> > 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--)
[...]
> Regarding the above: Miles, is it true that there is no exclusive
> homosexuality in primates? Given that: (a) there is evidence of
> homosexuality in primates, such as bonobos, (b) a strong male hierarchy
> with an alpha male who dominates, we could hypothesize that of
> necessity, some males (despite behind-the-alpha's-back sexual escapades)
> experience nothing but homosexual sex. If true, perhaps you do not count
> this as an instance of exclusive homosexuality, since its not voluntary?
Minor quibble - Bonobo (pan paniscus) society is female-centered, unlike chimps, which have a male hierarchy.
> Also, I wrote on an earlier thread about the issue of homosexuality as
> encoded in the genes (if at all) and what I consider to be the
> misunderstanding (of evolutionary theory) that by its very nature
> homosexuality cannot survive [through reproduction]. The
> misunderstanding (again, as I see it) rests on the confusion of visible
> traits with genic coding (phenotype vs genotype). An entirely invisible
> trait could nonetheless be present within the population and express
> itself in future ones: in this case, if one were to posit homosexuality
> as recessive in the genotype, all that is required is for two
> individuals with heterosexual phenotype carrying the specific recessive
> alleles to say mate successfully (as in begetting progeny, not achieving
> the big-O) four times, to generate the probability of a homosexual
> phenotype child. Voila! ;-)
It is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to assume that all traits - even something such as eye color - is in some way involved with survival, or even more strictly reproduction. Random historical events that select for genetic traits (imagine a flood that isolates a group of humans and kills others, perpetuating the survivors' genes) have as much to do with natural selection as capacity for reproduction.
As Zimmer wrote, "natural selection is not natural perfection".
Matt
-- PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 icq: 120941588 http://blogdayafternoon.com yahoo msg: beyondzero123
Theoretically, people see money on the counter, and no one around, they think they're being watched.
-Dante Hicks Honesty through paranoia.
-Veronica