Since homosexuality is a genetic trait and those with this trait are blessed with fewer offspring than straight ones, the question arises as to why their number has not decreased over the generations. The answer to this is in the evolutionary benefit of homosexuality
(Editor's note: the article was published in 2003 and was first written before that. Since then it has been possible for same-sex couples to have children in various settings, especially surrogacy (relevant for male couples). It will be interesting to see the development. AB, June 2013.)
As we know, the phenomenon of homosexuality is widespread among the human race, in males and females, as well as among other species of animals. About ten percent of people are homosexual - even if they have not come out of the closet and even if they live a heterosexual, bisexual lifestyle, or avoid relationships at all. This figure has not changed throughout history, and is the same among different races, cultures and societies.
It should be noted that we are referring here to normal homosexuals, males and females and we are not discussing in this context phenomena such as hormonal problems in pregnancy, in which the newborns have one genetic gender, but have sexual characteristics of the other gender.
Contrary to what was thought in the past, homosexuality is not a mental deviation explained by various psychological factors and therefore it cannot be treated by psychological means.
This is an innate trait - that is, genetic, you are simply born that way and there is nothing you can do about it. Indeed, we recently read in various publications about the discovery of genes characteristic of homosexuals.
The understanding that homosexuality is innate, as well as revolutions in cultural perceptions, changed society's attitude towards homosexuals. As I recall, at the time there was a law in Israel defining homosexual relations as a criminal act. Already many years ago, the Attorney General gave an instruction not to file lawsuits under this law - until it was repealed. Unfortunately, the conservative and religious circles still regard homosexuality with disgust. As you know, male intercourse is forbidden according to Torah laws. However, it goes without saying that homosexuality is common among religious people, just like in the rest of the population. It is interesting to note that the Torah, as well as other religions, did not address women's homosexuality. Obviously in times past, when women's status was low, lesbians did not realize their inclination in many cases, or the realization was not expressed in public.
The question of why there is homosexuality at all, is asked from a genetic point of view. Apparently, there is no evolutionary advantage to this phenomenon - on the contrary, everyone will agree, because homosexuals have far fewer offspring than straight people. Even if today homosexuals bring children into the world by artificial means, this phenomenon is not so common and throughout most of the course of evolution, this possibility did not exist. It is also clear that not many homosexuals bring or have brought offspring into the world by way of heterosexual intercourse.
In light of all this, the genes for homosexuality should have been extinct a long time ago - during the hundreds of thousands of generations since the appearance of the first human species - and even during the ten thousand generations since the appearance of the Homo-Spiens-Spiens on Earth.
If so, why haven't the genes for homosexuality gone extinct and there are homosexuals? Could this feature have some evolutionary advantage?
It turns out that.
Apparently, during evolution, homosexuals and lesbians who did not have offspring of their own, helped obtain food and care for their brothers and other young relatives and this increased their chances of survival. Since the homosexuals are relatives, they partly carried the genes for this phenomenon, even if it is not always manifested in them. Therefore these genes continued to exist in the population.
The fact that the rate of homosexuals in the population is constant indicates that such a rate of homosexuality in the population was an evolutionarily stable strategy. What does it mean? Suppose the percentage of homosexuals would increase, then the benefit they would bring in helping their relatives would be offset by the fact that homosexuals themselves have no (or have fewer) offspring. Thus there is a certain optimal percentage of homosexuals who helped their relatives, but not too high, which would have caused the population to decrease. In short - there is a reason why there are homosexuals and why their percentage in the population is constant.
In recent times - and we are talking here about the order of magnitude of thousands of years, which are nothing compared to the millions of years of human evolution - we stopped being a society of hunter-gatherers and became an agricultural and technological society. If the human race and human culture continue to exist, in the next tens and hundreds of thousands of years, we will probably witness a gradual and continuous decrease in the percentage of homosexuals, since their evolutionary advantage has already ceased to exist. Since childbirth among homosexuals involves special actions and initiatives - beyond just having a relationship with a partner of the preferred marriage - their birth rate will always be lower than that of the rest of the population.
48 תגובות
What nonsense are you talking about, since when do genes like this exist, according to what research do you make this argument? It is known that most gays were once straight, for example Ran Denker who had dozens of girls before he came out of the closet. Perhaps he himself is also like that and the more insecure he is and he is exposed to content that makes him think more and more that he is like that, the higher his chances of being like that. I personally know someone who told me his story and he himself was straight for years and he says of himself that he is sick and when he was exposed to it on the Internet he was attracted by curiosity and after doing the deed he was unable to go back to being straight because this perversion in his case is stronger than the "perversion" for women
The important question was asked and the answer is strange and cannot be correct.
Why for a very long period of time when gays have a disadvantage in the issue of reproduction, the phenomenon has not ended. It is also regenerated from non-gay parents.
The phenomenon was to disappear. And if not then there is a real reason.
There are so many gays of both sexes that you can do an accurate research and get an answer. So don't procrastinate.
go to the lab
This phenomenon certainly has many possible causes. I believe that the genetic factor is not specific to the creation of homosexuals, because a large number of genes whose combination creates a phenomenon and another combination does not.
Not true at all.
Gays and lesbians - their sexual attraction is created mainly due to sexual abuse they suffered from violent and cruel men.
Tiny percentages belong to those born with a sexual orientation towards their own sex.
Indeed the test of the result - according to most, a gay man is more available and bequeaths money. Genetic - why would I prefer to play rubber rather than football or basketball? Why would I prefer more emotional music? Why do female singers' voices do it to me more? Why am I more sensitive and empathetic?
I was pre-given feminine features. On some you can see it physically! You get that in gardens not under one or another growing conditions.
Most importantly, nature loves variety, it strengthens the ability to survive so it sends life qualities everywhere.
The phenomenon will not disappear, since there will always be a family advantage for a gay brother or a lesbian sister - first or finally, rather, they will receive an inheritance. Everything else is a bonus, nephews feel they have no competition when they meet the gay uncle who has no children and strong and good characters in the family make for good childhood experiences for the nephews.
The entry "order of birth in the family" in Wikipedia gives another answer, according to my understanding, more significant:
"Studies have found that a second son in the family, who has an older brother, has a 33% higher chance of being homosexual than his brother, and the chance increases with each birth of another son in the family[7][8], while the number of girls in the family has no effect. The accepted theory explaining this finding holds that during pregnancy, in the male fetuses there is a protein called HY involved in the initial processes of making the brain more masculine. Since the protein is only found in males, the mother's immune system recognizes it as a foreign body and tries to attack it. The more the mother's immune system is exposed to the protein, that is - the more pregnancies include male fetuses, the more effectively the immune system attacks the protein; As a result, damage may occur to the process of turning the fetus's brain into a male, which may cause homosexuality."
The 10% LGBT is an ancient lie that the LGBT community spreads. It's a shame that the author didn't bother to go through serious research, and not on purpose. LGBT people make up about 2% of the total population.
1. A gay man who wants children.. and knows where they come from.
Will reach an agreement with a woman. You don't have to continue with her.. you know. You too to him.
2. The fact that we've known this for several thousand years.. pretty much created a sexual choice for men who want to be parents in the case of same-sex attraction.
3. Someone here said there are a million types of gays. These are trances. And then it's not really the trans people, but the Tsumi runners and people who don't really have a gender. At least not in the context of inner recognition. but only in an external context. Like a woman who ties a tie is now a man or something.
Gender is the need to fulfill a gender role. When you find cosmic fluidity (yes that's one of them) play a role. We will talk about these as gender and not fasting.
point? Gay means a man who is attracted to men. If I am nice to trans people I can add the element of gender here. But the truth is..
Jews did not commit suicide in the Holocaust. Neither are slaves in America.
or prisoners of war.
Mentally disabled people mostly commit suicide.
Despite what people like to say.. gays don't commit suicide in a special way. Neither are lesbians. or bisexual.
Trances on the other hand. before the transition. after the transition It doesn't save them. And many times they come back.
And then you find out that you can't really go back.
boom. boom. boom.
I will not write what is requested.
4. The fact that the Bible even bothered to prohibit under penalty of death sex between men and commands marriage..
It does not indicate that they thought at the time that gays were a particularly rare thing. It seems to have been quite common.
The fact that the body has adaptations that only make sense in the context of anal sex. Among men and in general..
Pretty much shows that gays were very useful.
And apart from that, there is no unequivocal proof that the homosexual tendency is genetic. Psychological factors should not be underestimated, which are mainly the influence on the person and the environment that allows the genetic component to express itself, if at all.
If it is genetic and no homosexual gene has yet been found, then it is no more than 30 percent genetic influence and I have also exaggerated the figure. There is still a 70 percent influence of environment and psychology on the tendency.
And the fact is that there are a million types of gays, so this shows that everyone chooses what is comfortable for them and what they prefer, for example a gay man who has children with Ashia and raises them together, a gay man who does not have children, a gay man who does not sleep with boys, a gay man who also sleeps with girls, a gay man who has a child from a surrogate, a gay man that he has a million girlfriends, a gay man who has no woman in his life and in his vicinity and a million other types. You already know that this is not pure genetics because it is written in the article. Isn't it like that?
Incorrect data. Today we are talking about 1.7 percent and up to 3.5 percent gays and there is also a problem as to what the definition of gay is, there are a million types. Besides, gays living in the wild did have sexual relations with the female and therefore survived.
A narrow and inadequate explanation. In the same way, it can be said that just as there are people who are hardworking or not, smart or not, with one or another eye color, one or another behavioral tendency, or even the degree of exposure to trauma - there are people whose minds are affected during their lives so that the attraction is directed towards members of their own sex. That's all, it doesn't even have to be genetic, and chances are it's not genetic or mostly not genetic.
Maya
Thanks (and of course also to Aryeh Seter)! I got to know the Red Queen theory in the context of technology development - the same idea 🙂
Miracles,
You can also read about it here:
http://www.livescience.com/5773-s***ex-fend-parasites.html
The 3 stars must be downloaded from the link, without them the response is blocked.
lion
Yes, the theory is Hamilton's. I referred to a guy named Lively who lives in Indiana (not Arizona) and does experimental work on the subject (and not only theoretical) which is not very common in the field.
Nissim / Maya and anyone who wants to speculate on the subject. The parasite theory as an impulse towards sexual reproduction is Hamilton's.
Miracles,
Yes, this is actually a subtopic of variable environment. The organism that the parasite treats has to change quickly and then it is immune, but then the parasite has to change quickly, etc., etc. Such an arms race that leads nowhere (like any arms race...) It has an affectionate nickname: "The Red Queen Hypothesis" because you run run run run only To stay in the same place as the character of the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's book said.
Make cute proofs on this topic, I just can't remember right now what organism (some kind of mollusk) the guy who works on it a lot (whose name I, of course, can't remember either but can easily find if you're interested) is sitting in Arizona and the animals are Bodek actually sits somewhere in Australia.
Maya
I once read that there is an advantage to sexual reproduction in the context of parasites. Do you know the subject?
rival
agree You can certainly do that, but keep in mind that previous simulations (the first ones done) really failed to find any advantage to sexual reproduction, even when there is no penalty to sexual reproduction. In the beginning they didn't even incorporate mutations into the process and in my opinion, historically, the first turning point came when they incorporated mutations into the process and found that only for a sufficiently large mutation rate can an advantage be found (although still not an advantage that explains the large penalty that accompanies sexual reproduction).
Maya, okay.
And regarding the simulation, I had no doubt that similar things had already been written in the past, but there is never anything like an eye mirror.
rival
1. True, this is part of the conditions...
2. You can write the simulation, but many such have already been written before you (including simulations that I myself wrote in my PhD...) and again, there is an advantage to sexual reproduction under different conditions. Some of the tested conditions in which an advantage for sexual reproduction was found are: small populations, high mutation rate, changing environmental conditions and links of slight negative epistasis between genes. Under "normal" conditions it is very difficult to find an advantage for sexual reproduction. One of the reasons for this is that sexual reproduction comes with a 50% greater penalty than asexual reproduction. In asexual reproduction, every organism is "female" and carries the offspring of the next generation, therefore such a population will multiply exponentially. In a sexual population, on the other hand, only 50% of the population are females who carry the offspring of the next generation, so such a population will maintain a constant size. It is difficult to compete with these numbers and therefore you need an additional advantage for breeding and this advantage comes from all of the above that I described above.
3. One of the things linked to sexual reproduction which is an integral part of the mechanism is the recombination (transition) of the genes. This basically means that two alleles that were linked to each other (on the same chromosome, for example) for years of evolution and learned to work together optimally, can stop being linked to each other (move to be on different chromosomes) because of the recombination that happens in meiosis. That is, a set of alleles that was the optimal combination until now according to the conditions ceases to be combined. Many times this can be a very hard blow to the organism.
Oh, I made a mistake in the article, I meant the article about the experiment with bacteria that began to consume carbon dioxide and produce sugars from it.
A really cool experiment in my opinion, I really liked the idea, the execution and the results.
This is how science is done.
Maya,
Thanks for the clarifications –
1. "Most organisms in nature still reproduce asexually", true, but don't forget that they have an advantage in numbers, usually these are microscopic unicellular or multicellular organisms whose reproduction rate is very fast and it may be that this compensates for the small genetic variation.
2. At the first opportunity I have I intend to write a simple computer simulation that will check the matter. Two populations of the same size, the same rate of mutations, the same rate of reproduction, one group reproduces by bisexual reproduction and the other by unisexual reproduction.
We'll run a few times and see which team has the edge, I'm betting on the bisexual team.
3. "Don't forget that the specific diversity that developed (the specific relationships between the genes) developed this way not by chance but under the constant pressure of natural selection." Changing these relationships will, therefore, often be very problematic."
I haven't gotten to the bottom of your mind, which problem do you think usually exists? (For example, in the population of humans, or other mammals that breed through bisexual reproduction).
rival
Not accurate and depends on the conditions. Sexual reproduction can actually reduce diversity under certain conditions. In addition, even if it increases the variety, the question arises as to whether it is always a good thing. Don't forget that the specific diversity that developed (the specific relationships between genes) developed this way not by chance but under the constant pressure of natural selection. Changing these connections will, therefore, often be very problematic. In fact, the question of the development of sexual reproduction is an age-old question in evolutionary biology to which there is still no unequivocal answer (in this case also the question on which I did my doctoral research...) There are many specific cases in which sexual reproduction was shown to be preferred over asexual reproduction, but this is really Not true overall. As you can see, most organisms in nature still reproduce asexually, even if most of them are able to reproduce sexually some of the time, depending on the conditions.
anonymous,
I don't think so, bisexual reproduction has a great evolutionary advantage, it creates a much greater variety of traits and this is the basis for development and survival.
In asexual reproduction, all the offspring are almost completely identical to the parent, it is difficult for the population to develop in new directions this way.
Wouldn't it be better from an evolutionary point of view to create asexuals?
Herzl:
Evolution works blindly.
She makes attempts.
Most of them do not have a significant effect, some give their carriers an advantage over their competitors and some fail their carriers in the race to position the offspring.
In this framework, barren people are also created and not only homosexuals.
Is it hard for you to accept?
You better try because this is the reality.
I don't understand much about the theory of evolution, I don't understand what makes people attracted to their own kind. If the subconscious human drive is to procreate, why would a man or woman be attracted to a member of the same sex, a relationship that cannot produce natural reproduction. I understand from the post that there is a social / collective interest in evolution and that the private, individual interest is 60% null compared to the general social interest, and yet, as someone who believes that each person is a whole world, it is difficult for me to accept such a common phenomenon as homosexuality, which fundamentally contradicts the genetic preservation of the individual
Nathaniel:
No explanation will help someone like you - decided not to understand and remain ignorant until the end of time
Who decided all the things that were said really seems to have invented them at the moment because we all know how the path of the gays began in the beginning it was lust for women and then for men besides that I can guarantee that if it is mentioned in the Torah that it is forbidden to be gay then even those who are already gay could get out of it and have another vision for the time I will explain my words at length
Homosexuals are created from straights by genes or something else so there is no connection to their continuation by marriage
Sharon:
You're just wrong.
Not that you shouldn't make mistakes but your disdain for others while you flaunt your mistakes is ridiculous.
There are many studies that indicate that homosexuality is genetic.
Some of these studies also show that apparently the son's genetic tendency to homosexuality comes from the mother's side.
But without anything to do with these studies (which you may not have known about) - your "logical" conclusion is also wrong.
There are genetic traits that are created in children without their parents suffering from them.
A prominent example of this is Down syndrome.
This phenomenon is usually caused by an extra copy of chromosome 21 created as a result of a malfunction in the formation of the gametes.
The claim about social conditioning is nonsense and anyone who has ever engaged in introspection knows this.
In addition to the many testimonies against this claim, it is worth noting that homosexuality also exists in animals that do not live a social life at all, and in some cases we know how to create physical conditions that will cause it.
I guess you're not gay.
I suggest you try to compare before your eyes a social factor that would have made you homosexual.
As for myself, I know that there is simply no way in the world that I could "choose" such behavior.
Just as I cannot choose to prefer men (what is it to choose a preference?! You have to overcome the aversion first and that is also impossible!) so most homosexuals cannot choose to prefer women.
The tendency is congenital in the vast majority of cases.
What is this nonsense - there is not a single serious study that says that homosexuality or a homosexual tendency is genetic, the studies say the complete opposite!
Homosexuality was estimated as a tendency for about 10% of the total population by Kinsey at the time, later it was made clear more than once that his estimate was exaggerated.
He defines sexuality as a social construct and not as genetic, or at most as affected by hormonization in the pregnancy process - there is no genetic evidence of a tendency.
In any case
What you wrote is not based in any way - my friend, you should read some gender and sociology.
If homosexuality were genetic then it is genetic like the Judaism of Jews and thus how are you different from the hawks! who sought a genetic basis for hatred!
Stupid article, like you would say that lovers of old women disappeared from the world because they didn't give birth to children of course, and what about animal lovers of all kinds who remained a small percentage of the population?
age:
You're right. In fact, if you look at the entire discussion, you will see (in the third comment) that this is a follow-up discussion to the discussion voted on by this comment, and in that discussion they talked about the article you mention. Here, at Aryeh's request, an updated version of the same article has been returned and uploaded.
Anyway, I'm inclined to disagree with what it says, but that's another story.
With regard to the "impressed" who was impressed that they were prescribing to impress him - he really tried to direct his phobias here but you saw how he reacted when I told him that. I am sure that if he does not respond to your words and my response - it is only because he did not read them.
Can you please direct all the phobias and clinical anxieties to another place? (For example, on the psychologist's couch?) This is not the platform for that. Thanks!
And the news itself is interesting. I think a similar and more detailed version appeared here before, several years ago.
Michael
Not really impressed
Impressed:
I'm sorry to disappoint you.
I am happily married and have three children.
You'll have to look elsewhere
Michael
Gay?
Impressed:
I don't know, but in any case I hope we are not home to homophobes like you.
thanks Michael.
By the way, since I wrote my response I have already had time to speculate between myself and myself that this is some kind of malfunction in the mechanism.
Many thanks!
Under the impression that this site is the home of the gays
lion:
It is indeed written.
The fact that the question came up made me think it hadn't been said so I answered.
To the cool responder and Michael.
In the second sentence of the article it is written "about ten percent of humans are homosexual..."
To the cool responder and Michael.
In the second sentence of the article it is written "about ten percent of humans are homosexual..."
Sorry, wording error:
In the previous response I wrote "contrary to Arya's claim" referring to the claim that Arya did not claim at all.
This is Septem's claim that came to defend Arye's argument in a way that I don't think defends him.
September:
I am responding to your comment in the discussion that is its follow-up discussion. The previous discussion here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/a-new-way-to-think-about-earths-first-cells-1006088/#comment-58049
I don't miss.
Even if there were descendants of homosexuals, the procreation chances of a homosexual were less than that of an ordinary person and therefore, contrary to Arye's claim, this would not give them an advantage but a disadvantage.
In general - the whole subject of marriage and of dogmas about sexual tendencies is a product of culture. For most of the years of evolution, as I said, these things had no effect. Certainly they have no effect between flies.
Certainly, in a certain sense, this is a by-product. It is not a necessary side effect (like altruism) but a result that only occurs in certain "malfunction" situations. This is a side effect of the fact that the mechanism that creates in us the need for sex/love relationships does not completely coincide with the mechanism that identifies the "right" partners for us.
By the way, for the sake of historical accuracy, I mentioned the issue of side effects here a long time ago and even quoted Dawkins on the matter - even though I talked about it (in many places, including in "Galileo" and even in the ears of Dawkins himself) even before Dawkins wrote it in his book.
The cool commenter:
As far as I know it's about 10%
What is that steady rate of gays you're talking about?
And why are you so sure that the homosexuals (female and male) were so caring about others?
You can move the discussion on homosexuality - genetics and evolution, from the article "A new model of primary cells", here.