A quick look at our site traffic stats, and Eve's Bite is proving to be the most common search term that brings people here. And I haven't even done the review yet. I just mentioned it. But interesting to note that the book is raising interest out there, somewhere. Or are people just too cheap to go out and buy it? Go on - just buy the damn thing and read it. What, you want more? You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.
Tell you what. I'll ease you into it:
The book is written a bit like a series of blog posts. This was a bit off putting in the first few chapters, and I was wondering if it was going to alienate the target audience. Then I thought, who is the target audience? It was definitely going to antagonize Richard Dawkins should he read it - and, by evolutionary selection theory, all of the apes whose thoughts have been derived from Richard Dawkins. Whom, by the way, I am convinced, is an offshoot of the Fisk genus. Note the i is missing from the word genus. Now Dawkins would be quick to point out the i is not missing. The other letters were naturally selected. The letter i is simply a victim of Mendelian Inheritance. And if only Dawkins species knew at the time just how important that single letter could become if it hadn't have been naturally unselected by the Fisk Genus.
But using the predictive power of modern evolutionary synthesis, I suspect this book could be a calling cry to the another bunch of evolutionary dead-enders - the homosexual. Yes, no offence queer guys, but you just can't breed. In Darwinian terms, that's rather self correcting. Now, I know science is coming to the rescue, and there will be all sorts of ways to clone yourself with your boner marrow, or log on to Amazon dot com and purchase a sprog via male order, but taking that approach to procreation seems like the wood has moved from the groin to the head. I mean, you'd be a bit of a nut job to want to harvest progeny via a bone marrow transplant wouldn't you?
Still, I digress. And I blame it all on Eve's Bite. This is just the kind of random thoughts it generates. It's sweeping. It's liberal in its conservative attacks on a few highly vocal sections of society - the ones that proudly proclaim they are all about tolerance and respect, and then act completely the opposite when conservatives, and often common sense, get in the way of the "me, me, me" mentality.
So I suspect the groups under fire will pedantically point out all of the faults in the book - and there are a few - and this will give them the "right" (because everything is a right nowadays) to dismiss the rest of the information, which is a fairly good portrayal of how the pendulum has swung a wee bit too far the other way.
It's a bit of a race now to see if the average person (Wishart's target audience) figures this out, or if the usual suspects keep giving the pendulum a bigger push. Even though it's all uphill now, they seem to identify with Atlas. Either Atlas just loved Herculean tasks, or he was gay liberal atheist. And if the celestial sky is indeed falling, who better to bear the weight than those who have been seeking to tear it all down?
So, I promise you Google seekers, I'll do a review soon. In the meantime, I'd like to leave you with a thought, not from Ian's book, but from New Zealand's own idiot/savant (and I suspect the mix is not 50-50). I think Idiot sums up the whole issue very nicely, and his thoughts should provide firm encouragement for others to read Ian Wishart's new book, if only to understand exactly what Idiot means (clue: he means what he says)
A couple of years ago, scientists in the US achieved an enormous breakthrough: they took stem cells from a mouse, artificially differentiated them into sperm, and fertilised an egg with the result. Now, they've begun duplicating the process in humans, successfully differentiating human bone marrow stem cells into spermatagonial cells, the precursors of sperm. It's only the first step, and there's still a long way to go, but if it pans out it will see us able to differentiate both sperm and eggs, vastly increasing the range of infertility problems which can be treated, as well as allowing gay couples to have kids using only their own genetic material...
...This means that more people will be able to satisfy their desires. Sounds pretty good to me.
Yep, sounds just peachy Idiot. Didn't I just mention the "me, me, me" (or "I, I, I") mentality? Here's where I insert the whole "freedom without responsibility speech", but it's too late at night for that. Which is why Idiot's title to the above post was so appropriate - and rather ironic given how Darwinism is used as a weapon whenever a liberal atheist discusses religion. So what was the title? Fucking the Natural Order. Genus! That just works for me.
Coincidentally, I think that would have been an apt title to Ian's new book. It's just that Conservatives are (usually) a little more circumspect, and obviously more metaphorical.
Related Link: Eve's Bite
I liked the book. To be honest, I didn't know what the term 'eugenics' even meant before last week !
ReplyDeleteOk,
ReplyDeleteWhat does this mean:
"Note the i is missing from the word genus. Now Dawkins would be quick to point out the i is not missing. The other letters were naturally selected. The letter i is simply a victim of Mendelian Inheritance. And if only Dawkins species knew at the time just how important that single letter could become if it hadn't have been naturally unselected by the Fisk Genus."
And though it's completely beside any imagniable point from this post there are lots of ways you could imagine 'homosexual genes' making it into the next geneartion without cloning and IVF.
Hi David. Apologies for my somewhat cryptic and totally flippant post.
ReplyDeleteI was just saying the Dawkins genus were not necessarily genius. They had accidentally unselected the i (as per evolutionary theory) but a genus with an i becomes genius, and it turns out that a genetic characteristic that seems unimportant, becomes important.
Which is kind of ironic if you have been following the whole evolutionary theory story.
As for homosexuals - I'm not entirely convinced this is an issue of genetics. OK, it might be for 0.5 to 0.7% of the population. The rest could be products of their environment, which would imply that if you engage in heavy duty social engineering, you can increase the gay, bi-sexual, hedonistic, overly liberal culture. In a simplistic sense, what is wrong with this, if every-one is conditioned to finding it normal, acceptable and fun?
The reality is though that there is a cost to everything, and that cost is paid for in other ways.
We are seeing a society that is slowly self destructing the "freer" it becomes. Is the reason most civilizations ultimately fall is they become more prosperous, and with the comfort of prosperity, more liberal, and with the intellectual attractiveness of the liberal, more tolerant (of everything except the traditions that got us to this point), which leads to more permissiveness, and then the lowering of standards and the destruction of values, which leads to narcissism and ultimately self destruction?
"Free love" is not as free as it first seemed.
Which is what a big chunk of Ian's book is about.
Saying homosexuality will be lost from the population just because of and inability breed is a tad simplistic.
ReplyDeleteInfertile people still appear in the population as do people with diorders such as cystic fibrosis which kills before production of offspring.
First, there is no credible evidence for a homosexuality "gene". LeVay and Hamer are simply not believed by the majority of scientists as their experimental data has never been reproduced. The most telling argument against this comes from genetic identical-twin studies.
ReplyDeleteYou are on the right track though Zen, I think at least, when you imply the social aspect. The more liberal we become legislatively, the greater the preponderance of liberal behaviours.
Ok, my turn to apologise for be a little unclear. I actually meant that homosexuality wasn't a Darwinian dead-end. You can get your genes into the next generation without having children - after all your brothers sisters and parents all have half of your genes.
ReplyDeletePeople really should move on from the idea that traits are 'genetic' or 'environmental' (nature/nurture) as if there was some dichotomy splitting the two. I'm sure there are a bunch of genes that might, given particular environmental cues and particular genetic backgrounds, produce a greater likelihood of homosexuality.
David
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to what environmental cue - apart from the proven effects of estrogenic toxins or similar chemicals - would naturally select for homosexuality?
Leaving aside the morality debate...what would be the point of selecting for that? What advantage to the survival of the organism does it convey?
As you'd be aware from my posts at TBR regarding Lee Spetner's work, I have no problem with the idea that positive mutations can be driven by environmental cues acting on pre-programmed options in the genetic code (longer/shorter beaks for example).
But perhaps this debate hinges on the definition of a positive mutation.
However, if you read Eve's Bite you'll see that gay sociologists and biologists who've studied these issues believe bisexuality is actually the normative human state, that homosexuality as a distinct exclusive identity only exists as a politico-social construct, and that how far one swings on that bisexuality continuum has nothing to do with genes, but nurture.
Mr Investigate,
ReplyDeleteI don’t want to be drawn into a protracted debate on this topic, partly because I’m not a specialist in a lot of it and partly because in the end I don’t the biological basis of homosexuality has any bearing on the ‘debate’ that surrounds the morality of it.
I'm curious as to what environmental cue - apart from the proven effects of estrogenic toxins or similar chemicals - would naturally select for homosexuality?
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. Do you mean what environmental causes might make for homosexuality or under which environmental pressures would selection advantage homosexuality.
As far as environment it really needs to be stressed that building a brain is a huge task that involves continual feedback between the genes turning on chemical processes, environment (which itself turns on genes and defines what happens when genes turn on a chemical processes) and some plain old random forces (genes and their products are very good and controlling chemistry but they can’t control every atom). This huge amount of feedback means environmental cues like maternal hormones (there’s a birth order effect in homosexuality) the chemicals you talk about and psychological processes can all change the way a brain develops.
If you mean what environments would lead to selection for homosexuality to be selected for then
1) A trait doesn’t have to be adaptive to exist.
2) There hypotheses as how a gene that lead under some environemental conditions to an increases probability of its owner being homosexual spreading by selection (check out Evolution's Rainbowif you’re really interested). For the sake of argument here’s two (the have no particular claim on being the truth, just to show that it’s no impossible.
You have half of your brother’s genes, or any there is a 50% chance that any gene you have is shared with your brother, there might exist cases in which it is better for you to invest in helping you brother bring up his kids, who each have 25% of your genes, than for you to take the risks involved in procuring a mate for yourself. Being gay would make it clear that you’re not a threat to your brother’s 'claim' on his wife (or your sister's claim to her husband of course).
Alternatively so called ‘gay genes’ might be very good genes in different environments or genetic backgrounds. To take a classic example the gene ‘for’ sickle cell anaemia is wide spread in Africa because it provides protection against malaria if you inherit only one copy of it, the selective pressure of a particular gene depends on what genes it’s expressed with.
As you'd be aware from my posts at TBR regarding Lee Spetner's work, I have no problem with the idea that positive mutations can be driven by environmental cues acting on pre-programmed options in the genetic code (longer/shorter beaks for example).
You might have no problems with invoking grand programmes of directed mutagenesis hidden in the genome for which there is not a shred of evidence but I think William of Occam might. The are lots of environmentally cued gene networks (like I was trying to describe in the development of the brain) but the only mutagenesis like you that is in a few immune system genes and is more like rearranging lego blocks than normal point mutation followed by selection.
However, if you read Eve's Bite you'll see that gay sociologists and biologists who've studied these issues believe bisexuality is actually the normative human state, that homosexuality as a distinct exclusive identity only exists as a politico-social construct, and that how far one swings on that bisexuality continuum has nothing to do with genes, but nurture.
Haven’t read it. Like I said I’m not a specialist in this area and I haven’t read a lot of what’s been written but it doesn’t seem unimaginable to me that everyone fits on some continuum of sexuality with frequency skewed sharply to the ‘hetero’ end and then us humans with our relentless need to fit everything in discontinuous black and white (back to nature/nurture now!) set up the containers het and homo and squeeze everyone (including ourselves) into them.