Kaneman! said:
I wouldn't say it's simplistic. Evolution and natural selection are outlined pretty clearly since Charles Darwin, look up reproductive success. I don't want to get caught up in such a discussion, but what if the genetic instinct of reproduction was higher than the instinct of homosexuality? That way the genes would survive. Secondly, humans are a relatively young species, our evolution is not at an end. It might change in the future, but we'll never know. But that clashes with your claim that nature would have erased that behaviour. If it's not negative to a development of a species, then why isn't it more common? What if it's nature's way to prevent overpopulation? Then next, if it's a behaviour like you said, then what's the proof that it's not based in human development during life? That would explain it more logically. How can you say no negative repercussion, when it directly leads to no offspring? Like I said, you can throw up tons of questions that way, but we won't get to the end of it through our discussion, so let's not endlessly go in circles. |
Our species may be young but homosexuality has been found even on insects that had been here for hundreds of milions of years, what you know is the most simple concept of darwinian evolution, but in reality some factors are harder to point cause they aren't so obvious, there are many theories, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsX2vfFNPak&t=10s.
And no it doesn't seem to be a way to prevent overpopulation, homosexuality does not really reduce offspring in the animal species where happens and many of those species don't need any kind of population control.
Qwark said:
That's not how nature works at all. There are many syndroms that occur in species for millions of years causing them to not grow older than 5, limit intelligence, albino's, allergies. Just look at all the syndroms we can have as a specie. Some of them very bad and they will never be erased from existence. Those are however very rare and dont occur often. DNA always mutates to new situations that doesn't mean it gets better each time just different. Many harmful mutations are statically speaking quite rare and most unharmful mutations remain in the DNA. For example my eyes being blue instead of brown is a mutation that caries for thousands of years. It's not positive or negative it just exists. Same as being gay just exists its neither positive or negative for a species as long as it's max 10% of the population.
Gay just exists as a random genetic disorder. Since reproduction and survival of the species is the true goal for any animal. The same still counts for humans biologically speaking. Being gay isn't really a positive or negative thing. Having said that I still would not refer to being gay as normal, which I simply base on statistics. The same way some other disorders as having a naevus or firemark/wine spot isn't normal but neither positive or negative. |
I'm afraid you don't have a clue what you are talking about, we are talking about milions of years of evolution, any genetic disadvantage would dissapear in that period of time unless is extremelly rare and arbitrary, homosexuality is quite common, nature is telling you there is a reason why this happens the problem is the reasons are not obvious enough, to call homosexuality "random genetic disorder" is extremelly bolded looking at the data we have about how homosexuality works on other species. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I5N34Q1Bio
