Tony, you need to go back and read a little more on the theory. Our gear is obviously for our enjoyment. Otherwise, there would not be so many nerve endings around there. And no one would do it. The urge to have children is seldom what drives the mating process. It is the enjoyment. My neighbor's cat is not aware that having sex might result in kittens. (Nor, from all evidence, is my neighbor.). He does it, from all auditory evidence, for the sheer enjoyment. He also fights alot for that priviledge. He has the scars to prove it. He is also a mean old cat. I would bet that most of the toms he is fighting now are his kids or grandkids. If you could ask him, I am sure he would not mind at a little less competition.
Did you know that sickle cell anemia and hemophelia are actually beneficial mutations in humans? They both have a very specific purposes. They are great for people who get it from their parent. But woe to those who get it from both parents. Bad things happen. We are not far enough down the evolutionary science path to understand all the mechanisms that effect survival, and speciation for the most part is a very long process. If it turns out that most people who are gay are so due to nature, then the question becomes - is it a good trait (helping survival), a bad trait (hurting long-term survival) or neutral (doesn't effect survival). Mostly this question can just be answered by the survivors looking back at their own history, not yet something we can predict. Only time will tell. On 3/13/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what benefit evolutionarily? really. > one less rooster to hound then hens? > if they were the majority, then they > wouldnt procreate, and then they would go > on as a species. survival of the fittest and > all that requires procreation to keep the good > genes moving along. mutations in sexual > preference would lead men to desire men > and women to desire women. since the bottom > line is, our gear is naturally for procreation, > and not for our enjoyment. although we have > bastardized it to be an enjoyment tool (not that > i mind one bit) but thats what i see. > tw > > > On 3/13/06, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not really. Evolution is applied to groups as well, it may be to the > > group's advantage to have one or more gay members. Their genes are > > still passed along - it may not be their genes directly, rather their > > siblings etc. get passed along. > > > > larry > > > > On 3/13/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > but after all of this hullaballoo isnt odd, that men have this part, > > > and women have > > > this part, and they work well together. in the grand scheme of > > > things, doesnt that > > > seem to be the "right" way? not that i dont think there could be > > > mis-wirings mentally > > > that lead some in one direction vs. another, but when a huge portion > > > of the population > > > goes that way, and not the other way, and that same huge portion of > > > the population has > > > part "a" that goes with part "b", doesnt it make the "gay" way, a > > > little wrong, evolutionarily > > > speaking? > > > > > > if that were the case, and we all went that way, we would become > > > extinct. so, i just dont > > > get it. its weird, its not natural, and its not normal. > > > > > > tw > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199860 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
