that was probably the best argument ive heard yet.
tw
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:02:23 -0400, Angel Stewart
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> How can co-operation and social involvement with social animals, let's say Apes, carry forward genetic material?
> If they aren't mating with the opposite sex how can their genetic material be carried forward?
>
> Understand that if the argument is that
>
> a) Homosexuality is entirely genetic
> b) Homosexual animals exist in the wild
>
> Then it also follows that
> c) The recessive homosexuality gene is removed via the process of Natural Selection in the wild.
>
> The genetics which lead to Homosexuality in animals is removed from the gene pool of the group, on the few occasions it occurs.
> This is not arguing the worth of the animals, or their contribution to their animal groups, or right/wrong or anything along those
> lines.
>
> It is saying though that if by some unfortunate circumstance the one member of a group of animals that bears a resistant gene to
> some disease, or some highly desirable quality is Homosexual, then that group of animals will never have the benefit of that gene.
>
> And if it is required for survival, the group will die.If the animal were not homosexual that necessary genetic information can be
> carried on to other offspring. If the animal is homosexual then its genetic stock absolutely cannot be shared with the group and
> form part of the evolutionary process of that species. It definitely ends with the homosexual animal if it is not found in a
> heterosexual member of the species.
>
> Given that and using strictly animals and not humans, I can't see how homosexuality would be
>
> i) Normal
>
> Normal in the sense that a calf having a fifth leg or a snake having two heads,is not normal. But it does happen.
>
> ii) Desirable in animals.
>
> A fifth leg or two heads is not desirable in a species and usually leads to problems that affect the sustainability of the animal
> and leads to its death.
>
> So I can't understand any comparison between Human homosexuals, and animals in the wild.
>
> Perhaps you can explain?
> -Gel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry C. Lyons
>
> But consider cooperative or social animals, while homosexual animals
> may not directly reproduce, their cooperation with the group means
> that their gene set will be more likely paassed on through siblings
> etc.
>
> larry
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
