A new group-selection model for the evolution of homosexuality

Kirby, Jeff

doi:10.1023/a:1026321628276

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientific studies show that it is an undeniable fact that there are homosexuals in the same sense and by the same standards there are heterosexuals as defined above (for recent reviews of these findings, see Burr 2007; Cadge 2007; Myers and Scanzoni 2005, 52–83; Roughgarden 2009a, 185–305). In other words, if we can claim on scientific grounds that there is something like a heterosexual orientation then by the same standards of acceptable science we have sufficient scientific evidence that there is also something like a homosexual orientation in the sense that “choice is absent from sexual orientation” (Roughgarden 2009a, 255), and “that the categories of human sexual orientation constitute ‘natural human kinds’” (Kirby 2003, 684).…”

Section: On the Existence Of Homosexualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To begin with, a number of models have been proposed to explain homosexuality in terms of evolution by natural selection (see Kirby 2003; Roughgarden 2009a, 257–61), because there is agreement among scientists that there is a problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection yet to be solved and that this problem is posed by the prevalence of homosexuality in nature: “how has homosexual orientation evolved, given that, on average, homosexual individuals produce fewer children than do heterosexual individuals [? ]” (Kirby 2003, 683).…”

Section: Case Study: the Nonexistence Claim And Theistic Darwinismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sexual Diversity and Divine Creation: A Tightrope Walk Between Christianity and Science

Fehige¹

2013

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although modern societies have come to recognize diversity in human sexuality as simply part of nature, many Christian communities and thinkers still have considerable difficulties with related developments in politics, legislation, and science. In fact, homosexuality is a recurrent topic in the transdisciplinary encounter between Christianity and the sciences, an encounter that is otherwise rather "asexual." I propose that the recent emergence of "Christianity and Science" as an academic field in its own right is an important part of the larger context of the difficulties related to attempts to reconcile Christianity and a recognition of diversity in human sexuality as a norm. Through a critical discussion of arguments which are upheld most disturbingly on a global scale by the Roman Catholic Church and supported with much sophistry by important stakeholders of an influential stream in analytic philosophy of religion, this paper aims to contextualize and defend the legitimacy of the question why God would create homosexuals as such if it is true that every homosexual act is prohibited by God. While recently advanced nonheterosexist scientific models of sexuality in nature inform the discussion, I reject the simplistic view that religions suppress and the sciences liberate in matters sexual.

show abstract

Section: On the Existence Of Homosexualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Case Study: the Nonexistence Claim And Theistic Darwinismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual Diversity and Divine Creation: A Tightrope Walk Between Christianity and Science

Fehige¹

2013

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A partir de esta premisa, se han llevado a cabo multitud de investigaciones (Dorner, 1978;Kirby, 2003;Saifi and Chandra, 1999;LeVay, 1991) con el propósito de encontrar una explicación a este hecho y su posible influencia en la orientación sexual tanto de los hombres como de las mujeres. Por una parte, se considera el dimorfismo sexual del cerebro humano como resultado de la exposición diferencial a los andrógenos prenatales y durante el período postnatal temprano (Ellis and Ames, 1987).…”

Section: Diferenciación Cerebral Como Una Adaptación Evolutivaunclassified

Evolución y orientación sexual

Soler

2005

Divers.: Perspect. Psicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenLa teoría evolutiva propuesta por Darwin sugiere el mecanismo de la selección natural para explicar la forma como las especies se adaptaron, sobrevivieron y evolucionaron, y el mecanismo de la selección sexual para explicar su reproducción. De esta manera, postula que los rasgos adaptativos son reproducidos más sucesivamente que los rasgos desadaptativos. De acuerdo con esto, la selección natural debería favorecer la heterosexualidad, pues ésta facilita la reproducción y la propagación de genes. Pero ¿qué sucede con la orientación sexual que no favorece la tesis darwiniana (por ejemplo, la homosexualidad) y por qué se ha mantenido? La investigación en esta área se ha centrado en aspectos hormonales, de diferenciación cerebral y genéticos, arrojando resultados inconsistentes. Se parte de la tesis de que la orientación sexual humana, en particular la orientación homosexual, es tan compleja como para ser descrita y explicada tan solo por un modelo o una disciplina. Se hace una revisión de las diferentes áreas de investigación sobre orientación sexual y se sugiere la incapacidad de las teorías evolutivas para dar cuenta de ella.

show abstract

“…Proximate (internal) causes are usually bio-molecular mechanisms or developmental pathways present in specific individuals (Hamer et al, 1993;Hamer, 1995;Hu et al, 1995;LeVay, 1991;LeVay & Hamer, 1994;Pillard, 1997;Rahman & Wilson, 2003;Savic et al, 2005;Savic et al, 2008;Swaab et al, 2001;Yamamoto et al, 1996); proximate (external) causes are usually environmental phenomena, such as pollutants or maternal effects, that act as developmental insults capable of disrupting canalized developmental pathways that in "normal" circumstances produce a "normal" trait: an heterosexual sexual orientation (see chapter 6 at Poiani, 2010). Ultimate causes are, in contrast, evolutionary forces such as sexual selection, group selection, kin selection or even genetic drift, all of these acting on populations (Hutchinson, 1959;Kirby, 2003;Muscarella et al, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Structure of Explanations and Counter-Explanations of Homosexuality

Manus¹

2012

OJPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to revisit an ongoing controversy within the so called “Science Wars”; more specifically, I will address a particular topic within the “human nature” debate: the ontological and epistemological status of homosexuality. I claim that, in this particular chapter of the “Science Wars”, we are continually left in an <i>explanatory impasse</i> even when more data are collected, more rigorous experimental techniques are developed, more subtle arguments are offered and more pluralistic narratives are told. My diagnosis of the source of this impasse leads me to the conclusion that here we are dealing with a structural problem that cannot be solved with an elaboration of new models and theories that maintain an on- tology and an epistemology that are no longer suited as an explanans of human nature in general, and homosexuality in particular. Nevertheless, my analysis of the structural features of the biological explanations and the constructivist counter-explanations also leads me to the belief that, although biologists do not fully understand the intricacies of subjects, neither constructivists understand the facticity of evolution and the challenge that it implies. If so, then the subject might be the right target of explanation. And, if so, constructivists might be right about the uniqueness of human homosexuality as a modern, western phenomenon explainable in terms of subjectivities and identities that mold and are molded by desires and institutions. But, if they are, evolution is not expendable because now we are facing a most intriguing question: How is that we humans became subjects

show abstract

A new group-selection model for the evolution of homosexuality

Cited by 13 publications

References 10 publications

Sexual Diversity and Divine Creation: A Tightrope Walk Between Christianity and Science

Sexual Diversity and Divine Creation: A Tightrope Walk Between Christianity and Science

Evolución y orientación sexual

The Structure of Explanations and Counter-Explanations of Homosexuality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About