Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Let's put it this way: Any trait which would prevent a species from reproducing is lost over time and, as we all know, homosexuals rarely ever have children. Anything which would inhibit any given organism from reproducing is considered unwanted/a defect. Thefore, the notion that homosexuality is genetic in humans is-- For lack of a better word-- Preposterous.
If you don't agree, then take it up with basic Darwinism.
|
I can't do basic Darwinism anymore, but I can do advanced evolutionary biology.
Many negative traits do stick around for quite a long time. Homosexuality may be a negative trait to reproduction, but its obviously around and as homosexuals have been considered perverts for much of history in many cultures, I'd find it odd that so many people would pick to be a pervert. So far no evidence exists for it being anything else than genetic or VERY early in development. You can teach someone to be bisexual, you can't teach them to be gay. This btw is a mistake many seem to be making here. Greek/Roman homosexuality as so freely talked about was really bisexuality, and there is a WORLD of difference between the two in genetic terms. Greek/Roman homosexuals would not have been considered normal in their tastes.
There is apparently a fragile period in human development where sexuality is imprinted on the brain. Some genetic combinations seem to be susceptible for errors at this time. Its negative to survival but so are a lot of traits. As long as enough do survive into the next generation it continues. There may be unknown benefits as well to that genetic combination, much like the sickle cell trait in Africans. It may be that the traits which favor reproduction outweigh the impact of having a non-reproducing possibility.
Likewise I doubt there will be one ‘gay gene’ an in fact its due to multiple genes. Many traits are not the Mendelian genetics you get taught in 5th grade, but are in fact field effects where multiple genes overlap.