David M. Payne

Is homosexuality an evolutionary necessity for humanity?

I think it is, because as our species continually increases in population, straining natural resources, natural mechanisms that work to hold down the birth rate become a biologically necessity, if we wish to survive for the very long term. There is no evidence for an Abrahamic God, but there is for natural selection, and we will either select ourselves in, or out. I think overpopulation would lead inexorably to the select ourselves out option. What do you think? To either question.

David

MadMordigan

I could never be confused with a biologist, so maybe I'm missing something.

Even if homosexuality was shown to be as deterministic as skin colour or height. Even if homosexuality was shown to be an inherited characteristic. Even if it was shown that homosexuality had an effect on birth rates.

I still don't see how it could be said to be an 'evolutionary neccessity'. Somehow the mechanisms of evolution will dramatically increase the number of homosexuals in the population? Somehow this is only single way our species could survive?

David M. Payne

Madm ... Somehow the mechanisms of evolution will dramatically increase the number of homosexuals in the population?

That’s a possibility I suppose, but not what I'm really getting at.

Madm …Somehow this is only single way our species could survive?

Not the only one, but one of the natural ones. And I believe, one of the necessary options at this time in our development as a species. The sex drive is too strong in us, but we need to cut down on our birth rate, and being gay does work to do that in some ways, and allow people with strong sex drives more options than just straight sex, with it's risk of unwanted reproduction. In that respect it should be seen as biologically necessary in the battle to cut down on overpopulation and the resulting dangers to humanity. And it should be recognized in a social context as beneficial to the collective well being of humanity.

It's late guys and gals catch you later.

David

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: David M. Payne ]

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: David M. Payne ]</p>

lpetrich

I think a problem to consider is why are we not indiscriminately bisexual. Why do we prefer one sex or another? How do we become able to recognize which sex is which?

In many animal species, it's "follow the pheromones", but such a cue is hard to find for our species. For one thing, the usual mammalian organ for sniffing sex pheromones, the vomeronasal organ, is absent in our species.

But however this mechanism operates, it may sometimes misfire; homosexual behavior is known across the animal kingdom.

Some mutations in a certain gene causes male fruit flies to become indiscriminately bisexual; for that reason, this gene was originally named "fruity", though that name was later changed to "fruitless".

An alternative to a genetic cause is mis-imprinting or something similar. Imprinting is how many birds recognize their mothers; they fixate on whatever they see nearby when they hatch. Thus biologist Konrad Lorenz was able to "convince" some geese that he was their mother.

But whatever causes homosexuality in our species is associated with no other abnormality or oddity or whatever -- unlike the situation with fruit flies, where mutations in the "fruitless" gene can have additional side effects.

MadMordigan

Not the only one, but one of the natural ones.

If it isn't the ONLY one, then it can't really be neccessary, can it?

In addition, why would our solution to this problem have to be 'natural'?

Buffman

David

Is homosexuality an evolutionary necessity for humanity?

Doesn't that sentence imply that nature has some sort of master plan/template upon which evolution is based?

Personally, I don't think that nature (energy) "cares" one way or the other if humans, or anything, lives or dies. No pre-ordained plan. Just a process set in motion that may, or may not, work. One form of energy merely keeps joining with other forms of energy to produce new physical forms of those combined energies. Some forms, like our galaxy, will last a long time by comparison to a hibiscus flower. Life on this planet has lasted a long time when measured against individual human years of existence. Homosexuals are just one more expression of energy combinations that may, or may not, contribute to the longevity of humankind. Beats me!

pz

This is complete nonsense.

The assumptions are just bizarre:

the idea of a teleological necessity in evolution is unfounded.

The belief that the only reasonable strategy for increasing our population is to have more children, rather than increasing our investment and quality of care for a smaller number of children is false.

Believe it or not, there is absolutely no basis (other than uninformed bias) for the idea that homosexuals have fewer children than heterosexuals. A significant number of heterosexuals do not have children in their lifetime, either by choice or inability. A significant number of homosexuals do have children. Most humans do a pretty good job of keeping the concepts of procreation and recreation separate.

abe smith

Yes, PZ moderator has dealt you my reply, David. Thanks to you PZ for nailing the nonsense. Abe

atrahasis

Is homosexuality an evolutionary necessity for humanity?
...NO NO...period

rebelnerd

Let's assume there is a hidden homosexuality gene, how is it activated? What events and/or conditions need to be in place for it to kick in? How would nature detect that our natural resources are strained and that we have a high birth rate?

Filo