If they're not passed on, why do they exist?

Post #388,314 by Another Scott 4/8/14 12:23:14 PM Reply	If they're not passed on, why do they exist? Doesn't the existence of homosexuality in nature disprove your apparent belief that it's an evolutionary dead end? From the NS linky above: It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair. Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others). Passing on genes is about more than impregnation. It's about having the group thrive better than other groups in that niche. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,315 by mmoffitt 4/8/14 1:12:59 PM Reply	We're past each other. But, I'll answer. You know darned well how I think it might be possible for a still unknown genetic tendency toward homosexuality to be propagated in a heterosexual species (excluding the pregnancies derived from homosexual males and/or females having heterosexual sex). You also know darned well that I can have no factual basis to believe what I believe about this because there are no known genetic markers for homosexuality. Since you asked, I'll repeat myself. I believe - like the rest of the world believed until 1973 when political pressure was applied based upon a trivially small study - that a genetic predisposition to homosexuality exists and that the genes yielding the homosexual phenotype are related to the genes associated with mental illness.
Post #388,317 by Another Scott 4/8/14 2:03:51 PM Reply	Yeah, we're talking past each other. Trouble is, genes aren't binary. As the article points out, genes that cause sickle cell disease also help to increase the chance of survival of malaria. The benefits of having genes that increase homosexual tendencies may have other benefits that aren't immediately apparent. (That's one of the reasons why eugenics is not just evil, it's stupid.) "Mental illness" is a big minefield. Just about every woman was lumped in that category at one time (and not that long ago). Dirac may have been autistic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac "Fixing" homosexuals didn't end well in at least one famous case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing Understanding changes. The world becomes a tiny, confining place when we try to force it into boxes. Treating everyone equally, with equal benefits from - and responsibilities to - society (when possible), is the best approach. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!