[lbo-talk] Re: Instinct

[Arash]

We already agreed from our discussion on twin studies that there is a
genetic influence on male homosexuality and when considering this group
produces 80% fewer children then heterosexual men (cited in the last email),
a puzzle emerges as to why evolution didn't select out these genes that can
lead to such a negative effect on reproductive success.  It's open area of
inquiry that a number of biologists are investigating, one such example:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1041101/asp/knowhow/story_3923341.asp

Do you really think this genetically influenced behavior just emerged out of
the blue in recent human history (last 10,000 years)?  How did it spread out
to 2-6% of the population?  For that matter shouldn't we be witnessing a
rapid decline in the exclusive homosexuality group as there is such a
negative effect on reproduction for this segment of the population?  I don't
see any reason to believe that is the case.        

Arash

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of Miles Jackson
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:32 AM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Re: Instinct

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Arash wrote:


> My point here isn't about the stability of categories, it's about the
> evolutionary puzzle of near-exclusive homosexuality, which you denied
> existed.

If near-exclusive homosexuality didn't exist in human prehistory,
there's no puzzle to be solved.  --Assuming that near-exclusive
homosexuality/heterosexuality existed hundreds of
thousands of years ago is wild conjecture that is not even
supported by primate analogies.  Based on our nearest primate
cousins, it's much more realistic of assume that early humans
engaged in various kinds of opportunistic heterosexual and
homosexual sex.  (Ah, the good old days--)

Miles
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk