4 ms·

There are theories for how a low percentage of homosexuality might be selected for. I have heard at least of the idea that a non reproducing sibling can help y

There are theories for how a low percentage of homosexuality might be selected for. I have heard at least of the idea that a non reproducing sibling can help you raise your own offspring, who will have mostly the same genes. This is corroborated if I recall correctly by findings that each new child in a family has more chance to be homosexual than their already born siblings. There is also the idea that there might be genes that are most of the time favorable to reproduction, but once in a while (through crossing or mutations) result in homosexuality.

vagrantJin 6y ago
> This is corroborated if I recall correctly by findings that each new child in a family has more chance to be homosexual than their already born siblings. Very radical approach, seemingly against the grain of what we observe in the wild. It's such a leap of logic, you may very well have been talking about how santa claus' reindeer achieve thrust for their impressive levitation.
- arnoooooo 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. Humans have been social animals for a very long time, so it stands to reason that they would be genetically different from non humans, although i'd expect similar results in other social animals.
  - yorwba 6y ago
    An example of similar results in other social animals are worker/soldier ants/bees/termites. They don't reproduce, but by contributing to the survival of their hive of relatives, they still end up spreading their genes.
    - vagrantJin 6y ago
      Are they homosexual or asexual? Let's not confuse the two. They "cant" reproduce is quite a leap away from "can produce but won't" because as far as I am aware homosexuality has nothing to do with sexual reproduction and the required 'machinery'. Unless you have some solid papers or anecdotal experiences that say otherwise I'm willing to change my stance.
  - vagrantJin 6y ago
    > There are theories for how a low percentage of homosexuality might be selected for. My initial response was to the above statement which to my eyes presupposes homosexuality to be genetically expressed. Which has nothing to do with social/environmental factors.
williamdclt 6y ago
Why would subsequent children get different gene mutations? I don't think it's a thing, it would be like saying that every new child tends to have thicker eyebrows or something. Of course it is possible that statistically each new child in a family has higher probability to be homosexual for environmental reasons, but for genetic reasons? I don't see it (could be wrong, not an expert at all)
- benibela 6y ago
  It is weird: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_ma...
  - williamdclt 6y ago
    Very interesting, thank you for the link! Edit after reading: apparently it's well studied and proven that each subsequent _male_ child has more chance to be homosexual and that "the fraternal birth order effect operates through a biological mechanism during prenatal life, not during childhood or adolescence"

vagrantJin 6y ago

> This is corroborated if I recall correctly by findings that each new child in a family has more chance to be homosexual than their already born siblings. Very radical approach, seemingly against the grain of what we observe in the wild. It's such a leap of logic, you may very well have been talking about how santa claus' reindeer achieve thrust for their impressive levitation.

arnoooooo 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Humans have been social animals for a very long time, so it stands to reason that they would be genetically different from non humans, although i'd expect similar results in other social animals.
- yorwba 6y ago
  An example of similar results in other social animals are worker/soldier ants/bees/termites. They don't reproduce, but by contributing to the survival of their hive of relatives, they still end up spreading their genes.
  - vagrantJin 6y ago
    Are they homosexual or asexual? Let's not confuse the two. They "cant" reproduce is quite a leap away from "can produce but won't" because as far as I am aware homosexuality has nothing to do with sexual reproduction and the required 'machinery'. Unless you have some solid papers or anecdotal experiences that say otherwise I'm willing to change my stance.
- vagrantJin 6y ago
  > There are theories for how a low percentage of homosexuality might be selected for. My initial response was to the above statement which to my eyes presupposes homosexuality to be genetically expressed. Which has nothing to do with social/environmental factors.

williamdclt 6y ago

Why would subsequent children get different gene mutations? I don't think it's a thing, it would be like saying that every new child tends to have thicker eyebrows or something. Of course it is possible that statistically each new child in a family has higher probability to be homosexual for environmental reasons, but for genetic reasons? I don't see it (could be wrong, not an expert at all)

benibela 6y ago
It is weird: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_ma...
- williamdclt 6y ago
  Very interesting, thank you for the link! Edit after reading: apparently it's well studied and proven that each subsequent _male_ child has more chance to be homosexual and that "the fraternal birth order effect operates through a biological mechanism during prenatal life, not during childhood or adolescence"