Survival of the fittest?

Question

Im going to take it from one perspective. This in itself is contradictory. I find it quite interesting when a homosexual believes in evolution because when it comes to "survival of the fittest", their the weakest link. They wouldve died off because they cant reproduce. Is this statement wrong? I would like to hear answers dealing with this statement only. Lets try to follow instructions on this one

Answer 1

The only way they "reproduce" is by taking other people's children.
Your explanation above is exactly why I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic; it's a chosen behavior. That's the only reason why it has survived so long. This explanation is also Scripturally accurate. God describes it as an "abominable" behavior. If it were genetic, He wouldn't say anything about it.

Answer 2

Well, homosexuality allows an organism to live a full life, but hinders reproduction. There is more than one possible reason why evolution might preserve such a trait.

One possibility is the fact that humans are a social species --- and like many other social species, there is a purpose that non-reproducing members of the community might have to aid the reproduction of others. This was especially true in prehistoric times, then the other people of the community who benefitted from you not reproducing were often genetically relatives of yours.

Another possible reason might be genetic. Sometimes, the same gene might manifest in differently depending on what other genes are also present in an individual. In such cases, one possible manifestation of that gene might be lethal -- while another possible manifestation is so beneficial that the gene remains present in the population despite the cases of it being lethat. The most notable example of this is the gene for sickle-celled anemia. Someone with two coppies of that gene has a horrible disease - but the gene stays around because someone with only one copy has a resistance to malaria.

There may be other possible explanations as well - but the two I mentioned are the possible ones that I know about.

Answer 3

I find it quite interesting when a homosexual believes in evolution because when it comes to "survival of the fittest", their the weakest link. They wouldve died off because they cant reproduce. Is this statement wrong?

Yes it is, because if it were true homosexuals would have died out, and clearly, they have not. And, FYI, millions of EDUCATED people know that evolution is real, no matter what some religious fundamentalist says. Understand how DNA works, and evolution becomes a "slam dunk".

Answer 4

Survival of the fittest is not contradictory, but it is a tautology. "Fittest" in Darwinian terms simply means "that which survives and reproduces".

To understand why the genes which predispose to homosexuality might be naturally selected you need to understand about kin selection, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

It's also worth noting recent research which demonstrates that gay men are more likely to be younger than older brothers. This is a biological rather than social effect. However, an older brother is just as likely to carry a "gay predisposing" genetic pattern as a younger: - the pattern might not code specifically for homosexuality per se but actually represent a reproductive strategy among brothers - cooperation rather than competition.

Such a pattern could plausibly confer fitness on the carriers of those genes.

Answer 5

Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest genes, not the fittest individual. It may be that homosexuals tend to support enough nieces and nephews to balance out their own lack of reproduction. More likely homosexuality is not a direct result of a gene but due to a prebirth condition when the brain is developing.

Answer 6

Since homosexuals are a minority, they would have no effect on survival of the human race. There are plenty of homosexuals who are parents, though. Many male homosexuals marry and have children before coming out of the closet and many lesbians have artificial insemination. How do you account for sterile heterosexuals not screwing up the mathematics?

atheist

Answer 7

Homosexuality is evolutionarily neutral, it is neither good nor bad. It is a condition induced by the conditions of the womb that reduces the organism's fitness to zero, effectively removing random people from the gene pool. If homosexuality is genetic they would have died out, and they are still here, so homosexuality is obviously not genetic...

Answer 8

Homosexuality has nothing to do with "survival of the fitest" because it's not genetic, it could be considered a birth defect, but it's not genetic, one of my family members are gay, yet had a son, and he's not even bi. So what does that mean? Homosexuality once again has nothing to do with evolution.

Answer 9

Evolution is the forward progression. The humans population on earth is at a sustainable level at the current rate of reproduction. As such, variables enter into the equation which allow certain segments of the population to be homosexual as they are not necessary to sustain the population. It can get more complicated than that but I think this satisfies your question.

Answer 10

Yes, your statement is wrong.

First of all you don't understand what survival of the fittest means. Secondly, you assume that homosexuals are a "weak link" and can't reproduce. Being homosexual does not make one sterile you know.