« The Shape of Things | Main | The Healthy Cafeteria? »
April 18, 2004
Homosexuality as a Challenge to Darwinism
An author called Joan Roughgarden, in her new book Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexualilty in Nature and People, argues that Darwin's theory of sexual selection doesn't fit the available data based on her research on homosexuality and same-sex relationships in humans and other animals.
This interview with Roughgarden is interesting, although a bit shallow, and actually left me wanting to yell through my computer screen at her. At one point she says, "A typical couple has sex once a week for 50 years, but has only two offspring," which is so wrong if you're looking at the human population as a whole right now and at humans in the millions of years that we've existed. At other times, though, she makes intelligent reference to things like polygamy.
I hope this is a useful, interesting and well-researched book, but this interview raises a few doubts. I wondered what you all would think.
Posted by Deana at April 18, 2004 07:50 AMComments
According to your philosophy or should I say criticisim of Evloutions Rainbow I agree as to assumptions 1 and 3. However, are you suggesting that behavior is not a genetically inherited trait and further more is it socially beneficial for a homosexual to reproduce? I ask this question to secure an understanding of why homosexual and bisexual behavior would benefit the theory of darwinistic progress, concerning mans' evolution.
Posted by: JD Smith at October 12, 2004 11:50 AMDear JD:
Please read my previous post more carefully and you should be able to answer your own questions!
~d
Posted by: Deb at October 12, 2004 12:33 PMAlso, you are forgetting about multiple allele inheritance and recessive inheritance. Two extremely important things to know before arguing any point over genetics.
Posted by: t at March 10, 2005 07:42 PM
This book is the latest in a movement of evolutionary theory that is causing it to, well, evolve. Actually, it's a little behind the times. And the intro at the beginning of the article is a bit uninformed, for example:
Assumption 1) All inherited traits have to be harmful or hurtful.
Reality: Some traits are neutral or not harmful enough to kill said organism before it reproduces successfully.
Assumption 2) All inherited traits are genetic.
Reality: Some species, it seems, may also evolve socially; parents pass on behaviors to their offspring that help them to reproduce more successfully. I think this might be taken to a cultural/societal level: some societies encourage behaviors that help them be more successful than others . . .
Assumption 3) All sex is for reproductive purposes only.
Reality: This is the assumption that the book in question seems to be trying to reform. In social species, sex is also a means of solidifying social relationships, etc., etc. as is discussed in the interview. This opens the discussion beyond just the "selfish gene."
Assumption 4) No homosexual reproduces (before A.I.)
Reality: Often, "homosexuals" are really "bisexuals" and might have both hetero and homo-erotic encounters. This does not preclude them from reproducing. Also, the society in question needs to be taken into account -- in our culture, gay people often hid (hide?) their preference, got married, had kids, came out later.
I still think we should be careful of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater (that's not successful reproduction, now is it?) The theory of evolution is a useful tool that I see as being expanded upon, not gotten rid off.
Posted by: deb at April 19, 2004 07:26 AM