Evolution of Male Homosexuality

I recently saw this interesting Youtube video (presented by the always great Hank Green) which, later in the video, details a possible evolutionary advantage to homosexuality, in refutation of the common idea of why is it that homosexuality is still around if it doesn't lead to procreation--ie, why did we evolve it?

The specific portion of the video is at 3:40.

He discusses a recent study which tends to support the Sexual Antagonism hypothesis. Check it out, and what do you think?

bump.

Interesting.

Off the top this was only a psychological study.

It was not anything determinant like a scientific experiment. The reviews of such studies are usually brutally factual and destroys these psychological studies with rampant data issues and flawed to non existent controls.

Here is the study btw.

http://www.plosone.org...

The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

At 7/12/2012 2:53:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

This. And homosexuality is not evolution.

At 7/13/2012 5:09:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 7/12/2012 2:53:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

This. And homosexuality is not evolution.

All mutations are a form of evolution.

At 7/13/2012 5:23:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:09:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 7/12/2012 2:53:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

This. And homosexuality is not evolution.

All mutations are a form of evolution.

Cancer is one hell of an evolution then

At 7/18/2012 5:22:53 PM, TheOrator wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:23:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:09:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 7/12/2012 2:53:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

This. And homosexuality is not evolution.

All mutations are a form of evolution.

Cancer is one hell of an evolution then

This was in reference to the mutations that occur due to natural selection- not ongoing human body processes.

At 7/18/2012 8:27:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/18/2012 5:22:53 PM, TheOrator wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:23:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:09:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 7/12/2012 2:53:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

This. And homosexuality is not evolution.

All mutations are a form of evolution.

Cancer is one hell of an evolution then

This was in reference to the mutations that occur due to natural selection- not ongoing human body processes.

Cancer mutations occur in sex cells along with somatic cells (sex cells being what is "selected").

At 7/18/2012 9:56:05 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 7/18/2012 8:27:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/18/2012 5:22:53 PM, TheOrator wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:23:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:09:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 7/12/2012 2:53:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

This. And homosexuality is not evolution.

All mutations are a form of evolution.

Cancer is one hell of an evolution then

This was in reference to the mutations that occur due to natural selection- not ongoing human body processes.

Cancer mutations occur in sex cells along with somatic cells (sex cells being what is "selected").

Isn't cancer mostly environmental?

At 7/19/2012 10:01:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/18/2012 9:56:05 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 7/18/2012 8:27:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/18/2012 5:22:53 PM, TheOrator wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:23:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:09:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 7/12/2012 2:53:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

This. And homosexuality is not evolution.

All mutations are a form of evolution.

Cancer is one hell of an evolution then

This was in reference to the mutations that occur due to natural selection- not ongoing human body processes.

Cancer mutations occur in sex cells along with somatic cells (sex cells being what is "selected").

Isn't cancer mostly environmental?

"Cancer" refers to nearly any mechanism that causes unregulated cell growth.

Environmental factors can mutate cells, but that rarely effects sex cells.

But an example of cancer that would: there is a specific mutation on a gene which makes it produce mutated "telomers," which are little strings at either end of a DNA strand. Every time a cell divides, a few telomers get cut off. After enough divisions that the telomers are all gone, the cell destroys itself.

Now, consider if a mutation were to STOP telomers from being removed after cellular division. The cells would keep dividing for no reason except to divide in a localized manner. You'd see lots of extra cells around (i.e. tumors) that indicate where the cancer is centralized.

Most "cures" for cancer focus largely on how, regardless of whether its environmental or largely genetic, involves targeting cells that are over-dividing REGARDLESS of the original mechanism.

As time goes on, the cures will be more and more specific for each mechanism.

But, for instance, environmental mutations could induce this telomer problem in somatic cells.

At 7/20/2012 12:02:13 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 7/19/2012 10:01:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/18/2012 9:56:05 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 7/18/2012 8:27:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/18/2012 5:22:53 PM, TheOrator wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:23:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:09:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 7/12/2012 2:53:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

This. And homosexuality is not evolution.

All mutations are a form of evolution.

Cancer is one hell of an evolution then

This was in reference to the mutations that occur due to natural selection- not ongoing human body processes.

Cancer mutations occur in sex cells along with somatic cells (sex cells being what is "selected").

Isn't cancer mostly environmental?

"Cancer" refers to nearly any mechanism that causes unregulated cell growth.

Environmental factors can mutate cells, but that rarely effects sex cells.

But an example of cancer that would: there is a specific mutation on a gene which makes it produce mutated "telomers," which are little strings at either end of a DNA strand. Every time a cell divides, a few telomers get cut off. After enough divisions that the telomers are all gone, the cell destroys itself.

Now, consider if a mutation were to STOP telomers from being removed after cellular division. The cells would keep dividing for no reason except to divide in a localized manner. You'd see lots of extra cells around (i.e. tumors) that indicate where the cancer is centralized.

Most "cures" for cancer focus largely on how, regardless of whether its environmental or largely genetic, involves targeting cells that are over-dividing REGARDLESS of the original mechanism.

As time goes on, the cures will be more and more specific for each mechanism.

But, for instance, environmental mutations could induce this telomer problem in somatic cells.

There are five main strategies for treating cancer patients: 1) target the mechanisms causing the uncontrolled cell growth; 2) prime the host cells to kill the cancer cells; 3) block the tumor vessels from providing nutrients to the cancer cells; 4) in the final stages, palliate and minimize the pain; or 5) some combination of the aforementioned treatments.

Each of these treatments are fraught with problems because cancer, like most pathological conditions, is complex and is driven by multiple selective pressures--both environmental and genetic.

The mechanisms of action that drive homosexuality are not like the development of cancer; it is not evolutionarily advantageous to select for mutations that disrupt physiological homeostasis and kill the host. Cancer is just a function of the ramifications of the genetic plasticity that creates mutations.

Homosexuality is seen in many animal species so it would seem that it may have a evolutionary advantage; maybe not at the individual level of reproductive success, but rather at a larger group level maintaining a component of species success. Or maybe it is just neutral, without increasing or decreasing evolutionary fitness.

Either way, as with cancer, homosexuality is not linear: it does not have a singular cause or reason for its persistence...

At 7/22/2012 9:23:41 PM, Chthonian wrote:

At 7/20/2012 12:02:13 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 7/19/2012 10:01:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/18/2012 9:56:05 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 7/18/2012 8:27:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/18/2012 5:22:53 PM, TheOrator wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:23:28 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 7/13/2012 5:09:39 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:

At 7/12/2012 2:53:30 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Not all mutation are advantagious.

This. And homosexuality is not evolution.

All mutations are a form of evolution.

Cancer is one hell of an evolution then

This was in reference to the mutations that occur due to natural selection- not ongoing human body processes.

Cancer mutations occur in sex cells along with somatic cells (sex cells being what is "selected").

Isn't cancer mostly environmental?

"Cancer" refers to nearly any mechanism that causes unregulated cell growth.

Environmental factors can mutate cells, but that rarely effects sex cells.

But an example of cancer that would: there is a specific mutation on a gene which makes it produce mutated "telomers," which are little strings at either end of a DNA strand. Every time a cell divides, a few telomers get cut off. After enough divisions that the telomers are all gone, the cell destroys itself.

Now, consider if a mutation were to STOP telomers from being removed after cellular division. The cells would keep dividing for no reason except to divide in a localized manner. You'd see lots of extra cells around (i.e. tumors) that indicate where the cancer is centralized.

Most "cures" for cancer focus largely on how, regardless of whether its environmental or largely genetic, involves targeting cells that are over-dividing REGARDLESS of the original mechanism.

As time goes on, the cures will be more and more specific for each mechanism.

But, for instance, environmental mutations could induce this telomer problem in somatic cells.

There are five main strategies for treating cancer patients: 1) target the mechanisms causing the uncontrolled cell growth; 2) prime the host cells to kill the cancer cells; 3) block the tumor vessels from providing nutrients to the cancer cells; 4) in the final stages, palliate and minimize the pain; or 5) some combination of the aforementioned treatments.

Each of these treatments are fraught with problems because cancer, like most pathological conditions, is complex and is driven by multiple selective pressures--both environmental and genetic.

The mechanisms of action that drive homosexuality are not like the development of cancer; it is not evolutionarily advantageous to select for mutations that disrupt physiological homeostasis and kill the host. Cancer is just a function of the ramifications of the genetic plasticity that creates mutations.

Homosexuality is seen in many animal species so it would seem that it may have a evolutionary advantage; maybe not at the individual level of reproductive success, but rather at a larger group level maintaining a component of species success. Or maybe it is just neutral, without increasing or decreasing evolutionary fitness.

Either way, as with cancer, homosexuality is not linear: it does not have a singular cause or reason for its persistence...

I was only talking about cancer, not connecting to homosexuality.

Also, in the medical community, it's looking like the most viable cure for cancer involved (2), namely getting the immune system to recognize surface proteins that appear in mutated cells.

At 7/22/2012 9:28:17 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 7/22/2012 9:23:41 PM, Chthonian wrote:

There are five main strategies for treating cancer patients: 1) target the mechanisms causing the uncontrolled cell growth; 2) prime the host cells to kill the cancer cells; 3) block the tumor vessels from providing nutrients to the cancer cells; 4) in the final stages, palliate and minimize the pain; or 5) some combination of the aforementioned treatments.

Each of these treatments are fraught with problems because cancer, like most pathological conditions, is complex and is driven by multiple selective pressures--both environmental and genetic.

The mechanisms of action that drive homosexuality are not like the development of cancer; it is not evolutionarily advantageous to select for mutations that disrupt physiological homeostasis and kill the host. Cancer is just a function of the ramifications of the genetic plasticity that creates mutations.

Homosexuality is seen in many animal species so it would seem that it may have a evolutionary advantage; maybe not at the individual level of reproductive success, but rather at a larger group level maintaining a component of species success. Or maybe it is just neutral, without increasing or decreasing evolutionary fitness.

Either way, as with cancer, homosexuality is not linear: it does not have a singular cause or reason for its persistence...

I was only talking about cancer, not connecting to homosexuality.

Also, in the medical community, it's looking like the most viable cure for cancer involved (2), namely getting the immune system to recognize surface proteins that appear in mutated cells.

Wnope, I didn't mean for my post to be specifically addressing your comments; I was just adding my unsolicited two cents to this interesting thread.

In any event, I think some of the more creative cancer fighting strategies are those that use antibodies to chaperone immune cells or deliver chemotherapeutic agents directly to the cancer cells.