed very likely to me. There are some definite examples, such as the hetro actress Alexandra Paul and her lesbian sister, but there are other cases where neither "admits" to being gay. This research suggests that there might be something to the idea after all. "Might" be. The Cheeky Girls are mirror twins...
Interesting stuff... got any links to some of the specifics there?
*Slaps forehead* Of course! There are a few hereditary diseases that are passed on that way.
[/quote]
*Slaps swollen forehead* I remember reading about that. From memory sickle cells are less prone to malaria invasion.
OK, "gay" genes could very well be passed on, if they exist.
My bet would be on early childhood experiences.
Last edited by ZERO; 17th June 2008 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Fix punctuation
Very early - like in the womb.
One theory is that pre natal stress in the other leads to an androgen deficiency which causes male foetuses more feminine link brains.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...ct/175/4017/82
The evolutionary principle that encourages mothers ot react to stress this way might have something to do with overcrowding. Over crowding leads to stress. In an over populated area the homosexual offspring assist the furtherence of their genes through kin selection. They're caring uncles to a reduced population size, more suited to the local carrying capacity of the environment.
It certianly true that studies have shown that human males are more likely to be homosexual if they have an older brother.
Familiail studies show that homsexuality does run in families. Mostly seen as uncles but remember that homosexuality is not an absolute impediment to breeding. Even darling Oscar had two children.
It appears therefore the the gene for male homsexulaity is carried by far more people than those in which it has a behavioural effect
It's also been suggetsed that the genes that lead to homsexuality in male offspring also aid fertility in the female line.
Hope this helps
Do you honestly think the fundies care wether people are born gay or not? even if could prove homosexuality is 100% biological (which i personally dont believe it is, but thats by the by) fundies would just say it is "gods test of faith" or "a genetic disease sent to punish mankind" or some other such nonesense.
I once heard an interesting theory that homosexuality could actually perform a biological function, remember humans evolved as pack animals so maybe there was some kind of place for males or females who didnt breed, sort of a human "worker bee" if you will.
Isnt there some evidence for how many older brothers you have the more likely you are to be gay? maybe there is some complex genetic coding or biological mechanism that lets parents knock out gay kids for the sole purpose helping around the tribes cave without the risk of them producing even more grandkids to feed and everyone dying of hunger.
Bit of a weird theory but certainly an interesting one.
BTW Matt sorry didnt see ur post but yeah i think thats certainly possible.
Last edited by VoodooJoe; 17th June 2008 at 07:55 PM.
as far as I'm concerned the Greeks showed that you orientation is purly cultural and had nothing to do with genetics.
There are always nature vs nurture debates with things like this. But it's not really a dichotomy; both nature and nurture have an influence on development.
There was the case of Bruce Reimer, which was featured on BBC's Horizon programme (See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...rnedgirl.shtml), that tested the idea that gender identity can be shaped by how children are treated by their parents - i.e. nurture. It wasn't a success.
There's a link to the transcript of the programme at the bottom of the page.
Of course, this is a single case but it does indicate that our gender identity is largely under genetic influence.
I'm certainly not knowledgeable in this area, but I would suggest that if sociocultural influences play a part where homosexuality is concerned they would more likely suppress homosexual tendencies rather than encourage them as we do (quite naturally) impose gender-roles on our children.
.
Is it only me that sees a problem with the inheritance of a "gay gene" or have I missed something here? To be homosexual means you are attracted to your own sex not the opposite sex, which biologically makes inheritance a little difficult doesn't it? (Is that what you were saying zero?)
In any case, why talk about inheritance of a homosexual gene and not a heterosexual gene? In either case it is pretty unlikely that one gene is involved but a whole interaction of processes. Then there is an interaction of nature and nurture, it is not a matter of one or the other but a bit of both.
But which one is the evil one?
The one with the beard
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks