From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Homosexuals anywhere are wrong
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:57:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.153756.26175@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <sbuckley.712397662@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>
>>>Mind presenting some evidence for this view point? 
>>
>>>If homosexuality was a defect rather than beneficial evolution would
>>>have removed it long ago. There is simply no way a trait that results
>>>in 10% of the population not reproducing will survive unless it enhances
>>>the survival chances of the population as a whole.

Unfortunately, this paragraph has several problems.  First, I believe
that more recent estimates of the percentage of homosexuals in the
(U.S., I believe) population are much lower - like, around 2% or less.
This is pure hearsay, however.  Anyone have more trustworthy data?

Secondly, your claim about evolution and homosexuality makes the
assumption that homosexuality is a genetically-determined state.
Even despite the evidence supporting this stance which has arisen of
late, it is far from decided one way or the other.

Thirdly, you are resorting to a group selectionist argument for
the maintenance of homosexuality by evolution - if homosexuality
doesn't somehow benefit the individual (by benefit I mean solely
reproductive benefit), it will _not_ spread through natural
selection.

That said, I should say that there is a possibility that this
reproductive benefit exists.  E. O. Wilson, In _On_Human_Nature_ (a
very controversial book, I should add), presents a mechanism
by which homosexuals serve as helpers within kin groups, thereby
allowing homosexuality to spread via kin selection.  See 50% of
the columns ever written by Gould for an alternative viewpoint.

[Disclaimer:  None of my statements above are meant to express
any judgement regarding the morality or "correctness" of
homosexuality]

>>  does this mean then that you worship the sanctity and certainty of
>>the great god "evolution"?  
>
>Unlike religious people I don't take things on faith I believe in evolution
>because it has been observed and can be tested. Please take a look at 
>last months Scientific America, or the program I posted to comp.programming.
>When religion passes the tests evolution does I might reconsider being
>an athiest.
>
>>to claim it is authoritative would be to do so.
>
>Does that mean if I use the elevator in a sky scraper that I worship the
>sanctity of the great god "archatecture". I am much more certain of
>that evolution works than I am that the archatect wasn't stoned out
>his mind when he designed the building.
>
>>do you really have this much faith in evolution?
>
>No I don't have faith in the X-tian sense, I'm not afraid to put
>evolution to the test, I don't believe in evolution because someone
>told me to , or because I think I will go to hell if I don't.

Mr. Buckley is demonstrating the standard fundamental (pun intended)
misconception that evolution is in some way a religion.  Yawn.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc