From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu Dec 02 1999 - 18:51:06 MST
Hey Harvey, perhaps everyone has already told you this, but:
At 01:09 AM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>1. Imagine a simple recessive gene that causes gayness. Each person has
>two of these genes, one from their mother, and one from their father. Each
>strand of DNA from each parent either carries the gay gene (represented as
>"G") or the non-gay gene (represented as "g"). Since the gene is recessive,
>a person must have two gay genes to be gay. If there is one or more
>straight genes the person is straight. The possible combinations of genes
>are:
>
> GG = straight individual
Wrong way around. Using yr key, GG is gay.
And as others have mentioned, yr bee analogy is wrong, since you neglect
the extreme consanguinity of those near-clones. But in general I agree with
yr argument, although the burden is on you (or yr case) to show that
inclusive fitness is better maximised in this way than by total obsession
with making babies.
(I also think bisexuality doesn't really need an explanation, since rubbing
rude bits together is obviously fun and social and good for power trips,
etc, unless you've been socialised out of it [as I was and I gather you
weren't]. It's *dedicated* gayness that's the puzzle.)
Damien
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:55 MST