"Explanation" for how homosexuality survives if it is genetic

[rpn]

I ran across this article describing new "research" (it is really computer modeling) about how homosexuality survives if it is genetic in origin.  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/half-of-all-people-could-be-carrying-gay-genes-a6982381.html

When I went to the published study http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0742-2/fulltext.html

it turns out that the researcher computer modeled HOW homosexuality could survive if it is genetic in origin.

Thought I'd offer some information from the research.

1.  It assumes that homosexuality is genetic and has been passed down.   It refers to gay genes as though such a thing has been identified, which I don't think is true.

2.  It works off earlier research that proves that same gender attracted children are more prevalent in large families* (which to some degree could be extrapolated to mean that it is more prevalent in LDS families, in evangelical families and in Catholic families (and in the third world families who can't access birth control), which in turn might prompt church members to be particularly concerned about how we personally deal with our members who experience same sex attraction).   It would surely be interesting to ask each person who is same gender attracted the number of siblings they have and their birth order. 

3.    But what is reported in this article is merely computer modeling that says that if mothers give birth to more children, their female offspring also carry "the homosexual genes" and pass them on, which is how homosexuality continues (when people with it have fewer children than non-homosexuals.)   I don't think that is clear in what is being reported in the popular press, and I think it is important to know.

 

* Some of this research was reported in the BYU alumni magazine 10 or so years ago.  The professor left BYU a couple of years thereafter and I've not been able to find the article I originally read online.  As I recall, his research showed that the more male children a mother had, the more likely their younger male child(ren) would feel same sex attraction.  He said that the explanation accounted for about 1/3 of those who claimed same sex attraction (though I don't recall if he used that term).

Edited April 14, 2016 by rpn

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, rpn said:

2.  It works off earlier research that proves that children are more prevalent in large families*

I think it is absolutely and astonishingly astounding that it has actually been proven that "children are more prevalent in large families"!!!

[rpn]

I've corrected the original post. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think it is absolutely and astonishingly astounding that it has actually been proven that "children are more prevalent in large families"!!!

Perhaps the research was refering to girth rather than quantity.

[Gray]

As I understand it the thought now is that it's more epigenetic than genetic. 

 

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I understand it the thought now is that it's more epigenetic than genetic. 

 

Which is of course influenced by environmental factors. I believe the thinking is going this way because for instance studies of identical twins don't support the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Other evidence suggests there is a large factor of "me-ness" in homosexuality - a large emphasis on looks ie outward appearance, youthfulness, and non-committal relationships - however, I believe there is a large percentage of that in heterosexual relationships in the present day as well. I believe this trend has something to do with the emerging prevalence of homosexuality. It seems in many simple hunter-gatherer societies, homosexuality is almost non-existent unless they are cannibalistic. 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Which is of course influenced by environmental factors. I believe the thinking is going this way because for instance studies of identical twins don't support the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Other evidence suggests there is a large factor of "me-ness" in homosexuality - a large emphasis on looks ie outward appearance, youthfulness, and non-committal relationships - however, I believe there is a large percentage of that in heterosexual relationships in the present day as well. I believe this trend has something to do with the emerging prevalence of homosexuality. It seems in many simple hunter-gatherer societies, homosexuality is almost non-existent unless they are cannibalistic. 

What I've read seems to indicate that it has something to do with womb environment, and happens more often (in males) in children with older siblings within large families. I've also read that there seem to be differences in physical features between gay and straight people.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

that there seem to be differences in physical features between gay and straight people.

Like what? - that straight people have more skin sensors or something? It seems gay people are bent on somehow showing that their gayness is not environmentally based...

perhaps that is less conducive to the idea that they are entitled to civil rights.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Like what? - that straight people have more skin sensors or something? It seems gay people are bent on somehow showing that their gayness is not environmentally based...

perhaps that is less conducive to the idea that they are entitled to civil rights.

Here's an overview:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbian_women

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

As I understand it the thought now is that it's more epigenetic than genetic. 

 

Epigenetic? LOL!

Larger families provide more opportunities for "playing doctor" and other relatively innocent exploration, which some might equate with "abuse" if it is based on older siblings performing acts on younger siblings.

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, Gray said:

What I've read seems to indicate that it has something to do with womb environment, and happens more often (in males) in children with older siblings within large families. 

Which is explained by the possibility of abuse.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Epigenetic? LOL!

Larger families provide more opportunities for "playing doctor" and other relatively innocent exploration, which some might equate with "abuse" if it is based on older siblings performing acts on younger siblings.

I don't know about any of that, but it appears that some women experience a change in womb environment if they've already had a couple of boys. It's like their bodies are programming younger boys to be gay. 

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Epigenetic? LOL!

Larger families provide more opportunities for "playing doctor" and other relatively innocent exploration, which some might equate with "abuse" if it is based on older siblings performing acts on younger siblings.

How would one go about ruling out the epigenetic "cause" from the environmental cause that doesn't affect genetic expression?

And how does one assert such a thing with a straight face?

These, Herr Professor Doktor, are the questions that I'd like an answer to  ...  as well as:

To what lengths will the true believer go to invent support for his previously and quite irrationally arrived at position?

Edited April 14, 2016 by USU78
Lacks good manners

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

How would one go about ruling out the nonepigenetic "cause" from the environmental cause that doesn't affect genetic expression?

And how does one assert such a thing with a straight face.

These, Herr Professor Doktor, are the questions that I'd like an answer to  ...  as well as:

To what lengths will the true believer go to invent support for his previously and quite irrationally arrived at position?

PRECISELY!

Environmental is environmental.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Which is explained by the possibility of abuse.

I don't know of any evidence to suggest that. I'm not sure how playing doctor would affect finger length ratios or other differences between gay and straight individuals, let alone hormone balance in the mother's womb. 

The idea that people can be conditioned to be gay or straight seems largely mythical at this point. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know about any of that, but it appears that some women experience a change in womb environment if they've already had a couple of boys. It's like their bodies are programming younger boys to be gay. 

Oh yeah.  Those tricky wombs are like that.  They evolved that way to limit population growth, right?

That just moves the problem to how wombs evolve to limit population growth.  After all, the billions of people on the planet during early evolutionary stages of man created the necessity to limit the population due to limited resources.  Obviously it was successful because population growth has been reducing since pre-historic times.

Uh huh.  

That is so contradictory on so many levels- hopefully I don't have to list them all.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know of any evidence to suggest that. I'm not sure how playing doctor would affect finger length ratios or other differences between gay and straight individuals, let alone hormone balance in the mother's womb. 

Ahh  ...  I see Sir Simon le Vay hath been with you!

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know about any of that, but it appears that some women experience a change in womb environment if they've already had a couple of boys. It's like their bodies are programming younger boys to be gay. 

Interesting.  That being said, my gay stepson was an only child of his parents. 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah.  Those tricky wombs are like that.  They evolved that way to limit population growth, right?

That just moves the problem to how wombs evolve to limit population growth.  After all, the billions of people on the planet during early evolutionary stages of man created the necessity to limit the population due to limited resources.  Obviously it was successful because population growth has been reducing since pre-historic times.

Uh huh.  

That is so contradictory on so many levels- hopefully I don't have to list them all.

It sounds like you think I'm just pulling this out of thin air. I'm not. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

There are plenty of things that get passed on that tend to be less than advantageous in terms of natural selection. Baldness for instance. Why hasn't that been weeded out purely through natural selection? There are plenty of back doors in nature where things like that can get through. 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

It sounds like you think I'm just pulling this out of thin air. I'm not. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

There are plenty of things that get passed on that tend to be less than advantageous in terms of natural selection. Baldness for instance. Why hasn't that been weeded out purely through natural selection? There are plenty of back doors in nature where things like that can get through. 

 

Let's just leqve it with no, I know you are not making it up.

Baldness?  Really?  When the lifespan was thirty years old- and who says baldness is not sexy??

Young men now shave their heads to be sexy!

You will have to do better than that!

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

It sounds like you think I'm just pulling this out of thin air. I'm not. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

There are plenty of things that get passed on that tend to be less than advantageous in terms of natural selection. Baldness for instance. Why hasn't that been weeded out purely through natural selection? There are plenty of back doors in nature where things like that can get through. 

 

Quote

Evolutionary geneticist William Rice of the University of California, Santa Barbara, felt there had to be a reason why homosexuality didn't just fade away down the generations.

And right there is your assumption that homosexuality MUST be genetic.

Obviously if it came from the environment, it would not "just fade away down the generations".

The whole study begged the question.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

What I've read seems to indicate that it has something to do with womb environment, and happens more often (in males) in children with older siblings within large families. I've also read that there seem to be differences in physical features between gay and straight people.

Ah, so that's why gay men don't like women, because they are the cause of their gayness... gosh finally figgurred it out!

I wonder which parent causes Lesbians?

(or maybe it is that modern women find a lack of empathy and love in male counterparts)

[Gray]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Let's just leqve it with no, I know you are not making it up.

Baldness?  Really?  When the lifespan was thirty years old- and who says baldness is not sexy??

Young men now shave their heads to be sexy!

You will have to do better than that!

I am bald. If I had gone bald before marriage I might still be single. That pesky condition sneaked its way into my DNA via my mother, who is not bald, but carries the gene. Life finds a way, often in ways we'd rather it not.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Ah, so that's why gay men don't like women, because they are the cause of their gayness... gosh finally figgurred it out!

I wonder which parent causes Lesbians?

(or maybe it is that modern women find a lack of empathy and love in male counterparts)

Gay people are physiologically different. That means we're looking for biological causes, not causes that might have something to do with conscious choices. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Gray

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't know about any of that, but it appears that some women experience a change in womb environment if they've already had a couple of boys. It's like their bodies are programming younger boys to be gay. 

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that a mothers latter children are not being protected from bad programing in the womb the way that the earlier children are. 

Here's an interesting article.  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm