Scientists Discover Evolutionary Advantage For Homosexuality

researchers may have just found a benefit conferred by homosexual sex that could offer an explanation as to why this behavior has persevered

According to a new study in fruit flies, not only does same-sex sexual behavior seem to be heritable, but females with a genetic makeup associated with this trait actually display higher reproductive rates, which is an evolutionary advantage.

Males with a genetic makeup associated with high levels of SSB produced female offspring with higher rates of reproduction, or fecundity. This suggests that genes associated with SSB could be persisting in the population because they actually confer a fitness advantage in females, despite being reproductively harmful to males.

Source

I came across this article this morning. I'll be honest, I've always thought of homosexuality more as a form of mental illness rather than an inheritable, genetic thing; however, this article seems to suggest otherwise. I'll try to summarize, so forgive me if I get something wrong here. Scientists studying fruit flies have identified certain genes linked to same-sex sexual behaviors. The (homosexual?) fruit flies which had these genes just so happened to produce female offspring which were more fertile than the female offspring from fruit flies without these genes. If this study is accurate, it may point to homosexuality not only being genetic, but having a functional place in nature as well.

Some people in our population get one XX and one XY chromosomes, both of which are active - as opposed to two XX or XY chromosomes.

That causes random combinations of male/female characteristics to be present. If they provided an evolutionary advantage, those changes would become dominant.

And that says something about insects and little about humans. There is a lot of differences between the two.

They would need to apply that study to humans in order to really have it mean much.

but if they have offspring then they aren`t homosexual, they are bi-sexual fruit flies.

If two individuals can't breed and produce offspring there is ZERO evolutionary advantage.

originally posted by: ketsuko
And that says something about insects and little about humans. There is a lot of differences between the two.

Yes insects would never intentionally destroy their own society

How is not passing your genes along an evolutionary advantage?
Sounds more like a dead end

originally posted by: RobotBomb
If two individuals can't breed and produce offspring there is ZERO evolutionary advantage.

ever though tthat MAYBE being gay was specifically natures way of controlling the population?

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: RobotBomb
If two individuals can't breed and produce offspring there is ZERO evolutionary advantage.

ever though tthat MAYBE being gay was specifically natures way of controlling the population?

That doesn't jive with the results of this study though.

It found that the females related to these gay males were unusually fecund, meaning they produced more offspring.

Of course, it would also be interesting to know if the males in this study were actually what we think of as gay, meaning they had no desire at all to mate with the opposite sex, or if they just displayed homosexual behavior but still had the desire to mate normally?

Nature is full of males who display homosexual behavior as a mating strategy. They don't do it because they actually want to sexually pair with the male, but because they want to fool the rival male and mate with the female themselves.

"Scientists" publish garbage like this and then expect us to take them seriously?

How can organisms who do not reproduce--by definition, if homosexual--have an evolutionary advantage?

It defies common sense, and is so obviously politically motivated.

Idiocy like this makes my eyes glaze over and roll back in my head until they start bleeding.

Total, 100%, grade-A, unadulterated bulls#.

a reply to: trollz

I'll be honest, I've always thought of homosexuality more as a form of mental illness rather than an inheritable, genetic thing; however, this article seems to suggest otherwise.

That's not surprising, coming from somebody who touts their Intelligence Quotient in their signature.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Nature is full of males who display homosexual behavior as a mating strategy. They don't do it because they actually want to sexually pair with the male, but because they want to fool the rival male and mate with the female themselves

I've seen this in action.

'Sensitive' Male: "I think I'm gay."

Straight Female: "Oh, no. Here, let me show you."

Oldest trick in the book.

Some people believe that homosexuality in nature is a way for a species to curb its overpopulation.

Homosexuality does occur in the Animal Kingdom, it's not the psycho social disorder that some believe it to be.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Some people believe that homosexuality in nature is a way for a species to curb it's overpopulation.

Yuppa just said that 5 posts up. And not to put too fine a point on it, but if that's the strategy, it didn't work.

Yeah ending the race as we know it. No children equals death of the species.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: ketsuko

Nature is full of males who display homosexual behavior as a mating strategy. They don't do it because they actually want to sexually pair with the male, but because they want to fool the rival male and mate with the female themselves

I've seen this in action.

'Sensitive' Male: "I think I'm gay."

Straight Female: "Oh, no. Here, let me show you."

Oldest trick in the book.

DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNAR!!

It kind of makes sense that a female of a species related to a male that is genetically preconditioned to not procreate would have a higher fertility rate than normal to balance it out.

Is that an evolutionary advantage? I don't think so, it's just balancing out a deficit.

Some of you will find this interesting:

The Science of Gaydar

“These are all part and parcel of the idea that being gay is different—that we are different animals to some extent,” says Simon LeVay, the British-born neuroscientist who has dedicated himself to studying these issues. “Hirschfeld was right. I support the idea that we’re a third sex—or a third sex and a fourth sex, gay men and lesbians. Today, there’s scientific documentation behind this.”

Richard Lippa, a psychologist from California State University at Fullerton, is one of the leading cataloguers of the many ways in which gay people are different. I caught up with him a few weeks ago at a booth at the Long Beach Pride Festival in Southern California, where he was researching another hypothesis—that the hair-whorl patterns on gay heads are more likely to go counterclockwise. If true, it will be one more clue to our biological uniqueness.

Not sure what to think of this study, but I always find it very ignorant to think of evolution in terms of individual fitness only. When we're talking about variations at a species level, we should talk about evolutionary advantages for the species as a whole. If it's not apparent to you that homosexuality has an evolutionary advantage at the level of a species as a whole, then I just don't know what else to say.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
Some of you will find this interesting:

I did an experiment for my Experimental Psychology class that postulated people with fingerprint "whirls" had a higher intelligence than people with fingerprint loops. This was an attempt to replicate the work of a student across the country. I used an ink pad and a set of note cards and had each student write their GPA on the back of a thumbprint. I went all over campus accosting students at random. The null hypothesis prevailed; there was not a shred of evidence that one was more intelligent than the other, statistical or otherwise.

Point being that anybody can make up a stupid hypothesis.

I got an "A" in the class, of course!