demagogue on 3/4/2011 at 17:05

---

I read an article noting the statistical properties of homosexuality across cultures and time periods (to the extent they get data) of around just over 10% argued for a genetic mechanism similar to left-handedness, where there's a dominant gene selecting the majority (heterosexual), then when you get the recessive gene the development path has a ~50% chance to go down the track for either route, which would end up as ~12.5% gay (half of 25%, then you can imagine it gets undercounted for social reasons and other genetic cues can nudge it), the idea being that like a lot of systems the foundation is made to be equipotential between men and women (like nipples, or the way the reproductive organs develop) and needs a genetic trigger to set it solidly down a path (though sometimes developing both to some extent, leading to bisexuality like handedness can lead to ambidextrousness).

So the article's punchline was gayness developed under this theory because it was just cheaper to have it equipotential and have a specific genetic trigger (like it is cheaper to just give everybody nipples though only women need them), and ~10% gayness and some bisexuality is a natural result of that way of doing it, but that didn't necessarily meant it was selected "for" any kind of a fitness role, nor can it be an "abnormality" since it's a natural part of how the system is supposed to work, just like you can expect blue eyes or left-handedness, and it's working "properly" when you get a sizeable gay population. It's just a side-effect of the blueprint since it's cheaper than the alternatives (as opposed to how aspects of gender are selected, which are more expensive). But it wasn't selected out by reducing fitness either, and could have found adaptive roles once it got rolling. So as I understood it, the question of "function" vs. "accident" is fraught as an actual biological question. I mean, our spines were designed for quadrapeds, with the organs draping down in the ribcage like a clothesline, so every human walking upright is technically doing it wrong for what it's good for, but that's the path we took anyway and the spine did the best it could with this S-curve or whatever. (This is all second-hand stuff for me though; I can only report what I remember from articles I read.)

But all of this is aside from the point that "natural", "unnatural", "nature", "abnormal", etc, as it comes up in arguments like this isn't a biological concept at all but a social and political concept, and the term "natural" becomes like a black-box which different political interests use as their lodestone, each side trying to fill that blackbox with their own narrative, where scientific and other facts just become tools to argue one narrative over another, but it's the political interest doing all the real work not the facts themselves (which are almost always trying to dismiss the whole distinction as artificial). This I do know a bit about since a million legal disputes on every scientific process usually come down to contested narratives about what's "natural", with political and moral bias at its root and little to do with the actual science of it.

SubJeff on 3/4/2011 at 20:09

---

Koki isn't the stupid one here, everyone else is for even engaging him.

Well done guys, you just got trolled.

Imbeciles.

DDL on 4/4/2011 at 19:20

---

Except it no longer really works to consider humans purely in that context. Physically, probably yes (hence poor handling of a sugar-rich diet, etc etc), but mentally: you can no longer view us exclusively as animals governed by genetic constraints. You are no longer merely a product of your genes. Education and upbringing can make a HUGE difference. People with amazing genetic potential who grow up in shitty housing estates may never be all they can be, conversely people with incredibly mediocre ability may be born into a hugely rich estate, get a fantastic education and as a result become a very very successful individual. Hell, brilliant biochemists with amazing research skills and an incredible work ethic* may by mere circumstance end up unemployed, drinking wine directly from the bottle and arguing on the internet. It's not just genes.

So: the fact that genetic evolution HAS shaped us (and is in fact still occurring) is important, certainly. However, it IS lagging behind cultural evolution by like, a factor of 10,000 or more (+/- one or two orders of magnitude), and thus cultural evolution is often vastly more relevant when considering issues like this.

As an aside, subjeff really doesn't go out of his way to endear himself to anyone, does he? :erg:


*currently available for hire, incidentally

june gloom on 4/4/2011 at 20:40

---

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/dethtoll/goddammitttlg.jpg

DDL on 4/4/2011 at 21:07

---

http://www.foxnews.com/images/340337/0_61_061009_mole_rat.jpg