the gay gene?

[Baranduin]

For example, evolution provided a wonderful mechanism that lets us have sex while nursing an infant without risking the health of this infant or a younger sibling by getting pregnant again too soon. [ . . . ]Now you should think that natural selection would wipe out the [lactating] non-ovulating females since they have fewer pregnancies, but the survival chances of those fewer kids were better.

Interesting, but I'm arguing for a culturally driven behavior, not a biological imperative. Female apes could or not reject sex whenever they had a baby regardless whether they were ovulating or not, and the offspring could or not share their mother's behavior, while other mother's cubs could.

I also don't understand what "no sex on rainy days" should indicate,

It's another example of a behavior that could be used by female apes to estimate when "it was better to make a kid" (in case the best time to have a kid were, for instance, eight months after the wet season), even if they were not aware of the causal relation.

A clearer example could be avoiding to have sex if there's not enough food: you will agree that that would reduce the opportunities of the cub (they don't need to be aware about their possible cubs being in disadvantage for this to work).

Hell, it would work even if they acquired a habit that forbade them from having sex, instead of the habit being just rejecting sex (think on how weeks-lasting, only-male hunting parties for the big mammoth at the middle of spring would affect the seasons women were pregnant, so less babies were born during the coldest part of the winter; it's just an example, so don't pick up on its historical accuracy).

but your hypothesis is missing a starting point: If the young apes learn by imitation from the old apes, who taught the old apes?

If german kids learn german from elder germans, who taught german to the elder germans? Conclusion: speaking german (or any language) is impossible.

A culturally driven behavior doesn't require a "first learner", only a "first teacher". I touch my chin when I'm nervous, as my dad used to do, but that doesn't mean someone taught my ancestors long time ago (actually, it doesn't even mean that my grandfather had this habit; my father could've taken from a teacher, or a neighbor, or could have being an innovation!). Touching someone's chin does not improve a shit, but other random behaviors could.

It's turtles all the way down, because at some point, you either need a biological factor like the lactation-ovulation, or you need knowledge about how the whole shit works.

Uh, no. I've given some examples above. You only need someone developing a new behavior - which may occur pretty much randomly -, and horizontal and/or vertical transmission. If a woman innovates a new habit that makes her more successful, women choosing the wrong time to mate will just be in disadvantage - less kids will survive, or they'll have more abortions, etc, so they'd be less popular - so to say - and imitate the behavior of that successful woman that has had six kids in a row without losing any, etc. Ape's minds are kind of efficient in finding correlations while giving a shit about the actual causation (someone does X and seems to be in better conditions than we are, so let's mindlessly do X; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't: even a broken clock is right twice a day).

Eventually the link between sex and offspring would be discovered, and as humans became less dependent of their instincts and more dependent on language, and as technology was created to make our reproductive success less dependent of the environment, and as our knowledge and comprehension of these issues deepened, thinks like 'the talk', 'sex ed', etc became important for our culture. I don't see how being informed, consenting, etc, are important for the reproductive success (though they are the moral thing to do).

Yes, one day it was discovered. I'm guessing that first the link between menstruation and pregnancy would be discovered, that only menstruating females could become pregnant. And they would discover that only those who had sex could become pregnant. But the connection between that one time of sex that led to a pregnancy, that was the real trick, I think.
No, knowing this doesn't matter much in the reproductive process. It rather matters in not procreating. That's why I argued against "ape females would know when to best present themselves" Seems like the cat knows, avoiding all the problems associated with our complicated mating rituals and all the energy we're wasting on the non-procreative sex.

The narrative seems plausible to me As for the second part, I'm suggesting a way for them to "know" when and when not, without the expensive process of knowing why and why not.

So when Proteus says that they had the intelligence to determinate when, I'm just emphasizing our instinct to emulate over deduction, which is by itself a double advantage: it not only allowed our ancestors to adapt to the circumstances quicker than a biological adaptation (it can take as little as one generation), but also to lose the adaptation whenever the circumstances changed without the burden of a genetic change.

I guess it didn't took much: hunter-gatherers probably observed that birds nested in pairs, male and female, and so did vermins, etc. Another story, of course, would be the actual mechanism... Is there any data about that?

What, you think that they deducted from birds to humans? Seems a bit far fetched to me.

Let's see: they learn from a nest full of eggs they don't get just eggs, but also may hunt two birds, and only one has a pennis. They learn that in a den full of baby vermins usually there are two vermins, and one of them has a penis. They never encounter a nest with both nor neither of the birds having a penis, so they 'conclude' that for having eggs or cubs you need one father and one mother. And then, half of the clan has a penis...

--
Wall of text being offtopic. Sorry.

 

[Giliell]

OK, I think I now understand what you're proposing:
Females show non-genetic random behavioural variation and the offspring imitate them. Those who imitate the favourable habits get to reproduce more.
Is that correct?

I still don't think it makes much sense. Like for the sex after child-bearing:
First, there's nothing to show that having sex after childbirth (well, after the lochia stopped) was discouraged . Actually, the fact that those who did not reproduce directly again for lack of ovulation seem to have been selected for actually disproves that. It would not have been a selective advantage if there also had been a cultural taboo about it.
Same goes for "organized abstinence" . To ovulate more than most other mammal species with similar gestation length must have given a great advantage, because it comes at a huge cost. To culturally role that back to a basically "cat state" just doesn't make sense to me.

A clearer example could be avoiding to have sex if there's not enough food: you will agree that that would reduce the opportunities of the cub (they don't need to be aware about their possible cubs being in disadvantage for this to work).

Yes, but pretty hard to figure out. And to plan. It takes a very long time to make the little bastards and to plan ahead how the situation will be in 9 months is pretty hard.
What we do have good evidence for is infanticide: Killing babies soon after birth if they didn't have the resources to raise them.

If german kids learn german from elder germans, who taught german to the elder germans? Conclusion: speaking german (or any language) is impossible.

No, this doesn't hold water. We have a clear knowledge of how modern German came to be, how it progressed over time and also how it evolved from its predecessor back to Gothic (it's a language, really). Ultimately it must have started back with some apesgiving signs and using their voice to convey information. But where's that starting point for your sex-culture?

. If a woman innovates a new habit that makes her more successful

Again, why?
Just randomly like mutations?

Let's see: they learn from a nest full of eggs they don't get just eggs, but also may hunt two birds, and only one has a pennis. They learn that in a den full of baby vermins usually there are two vermins, and one of them has a penis. They never encounter a nest with both nor neither of the birds having a penis, so they 'conclude' that having eggs or cubs you need one father and one mother. And then, half of the clan has a penis...

Hmm, I suppose you mean vermin like rats, not vermin like bugs.
But still, they get the same set of creatures they are themselves: a male and female. They have sex. Some time later the female reproduces. When and how did they find out the two things are connected? I'd say it was even easier to deduct it from their own species, like noticing that:
-a girl who hasn't had a period yet cannot have babies
-girls who never had sex didn't become pregnant either

It would depend on factors like how pedophilia was view/practised.

 

[Baranduin]

OK, I think I now understand what you're proposing:
Females show non-genetic random behavioural variation and the offspring imitate them. Those who imitate the favourable habits get to reproduce more.

Yes, but it's not only the offspring, but anyone: their offspring, other's offspring, and other people living around them (as I said, a female who has lost many kids may adopt behaviors from other reproductively successful females, hoping to adopt the behavior that makes them so successful - and working on the assumption that the success comes from behavior rather than physiology), and those who has the favorable habits have bigger chances of being copied - be it by their offspring, or by others. Of course, they don't need to be more aware of that than a teenager who starts dressing like their favorite pop-singer is.

First, there's nothing to show that having sex after childbirth (well, after the lochia stopped) was discouraged . Actually, the fact that those who did not reproduce directly again for lack of ovulation seem to have been selected for actually disproves that. It would not have been a selective advantage if there also had been a cultural taboo about it.

It was just an example of a behavior that could affect reproduction. It's not a stupid example, though: according to the Bible, women are unclean after childbirth - just like during menstruation -, so they could not be touch by a man - that for sure forbade sex -, etc. Be this my example that such rules not only might have but has existed.

One thing you have to bear in mind is that I'm not speaking about cultural trends lasting the whole 5-9 millions of years of ape evolution up to our days, but about local and temporary trends that would arise, become mainstream in that population - but not necessarily in others -, evolve, and in nearly all instances fade away. The other thing is that they don't have lasting effects on the genome: I'm arguing that the memetic replication mechanism is far more efficient precisely because it doesn't cumbers individuals' offspring, but depends just in cultural trends. Once the clan migrates, or the circumstances change, the habits can be changed accordingly, and since they don't rely in genetic change, it can be done quick.

Yes, but pretty hard to figure out. And to plan. It takes a very long time to make the little bastards and to plan ahead how the situation will be in 9 months is pretty hard.

I'm not saying they plan not to have kids because resources are scarce. I'm saying that they could rely in cultural mechanisms so they had their kids in the most adequate time.

To take an earlier example: women don't have sex during rainy days. Consider a nomadic clan most of whose women follow such a rule. They migrate to a new area at the end of the winter, in February, stay there for a few years exploiting resources, and then move on to another area at the end of the winter. The wet season in the region they live is in April-May. Laboring during the migration time is bad because, say, it slows down the march of the clan, and the blood attracts predators in a moment when they don't have good defenses against them. Would you agree that the chances of a woman going into labor during migration would be smaller, that the smallness of those chances is an advantage for the tribe, and that they don't need to be aware of the mechanism for it to work?
[If you want for the replication mechanism, it wouldn't be hard for the other women to realize that there are some women that has never being in labor during the march, and imitate different behaviors of those pioneering women like not eating mushrooms, yelling at trees, and not having sex in rainy days. Once they move to a region where the relation monsoon/migration period is different, of course, the behavior would fade away or mutate, leaving no evidence but perhaps some oral tradition - once such a thing was developed, of course]. Intelligence plays the role of allowing to choose better which behaviors to replicate or drop, but no plan ahead nor knowledge of the process would be needed, but just the observation (or lack of it) of the correlations (she/their family has many kids thus something she does makes her to have many kids/to be blessed by the Goddess/by the Spirits/whichever other rationalization).

We have a clear knowledge of how modern German came to be, how it progressed over time and also how it evolved from its predecessor back to Gothic (it's a language, really).

I had understood that Gothic alongside with Vandalic - yes, they were languages, and both left some influence in Spanish - were Eastern Germanic, a branch now extinct, while modern German (like English and Scandinavian G. Languages) was Western; they both meet in ProtoGermanic. But I'm digressing, though.

Ultimately it must have started back with some apesgiving signs and using their voice to convey information. But where's that starting point for your sex-culture?

In the same place than culinary local traditions, or even cutlery usage, for instance. It's not a sex-culture: it's plain culture, and it influences sex just like it influences eating or sleeping habits. And yes, everyone has sex habits, just like everyone has eating habits, and those habits are amenable of replication and change.

. If a woman innovates a new habit that makes her more successful

Again, why? Just randomly like mutations?

Yeah. Why protogermans turned their stops into fricatives, or voiced their fricatives? Yes, some changes would happen for no reason. Others would happen to strengthen clan cohesion and self-identification against rival or neighboring clans - "THIS is how WE do things around HERE!". In something so obvious like the status of being a fruitful woman, pick up your ticket: from envy to wish to guarantee a good position for themselves (need I remind how barren women are treated in the bible?).

I'd say it was even easier to deduct it from their own species, like noticing that: [*] a girl who hasn't had a period yet cannot have babies [*] girls who never had sex didn't become pregnant either

I'd add to your first point that observing that (the very few) elderly women had no period nor kids could have helped to establish the correlation. But they would just reveal that having the period was necessary for having kids. Your second point would have been more revealing, but I think it's less obvious - for a lack of virgins, more than anything else. I think that seeing how animals couples "worked" could have worked better. I agree in that it depends on how their social structures - taboos on pedophilia/first sex, but also marriage, etc - were.

 

[Andiferous]

Eventually the link between sex and offspring would be discovered, and as humans became less dependent of their instincts and more dependent on language, and as technology was created to make our reproductive success less dependent of the environment, and as our knowledge and comprehension of these issues deepened, thinks like 'the talk', 'sex ed', etc became important for our culture. I don't see how being informed, consenting, etc, are important for the reproductive success (though they are the moral thing to do).

Wow. Your comment just made me think...

Evolution is the summation of every morally dispicable trend in human society. Rape, murder, violence, genocide (etc). I'm starting to feel morally bound to stop it.

Could you clarify which 'apes' of which you speak? I'm only curious; the few species of the great apes are very different. We're in there too, actually. So you might be talking about us.

In fact, it's one of the things I wozld really, really want to know but we most likely never will: When did our ancestors find out the link between sex and pregnancy?

It seems very basic. And you'd probably go extinct if you haven't figured it out. They tried for an eternity to figure out the mechanism, but they always seemed to know what to do.

Do you really think other animals don't understand the connection? I think they would.

I'm more of the idea that we have a general and rather reduced set of sexual preferences codified in our genes but that the main drive is cultural (as Squawk mentions), but I'd rather prefer if someone could assess its likelihood before just dismissing it.

Confused a bit, would you mind clarifying?

 

[Baranduin]

In fact, it's one of the things I wozld really, really want to know but we most likely never will: When did our ancestors find out the link between sex and pregnancy?

It seems very basic. And you'd probably go extinct if you haven't figured it out. They tried for an eternity to figure out the mechanism, but they always seemed to know what to do.
Do you really think other animals don't understand the connection? I think they would.

No, we have sex because we (usually) like it. And if females of a species have sex, and they don't use anticonceptive stuff, every now and then they'll get pregnant, with no need of understanding anything at all for either part. Just instinct, shaped by evolutionary means.

Eventually the link between sex and offspring would be discovered, and as humans became less dependent of their instincts and more dependent on language, and as technology was created to make our reproductive success less dependent of the environment, and as our knowledge and comprehension of these issues deepened, thinks like 'the talk', 'sex ed', etc became important for our culture. I don't see how being informed, consenting, etc, are important for the reproductive success (though they are the moral thing to do).

Wow. Your comment just made me think...
Evolution is the summation of every morally dispicable trend in human society. Rape, murder, violence, genocide (etc). I'm starting to feel morally bound to stop it.

I think I'm a bit lost. Could you elaborate? I'm not sure how you draw all those things from evolution, nor how it relates to your quoting from me, which has little to do with evolution...

Could you clarify which 'apes' of which you speak? I'm only curious; the few species of the great apes are very different. We're in there too, actually. So you might be talking about us.

No, because I'm being ambiguous on purpose. We know that the "few" extant species of ape already have the ability to mimic behaviors, so this is something that would span over "the few" 'missing links' (say, the last 7My?).

Also bear in mind that this has been a reply to Giliell's direct dismissal of Proteus' proposal. Giliell assumed that 1) parents had to be aware of a lot of details to maximize reproduction success, and 2) that a complex, modern society is needed (the talk, planned parenthood, records, etc). I'm presenting a (memetic) model that could work for primitive - even speechless - societies. It's just one of many. It happened as I've described? Is Proteus right? I don't know, that's something others (ethologists, anthropologists) will have to find out (if can be determined at all!). But afaik there's no way to dismiss Proteus' proposal with Giliell's argument. I'm not sure if I had made myself clear on this on my previous posts, so just to clear it.

 

[Baranduin]

I'm more of the idea that we have a general and rather reduced set of sexual preferences codified in our genes but that the main drive is cultural (as Squawk mentions), but I'd rather prefer if someone could assess its likelihood before just dismissing it.

Confused a bit, would you mind clarifying?

My stance or the 'proposal'?

 

[ProcInc]

I wouldn't say the example of the lesbian lizards is 'homosexuality'. After all, that species had only one sex and the sexual activity is required to stimulate reproduction (despite the fact there is no transfer of sex cells). They are homosexual in the same way ' sexually' reproducing bacteria are.

I agree with the poster who speculated true homosexuality as a by-product of social and maternal instinct.

 

[Baranduin]

I wouldn't say the example of the lesbian lizards is 'homosexuality'. After all, that species had only one sex and the sexual activity is required to stimulate reproduction (despite the fact there is no transfer of sex cells). They are homosexual in the same way ' sexually' reproducing bacteria are.

That oddly looks like the creationist canard that dogs and bitches evolved separately

That species had two sexes, with females being able to reproduce by parthenogenesis. They still required stimulation, though. If males had gone extinct before some of them became lesbians, who was stimulating them? The species would have gone extinct! So it's far more parsimonious to think that the females developed a lesbic behavior first, and then males (and 'heterosexual' females) disappeared. So there was a time when there were both lesbic behavior and males, so it qualifies as homosexuality.
[Another possible solution could be that females started triggering their ovulation by interspecies mating and not with other females, but that still means that they developed a trait to mate with other females of their same species that was not present there before, or that they lost a trait to avoid mating with them].

And your analogy with "sexually reproducing bacteria" fails in that bacteria are not differentiated by sexes (so homo- and hetero- sexuality are meaningless), whilst lizards are.

 

[Giliell]

@Baranduin
Ah, now I understand your argument better.
I think for a lot of things we're talking about different timelines.
Your example from the bible comes from a time when a lot of the basics were already well understood. I'm talking about the times when we might not even have been modern humans.

I'm not saying they plan not to have kids because resources are scarce. I'm saying that they could rely in cultural mechanisms so they had their kids in the most adequate time.

Hmmm, do we have any examples of this in still existing, very primitive cultures who depend very much on their natural environment?
Let's take your "rainy days" example.
I think the connection would even be much stronger since most nomadic tribes move with the year, not every few years.
Would people remember that woman didn't have sex and didn't go into labour during migration? Because we have a fantastic habit of not recognizing not-events. We're really good at spotting things that happen at the same time and making connections between them even when there are none, but we're really bad at "not-news", especially if there's such a long time between not-event A and not-event B.
Another problem I see is with the womderful matriarchal culture you're painting here. Not that I don't find it charming, but would a woman have had the power to deny sex for 6-8 weeks?

"THIS is how WE do things around HERE!". In something so obvious like the status of being a fruitful woman, pick up your ticket: from envy to wish to guarantee a good position for themselves (need I remind how barren women are treated in the bible?).

I agree to some extend. Us vs Them was very important and trying to outbreet your competitors was important, too. Yet we're again talking about different timelines. You're using the bible, a document of times well after the agricultural revolution. It also contradicts your ideas of the "traditions" women built up, since they were, as you point out yourself, basically cattle.
And yes, from that position, a lot of their rules surrounding women, marriage, rape, make perfect sense for a tribal society of that time and place. And I agree with you that a lot of the rules would have disappeared if they hadn't been part of a religion, but that's also how things work: lacking the intellectual knowledge, such traditions become religion and are therefore hard to drop once conditions change. The more "culture" you have, the less able you are to try things out.
The tribe might die out as a result, or become assimilated by another one.

 

[Baranduin]

I think for a lot of things we're talking about different timelines.

I think we are confusing two discussions. One is when they realized about the relation between sex and offspring (and thus were able to plan ahead). The other is when they started to adopt techniques that improved the opportunities of the kid. I'm arguing that the later may have arisen before the former, via memetic group selection. The timeline is unimportant, as I commented to Andiferous, because the only thing you need is the ability to replicate behaviors, something common to most monkeys and all apes (so probably in our common ancestors with them), so it spans for the last millions of years. Skills like being able to spot more successful individuals (something that, AFAIK, has being detected in monkeys), or reason the whole process (only in humans, it seems) etc would improve the results, but are not imprescindible, only handier.

Your example from the bible comes from a time when a lot of the basics were already well understood. I'm talking about the times when we might not even have been modern humans.

Well, I'm not familiar with paleolithic literature You said you saw no way such a superstition could have arisen, I just brought an example I'm familiar with.

I'm not saying they plan not to have kids because resources are scarce. I'm saying that they could rely in cultural mechanisms so they had their kids in the most adequate time.

Hmmm, do we have any examples of this in still existing, very primitive cultures who depend very much on their natural environment?
Let's take your "rainy days" example.
I think the connection would even be much stronger since most nomadic tribes move with the year, not every few years.

Fine.

Would people remember that woman didn't have sex and didn't go into labour during migration?

She's mother of twelve, and none of them was born during migration. Some women, tired of having inconveniently timed labors, start mimicking the behavior of that very woman they perceived as luckier. They try to groom the same males she grooms, to eat the same she eats... and oh, that odd behavior of throwing sticks and stones to males whenever they approach to her on a rainy day. It seems to work for her. :roll:
And since it'll work with the new females as well, other females will feel more compelled to adopt the habit, and females not adopting it will remind the group why females must throw sticks and stones to the males in rainy days. Until the climate or the seasonal migration changes, in which case the behavior might disappear, if it hasn't been exapted by other behavior or reinforced by any means.

An alternative for such a behavior could be a female who has very noisy sex in rainy days, and overall is not very popular among women, or full of disgraces (ie considered jinxed). Other females could start avoiding sex in rainy days - either because their males are 'occupied', or because they associate sex in rainy days with her. Confirmation bias works from then: women having the disgrace of being pregnant during the migration - like her - would be stigmatized and adopt the other's behaviors, including avoiding sex in such days and sleeping among their brethren instead of with anyone else.

Some time later (as evolution goes, and causal thought becomes more important), they might rationalize it - it pleases the gods, that we eat this and not this other, and that we move our hand as if we were throwing stones to the males, and Phertilia Goddess of the Offspring will bless you with many healthy children; you were pregnant in such a bad moment because you infuriated Pluvius God of the Rain for not keeping his days holy -, but even in this case it's clear that they wouldn't have established the actual link.
So they would have a mechanism, throughout the whole evolutionary process, that would allow them to estimate the better (average) timing for having kids without previous planning nor being aware of the link between sex and offspring.

Because we have a fantastic habit of not recognizing not-events. We're really good at spotting things that happen at the same time and making connections between them even when there are none, but we're really bad at "not-news", especially if there's such a long time between not-event A and not-event B.

Yeah, but we can recognize that other person hasn't gone through what we had to suffer. We are actually pretty good at that, sometimes even neglectfully forgetting that the other person has. And ,¿long time? I'm not speaking about the moment they made the true connexion. They are fully unaware that sex leads to offspring. For all they know, it's waving the hand what causes pregnancy.

Another problem I see is with the womderful matriarchal culture you're painting here. Not that I don't find it charming, but would a woman have had the power to deny sex for 6-8 weeks?

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no, but other cultural item came into play. And sometimes there was no cultural item potentiating offspring chances, or even counterproductive behaviors (which compromised the tribe's continuity and competitivity in the long run, forcing to either a change or extinction). I'm arguing that it was possible, not necessary, nor omnipresent.

"THIS is how WE do things around HERE!". In something so obvious like the status of being a fruitful woman, pick up your ticket: from envy to wish to guarantee a good position for themselves (need I remind how barren women are treated in the bible?).

I agree to some extend. Us vs Them was very important and trying to outbreet your competitors was important, too. Yet we're again talking about different timelines. You're using the bible, a document of times well after the agricultural revolution. It also contradicts your ideas of the "traditions" women built up, since they were, as you point out yourself, basically cattle.

As I said above, I'm not familiar with erectus' literature. You said a superstition couldn't possibly had arisen, I gave a counterexample. I also tend to adopt a pseudoreligious language, but that's just because I'm more familiar with the human way of thinking than with the non-fully-rational prehuman thought.

And yes, from that position, a lot of their rules surrounding women, marriage, rape, make perfect sense for a tribal society of that time and place. And I agree with you that a lot of the rules would have disappeared if they hadn't been part of a religion, but that's also how things work: lacking the intellectual knowledge, such traditions become religion and are therefore hard to drop once conditions change. The more "culture" you have, the less able you are to try things out.
The tribe might die out as a result, or become assimilated by another one.

Agreed.