Further to (evolutionary biologist) “Larry Moran suddenly discovers an absolute moral value,” here’s a BBC News article bending itself in knots over “the evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality,” learning and passing on nothing in particular.
Some puzzles exist only if one is in the grip of a mistaken idea. Darwin’s followers Darwinize everything, so they must somehow explain how homosexuality fits their theory. On other views of how evolution works, evolution proceeds by a variety of mechanisms: There is no fixed way an average number of homosexual members affects the evolution of a human group over time; it varies by circumstances. And that’s pretty much what comes out in the article.
But no matter we certainly cannot expect the logical conclusion, that Darwin’s mechanism is not what the typical BBC science writer believes, to be drawn. Too risky.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I’m curious: how would you account for the presence of homosexuals and homosexual behaviour in many different species over a long period of time?
Hard to say, may be no fixed definition. Sexual behaviour of any kind can be part of aggression or reducing aggression. Gay behaviour shouldn’t need any special explanation. Narrow theories (selfish gene theory comes to mind) create the need for explanations that fit the theory.
This is one of the biggest myths out there, and a complete crock.
http://narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html
Here’s what Professor Jerry Coyne says in his 2011 post, “Evolution, animals, and gay behavior” at http://whyevolutionistrue.word.....-behavior/:
And there’s this:
Entropy, ie degradation of a once very good design.
How does natural selection explain the survival of the unfit/ unfit behavior?
The Telegraph
“Being homosexual is mostly based on environment and social factors, according to new research…”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci.....finds.html
Homosexuality is a medical problem of the thinking. God and nature demands that opposite sexes are sexually only attracted to each other.
Thats why so few people are gay. its a thinking problem issue.
there is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom. They easily can be bisexual as wanting sex. Yet never refuse the opposite sex.
This adds to the conclusion homosexuality is a failure of identity awareness and maybe some slight prompting from chemicals in us. That is failure in some.
Jesus talked about sexual aberrations but insisted man/woman was the only moral and natural state.
All gays could become NORMAL if they carefully organized thier thoughts.
Its really a society fighting the historical contempt and opposition to homosexuality that gets in the way of healing.
So, no consensus about why homosexuality has existed for millennia under a design paradigm.
So, no idea about why homosexuality has existed for milenia under a blind watchmaker paradigm. Heck the blind watchmaker paradigm can’t even account for metazoans.
You should try and keep up with some of the research that is being done. People who want to contribute to the science have to know what’s been done and what’s being done.
Rather than just demand things be brought to your attention why don’t you search out research? In the real world you don’t earn points by intentionally being out of the loop and decrying things you haven’t read or understand. When you fall behind you lose.