the first homosexual

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, I agree that there isn't enough evidence. This does seem like a thread for speculation though.

JM

[Lorizael]

My novel idea is that homosexuality is influenced by the same things that other human traits are influenced by - genetics, in utero effects, environment, experience, choice.

Am I leaving anything out?

[Jon Miller]

I was obviously talking about the genetic effects, as that is what humans, birds, etc must be sharing in common...

JM

[Blake]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think that homosexuality is caused by a highly common mutation.

I think that all traits are caused by highly common mutations, some so common as to become universal, even to the point where lack of said mutation is considered a mutation.

[Jon Miller]

Well, but it would have bred out of some non-social speciies, I think, unless it was easily reintroduced by mutation.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

I find dubious the proposition that there's a genetic relation between homosexuality in unrelated species.

[Jon Miller]

Well, it is common across all sorts of species.. I am not a biologist so can just make broad based correlations based upon the evidence that is available to me.

Why do you find it dubious by the way? I am not aware of any reason why it should be. In fact, my understanding is that the appearence of homosexuality in many, very different, species, was one of the main peices of evidence for there being a genetic cause (that isn't to say that there isn't other causes, but one cause being genetic).

JM
(Once more, this is all on a Nature or Science level, I don't actually know much biology).

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Blake


I think that all traits are caused by highly common mutations, some so common as to become universal, even to the point where lack of said mutation is considered a mutation.

The natural homosexuality rate (among humans, and currently) seems to be about 10%, that doesn't seem to be universal... would also make progeny difficult if it was universal.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Well, it is common across all sorts of species.. I am not a biologist so can just make broad based correlations based upon the evidence that is available to me.

Ever heard of convergent evolution?

Why do you find it dubious by the way? I am not aware of any reason why it should be. In fact, my understanding is that the appearence of homosexuality in many, very different, species, was one of the main peices of evidence for there being a genetic cause (that isn't to say that there isn't other causes, but one cause being genetic).

Consider your proposition: there is a set of genetic factors that if flipped one way make you gay and another make you straight, essentially. Perhaps there are two sets, because there's no good reason to assume male and female homosexuality are in any way related. These factors are preserved across nearly all different animal species, despite the fact that for some species there's no meaningful way for homosexuality to occur (e.g. most fish, IIRC).

Consider the alternative: whatever mechanism each species (or group of related species) uses to recognize what to **** occasionally breaks for diverse reasons, some genetic, some not, and in some species this isn't sufficiently unfit to be weeded out.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Well, it is common across all sorts of species.. I am not a biologist so can just make broad based correlations based upon the evidence that is available to me.

Ever heard of convergent evolution?

[

For species that there isn't any reason for the evolution process to happen? I am talking about nonsocial species (as there are theories that homosexuality is beneficial (more adults per kid) and so evolutionary selected for).

Additionally, the correlation of increased homosexuality (in the animal kingdom) with increased pollution is very interesting.. and suggests the common mutation hypothesis (as pollution causes lots of mutations).

JM

[Jon Miller]

If there are similarities based upon experiments.. then my initial guesses/hypothesis are that there is a common explanation.

This is a major difference between science and mathematics.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Additionally, the correlation of increased homosexuality (in the animal kingdom) with increased pollution is very interesting.. and suggests the common mutation hypothesis (as pollution causes lots of mutations).

That doesn't suggest that the same genetic factors determine sexual orientation in different species. It only suggests that those species have some genetic factors in determining sexual orientation.

If there are similarities based upon experiments.. then my initial guesses/hypothesis are that there is a common explanation.

Except that a common explanation in the form of shared genes is inherently implausible because of the nature of homosexuality and the nature of genetics. OTOH, similar but separately arising common causes are not only plausible in evolution, but quite common.

This is a major difference between science and mathematics.

Thank you for telling me that, I would never have guessed that science wasn't pure deduction

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
For species that there isn't any reason for the evolution process to happen? I am talking about nonsocial species (as there are theories that homosexuality is beneficial (more adults per kid) and so evolutionary selected for).

Try "there is a mechanism for determining sexual orientation that sometimes breaks." The convergent evolution would be a mechanism for determining what to have sex with.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

If there are similarities based upon experiments.. then my initial guesses/hypothesis are that there is a common explanation.

Except that a common explanation in the form of shared genes is inherently implausible because of the nature of homosexuality and the nature of genetics. OTOH, similar but separately arising common causes are not only plausible in evolution, but quite common.

On the other hand, there is shared genetics... in that all these creatures are sexed. Homosexuality also deals with sex.. so it is very reasonable to think hat it would be in the sex genes where there is commonality. I think that it is generally thought that sex decended evolutionary and wasn't the result of covergent evolution.

I am just really not seeing where your implausable is coming from. Are you sure you aren't taking preconceptions from homosexuality in humans into your statements?

You know that most creatures have a large amount of DNA in common?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Try "there is a mechanism for determining sexual orientation that sometimes breaks." The convergent evolution would be a mechanism for determining what to have sex with.

I am really not seeing any reason for you to be against my hypothesis, other then you want to and it is possible.

JM