From: SJOSEPHS@130.187.170.178 (STEVEN JOSEPHSON)
Subject: Re: homosexuality and evolution
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:16:49 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <1992Oct9.180950.15929@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com writes:

> In article <BvtM0p.7uE@inews.Intel.COM>, mdouglas@cad067.NoSubdomain.NoDomain
> (Maria Douglas ~) writes:
> 
> > I've understood it that homosexuality does not so much increase the
> > individual's fitness as much as the race as a whole because homosexuality
> > represents the vast *variety* of sexual behaviors we have as Homo sapiens.
> >  The more different behaviors we have,
> > the more likely it is that our species will continue...?
> 
> > If this is dribble, please clue me in--I haven't been in on the whole thread.
> 
> Well, it isn't exactly "dribble" but there are fact no demonstrable cases
> of "group selection" and since the development of modern evolutionary
> theory over the last 50 years (since the "neo-Darwinian synthesis") the
> previously popular notion of species, or higher level taxonomic groupings
> undergoing selection in any sense other than the summation of individual
> survival and fitness has been fond very much wanting.
> 
> A vague "intuitive" sense that maintaining a large variety of phenotypes
> might make a species survival "more likely" tends to disintegrate when
> faced with the actual mathematics (or historical record, as in the allo-
> metric increase beyond all reasonable bounds of antlers on "Irish elk.")
> You might want to inquire on this point in sci.bio (or, if you are brave,
> in talk.origins.)
> -- 
> Michael L. Siemon		 

Mike is absolutely right - looking for traits that will enhance the survival of
a species or even the group you are in won't take you very far, but looking at
individual interests will.  A good example of this is schooling in fish.  It
used to be thought that schooling behavior was used by groups to confuse
predators, increasing the likelihood that nobody in the group would get nailed.
When a good hard look was taken at this behavior, it was found that individual
fish were using others in the group as a shield when a predator was known to be
around.   All that highly coordinated movement is really each individual trying
to put at least one conspecific between itself and the predator.  In fact,
grouping behavior *increases* the likelihood that the predator will score, as
all the prey are bunched up.  Although it aids the predators against the
species, for individuals it makes sence to school, as it increases the chance
that a predator can be spotted while there is still time to do something - like
hide behind your neighbor.

Two other quick points on the subject of evolution and homosexuality.  When one
is dealing with traits that are sometimes a good idea and sometimes a bad idea,
there is no reason to expect selection to produce anything like an "optimum"
behavior, to say nothing of one we can easily identify.  This is especially
true with sexual preference in humans as (as an earlier poster pointed out) a)
sexual preference is unlikely to be a one-or-the-other situation, especially in
light of the fact that b) humans do *much* more with sex than simply make
babies.  

Josephson
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology