October 13, 2004
A HOP, A SKIP, AND A JUMP:
So it is down to mother: gay gene survives because it boosts fertility (Mark Henderson, 10/13/04, Times of London)
THE biological enigma of how homosexuality evolved despite its obvious drawbacks for reproduction may finally have been resolved.The genes that make men gay also help their female relatives to have bigger families, according to new research.
Scientists have discovered that gay men’s mothers, sisters and maternal aunts tend to have significantly more children than the norm — and that many of their nephews and male cousins are also gay.
The findings suggest that the same genes that trigger homosexuality in men also promote fertility in women, and that this could explain how they survive in the population when gay men themselves are unlikely to breed. The genes are instead passed on through the female line and the enhanced fertility they confer on these women ensures that they are inherited by plenty of children.
Some of these sons will grow up to be homosexual themselves. The study also revealed that gay men are more likely than heterosexuals to have a gay male relative, though only on their mother’s side of the family.
The results, from the University of Padua, in Italy, offer strong support for the theory that homosexuality is at least partly determined by a person’s genetic make-up, and is not just about personal choice or upbringing and environment. It also suggests an elegant solution to the biggest problem with this hypothesis — the “Darwinian paradox” that any genes that favour homosexuality ought to have died out through natural selection, as those that inherited them had fewer and fewer offspring.
Of course they can't identify a gene that does this, the effect is too intermittent to be genetic, and they're description of the similarity in social milieu that produces more frequent homosexuality would suggest the opposite with equal credibility, that this type of nurturing environment plays a role. Good try though. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 13, 2004 8:55 AM
I got the same sense when reading this. Where are these genes, and where were the studies leading up to this one.
Further, the "large family" issue must work at least as well for those that argue environment having an impact.
The larger the family the less impact a father might have on each kid (use the "small class size argument with your liberal friends)
There used to be a body of "environmental factor" research around before it became politically incorrect to point it out.
Posted by: BB at October 13, 2004 9:21 AMI wonder if there is a genetic connection with absent/distant father figures as well?
Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at October 13, 2004 10:24 AMGenetic effects can be intermittant, since a gene may be interacting with many other genes, and may make something just slightly more probable.
But that just underlines how flaky this kind of research can sometimes be. You can pick out vague connections from the data, and build theories on them, and who can prove you are wrong?
Posted by: John Weidner at October 13, 2004 10:59 AMJohn-
Modern science has allied itself with much of the flakier side of leftism. Abolute equality, cultural relativism, deconstructionism as a support for the class struggle, etc., etc. must be true so facts must be massaged to fit the theoretical framework on which leftism stands. The rationalist faithful regard this fact about science and its practicioners as all very hard to believe, of course, and are blind to the problems with their almost total belief in reason as the solution to human imperfections. There is more to human nature than the purely materialist paradigm can explain so it may not be as helpful as many assume.
Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at October 13, 2004 11:12 AMMaybe I don't understand the subtlies, but this research seems odd for many reason.
- On what is the (implicit) claim that gay men didn't reproduce prior to the current era based? Consider the Greeks, for instance.
- If the incidence is low enough, then it's not a big deal. If the 1% or less number for homosexuals is true, that may well be the point at which further reductions cost more than they're worth.
- There is no mention of possible in-uterine effects, whereby homosexuality is a birth defect, not a genetic defect.
Wow. The old cliche's true! Their mothers really did make them homosexual!
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 13, 2004 11:44 AMRaoul -- Old cliches are always true.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 13, 2004 12:12 PMAOG:
Note that if your first supposition is correct, and it is genetic, homosexuality could all but vanish within a few decades.
Posted by: mike earl at October 13, 2004 3:12 PMIf there is anything to this connection, it wouldn't be the first time a genetic characteristic had side effects.
Remember sickle-cell anemia? One sickle-cell gene (from mother or father) protects you from malaria; two (from mother AND father), and you die of sickle-cell.
Posted by: Ken at October 13, 2004 4:12 PMTrue, and depends on your environment, as well.
Steatopygia apparently was a useful trait to women living in the desert. Of doubtful benefit, or perhaps harmful, when the same woman moves to Pretoria
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 14, 2004 5:36 PM