PDA

View Full Version : How would a "Gay Gene" survive Natural Selection?



DrMachine
01-13-2007, 08:32 AM
Like this:

I haven't had a chance to look at the primary literature yet, but this falls in line with theories on the subject.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/1/12/6598


January 12, 2007 @ 12:38PM - posted by Matt Ford (//zeotherm@gmail.com/)
Genetic modeling of homosexuality

A new study asks an interesting genetics question: if there was a gene that controlled homosexuality—and hence limited reproduction—how could it be favored to exist? If there is a gene that causes one to not reproduce, natural selection would dictate that it cannot survive long in a population, since it is not being passed on to future generations. A new paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society (http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/) is using population-genetics modeling to try and answer why a theoretical gene predisposing an individual to homosexuality could spread in a population.

It needs to be mentioned that this is merely a theoretical study, and that there is no known gene that dictates one's sexuality. However, there is evidence that at some level genetics plays a role. It is known that human twins are more likely to both be gay when compared with non-identical siblings. It has also been reported that male homosexuality is often inherited from the maternal line, suggesting that a gene on the X chromosome may play some role. The question then becomes: if a gene existed that caused one to have no desire to reproduce (through heterosexual intercourse), how can this theoretical gene persist throughout generations?

The theoretical study (http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/%28psjkdv451a0rw145cdrr5p3y%29/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,16;journal,6,317;linkingpublication results,1:102024,1) by Gavrilets and Rice looked at a single gene with two alleles (variants) and examines three previously reported hypotheses as to how this gene can persist in a population. It should be noted that this model did not strictly classify an individual as straight or gay, but determined the level of homosexual activity by relating it to the fitness within the model. The first mechanism examined is one of overdominance, where in this scenario if the offspring only receives the 'gay allele' from one parent (heterozygous), then they would have a competitive reproductive advantage over others in the population. Here the 'gay allele' would need to be received from both parents (homozygous) in order for the offspring to exhibit homosexuality and have a reproductive disadvantage. The next hypothesis is one of kin altruism, where homosexuals would help their own family members, thereby increasing the family's fitness and allowing the gene (which would be present in the family group) to be passed on to the next generation. The final previously posited hypothesis, sexually antagonistic selection, is that—in the case of male homosexuality—the allele would result in a fitness loss for male offspring, but a fitness gain in female offspring. The gain in fitness for female offspring would potentially result in more offspring in the next generation having this allele.

Through modeling of classical population-genetics equations, the authors describe the evolution and frequency of these two alleles throughout a large population. The authors find conditions in which overdominace or sexually antagonistic selection hypotheses could lead to a stable population with this homosexual gene in place when it is located on autosomes (non-sexual chromosomes) or on the X chromosome. The models found that under the sexually antagonistic selection, the homosexual allele would become very prevalent, provided that those who carried two alleles of it were generally bisexual. This is an interesting hypothesis, which seems to hearken back to the work of Kinsey in the late 1940's and early 1950's where he suggested that sexuality was a spectrum and people were not fully straight or gay, but existed somewhere in between. This work at hand represents a interesting study into the 'Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality'. Even though the study was only theoretical, it produced some interesting results and shows what can be done with modeling and simulation, a field I am partial to.

Ray G.
01-13-2007, 08:38 AM
I think I heard that it's considered beneficial for the gene pool in very limited numbers, because on average, gay men are extremely creative and artistic, and as such benefit society in other ways.

Smokinblues
01-13-2007, 08:40 AM
That's interesting. I'm kind of surprised there's a lot of publicized research on this. I would think it would put scientists in the cross hairs of political and social jackasses on both sides of the fence.

DrMachine
01-13-2007, 08:41 AM
I think I heard that it's considered beneficial for the gene pool in very limited numbers, because on average, gay men are extremely creative and artistic, and as such benefit society in other ways.

That may be true, but that theory has a sociological aspect to it. This one is pure genetics.

An interesting idea nonetheless

Kirblar
01-13-2007, 08:41 AM
I look at it as a natural population dampener.

DrMachine
01-13-2007, 08:42 AM
That's interesting. I'm kind of surprised there's a lot of publicized research on this. I would think it would put scientists in the cross hairs of political and social jackasses on both sides of the fence.

I'm pretty sure that's why there isn't much publicized research in this field. I may be wrong though.

Taxman
01-13-2007, 08:43 AM
I would guess that historically there has been enough pressure to "not be gay" that the gene had been able to reproduce itself.

Keith P.
01-13-2007, 09:22 AM
It's probably more of a "genetic switch" that gets flipped in utero, caused by certain pre-natal environmental factors on the mother.

Or...


My friends crazy grandmother's theory which is that it is caused by feeding your baby beets.

SethInAz
01-13-2007, 09:29 AM
It's probably more of a "genetic switch" that gets flipped in utero, caused by certain pre-natal environmental factors on the mother.

Or...


My friends crazy grandmother's theory which is that it is caused by feeding your baby beets.

So THAT'S where the pink fettish comes from...

Something that caught my eye:

Does the lack of desire to reproduce necessarily mean homosexuality becomes apparent?

Afny
01-13-2007, 09:32 AM
Maybe its recessive in a lot of people. Maybe a whole family has it, and it only manifests in one person? This would allow the gene to remain in the pool. Though, I don't believe being gay is genetic (at least not primarily). Still, though, interesting theory.

Keith P.
01-13-2007, 09:35 AM
I think its probably a built in population control. You can't suppress the human sexual desire.

The sex drive is an essential part of our biology, if you for instance, had a certain segment of the population with no libido at all, they would be pretty useless and not really contribute very much to that society.

People never really think about how human sexual desire drives us, how it influences ever aspect of our lives, and our accomplishments. So that sexual urge has to stay, but it needs to be funnelled into an outlet that will not lead to increasing the population.

Smokinblues
01-13-2007, 09:38 AM
I think its probably a built in population control. You can't suppress the human sexual desire.

The sex drive is an essential part of our biology, if you for instance, had a certain segment of the population with no libido at all, they would be pretty useless and not really contribute very much to that society.

People never really think about how human sexual desire drives us, how it influences ever aspect of our lives, and our accomplishments. So that sexual urge has to stay, but it needs to be funnelled into an outlet that will not lead to increasing the population.
perhaps...but what is it that determines a need for population control at a genetic level?

Keith P.
01-13-2007, 09:42 AM
perhaps...but what is it that determines a need for population control at a genetic level?

Dunno, the body responds to environmental stimuli though.

Hive related insects have a ton of in-born reproductive behaviours that are triggered by the current breeder/non-breeder population of their hive.

InigoMontoya
01-13-2007, 09:58 AM
I would guess that historically there has been enough pressure to "not be gay" that the gene had been able to reproduce itself.

Lots of animals apart from humans have homosexuals and its not just limited mammals. The idea that its a population limiter must be wrong because evolution doesn't work on a population level but on a genetic level.

stevapalooza
01-13-2007, 10:58 AM
Meh. I don't think any sexual preferences are genetic. I think people have genetic leanings toward certain behaviors, but I think it's mostly environment that pushes us in one direction or another. I think the only thing our genes guarantee is that we will want to fuck SOMETHING. What that something will be is determined in childhood.

Keith P.
01-13-2007, 11:02 AM
Meh. I don't think any sexual preferences are genetic. I think people have genetic leanings toward certain behaviors, but I think it's mostly environment that pushes us in one direction or another. I think the only thing our genes guarantee is that we will want to fuck SOMETHING. What that something will be is determined in childhood.

There would have to be some kind of common thread amongs homosexuals for that to be true.

And really, there isn't.

Beazly
01-13-2007, 12:25 PM
I would guess that historically there has been enough pressure to "not be gay" that the gene had been able to reproduce itself.

That's what i was thinking too. For lack of a better example, look at Brokeback Mountain: two clearly homosexual individuals got married and reproduced. The gene could be passed on in that fashion perhaps.