Can natural selection select for genes based on their utility at a group level?

[Valmy]

Plenty of gays end up reproducing. 

Yeah and to the best of my knowledge their children do not have a higher chance of being gay than straight people's children.

[DGuller]

Of course it does.  Whether it explains homosexuality is another question entirely.

[Maximus]

Never, ever make a WoW analogy when trying to discuss a serious topic.

"Proc" was around long before WoW anyway. If I'm not mistaken before MMOs. I believe if stands for "process request on contact".

[MadImmortalMan]

While such gene would not be useful at an individual level, at a society/group level there could be a benefit to a tribe/group in which certain part of the populace does not have kids, and thus can be expected/counted on to support their child-bearing brothers and sisters, and effectively dedicate more time and energy to the wellbeing of the society as a whole (an example of celibate clergy in many societies comes to mind).

Like clubbing, dictating fashion trends and marching down busy thoroughfares in stockings and a boa riding atop a pink tank. I can see it.

[Faeelin]

But if you have only 1 gene, you will have some protection from malaria and live longer than people with only normal genes. Thus a balance is reached where much of the population will have the trait where malaria is present, even if that means some must die form it.

Saying homosexuality is only genetic is almost certainly false, however.

There have been some studies which suggest increased fertility among the sisters of gays, but since those studies come from western society I'm not sure how accurate they actually are. I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.

[DGuller]

There have been some studies which suggest increased fertility among the sisters of gays, but since those studies come from western society I'm not sure how accurate they actually are. I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.

Oh, crap, my sister has three children, for now.

[The Brain]

There have been some studies which suggest increased fertility among the sisters of gays, but since those studies come from western society I'm not sure how accurate they actually are. I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.

Oh, crap, my sister has three children, for now.

All Reagan's fault?

[alfred russel]

I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.

So over 1,000 generations it wouldn't have died out or become extremely rare if it wasn't maladoptive? That doesn't seem to make sense.

Your first point (which I deleted) seems possible.

[DGuller]

All Reagan's fault?

Maybe the oldest one, but the other two are too young.

[Queequeg]

Thoughts?

The vast majority of members of an eusocial species do not mate or are sterile, but they are more successful and fundamental to life on this planet than any vertebrate species. Generally speaking, I think it is reasonably fair to suggest that males in social amniote species  is that the females are baby factories and the males are dual purpose worker-drones/provider of genetic material.  No reason that homosexuals can't be a part of this.

[Queequeg]

If you believe that such a complex behavior as homosexuality is caused by a gene or other simple biological mechanism, rather than a complex bio-cultural interplay, you might as well believe what you want about evolution.

If there wasn't some kind of evolutionary pressure for it, or if it wasn't net beneficial or at least neutral for a species, it presumably would have been weeded out. 

[alfred russel]

Thoughts?

The vast majority of members of an eusocial species do not mate or are sterile, but they are more successful and fundamental to life on this planet than any vertebrate species. Generally speaking, I think it is reasonably fair to suggest that males in social amniote species  is that the females are baby factories and the males are dual purpose worker-drones/provider of genetic material.  No reason that homosexuals can't be a part of this.

Eusocial species share close kin relationships to keep natural selection from breaking down the social order through selfish behavior. Our social amniote species doesn't have anywhere near the degree of kin relatedness (either today or in the distant past) in our social groups of any eusocial species. That is a good reason homosexuals can't be a part of this.

[Valmy]

There have been some studies which suggest increased fertility among the sisters of gays, but since those studies come from western society I'm not sure how accurate they actually are. I think it's probably an evolutionary artifact from the stone age and pre-human primates.

How would that work?  Homosexuality gets carried on through straight women?

Would that mean that some families would have more gays than others?  Do studies confirm this?

It also strikes me as sort of self selective to point out that families that have more children are likely to have more gay ones.

[HVC]

No idea, however not all of evolution has a specific reason. Not all traits are breed for (or bred against). Many traits are just incidental. Says the gay gene may be tied to another trait. being gay is just co-incidental to this trait. Not all people who have this "good" trait are gay (say recessive gene at it's simplest, though there are many other factors that cause traits to manifest. The "unintended consequence" of gayness at 10% could fall well within the normal die off within a species so that the "good" trait (with gayness attached) doesn't die out. Genetic and evolution is way more complicated the good traits survive, bad traits die off.

[Valmy]

Genetic and evolution is way more complicated the good traits survive, bad traits die off.

Especially since nature doesn't make very good value judgements.