> Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>> "Yes. But if it is a combination of multiple recessive genes, only the
>> combination is removed. If a genotype with only a few of
>> these genes is produces a highly favourable fenotype, the individual
>> genes will prosper."
>
> But the combination that resulted in a homosexual animal would die
> with that animal. If there are other beneficial charecteristics
> associated with that animal, these would also be lost if the resulting
> animal is homosexual.
Correct. But apparently the chance of that is worth it for the species.
<quote>
Now imagine that there are a number of alleles that make for femininity.
If the typical male inherits only a few of the alleles that make for femininity, his reproductive success is increased. Only if he inherits a large number of such alleles is his development pushed so far in the �feminine� direction that the brain circuits for mate choice and sexual orientation produce homosexuality. Such genes could survive because most of the time they would be in heterosexual males and be contributing to reproductive success. Only occasionally would enough of these come together (probably along with unknown environmental factors) to produce homosexuality. Such alleles will be in a balanced polymorphism such that if they got any rarer, their contribution to reproductive successwould be increased through making heterosexuals more successful. If they got much more common theywould more often contribute to homosexuality and be selected against.
<quote> http://content.kluweronline.com/article/221044/fulltext.pdf
>> "Who are we to tell if something is desirable?"
>
> In the case of animals we can quite easily tell. The animal invariably
> dies if a genetic feature is not desirable and this genetic
> feature is not passed on, except when it occurs by chance.
Then it is not desirable for that individual. But again there is the distiction between the individual and the species. Does this also mean it is not desirable for the species?
>> "Maybe now we have are leaving the era that survival predominantly
>> depended on muscle and entering the era where it depends on
>> brains having 2 heads will become a highly desirable mutation ..."
>
> And if this is your yardstick, then it would be proven if two headed
> snakes begin to multiply in the wild. There is no chance of
> this applying to homosexual animals though.
Why not? If the same genes favour homosexuality ...
> Again I cannot see the relevance of homosexual animals, to human
> sexuality.
It depends on which aspect of human sexuality is under debate. If we are debating whether same sex relations are natural, it is very relevant to establish what natural really means in this case. If we are debating gay marriage, I don't see the relevance either.
Jochem
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
