Consider this possibility. Evolution is the change of alleles over
time. While acting on individuals, its real impact is on groups. For
instance, a gay person in a small family group via his or her own
cooperation with the group ensures that their siblings pass on their
genes, including a proclivity for homosexuality. Since more effort is
being devoted to ensuring the survival and reproduction of the
siblings' offspring (through the support of gay members of the family
grouping), then that gene will more likely to manifest itself in the
future. Hence there may be an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.
larry
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]
