Book banning in Alabama

thank you clark, in a twisted sort of way, you've also proved taht homosexuality while it may last for a long time, does not become fully integrated into a species

and dbib, just because someone is from a past time, doesnt make them an idiot, himself and (i can't remember the other two scientists) used the same tests that we would(or at least, quite similar) to disprove spontaneous generation

Clark Kent wrote: DBibeau855 wrote: I know this better than anyone. Dont lecture me on it. How can a trait like homosexuality be pased on for the good of a species? No lecture intended...   But I will answer your question, by easier parallel:  Altruism. Let's say an animal species has this feature:  Whenever danger threatens, all the young males encircle the tribe and engage in suicidal attacks on the enemy.  This leads to very high death rate among young males - in fact, those males with lots of this trait are more likely to die.  How can evolution create or permit a trait that INCREASES early deaths? Simple - evolution isn't about the survival of one entity.  Evolution is about the survival of the gene pool.  If the death of the individual is good for the tribe (aka gene pool), then that trait is an evolutionary positive, even though the trait increases the likelihood of death of the individual. Similarly, even though homosexuality decreases effective fertility of the individual, if homosexuality has other benefits for the gene pool that increases OVERALL fertility and survival, it ends up being an evolutionary positive.  What are these other benefits for the gene pool?  I have no idea.  But just because homosexuals don't have (a lot of) children, doesn't mean that they are an evolutionary negative. Evolutionary value of traits cannot be evaluated in terms of effects on the individual.  Evolution is not an individual concept.

^^^thats what i was talking about

DBibeau855 wrote: Evolution works because positive traights are passed on. How is a homosexual going pass on his or her genes?

she's saying that if homosexuality somehow...say...increases brain capacity for idk, math...then it wil be passed on because it is beneficial to the human race

Nono.

There almost certainly isn't a "g.ay gene".  Genetics generally aren't that simple (some exceptions, like eye color and gender.  Assuming genetic homosexuality, it would be made up of a complex of gene sequences that resulted in a higher likelihood of homosexuality.  Just like you can have identical twins with different personalities.  Or, if there is an actual "g.ay gene", it would consist of a combination of recessive genes (like blue eyes), which would only show up occasionally, even though many people can be carriers - you can get a blue-eyed child from two brown-eyed parents.  Either way, we'll call it the "gene complex".  The basics are the same, however - you can carry the gene without having the trait.

So you have this gene complex that is part of the gene pool.  The frequency of this gene complex regulates the overall level of homosexuality in the population.  Not everybody with the complex is homosexual, but there is a higher proportion of homosexuals in groups with lots of this gene complex.

Now, let's again assume that it is good for the survival of the group to have a certain percentage of homosexuals - we'll use 10% for an example.

Now, we take two populations, which are identical in all respects except that one group has 10% homosexuals and the other has 1% homosexuals.  The difference in homo levels is due to the different frequency of the g.ay gene complex.  Remember, not everybody in the group has this complex, and not everybody with the complex is homosexual.

Because 10% homosexuality is good for the survival of the group, that group will do "better" than the 1% group as a whole.  Even though the homosexuals won't be having children, other latent carriers in the group will pass on their valuable gene, just like the suicidal animal protectors have their genes passed on by the surviving relatives.

An individual does not have to breed in order for the successful gene to be passed on.  Genes are almost always shared, to some extent, within the group, and genes can often be carried without showing the behavior.

In this case, the 10% group will have a higher survival rate because of the homosexuals, even though the homos will not pass on the genes themselves.  Because of the higher survival rate, the homosexual genes carried by the latent carriers will be carried on to the next generation for future homosexuals.

The animal kingdom is full of examples of breeding dead ends.  Look at insects - without latent genes (or similar mechanism), how could sterile worker ants and worker bees evolve and continue to exist?  Taking too linear or individual of a view of evolution will lead to this problem.  But one must focus on the group, and on the gene pool.

 

EDIT - Another short note on this subject:  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html

Edited by Clark Kent