Top misconceptions of Theory of Evolution you had to deal with

[Chas]

I still get confused on evolution, like when Dawkins talks about natural selection perhaps favoring gay men because they make good uncles, I'm like... what?

Dawkins' claim to fame is his gene centric view of evolution outlined in "The Selfish Gene" and "The extended Phenotype"  (though oddly not published in te peer reviewed literature). It roughly goes as follows - a gene which increases the probability that males are homosexual might get passed on more efficiently because it makes sure that its carriers more likely have gay relatives helping with the rearing and do not  attempt to kill and replace the offspring with their own. The gene boosting the homosexuality ratio does not need to get passed on by the homosexual individuals themselves to be selected for.

Dawkins R (1978). "Replicator selection and the extended phenotype". Z Tierpsychol 
Dawkins, Richard (1981). "In defence of selfish genes". Philosophy 56 

[vorlon13]

[Angrboda]

"Guided evolution" is compatible with the biological theory of evolution.

[Old Baby]

I still get confused on evolution, like when Dawkins talks about natural selection perhaps favoring gay men because they make good uncles, I'm like... what?

Dawkins' claim to fame is his gene centric view of evolution outlined in "The Selfish Gene" and "The extended Phenotype"  (though oddly not published in te peer reviewed literature). It roughly goes as follows - a gene which increases the probability that males are homosexual might get passed on more efficiently because it makes sure that its carriers more likely have gay relatives helping with the rearing and do not  attempt to kill and replace the offspring with their own. The gene boosting the homosexuality ratio does not need to get passed on by the homosexual individuals themselves to be selected for.

Yeah... I don't get it.  I don't get how a gene "makes sure" of anything.  It makes it sound like the gene is conscious and making selections while stroking its goatee.  I'm 100% sure that it's a breakdown in my understanding of science and not in your explanation.

[brewer]

Mutation is the only driving force of evolution.

Oh, and this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL9S-TUi...rFi3pAylHg

[The Grand Nudger]

"Guided evolution" is compatible with the biological theory of evolution.

Artificial selection, for example. That's how Darwin led in to his theory back in the day. Presented them, first, with something familiar and comfortable. Only explaining after such an introduction that the mechanisms which allow us to breed domesticates would play out even in our absence (though he couldn't fathom what that were).

[Alex K]

Dawkins' claim to fame is his gene centric view of evolution outlined in "The Selfish Gene" and "The extended Phenotype"  (though oddly not published in te peer reviewed literature). It roughly goes as follows - a gene which increases the probability that males are homosexual might get passed on more efficiently because it makes sure that its carriers more likely have gay relatives helping with the rearing and do not  attempt to kill and replace the offspring with their own. The gene boosting the homosexuality ratio does not need to get passed on by the homosexual individuals themselves to be selected for.

Yeah... I don't get it.  I don't get how a gene "makes sure" of anything.  It makes it sound like the gene is conscious and making selections while stroking its goatee.  I'm 100% sure that it's a breakdown in my understanding of science and not in your explanation.

There are three issues here. If you accept for the sake of the argument that 1. there might be a gene that increases the likelihood that a carrier is homosexual (which I don't think is settled, but doesn't sound too far fetched), and that 2. having a small number of homosexual relatives is beneficial for survival and procreation, then this gene will be selected for and there is nothing magic going on: families in which the h-gene is present will produce more surviving offspring, and the h-gene becomes more frequent in the population. No genes do anything on purpose.

The details depend on how likely the gene makes an individual homosexual, and how helpful homosexual relatives actually are to ensure successful offspring.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that this was ever floated as being an observation, or that such a gene existed...simply describing a superficially counterintuitive scenario, and how known mechanisms could play out in in creating such a scenario.

Human males, gay or straight, don't have a habit of killing off other males offspring in order to replace them with their own.

[Alex K]

Dawkins R (1978). "Replicator selection and the extended phenotype". Z Tierpsychol 
Dawkins, Richard (1981). "In defence of selfish genes". Philosophy 56 

Excellent, I must have missed those. I changed my post accordingly

[JuliaL]

Trying to explain in detail the observed results of so complex and chaotic phenomenon as human sexual selection will have to wait quite a while.
Perhaps grants could be had?

I'm partial to a couple of (my own) explanations of gays.

1) It's a spandrel.  Essentially identical genomes, male and female, have to build neural structures which have many common features and functions like temperature regulation and breathing, yet have to tweak each sex into being attracted to the other.  Maybe this mechanism gets confused on occasion.  Such essentially accidental events will be very hard to prove.

2) It's a matter of self confidence.  If one finds all members of ones own sex abhorrent, how can one believe that members of the opposite sex would find ones self attractive?  Clearly, gay males have the reputation of better taste and grooming habits.  That something attracts women to your more stereotyped fat, foul, macho males is perhaps miraculous but keeps the species going?