<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
It may not be just the individual, but the family or community that
benefits from the genetic material. So if an individual gay animal
posesses certain traits that are beneficial to its family, such as a
larger male physiology but more maternal instincts or better food
gathering skills or what have you, the entire family may actually gain
a certain level of status with the community. That status would give
the siblings more breeding opportunity which propogates the family
genes they carry which would include the marker for being gay. And if
there is a gay offspring that can further benefit the family, then the
cycle is reinforced. The more generations that have a gay offspring,
the more social benefit there is to the family.
Variations on this hypothesis of social benefit and reinforcement of
gay genetic markers is studied in some of the articles that Larry
linked.
I don't know what the answer is. But from the studies that I've read,
it's becoming harder to ignore a genetic disposition and defend a
preference- and/or environmental-only model.
-Kevin
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
