From: madavis@nmsu.edu (Mark Davis)
Subject: evolution and homosexuality
Organization: Computing Research Lab
Distribution: alt.atheism
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:47:03 GMT

In article <mccalley.715976270@lead16> mccalley@rtsg.mot.com (Phil McCalley) writes:

>
>   >In article <mccalley.715556935@lead16> mccalley@rtsg.mot.com (Phil McCalley) writes:
>
>   > 
>   >   On the issue of whether or not it is learned, it seems to me that it must
>   >   be.  Surely if it was genetic, it would have deselected itself along time
>   >   ago.  It would be some trick for them to reproduce.  Unfortunately for 
>   >   them, AIDS is deselecting them anyway.  Sad, but true.
>   >   -- 
>   >   ....................................................... Phil McCalley
>
>   >This is a misrepresention of the effects of evolutionary pressures,
>   >bad form and naive as hell.  The assumption that genes encode for
>   >behaviors in a piece-meal manner (a gene for homosexual behavior, a
>   >gene for alcoholism) is at fault.  
>
>   It most certainly is not a faulty assumption!  Some behaviors may be
>   linked inseperately to certain gene combinations.  But there are many
>   traits (some of which may be behavioral) that are passed on genetically.
>   Hair color, tendency for heart disease, tendency for alcoholism, 
>   physical size, you name it, there are many.  Would you have us believe
>   that everyone has the exact same genetic code.  So of course there
>   is a piece-meal!
>

Dwarfism is a good example, here.  A gene for dwarfism is often said
to exist.  In actual fact, dwarfism is caused by point defects
resulting in incomplete Giberellic Acid pathways.  An infinity of
defects in the "genes" regulating the production of the agents
can result in the same thing.

You are misrepresenting things.

Dobzhansky said, and was seconded by Maynard-Smith, that genes are
not to be regarded as entities.  They are only neat conceptual tools 
for the use of students in their studies.

>   >The human genome is optimized
>   >as a whole, not according to what Chetverikov termed a "mosaic" of
>   >isolated elements.  The statement also relies on the assumption  
>   >that good genes are "selected for", while in reality it is genetic
>   >defects that are selected against.  Any organism with effective
>   >metabolic wherewithall will survive sufficiently long to influence the
>   >immediate community.
>
>   All these fancy words.  But.  Defects ARE selected for.  And.  Defects
>   ARE selected against.  Mutations occur.  Some are bad and some are good.
>   Good ones rise and bad ones fall.  That is the jist of it, and that is
>   what works for me.  All the fancy vocabulary in the world can not obscure
>   that.
>

Yes, yes, yes.  And if there were genes for homosexuality like ball
bearings, then they would immediately disappear with one or two
generations BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT REPRODUCING.  And you think you
are not oversimplifying?

>   >Furthermore, surfeit populations of non-reproducing males serve a 
>   >valuable role in maintaining pressure on reproducing males to
>   >provide a continuous demonstration to females that their mate
>   >is, in fact, free from base metabolic errors in his genetic
>   >structure.  This primarily applies to polygamous mammalian and
>   >bird populations, however, and is not to be overly abstracted
>   >with regard to human populations.
>
>   I do not think it is "overly" abstracted to apply Natural Selection
>   to Human development.  You started out good, explaining competition,
>   but I DO believe it applies quite well to humans.  On many levels
>   even:  physical, social, economical, to name a few.
>
>   >Finally, the misuse of evolutionary ideas has a long history of
>   >producing hatred and arrogance.  I would suggest that one would
>   >be better off justifying bad thinking like this with ad hoc
>   >explanations based on fear and xenophobia, rather than using
>   >pseudoscience.
>
>   >Best Regards,
>
>   >mark
>
>   What I see here is a guy who knows something about evolution (and
>   especially alot about vocabulary), but can discount the principles
>   he demonstrates he understands because they pose the prospect of 
>   infringing on his well being... Or the well being of his kind, that 
>   is. 
>

Ad hominen attack.  I am actually not gay.  But you are wrongminded.

>   The dilemma for me is that homosexuality has been around for such
>   a long time, and it seems like a dead end.  Maybe "long" is the
>   question here.  Natural Selection can take many thousands of years.
>   I can not be certain that I am correct in that homosexuality will
>   be deselected.  It seems reasonable, so I certainly would not take 
>   the chance of breaking my own bloodline, since I am arrogant enough 
>   to think that my offspring will have success in the future.  Think
>   of what a tragedy it would be for someone who holds his bloodline
>   sacred to find out after many years that his only son is gay,
>   meanwhile having passed the end of his wife's (conventional thinking)
>   window of fertility.  Few things can be worse than this.  Of course
>   the bloodline can be carried forth by the females as well, but the
>   namesake has a good chance of being wiped out.
>
>   So xenophobia is not the issue with me.  It is preserving my own
>   bloodline and namesake.  You can go ahead and be as gay as you
>   want, but I suspect homosexuality may not fair well in the long run, 
>   so I do not want my offspring to be like you.  That is for the long
>   run.  For a shorter run, in everyday life, we get the most suitable
>   person we can to fill each niche in our society.  For example, if you 
>   are the best damn computer programmer, then you ought to have no 
>   problems doing that.  It is a Natural Selection based on ability.
>   Oddly, you may be _lucky_ if you are discriminated against on a basis
>   other than you ability.  The discriminator has at least one bad idea
>   on how things work.  (S)he may be digging everyone a grave.  Someone
>   more interested in doing the work at hand, and less interested in who
>   is what, may have more upward potential.  And subordinates follow in
>   the wake.
>
>   So you see.  I am not bashing gays.
>   -- 
>   ....................................................... Phil McCalley

   Disclaimer:  I speak for myself and anyone who agrees with me.

This is exemplary idiocy and reflects my points perfectly.
--
*************************************************************
***   M. W. Davis,             madavis@NMSU.edu           ***
*************************************************************
***       "Crap and Art still toiling together"           ***
*************************************************************