If humans are a product of survival of the fittest, how did the homosexual evolve seeing they can't reproduce?
535057
I hate to say it, but thats a horribly phrased question. I think I get what your asking though.\n\n"The Homosexual" doesn't really have anything to do with survival of the fittest. What "survival of the fittest" means is that the strong survive because, well, they're stronger.\n\nBeing gay or straight doesn't have anything to do with that. Besides the population isn't so low and the number of gay people isn't so high that there would be a worry about reproduction. Besides, Nature finds a way....didn't you see Jurassic Park?
693849
That's why Intelligent Design is a crackpot theory not worth the paper it's printed on.\n\nIn every population of living things the weak, deformed, disabled and defective becomes victims to predators or disease, usually before they are capable of breeding and passing on their characteristics to future generations. This is how a population remains strong, viable and able to compete against predators which are also being subjected to the laws of natural selection by gradually becoming stronger, faster, more cunning etc etc (the weaker ones also dying for not being able to compete).\n\nThe other side of this coin is that occasionally a genetic mutation brings with it an advantage and this enables a species to better survive in a particular environment. If the advantage is great enough then over many generations this mutation will become generally incorporated into a species or population because proportionally more individuals carrying the mutation will survive and breed in each sucessive generation.\n\nYou are correct that without glasses you would be a complete liability in a hunter-gatherer society and it is only in comparatively recent times that poor eyesight has stopped being a factor in deciding whether you get to contribute to the next generation - in earlier times human society may have supported you in return for you performing menial tasks but you would have been unlikely to have found a mate. Still earlier I suspect that you may have been driven away from the tribe as an expensive liability.\n\nThe fact that you (and I - because I also wear spectacles) are alive and able to discuss this proves the case for the only form of Intelligent Design that ever has existed - the intelligent design BY humans that have evolved through natural selection brains capable of devising technologies that enable them to solve problems to improve their chances of survival.
161827
A - because they are the same species and therfore have the same number of chromosomes, which means they can breed together.  homosapiens and chimpanzees are quite closly related but have different number of chromosomes so they cannot mate.  if they did manage to mate the offspring would be infertile, a bit like the liger, which is the offspring of a lion and a tiger.  chimps and humans have approx 97% of the same genes!!
655522
Gay people.  \nIn addition, they do not reproduce at the rate of rabbits.  (Draw your own conclusions here).
244285
As a biologist I must weigh in.\n\nThe terminology and methodology of you stance is a bit off.   As we populate and compete for resources that are scarce, there will be increased competition. Problem is that the way the world works, that has little bearing on the real world. In Africa kids starve daily. In America kids are obese. There is no natural selection taking place.  As the population expands, there will be groups of HAVEs and groups of HAVE NOTS. But the HAVES will have few external influences on their mating.\n\nHomesexuality has been around a long time. It is seen in animals, and people. Throughout history at times it was commonplace and accpeted. Regardless of what you may read, no one can say for sure the causes of homsexuality. It is probably a complex set of genetic variations, behaviors and experiences. It could be genetic, as some familes have high incidences of homosexual members, but it is probably more spontaneous.  \n\nAs an aside, it is patently FALSE that states which have gay unions have a falling birth rate. You quote the need for references, put your money where yuor mouth is. Lets look at those few states and look at the birth rates and all the variables and see the true facts.\n\nback to the question. No, as a species we are not evolving towards gay. If population is a true evoluntionary problem, people will become less fertile, as many animal models ahve shown. Numerous species where competition is tough have fewer young and would be less likly to produce offspring regularly. That is how mother nature operates.\n\nif anything, the evolutionof our species will ultimately end in parthogensis where women can self fertilize making males obsolete. If we were to model the human species against animals we would see similarities in population dynamics and this could be the future in MANY thousands of centuries.
390646
Well, if people would use common sense, they would realize that being born "Gay" isn't logical. Why would a species be born attracted to the same sex? Can they reproduce? \n\nMost species on this earth, are born to reproduce and create others like themselves. In order for this to happen, there needs to be a Male and Female species and a attraction to the opposite sex. This is how every species on this earth is created. \n\nI have heard thousands of people talk about genetic research and how it proves that Gays are born Gay. Genetic research also proved that cloning was possible, and look how that turned out.\n\nI have also heard many people talk about how their cat or dog was seen having sex with another of the same sex. I've also seen a dog eat it's own waste too. Animals can become confused just like humans, although I assume that Humans should have more sense. \n\nSo why do we have Gays and Lesbians? Well, actually it is very simple. Things that happen to a person, wether it's at a very young age or in adulthood, reflect on how that person thinks. Many have been abused in some way or another. Either by being molested as a child, or treated as an outcast when they were young. Many grew up in broken homes and were without one of their biological parents. Many were not taught how someone of their gender should behave. There are many different reasons, and what usually happens is this. Individuals who have not had the so called "Normal Life" will seek acceptance from those who are similar to themselves and this is normally the same sex gender, because they easier to relate too. A bond is created and the trust and affection they feel towards each other for accepting one another, becomes Love. This kind of Love is stronger than most people realize, because it fills the void that someone in our society has created. Someone, Sometime, Somewhere has done something to each of these "Gay" people and caused their lives to change forever. \n\nThis is where "Gays" and "Lesbians" came from, and there's nothing we can do to change it. There will always be different types of people, but our society created this one. \n\nA Gay person can chose to live a Straight lifestyle and be happy. A Straight person can also chose to be Gay if they want to and live happy also. How? Because they are both Human Beings with feelings, and feelings can change. If feelings couldn't change, there wouldn't be any such thing as a divorce. \n\nI have also heard the remark many times about why would a person chose to be "Gay", since our society hates "Gays" and "Lesbians"? The answer: Many didn't chose to be "Gay". Situations in a persons life can alter their feelings towards certain beliefs. For example: Would you chose to be with your abusive biological family or a loving adoptive one? Your instincts tell you to stay with your biological family but your feelings tell you to go to the adoptive one because they won't hurt you and will love you.\n\nI'm sorry this is so long, but it seems that there are so many people out there that don't look outside the box or they refuse to see beyond their way of thinking. Hope this helped you to understand in some way why the world has Gay people.
226204
If by some unrealistic chance it were to happen, it doesn't mean that life wouldn't continue.  I would imagine that lesbians and gays would find a way to procreate.  There would be a sort of barter system.  People would recognize the need for civilization to continue and would adapt.
622375
'Survival of the fittest' works to a lesser degree in the opposite direction too; just as animals with features that allow them to adapt better to their environment are more likely to successfully reproduce, animals with features that are not necessary might find them impeded by them and, thus, might find themselves less able to survive long enough to reproduce.\n\nIf you will, imagine a village of our distant ancestors. As we're not hanging from trees anymore (if we ever did), our tail has no practical purpose, but it's still hanging around (pun partly intended). Now, through random mutation protohuman A's tail turns out to be a little shorter than protohuman B's tail. So when a big predator comes chasing after them, A has an advantage because 1) the tail is not getting in the way of his running as much and 2) the predator has more difficulty seizing on to protohuman A. So protohuman B becomes a predator's lunch and protohuman A gets to pass his short-tailed genes onto his children.\n\nNow, you might say 'well, how can that possibly be enough? A 1- or 2mm difference from one generation to the next?' but there also is a concept of a 'feedback loop', which is quite logical to perceive. It's that, frankly, tails ain't sexy.\n\nAll of the predators munching on long-tailed protohumans might have developed a sense among the protowomenfolk that a long tail does not a good father make (you know, motion of the ocean etc.) So then, through the development of this biological preference (call it 'taste' or 'fashion'), the longtailed boys become the wallflowers - always the bridesmaid, never the mixed metaphor.\n\nIn short, every generation, the shorttails are more popular and have more children, and for all I know strut in a manly way around the longtails. This seriously alters the 'genetic lottery' of DNA, with the result that, over countless generations, we're down to the tiny stub that we have today (excepting the unfortunate).
665530
pretty much...i mean more and more people these days are turning gay.  and that is retarted.  soon the world will just end of lack of reproduction. at least for the humans.
633589
hmm interesting question. in order to understand the answer we first need to realize that evolution is in itself a series of chance events.. nuclear winter or not. if evolution was made to run once again we may not turn out as we did now.\n\nso after a nuiclear winter if cockroaches were to survive and most of life were to be wiped out.. the cockroaches would definatley evolve over time.. but ina manner so as to best adapt to the conditions prevailing at that time. so obviously they would not evolve into humans..
983067
I cannot get over the stupidity of those of you who answer thinking that the question is comparing gays to animals.  The writer is merely pointing out that natures considers homosexuality as normal. Animals having that instinct canot be blamed on intellectual choice or mental illness the way antigayists try to portray.  So please if you want to answer the question, try understanding it first.\n\nThat said, most antigayists are homophobic, which really means they are fearful and fear means "what can happen to me? How can thishurt me?  Subconsciously the fear is they themselves may be gay if they allowed themselves to accept it in others.  Why fear that? because then they believe they may be ostracized by their friends, familiy and neighbors and perhaps by their GOD.    Animals, which include humans, by the way....mammal.......there is no intellect. Man is the only mammal withy extensive intellect and reasoning.  If we take that away, tere would be no fear and no ostracism.  There would merely be survival. It is clear that despite homosexual behavior in animals, that is not a concommitant of their extinction ior being endangered , the continue to survive.  In this analysis antigayism is fear based and there is no good reason for it to be wrong.
98788
oh, that last answer was funny.  \n\nAnyhow, Prokaryotes are survivors.  They can adjust to changes more quickly, they don't need a mate to replicate, and they're smaller - smaller is better in the world of evolution.  \n\nNot a great answer, but there it is.
108919
Its a little of both. Genetics and envionment. Some studies have shown there is an actual homosexual gene that is passed on only through the mother (X chromosome). Even though you have the gene, doesn't make you homosexual. You need to be put in the correct enviroment. And there are epigenetic (if you don't know this word. look it up on www.wikipedia.com)factors also.
479072
Those animals have adapted so that they stick out, with vibrant colors that lead the predators away from the females and offspring.\n\nMale humans are supposed to be just bigger, stronger and more capable of protection and hunting, and humans when they were in the wild had no use for an adaptation in appereance.
827881
Humans should establish viable breeding populations off planet to insure that they can survive any disaster that might befall your planet. Any species that evolves to the point where they ask the question "Why?" has to  make the attempt to survive as a species, but humanity may not muster the necessary resources to pursue this course. You may end up a footnote in galactic history.
30532
To become "selected against" the individual organism must die before it is able to reproduce. If it manages to reproduce, it will escape natural selection and perpetuate its DNA. Hence, not only the strongest survive. Only the very weakest and unfeasible of organisms die out.
751373
This is a very valid question but one which is better addressed to the LGBT community than to those who for whatever reason can not or will not ever understand.\n\nHomosexuality is indeed inborn but it is not a disorder. A question to ask yourself is why nature has created the phenomenon of homosexuality in the first place and why does she seem to like it enough to allow it to continue from generation to generation. Nature seem to want to keep the ratio of gays to straights in humans at a relatively constant 1 to 10, this despite the undeniable reality that many gays and lesbians do not breed. The fount of the gay world is and always has been the straight world. And homosexuality most definitely occurs in many animals.\n\nAnyone who believes in evolution I think would agree that only traits that serve a purpose and benefit the species persist for any length of time. Harmful mutations are not preserved by nature. The individuals that are born with truly dangerous genetic makeups usually die before adulthood and do not contribute to the gene pool of the species. \n\nFrom this perspective it would seem that homosexuality must benefit the species in some as yet undefined way. Nature not only permits but actually promotes homosexuality. Why? Perhaps it is partly because homosexuals contribute so much to various fields of human endeavor (arts, sciences, literature, music, even athletics) that they help propel the human race forward exponentially in its cultural development. Worth considering anyway, wouldn't you say?\n\nBut to address the main question here:\nFace it, there will always be people who try to validate their own choices by questioning you for making different choices. Some you can talk to, some it's best to just ignore because try as you may you will not rescue them from their mental blocks nor squeeze from their mental prisons an ounce of true humanity.