Frank
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2010
- Messages
- 3,664
- Reaction score
- 15
Interesting little thread here.
Judging by the incredible risks many animals take just to breed and the considerable burden placed on mammals, esp. humans with the prolonged vulnerability of our offspring, one could argue that reproduction is directly opposed to personal survival.
There is a maternal as well as paternal instinct in most folks and we know better than to question someone when they say they'd willingly die to save their children's lives.
Without the impetus to reproduce and drive to help protect the young, evolution loses its explanatory power.
He's completely wrong? You've mapped and decoded the entire human genome, huh? World class geneticists have yet to decisively conclude that homosexuality is predetermined, but you have the revealed truth? Glad to be in the presence of such incalculable genius, I guess...
I think whatever leads people to conclude there is some such thing as an altruistic gene is the same thing that brings them to conclude that there is a biological purpose to homosexuality. Group survival (or even the survival of a species' genetic code) is not what drives human behavior. I'd even argue that it's not what drives animal behavior. The basic observable motivation of all biological action is the survival of the individual organism. Some species have developed in ways such that the group is a primary tool to this end, but that is still the primary goal; not survival of the group, per se. It's a means to an end.
Genetic selection in humans is pointedly individualistic. Society can be a major boon to that goal, but it is not the goal itself. Evolution of a homosexual gene for the purpose of perpetuating the species via advanced childcare is something of which I'm extremely skeptical. I can see how homosexual family members would be helpful in childrearing, but designed for it? Not so sure of that.
Judging by the incredible risks many animals take just to breed and the considerable burden placed on mammals, esp. humans with the prolonged vulnerability of our offspring, one could argue that reproduction is directly opposed to personal survival.
There is a maternal as well as paternal instinct in most folks and we know better than to question someone when they say they'd willingly die to save their children's lives.
Without the impetus to reproduce and drive to help protect the young, evolution loses its explanatory power.