Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the OP is binding what Herbert Spencer coined as "Survival of the Fittest" with Darwinism, when the two aren't mutually inclusive.
Evolution is the perfunctory idea of change, but not necessarily for the "better." People and organisms "evolve" all the time for "better" or "worse." How we define that is based primarily on what are own definitions of them are.
Yes, that's correct. I remember as a young geology student studying paleontology. Some evolutionary changes were literally "dead ends".
….homosexual people may be and may have been in a unique position to contribute to the survival of their group. Not having children of their own could free them to help care for the children of siblings or other close relatives in good times and bad.
Excellent point. The "Use It or Lose It Principle" is always in play in evolution. If a mutation has no survival benefit, it is more or less quickly lost from the gene pool.
Homosexuality is, as others here have pointed out, probably a result of the complex interplay of polygenic factors plus environmental factors. It is common enough that it is probably not maintained in the pool strictly by the continuous occurrence of novel mutations.
It should be noted that genetic mutations that don't express themselves until after the reproductive years have no influence on evolution (Cf- arteriosclerosis) It doesn't make much difference to the gene pool if you die at age 50 from early CAD or at age 80. Except-- the wisdom & experience of older members of the clan may have increased the chances for survival of the whole clan, so genes for longevity may play a role---
-- Maybe that has some similar role for homosexuality??? Maybe it was homosexual cavemen who designed bear skin robes that made the women in their clan more attractive to straight cavemen?? We can't see the benefit of maintaining those genes in the pool, but it must be there or the genes would have been lost by now.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,486,476 times
Reputation: 12187
Worth noting historically it's likely that being bisexual was far more common than just being homosexual. Like the Spartans, whose men preferred male sex partners but had sex with women for the sole purpose of having offspring. So they could practice sex with people of the same biological sex and pass on their genes.
Not at all bashing homosexuals, but I am curious as for humans, as in all species, we live to procreate, so just scientifically speaking, what advantages are there to being homosexual?
I don't beleive we were born for the purpose to procreate.
We are all human beings born to travel our personal journeys in our own uniqueness.
Except that if you do not procreate, relatively soon, there will be no one left to journey their own uniqueness.
Personally, I have problem with justifying a race/gender/ethnicity/country/religion/politics or else, superiority, over the rest.
This is road to eventual genocide of "inferior beings" by "superior beings". This is how it has ALWAYS been. Always, there was someone who claimed to be better than the rest, what always lead to nothing but bloodbath and chaos.
What I do know though is that nature has its ways of balancing things. One way or another, nature will do what's right.
1. that homosexuality is a genetic trait (which would further lead to a debate on whether or not it can be "fixed" with genetic counseling, which is a pretty damned scary prospect)
2. that homosexuality is an anomaly (again - something that people would want to be fixed, something unnatural, non-normal, and therefore subject to "immoral" designation)
3. that the evolutionary benefit to something is some kind of indicator of whether or not it should be allowed to exist....
I'm pretty sure there's more.
I won't say who it is, but a female "homosexual" who is close to me "switched over" after years of sexual abuse by her father. She learned to hate heterosexuality after very early years of sexual abuse by him. Just once, I've been told, did she go back to heterosexuality, and that was to become inseminated. She raised a very bright daughter, who remains messed up, and a very bright grandson, also a bit messed up.
I could be wrong, but I've been told and believe it's true, that she chose to become a lesbian only because she was so put off by her father.
The primary benefit is that this unfortunate and mostly involuntary form of sexual perversion is self-limiting.
Same with barren women or men that shoot blanks. Unless anyone practices just penile to vaginal sex is also considered perverted ....including oral sex, right? Done with Opinionated BS yet??? You know nothing of what you speak only ignorance abounds in your comment . We are an overpopulated world now cause of everyone celebrating non stop breeding . If gays want to procreate they can . Lastly , many people that have children should not be allowed to . Look around , not everyone should procreate even if they can
What is the evolutionary benefit to being homosexual?
None, as evolution plays no part; it is a choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can't see the benefit of maintaining those genes in the pool, but it must be there or the genes would have been lost by now.
