Asexuality and Evolution Theories?

[odearime]

I know not everyone believes in evolution, but I'm curious if anyone has any theories as to how/why asexuality may have evolved. There isn't a lot of research on asexuality, but there are some for homosexuality (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486), which is generally thought to be a kind of group care type idea. Perhaps asexuality occurred for similar reasons? Your theories??

(Also, I'm rather new to AVEN, so I hope I've done this correctly. If not, forgive me.)

[Guest]

These threads are always fun ​*grabs seat*

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Nothing evolves deliberately, random mutations occur and they either get passed on or they don't. Asexuality doesn't prevent an animal from being successful (ie. it's not a disability/poor camouflage etc.), but it does reduce the chance of its genes being passed on, ergo it occurs as a rare but constant "mutation" in the gene pool.

Yes I'm aware it's likely far more complicated than an "ace gene", but it's late and I can't be arsed with epigenetics.

[Skycaptain]

odearime welcome to AVEN :cake:

Asexuality and evolution. Bear in mind that a lack of attraction doesn't mean an inability to procreate, so the idea of bearing offspring whilst asexual is viable. There are a few, and note a few who are asexual because they have a condition which is prejudicial to the long term survival of the species. As you state there is the group care theory which provides an explanation for the hypothesis that the more elder siblings you have the more likely you are to be homosexual/lesbian. But I'm living disproof of that, as a first child who is asexual with a younger sibling who has married and produced a child.

could asexuality be a by-product of humanity having reached a position where we have time fore more than mere survival? Possibly. Is asexuality more prevalent in industrialised societies rather than jungle tribes?

Mind there is a theory that humanity is a breach from conventional evolutionary theory as no other organism has controlled the behaviour of other organisms, farming, or created it's own environment to such an extent

[Jea]

I totally believe in evolution.

Although asexuals can procreate, I think it obvious that they procreate less, so the gene (or whatever it is) is less likely to spread much.

I do believe that asexuality is linked to genetics, because my mom is demi, and my grandmother on my dad's side seems to be ace...it all encourages me to believe that some of it is biological.

It is a very interesting question, although I'm afraid that this:

These threads are always fun ​*grabs seat*

is also true XD (this post made me laugh like mad)

People get offended by these posts sometimes (I tried to make one once, it didn't bring much results :P )

[SithLord]

Well, I think it wouldn't really matter depending on how far you go back. In the time where humans were polygamous and women were basically seen as men's possessions, being asexual would only matter if you were a man without a libido.

If you assume we're going back to a time when men and women didn't really have societal views in that way, asexuals could've been the people who would help raise children who weren't the parents. As they say, it takes a village.

It could also be a mutation that occurs randomly.

[scarletlatitude]

I think it's got more to do with brain chemistry than with evolution. Although sometimes there are several asexuals in one family, so maybe it's got something to do with evolution.

[SorryNotSorry]

If it does have an evolutionary purpose, you can be pretty sure we've managed to find a way to totally screw it up centuries ago.

[-1=e^ipi]

Evolution isn't perfect. Lots of people are born blind, deaf, with missing limbs, or with horrible genetic diseases. Non-heterosexuality might just be due to random mutation, which is why it appears from time to time in populations.

However, with respect to humans, humans are much more intelligent than other animals and can understand the cause and effect relationship between having sex and obtaining children. Social pressure or just desire for children can cause non-heterosexual people to reproduce. Thus, unlike basically all other animal species, heterosexuality is not necessary for the survival of the species in humans. So humans might have a higher rate of non-heterosexuality compared to other species purely due to their intelligence.

[odearime]

Okay, so what I'm getting from this is that most people think asexuality could be partially related to genetics. If it is genetic, it doesn't lead to survival problems and therefore hasn't been eliminated from the gene pool. Asexuality could just be a common (relative) mutation, or even have something to do with brain chemistry. There's some support for the group care theory. Did I get all that right?

Mind there is a theory that humanity is a breach from conventional evolutionary theory as no other organism has controlled the behaviour of other organisms, farming, or created it's own environment to such an extent

^^^^^^^^^This is super interesting, I've never heard of that theory before, but it makes sense to me!!

This also brought to mind another question. Are there examples of asexual animals (not the self-reproducing kind!) that anyone knows of or has heard of? For instance, there are homosexual penguins, but are there asexual penguins? I wasn't able to find anything when I searched google.

[Sally]

Well, I think it wouldn't really matter depending on how far you go back. In the time where humans were polygamous and women were basically seen as men's possessions,

That is the case in a number of countries today.

[noparlpf]

This also brought to mind another question. Are there examples of asexual animals (not the self-reproducing kind!) that anyone knows of or has heard of? For instance, there are homosexual penguins, but are there asexual penguins? I wasn't able to find anything when I searched google.

First of all, most species show a fair amount of bisexuality, not pure heterosexuality.

Anyway, there's possible evidence of asexuality in sheep. I think there might even be a mention of that one on the AVEN wiki, but I forget. I'm on my phone so I'm not going to try to find a link right now. Maybe later.

[SithLord]

Well, I think it wouldn't really matter depending on how far you go back. In the time where humans were polygamous and women were basically seen as men's possessions,

That is the case in a number of countries today.

Yes, but I was talking about all humans. In my anthropology class we talked about how humans aren't monogamous though we seem to favor partial monogamy at this time. Partial monogamy because we don't have true monogamy when people divorce and remarry, get widowed and remarry, have sex with multiple people, etc. Nowadays many countries openly oppose polygamy in the sense of plural marriage, but I doubt that was always the case.

[nanogretchen4]

In a society that places a premium on female purity asexuality in women could confer an evolutionary advantage. A wife who has no interest in sex is less likely to be killed or divorced by a jealous husband. The advantage to women balanced or even slightly outweighed the disadvantage to men, and the genes got passed on.

By the way, in some cultures being a lesbian may have been less dangerous than being a highly heterosexual woman. In some cultures lesbian activities neither affected virginity and marriageability nor counted as adultery.

[odearime]

Oh, that makes sense! Back in Victorian times, Puritan times, etc (and even today) asexuality could be beneficial. And in societies today, such as the US and most of Europe, asexuality doesn't matter either way, so it simply hasn't been eliminated.

[noparlpf]

Except that society has never really placed value on asexuality. Just on controlled sexuality and on not talking about sexuality openly. Women are supposed to be "pure" or whatever until they're sold to a man, and then they're supposed to be sexually available to him at all times. Remember the stereotypes about old maids? Women weren't supposed to stay celibate forever, just until they were bought by a husband.

I have a good post about acephobia in 18th-20th century white Christian society bookmarked somewhere, but I'm too tired to go spelunking in my bookmarks right now.

[odearime]

Ohhhh, gotcha

[Jotari]

There's a fallacy in trying to grasp some purpose to evolution. Evolution is merely things changing due to their environment and random mutations. The apparent goal of surviving isn't even solid considering the countless species that have ended up extinct.

But for the purpose of fun and egotistical self praise, I suggest it is humans evolving above the slavery of base instincts and achieving a new form of consciousness that can focus solely on art, philosophy and developing psychic powers.

[MoraDollie]

Essentially the main theories rolling around in the bio community for orientations less likely to reproduce (asexual and homosexual) is that it improves the overall fitness of the species. What does this mean in laymen's terms? It means they're helping the species by often taking in young that have otherwise been abandoned and raising them. There's also the theory that they might have other underlying genetic conditions and by not contributing to the gene pool, "helping" out the species by not potentially "spreading" diseases (autoimmune disorders, life threatening genetic issues, etc).

[Sally]

Essentially the main theories rolling around in the bio community for orientations less likely to reproduce (asexual and homosexual) is that it improves the overall fitness of the species. What does this mean in laymen's terms? It means they're helping the species by often taking in young that have otherwise been abandoned and raising them. There's also the theory that they might have other underlying genetic conditions and by not contributing to the gene pool, "helping" out the species by not potentially "spreading" diseases (autoimmune disorders, life threatening genetic issues, etc).

Those are very unscientific theories, with no real-life basis. Gays and lesbians are not "taking in" children; they are using reproductive science to have their own children. Asexuals are likely to do so too; many of us older asexuals already have children. Re adoption, sexuals who can't have children or who don't have partners adopt children. In 2015, people in westernized countries don't attach themselves to family members or friends and help raise their children. Unmarried women don't have to live with their families and help with the kids. This isn't the feudal middle ages.

As far as underlying genetic conditions, if people actually know that they have them and want children, they'll adopt.

[booksoversex]

no other organism has controlled the behaviour of other organisms, farming, or created it's own environment to such an extent

This isn't entirely true. There are parasites which attack an organism and "takes over" their nervous system. Some cause their host to commit suicide or act in ways not common for its species, often so it will be eaten and the parasite will end up in a more ideal host. These parasites are quite primitive, by human standards, but still control the behaviour of others. There are many examples here (those who have read "The girl with all the gifts" might recognize the Ophiocordyceps).

[Rubeus]

Maybe it could be a byproduct to another gene and that it isn't always "switched on". I read somewhere that homosexuality (among males in this case) could be a "byproduct" to a gene that causes females to have higher libidos. If it would be something similar to this it could make sense why the "gene" would still be passed on. Maybe it's illogical but it's just a thought.

[Tetus]

no other organism has controlled the behaviour of other organisms, farming, or created it's own environment to such an extent

This isn't entirely true. There are parasites which attack an organism and "takes over" their nervous system. Some cause their host to commit suicide or act in ways not common for its species, often so it will be eaten and the parasite will end up in a more ideal host. These parasites are quite primitive, by human standards, but still control the behaviour of others. There are many examples here (those who have read "The girl with all the gifts" might recognize the Ophiocordyceps).

Also (and a little less nightmarishly), there are a number of animals that make farms, use tools, or otherwise alter/control their environment. Leafcutter ants are my favorite farmers.

More relevantly, the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" sense of evolutionary theory isn't really applicable to humans, because our societal mores are so complex in their own right. Biology might be/probably is playing a role as well, but even beginning to unravel the two to understand why people are the way they are is way beyond us at present.

Finally, as another poster mentioned, evolution isn't really a "force" with purpose or identity or anything. It's just a word we use to describe how species can change over time. Many traits become more or less common in a species for no other reason than chance. There's no evolutionary advantage to having a whorl pattern on your fingerprints, for example.

[-1=e^ipi]

There's no evolutionary advantage to having a whorl pattern on your fingerprints, for example.

More grip?

[Odo]

I don't believe asexuality "evolved". Asexuality is (probably, there hasn't been much research) a mutation just like homosexuality. All genetic traits are mutations many of them prevailed by helping the carrier reproduce so that most of us carry them, some disadvantaged the carrier so mostly died out but still sometimes appear. For a trait to persist it must benefit the species by helping reproduction so that it will be passed on to the offspring. Asexuality does not help the species reproduce, it hinders the reproduction, just like homosexuality.

[Jotari]

I don't believe asexuality "evolved". Asexuality is (probably, there hasn't been much research) a mutation just like homosexuality. All genetic traits are mutations many of them prevailed by helping the carrier reproduce so that most of us carry them, some disadvantaged the carrier so mostly died out but still sometimes appear. For a trait to persist it must benefit the species by helping reproduction so that it will be passed on to the offspring. Asexuality does not help the species reproduce, it hinders the reproduction, just like homosexuality.

Mutation is an irreplacible part of evolution. That's like saying my cake isn't a dessert because it's a cake.

[Skycaptain]

Genetic mutations or anomalies, if harmful or detrimental to long term species survival often coexist with infertility. Trisomy disorders are a case in point. Most people with these are infertile so as not to perpetuate a stray mutation.

[Squirrel Combat]

I wouldn't say that any orientation besides heterosexual is a "mutation", but rather a variation of the natural order of the world and its sexuality. Maybe I'm wrong just to disagree and have a good argument for here, but I know that even among heteros are there slight differences in libido and urges. Some heteros crave it more than others; and we Aces just fall at the extreme bottom end of "how-much-we-want-sex".

[Sally]

Genetic mutations or anomalies, if harmful or detrimental to long term species survival often coexist with infertility. Trisomy disorders are a case in point. Most people with these are infertile so as not to perpetuate a stray mutation.

There's no logical reason to claim that there is a "reason" for any anomalies. Many mutations/anomalies exist when there is no advantage to the individual, or to the species.

[Skycaptain]

Sally I'm not saying that there is a reason for the anomaly. I'm saying that infertility is a consequence of the anomaly. It's nature's way of ensuring that something detrimental to long term species survival doesn't get perpetuated.