Quote from: phrakture on March 07, 2010, 04:46:21 PM

I stongly believe that humans are meant to have breeding and non-breeding members in one group. Or, at the very least, non-breeding males (some ape groups have one male who breeds with all females, the other males do other things). Thinking of it this way, homosexuality is not a "mutation" in the same way that having longer or shorter fingernails is a mutation. It's another state this may have been necessary to help us survive when we were huddled masses in a cave

I understand the argument about non-breeding males. What I'm saying is: if they don't breed then their behavior (if genetically determined) will diet out as soon as they die, precisely because of their non-breeding status.

That's what I meant by evolutionary dead-end: not reproducing is a dead end for all genetically determined qualities.

This hasn't happened to wolves, why would it happen to humans?

Quote from: phrakture on March 07, 2010, 05:08:52 PM

This hasn't happened to wolves, why would it happen to humans?

I don't know, that's what I'm struggling with.

What do you think? How do qualities exhibited by non-breeding members get passed down?

Sperm Wars author Baker is of the opinion that non exclusive homosexual behaviour is a trait for more promiscuity that leads to earlier sex and with more partners and with more sexual experience, thus a good deal of offspring.

Pottenger's experiments with raw meat vs cooked meat in cats show that the physical and multigenerational degeneration of cats in his exclusively cooked meat experiment showed genetic expression degeneration leading to homosexual and infertile cats in the end.  His cooked meat exclusive cats stopped reproducing altogether after the 4th generation due to malnutrition.  See pottenger's cats on the web.  Google it.

Quote from: goodsamaritan on March 07, 2010, 05:46:14 PM

Sperm Wars author Baker is of the opinion that non exclusive homosexual behaviour is a trait for more promiscuity that leads to earlier sex and with more partners and with more sexual experience, thus a good deal of offspring.

WTF???  How can two homosexuals have more offspring?  There's either too much sperm for one way or two uterus's and NO sperm.  Therefore they cannot create a "good deal of offspring"

To clarify: homosexuals are not exclusive homosexuals.  They do heterosexual sex as well.  Baker did a whole chapter on this.  Very convincing.  What was alien to me is why people in his culture / observation beat up homosexuals. 

I'm usually intrigued about evolution in action (hence, the diet). A question I have not been able to solve about homosexuality and evolution:

- Since homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end,
- But there are still some homosexuals in population since known history.

Does that mean that homosexuality is:

a) A dead-end mutation that happens much more often than other mutations?
or
b) Not inheritable?
or
c) Inheritable but there are enough homosexuals reproducing heterosexually?
or
d) A male and female combination could provide a homosexual offspring even if both parents are not homosexuals?

I find questions like the above interesting.

In my opinion, the whole "homosexuality is genetic" meme is basically an oversimplifying cop out that allows homosexuals get the valid idea across that "it's not a choice, please don't try to cure us" without having to know or get into complex explanations about how it could be environmental yet still not be subject to change once established.

My personal opinion is that it's established early by some environmental factor, like imprinting or Sassenach's point about exposure to hormones in the womb.

That said, I have seen two possibly valid arguments about how homosexuality could be genetic:

1.  Kin selection.  Homosexuals have some huge advantage in, say, amassing wealth or power - for example by becoming priests in medieval Europe - which they can then use to improve the reproductive prospects of their relatives.  In this case, homosexuality would have to be genetically recessive.  I'm skeptical, but it's not impossible.

2.  Extreme of a spectrum.  Perhaps more "effeminate" men have a better chance of cuckolding married men because they aren't viewed as a threat.  Too much effeminacy, though, and you get a homosexual.  There could be a stable frequency for these genes that would still result in a few "evolutionary dead end" homosexuals.  In this case, homophobia might also be selected for as a defense against being cuckolded.  Again, theoretically possible, but I very much doubt it, mostly because there doesn't seem to be any real correlation between effeminacy and homosexuality.

Again, I don't believe either of these explanations is correct, but I provide them for completeness.

Quote from: phrakture on March 07, 2010, 04:12:06 PM

Ah, but it's only an evolutionary dead-end if you think in terms of a "2-parents + children" unit. We're social creatures, and like most apes, would exist in the wild in packs/tribes/clans. I liken it mostly to wolf packs - in a pack of perhaps 10-12 wolves, there is only one breeding pair. This is the "alpha" male and female. The other wolves may live their entire lives without producing offspring. Sometimes the alpha may die and is replaced by the next down, but for the most part only one pair produces cubs. The rest of the wolves are there for the good of the pack itself. They help raise the cubs, protect then, find food, etc

This would not be a genetic effect.  In this situation, the same wolf would be homosexual while a subordinate wolf, but become heterosexual if it became an alpha.  There would be no genetic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

I didn't use the word genetic in there. A lot of people use the "genetic" term when I think they mean "biological". I'm not a doctor, but I don't see anything related to sexual preference passed on in the way blue eyes or big feet are. I think it is brought on by social stimulus in the same way that a male's preference for big breasts or something similar is brought on by social stimulus.

. . .  (some ape groups have one male who breeds with all females, the other males do other things) .  .  .

Wow! We think we are more advanced.     Not a bad deal for the male that gets all the females.

 . . .  I think I just heard all of the women on this forum groan when they read that.

Quote from: Paleo Dude on March 07, 2010, 08:51:07 PM

Quote from: phrakture on March 07, 2010, 04:46:21 PM

. . .  (some ape groups have one male who breeds with all females, the other males do other things) .  .  .

Wow! We think we are more advanced.     Not a bad deal for the male that gets all the females.

 . . .  I think I just heard all of the women on this forum groan when they read that.

Sounds like a good deal for paleo me and my paleo sons.      

What about your daughters?