From: john grigg (starman125@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Dec 01 1999 - 14:49:37 MST
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
No problem. I just have a hot-button when people mention homosexuality as
an evolutionary dead end. In my mind it indicates the classic flaw in
believing that every single individual has to propagate or else it is not
furthering the evolution of the group. This is clearly false to anyone who
has studied biology. Anything that helps the group survive improves the
breed.
An example: Drones help a beehive survive. Just because they don't produce
does not mean that they are an evolutionary dead end. Their evolution was
crucial in the survival of hive-based groups. By having non-reproducing
workers do all the engineering and work, this frees up the breeders to do
nothing but breed. Neither could survive without the other. People who
think that the breeders are highly evolved while the drones are unevolved,
deviant evolutionary mistakes, is not recognizing the full range of
evolutionary processes. Evolution developed the entire hive structure to
allow the propagation of each succeeding generation.
(end of reproduction)
Even though homosexual individuals over the course of history have
contributed a great deal I cannot see this as an evolutionary adaptation.
When it comes to supporting the "breeders" of society with their young
offspring I think of a teenage girl coming over to babysit and not the
friendly gay neighbor! lol And we do not have heterosexual couples doing
nothing but breeding while they are provided for by hordes of gay human
"drones!" Of course we don't have insect-like reproductive rates either!
Perhaps this is stereotyping but gays are often seen as very organized,
creative and artistic. A high proportion of gays tend to be in theater,
film, acting, clothes design and the arts in general. Perhaps the "side
effect" of this condition is a propensity for talent in these areas and by
that society benefits. And yet there are hererosexuals who are also very
gifted in these areas.
It would be interesting to know just how accurate the "ten per cent of the
population is homosexual" rule is true. In a class discussion I had some
felt it could be as low as two per cent for males and as high as one-third
for females but this was just conjecture.
I tend to think homosexuality is rooted in the genes but environment could
play a major factor also. Imagine a world where parents can have the DNA of
their unborn baby scanned and if "gay genes" are detected they can be
replaced. It would be fascinating to see sociologically whether homosexual
numbers would shrink or remain stable. Would government try to stop this
from happening? I don't think so in the United States.
sincerely,
John Grigg
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:54 MST