Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are we born to an evolutionary purpose?
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6123 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 1 of 32 (387125)
02-26-2007 12:49 PM


In the thread "Homosexuality and Natural Selection" http://EvC Forum: Homosexuality and Natural Selection. -->EvC Forum: Homosexuality and Natural Selection. ( yes I know it's old) many evo's were defending a view that gay people are maybe born gay to play an "evolutionary" role to society. They help their sister and family more than a straight guy and so ensure their genes are passed on.
refrerence:
kuresu Message 26
as you can guess--wrong. the ToE is dependent on getting your genes passed on. your statement discludes (i may have made that up?) all the asexually reproducing organims. and if you don't have children, but you're sister or brother does, what do you generally do? you help your sister/brother with raising them--they do have a good chunck of the same genes you do--they are family.
Okay, let's suppose this is true. What other "types" of human could we categorize to fit into this by applying the same logic?
Let's say a murderer. Maybe he's just killing people so there are not so many hostile "species" left to harm his family (therefore his genes will get passed on more likely)?
A rapist, maybe he's just increasing his chances of passing on his genes?
A musician, musicians are known to to make people happier, a happy family is more likely to not kill each other and are also known to be more sexually active.
A golf player, he's making a lot of money to ensure his own and familys' well being, therefore his genes are more likely to be passed on.
My point is (if you didn't get it), anything can be ascribed to having an evolutionary purpose, but it just may not be that. Or can it?
Is everything we do related to passing on our genes?
Are we born to a certain evolutionary purpose ex. gay people helping they're family to increase the odds of they're genes getting passed on?
Or did I just confuse something?
PS. I hope my evc idol NJ will pay a visit here

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2007 1:02 PM Neutralmind has not replied
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2007 1:04 PM Neutralmind has replied
 Message 4 by anastasia, posted 02-26-2007 1:42 PM Neutralmind has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 32 (387130)
02-26-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
02-26-2007 12:49 PM


Well, sure, a sufficiently creative person can come up with a scenario where almost any behavior can produce a reproductive advantage. One of my favorites was from an article in Newsweek where the science reporter was talking about where she and her college buddies came up with the reason men prefer women in short skirts: women wearing long dresses were more likely to trip on the hem and squash the babies.
On the other hand, this was a major criticism leveled against Darwinism for a long time after publication of Origin of Species. Darwin's theory of common descent was widely accepted almost immediately; however, natural selection was quite controversial until the Modern Synthesis was developed. Criticisms against natural selection in general complained that Darwinists simply made up "just so" stories to explain why certain features were adaptive; however, a sufficiently creative person could come up with a scenario explaining why almost any trait might be adaptive.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 12:49 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 32 (387132)
02-26-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
02-26-2007 12:49 PM


Let's say a murderer. Maybe he's just killing people so there are not so many hostile "species" left to harm his family (therefore his genes will get passed on more likely)?
Could be a case made for it in some situations.
A rapist, maybe he's just increasing his chances of passing on his genes?
Yes, this is true.
A musician, musicians are known to to make people happier, a happy family is more likely to not kill each other and are also known to be more sexually active.
Indeed, an inate musical talent can be evolutionarily advantage. It might be nothing to do with physical genes but cultural memes of course.
My point is (if you didn't get it), anything can be ascribed to having an evolutionary purpose, but it just may not be that. Or can it?
Indeed. The point that kuresu and others (incl myself) that some things which seem on the face of it to run counter to the concept of selfish genes or 'survival of the fittest' (homosexuals would seem to pass on less genes than heterosexuals, on average) can still survive because of kin with similar genes who do reproduce more.
Is everything we do related to passing on our genes?
That's kind of the conclusion Freud came to. However, I think everything we do is rooted in genes, but that culture has a bigger impact on our actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 12:49 PM Neutralmind has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 4:02 PM Modulous has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 4 of 32 (387141)
02-26-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
02-26-2007 12:49 PM


This is something I have discussed in relation to morality. It has been said that morality is the same Freudian concept of passing on genes and surviving.
What I see as critically absent, is the mention of 'choice'
If all of human activity can be defaulted as a survival aid, it is hard to draw lines between appropriate and inappropriate behaviours.
All of the catgories which you have mentioned: golfers; musicians; murderers; rapists; are people who have chosen to be what they are in some capacity. The only exception is homosexuals, and they still have a choice about whether or not to practice homosexuality.
I think that the whole topic is based on straws. Not every homosexual has extended family to care for; many times they are ousted from the family. Not all golfers make money, many hobby golfers make their wives mad, many musicians don't make money, and everyone has a choice to be more or less sexually active regardless if they play music.
There are too many fallacies to make this any kind of argument IMO. For a society to truly be productive for the most amount of people, there is no end which justifies the means. Raping and murdering certainly are not justified by any benefits, especially if the beneifts are not proven. A woman who has been raped once may have an abortion, thus nullifying the idea that a rapist serves any purpose in society. A woman who has been raped may also be wary of men to the extreme that she will not be as likely to bear off-spring of her via concensual sex.
Nothing to see here if you ask me. It is a back-wards step. Whether or not we were ever evolved to have a purpose is entirely irrelevent, as we were also evolved to have a choice and to be able to defy our purpose.
Some will believe that nothing is chosen, that we can not will what we will, etc, but this is a very dangerous way to think, and can not possibly be acted on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 12:49 PM Neutralmind has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 4:26 PM anastasia has replied

  
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6123 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 5 of 32 (387160)
02-26-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
02-26-2007 1:04 PM


Modulous
Indeed. The point that kuresu and others (incl myself) that some things which seem on the face of it to run counter to the concept of selfish genes or 'survival of the fittest' (homosexuals would seem to pass on less genes than heterosexuals, on average) can still survive because of kin with similar genes who do reproduce more.
They can or may survive, but wouldn't heterosexual men have a better chance of survival anyway?
If we assume now for the sake of argument, that people are born gay or straight. Why would gay guys even be born if there is so much less chance that they're genes will get passed on? What evolutionary advantage (considering passing on genes) do gay men have over straight? Why/how would natural selection even come/end up with that?
Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2007 1:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2007 4:09 PM Neutralmind has replied
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2007 8:23 PM Neutralmind has not replied
 Message 16 by Larni, posted 02-27-2007 5:48 AM Neutralmind has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 32 (387161)
02-26-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Neutralmind
02-26-2007 4:02 PM


quote:
Why would gay guys even be born if there is so much less chance that they're genes will get passed on? What evolutionary advantage (considering passing on genes) do gay men have over straight? Why would natural selection even come/end up with that?
Well, assuming that there is such a thing as a genetic component to homosexuality, there are several possibilities.
It could be something like sickel cell -- a person who is heterozygous for this set of alleles might be "more fit" in other areas, allowing them to outcompete homozygous heterosexuals.
Or, like genetic altruism, it might not be so much the homosexual person who is passing on his or her genes, but by having more resources to contribute to the tribe or band might enable those who are heterozygous carriers of the homosexual alleles to survive and reproduce (and therefore produce more offspring with these alleles).

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 4:02 PM Neutralmind has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 4:31 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6123 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 7 of 32 (387163)
02-26-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by anastasia
02-26-2007 1:42 PM


anastasia
All of the catgories which you have mentioned: golfers; musicians; murderers; rapists; are people who have chosen to be what they are in some capacity. The only exception is homosexuals, and they still have a choice about whether or not to practice homosexuality.
How do you know people aren't born murderers, rapists, etc. ? They also have a choice not to practice their "trait".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by anastasia, posted 02-26-2007 1:42 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by anastasia, posted 02-26-2007 5:37 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 6123 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 8 of 32 (387164)
02-26-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
02-26-2007 4:09 PM


Those are all possibilities. But we could come up with the same sort of reasoning for almost any kind of human.
No, I will not define kinds

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2007 4:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2007 7:23 PM Neutralmind has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 9 of 32 (387167)
02-26-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Neutralmind
02-26-2007 4:26 PM


Neutralmind writes:
How do you know people aren't born murderers, rapists, etc. ? They also have a choice not to practice their "trait".
We don't know necessarily...we seem to find genetic predispositions to many behaviours, such as alcoholism, addictions, etc.
A strictly religious/christian view is that we are all born 'sinners', or that natural man has tendencies and capabilities that are not in his best interest.
What is happening here is that folks are attempting to make these tendencies into things which are good in themselves because they might benefit survival in some way.
It is good to rape, it is good not to rape. Either has 'benefits'. So, no matter what we choose, we are 'right'.
This is simply not the case. We know what is imperative; food, clothing, shelter, water, procreation, care of offspring, etc. We have the intelligence to know this, and the instinct is so strong that it is hardly anyone who needs coaxing or knowledge to perform these things. In all other matters, choice is far more personal. The implication of your topic is that our choices in other matters are just as surely driven by instinct, and infallible.
Even if you believe that all choices are evolved forms of survival, there is nothing to do with that thought. It is impossible for society to accept all choices as equal, as to leave the murderer and rapist unpunished. You have no choice BUT to believe that all choices are not productive, and maybe if the focus is shifted from defining 'productive' as 'survival', to 'productive' as in 'caring for the needs of the individual to ensure survival' there will be no issue.
Thus, a rapist is by all means inhibiting survival of the society, by causing fear and anguish, wasted time and resources. The only possible 'benefit' would be in a society where rape is tolerated as a good means of pro-creation. That is just silly and impossible. Whatever our natural inclinations may be, they have no bearing on the fact that we have choice, and that 'natural' can not ever be so clearly defined, that all men 'know' what men are supposed to do.
This is way too close to forcing science to give meaning to life, it is looking to science for a justification of all behaviours. Science can give an explanation, maybe even prove that we have tendencies, but purpose lies entirely in our choices. Everything depends on what purpose YOU ascribe to your life. Or, even if it doesn't, say, God or nature have a purpose for your life, it is so clearly obvious that we do not know this purpose by default.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 4:26 PM Neutralmind has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Larni, posted 02-27-2007 5:51 AM anastasia has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 32 (387181)
02-26-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Neutralmind
02-26-2007 4:31 PM


quote:
But we could come up with the same sort of reasoning for almost any kind of human.
Exactly, which is why simply coming up with some way that a given trait might be adaptive is not evidence that the trait is adaptive -- merely an assertian that such a trait is not necessarily counter to natural selection. But as anastasia is pointing out, good reasons can also be given for any given trait to be maladaptive. For instance, homosexuality may be adaptive for the reasons I just gave; an innate tendency to rape may be adaptive as it will impel the individual to engage in behavior that will lead to reproduction. On the other hand, homosexuality may be maladaptive as an act of nonreproductive homosexual sex is time an effort not spent in reproductive heterosexual sex; rape may be maladaptive as the social unit upon which the rapist, the parent of the child, and the child depend unravels and also as the stigmatized offspring suffers a greater chance of neglect and death.
So which wins out? Who knows? As was pointed out in the recent Eocene mammal thread, to know exactly what traits will be adaptive would require almost infinite knowledge of all the parameters of the environment in which the individual and the tribe lives.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 4:31 PM Neutralmind has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by anastasia, posted 02-26-2007 8:24 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 11 of 32 (387188)
02-26-2007 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Neutralmind
02-26-2007 4:02 PM


They can or may survive, but wouldn't heterosexual men have a better chance of survival anyway?
The point is to illustrate that it isn't individuals that are major concern, but the survival of the genes. Genes can (and do) exist in familial groupings. Think of sterile insects - they never survive to reproductive age, yet they thrive. They thrive because they defend/build shelter for/feed/etc the reproductive members of their close family.
If we assume now for the sake of argument, that people are born gay or straight. Why would gay guys even be born if there is so much less chance that they're genes will get passed on? What evolutionary advantage (considering passing on genes) do gay men have over straight? Why/how would natural selection even come/end up with that?
That's the point really in a nutshell. One cannot argue that homosexuality would be selected against without knowing everything about homosexuality. There is one paper which has noted that siblings of gay men have a greater fecundity (produce more offspring). The genes of the homosexual men are not passed on by them reproducing (necessarily), but instead their siblings pass on their genes (which are about 50% the same).
Giving birth to a homosexual child, could be a trade off for the rest of your children being more reproductively active.
I'm not saying that this is in fact the case, it is just pointing out that the argument 'if homosexuality is genetic, then evolution would have selected gays out' is too simple, and there are other potential factors that might come into this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Neutralmind, posted 02-26-2007 4:02 PM Neutralmind has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by anastasia, posted 02-26-2007 8:42 PM Modulous has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 12 of 32 (387189)
02-26-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
02-26-2007 7:23 PM


Chiroptera writes:
On the other hand, homosexuality may be maladaptive as an act of nonreproductive homosexual sex is time an effort not spent in reproductive heterosexual sex;
Not to mention that homosexuality is not an inability to procreate at all, and that homosexuals have the intelligence to procreate if the situaion need be, while heterosexuals have the ability to abstain from such. I do not know of any reason or evidence that homosexuals do not desire to pass on their genes, or that they could not and can not do that via in vitro, etc. There is also no reason to assume they do not desire to nurture. I know a man who can not stand to be in a house with kids, and another who can not imagine passing through life without them, both homosexual.
A better question would be 'why are those who are unable to procreate selected for, if they are'?
Why are single people selected for?
I do not see any difference in looking for an evolutionary explanation thru which to content oneself with a situation, or in using the old adage 'it is in god's plan for me'. It is the same thing, and either answer has no bearing on the fact that we have choice, and that our main obsessions as humans seem to be a. giving everyone the same options, and b. judging others based on what option they choose.
To speculate that evolution has opted for every trait known to man, and to assume that we have been given that trait to fulfill a distinct niche automatically according to need, is comparable to making evolution 'intelligently' able to predict need and to measure population, etc. I am sure someone will tell me I have this backward

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2007 7:23 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 02-26-2007 9:11 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 18 by nator, posted 02-27-2007 9:49 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 13 of 32 (387190)
02-26-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Modulous
02-26-2007 8:23 PM


Modulous writes:
I'm not saying that this is in fact the case, it is just pointing out that the argument 'if homosexuality is genetic, then evolution would have selected gays out' is too simple, and there are other potential factors that might come into this.
It's the same deal with any type of genetic reproduction. Why would we not have all genetic diseases selected out? What is the 'purpose' of some of the more dreaful diseases which often cause a person not to be capable of, or to reach the age of, reproduction? Many diseases do not even allow a person to care for other family members. Even if we found a purpose for the existance of disease, it would not be ethical to ignore research into cures and treatment just to fulfill the 'plan'. It is not ethical when religious people do it, although it is for some similar reason.
It is absolutely essential IMO to look at the implications of discoveries, and to realize that any information about the possible usefulness of a genetic difference which has been selected for does not trump the ability we have to intelligently and ethically find ways to make not only the sick person well, but to benefit society in whatever way the disease would have. It doesn't even sound right to say disease benefits society, but hopefully you get the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2007 8:23 PM Modulous has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 32 (387193)
02-26-2007 8:56 PM


As has been pointed out ( and documented) in several previous threads, homosexual and bisexual behavior is common throughout the animal kingdom. Its purpose is to establish and fortify relations amongst the individuals in social groups. This can be almost as important to the survival of a gregarious group (and its genome) as is reproduction. We humans shake hands, hug, and kiss members of both sexes to define our relationships. It would be setting an arbitrary limit to exclude sexual release from this repertoire of behaviors. My mother could put an end to any dispute, no matter how heated, with a "Come. We'll sit. We'll eat. We'll talk." (No, she didn't include "We'll screw", and yes, she was a Democrat.)
"Survival of the fittest" does not just apply to individuals. It applies to groups, herds, tribe, species, and even to the genome mix of entire ecosystems. In fact, it only applies to an individual to the extent that that individuals survival supports the survival of the group and species, and thus might entail that individual's sacrificing his reproductive success if doing so enhances the groups viability (which explains sacrificial altruism such as jumping onto the live hand-grenade to save your buddies).
There is yet another way in which homosexuality promotes the groups survivability: According to the bible, god says "Be fruitful and multiply". According to Darwin, evolution says "Be fruitful and multiply, but not to the extent that you exhaust your resources." It has been found that a great many species have techniques to insure that they do not excessively reproduce and exhaust their resources: Some reptiles change their sex ratios depending on their environment, producing more females (who can then produce more offspring) and fewer males when food is abundant, and visa versa when food is scarce; some species advance or delay the onset of fecundity depending on available resources. The option for our the human genome to 'turn on' the homosexual behavior in a subset of its phenotype when faced with high population density can act as an effective modulator of population growth.

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-03-2007 5:51 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 32 (387194)
02-26-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by anastasia
02-26-2007 8:24 PM


quote:
To speculate that evolution has opted for every trait known to man, and to assume that we have been given that trait to fulfill a distinct niche automatically according to need, is comparable to making evolution 'intelligently' able to predict need and to measure population, etc.
Well, I don't agree that these speculations are comparable to making evolution "intelligent". I do agree, though, that a lot of the speculation about the biological basis for human behavior is silly and nonproductive.
It is a fair question to ask how much, if any, human behavior is due to biology, and how much of this biological nature is due to genetics.
Before we can even intelligently ask what, if any, evolutionary advantage this or that behavior provides, one must first demonstrate that the particular behavior is, in fact, due to biology and not simply learned cultural behavior. When it is determined that the behavior is biological, then one must determine whether it is actually genetic in origin.
Then one can wonder whether the behavior was actual adaptive during the evolutionary history of our species, or whether it is merely an "inadvertent" side effect (a "spandrel") of other traits that were adaptive. One can also ask that if it were adaptive, was it adaptive during the recent history of our species? Or was it adaptive long, long ago in the evolutionary history of our species, a left over "vestigial behavior", like the appendix, which hasn't yet been completely eliminated?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by anastasia, posted 02-26-2007 8:24 PM anastasia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Neutralmind, posted 02-27-2007 11:31 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024