What does the Theory of Evolution and the sciences of Biology and Geometry say about homosexuality? My answer is: "It's clearly a dysfunction." What is your opinion? (no ideological and sexual bias in your answers please)
Homosexuality seems to be a naturally occuring variation in a number of species. It certainly isnt limited to just humans. As for the biological basis for homosexuality, I'm not sure. Im sure genetics and embryonic development play a critical role in predisposing some people to homosexuality, although I couldn't prove it. As for evolution... for humans the existence of homosexuality could actually end up playing a significant role in the future sustainability and success of our species. While i cant prove this either, it should be self evident that homosexuals reproduce at a lesser rate than heterosexuals, thus at the very least slowing population growth and delaying the problems associated with overpopulation.
Do i detect a "this guy is trying to be a smartass so i'm going to give him a smartass answer in return" kind-of-thing in your post?
I read an interesting article about homosexuality and evolution. It talked about how homosexuals, because they have no children of their own, is able to help their siblings raise their children, giving them a better chance for survival and thus an evolutionary advantage.
I have never heard any theory of evolution in which future possible problems are predicted and prevented by evolution. It goes against the entire paradigm, which is reactive and real-world, never hypothetical. Additionally, since overpopulation seems to be a common thing for people to claim in defense of the evolution of homosexuality, I would point out that nature already has an effective self-correction mechanism for overpopulation. It's called starvation.
It isnt just a problem for the future. Considering that homosexual behavior is prevelant in our closest relatives, it seems likely that homosexuality actually predates humans. Small tribes of prehistoric humans could have benefited greatly from homosexuality. As i said before, it should be self evident that homosexuals reproduce as at lesser rate than heterosexuals. Less mouths to feed means less time hunting and gathering, which means more energy to be speant elsewhere. Starvation isnt particularly effective in dealing with overpopulation, at least not from the point of few of the species being overpopulated. When a population runs out of resources, its not just a few that starve and die to stabalize the population, its almost the entire population that starves. Homosexuality could potentially be more effective in that it controls population growth, while simaltaneously maintaining the fitness of the population. Keep in mind that im not talking about how homosexuality evolved in the first place, Im talking about how it could be an evolutionary advantage assuming its already here.
As a species, you are correct. There is no benefit for our species by having homosexuality. But that doesn't mean anything. We also have differnt blood types. But they have no benefit for our species. So we should we care? They're still people, and we don't discriminate against those with O- blood do we?
There are a few hypothesises regarding it been selected for in humans. One is that sexuality is on a spectrum. Back in tribal days homosexual men may have been trusted to remain behind with the women. They were still men. Still strong and all that, but the other warriors of the tribe may not have seen them as a sexual threat. However, while the hunters were out hunting or whatever, the more bisexually inclined men left behind may have played. Another is that having a homosexual child may be selected for as it is a non competing family member. They will still work, etc and give your other children an advantage by helping them in their survival. Kind of like a worker ant.
That doesn't make sense, because it also means less people to hunt and gather, as well as less energy (manpower) to spend elsewhere. Ah, I thought we were talking about how it evolved. But, the whole idea behind evolution is that it takes traits useful to procreation and passes them on, through procreation. Since overpopulation has not been an issue in the past (short lifespans, disease, and other natural brutality saw to that), a trait which causes less reproduction is the very opposite of "survival of the fittest", since reproduction is, evolutionarily speaking, the only goal.
Many interesting theories have been tested recently. One that has proven itself is that the female relatives of homosexual men are proportionaltely more fertile than the normal population for that area. This has been tested in several different cultures to date, with surprising results. What could this mean???
Is the worker ant or bee an evolutionary defect? It's the same argument you're attempting to make, that the ability or willingness to procreate is somehow correlative with a genetic defect.
I've brought that argument up many times. It always seems to get ignored, probably because they can't give an answer to it.
your forgetting that there is an entire demographic of people that wouldn't have been hunting and gathering, that being infants and small children. Which is why I brought up the reproduction rate of homosexuals. Less of them around means less time hunting and gathering. It could have evolved in an entirely passive way. The diversity of sexuality suggests to me that the genetics that effect it are probably extremely complex, so a mutation here and a mutation there, while maybe not having any effect at the people carrying them, can come together when people reproduce to create an offspring that expresses sexuality differently from the parents. A decent analogy would be the genetics for red hair. A person may not have red hair themselves, but can carry the allele for it. If that person reproduces with another heterozygous carrier, the child may have red hair. Again, the genetics effecting sexuality are probably a great deal more complex than that, but its a simple example of what I mean. I'll answer the question of usefulness here. Reproduction isnt the primary goal in regards to "survival of the fittest". The ultimate goal is maximizing the the fitness of the population (it's ability to survive). Explonential growth of a population will inevitably have a negative impact on the populations fitness. When population growth surpasses the ability of the environment to provide for that population, mass starvation takes place. This is where usefulness comes in. It's fairly well excepted that early humans arose in savannah like ecosystems in Africa. The savannah wouldn't be able to support a massive population, and in fact it's assumed that early migration of humans was because of this specific reason (ie. overpopulation likely was a problem). Small bands of primitive humans began spreading out in search of food. It would have been beneficial for some these small groups, to stay small, as the environments they were travelling through may not have had the sufficient resources to support large groups (think middle east). So imagine you have two populations migrating from africa into asia. One of these groups (group A) contains carriers for genes that can lead to homosexual tendencies, and thusly will give birth to the occassional offspring with a predisposition towards homosexuality. The other group (group B) has no carriers for the genes that can lead to homosexuality, and thusly never gives birth to an offspring with the predispostion towards homosexuality. Group A grows at a supressed rate, while Group B grows at a rapid rate. The smaller size of Group A means that a harsh environment is better equipped to support it, while the larger sized Group B ultimately exhausts available resources, and faces mass starvation. Again, this is all just a hypothesis, and may or may not have been a contributing factor. Here is the fact, however.... Homosexuality does exist and is relatively common, so it likely serves some purpose, that for whatever reason was beneficial at some point.
