Comments on: Homosexuality as a Challenge to Darwinism https://globalspin.com/2004/04/homosexuality-as-a-challenge-to-darwinism/ a glimpse into the tiny mind of Chris Radcliff Sat, 01 May 2010 03:53:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8 By: t https://globalspin.com/2004/04/homosexuality-as-a-challenge-to-darwinism/comment-page-1/#comment-372 Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:42:28 +0000 http://globalspin.com/wp/2004/04/18/317/#comment-372 Also, you are forgetting about multiple allele inheritance and recessive inheritance. Two extremely important things to know before arguing any point over genetics.

]]> By: Deb https://globalspin.com/2004/04/homosexuality-as-a-challenge-to-darwinism/comment-page-1/#comment-371 Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:33:35 +0000 http://globalspin.com/wp/2004/04/18/317/#comment-371 Dear JD:

Please read my previous post more carefully and you should be able to answer your own questions!

~d

]]> By: JD Smith https://globalspin.com/2004/04/homosexuality-as-a-challenge-to-darwinism/comment-page-1/#comment-370 Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:50:10 +0000 http://globalspin.com/wp/2004/04/18/317/#comment-370 According to your philosophy or should I say criticisim of Evloutions Rainbow I agree as to assumptions 1 and 3. However, are you suggesting that behavior is not a genetically inherited trait and further more is it socially beneficial for a homosexual to reproduce? I ask this question to secure an understanding of why homosexual and bisexual behavior would benefit the theory of darwinistic progress, concerning mans’ evolution.

]]> By: deb https://globalspin.com/2004/04/homosexuality-as-a-challenge-to-darwinism/comment-page-1/#comment-369 Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:26:40 +0000 http://globalspin.com/wp/2004/04/18/317/#comment-369 This book is the latest in a movement of evolutionary theory that is causing it to, well, evolve. Actually, it’s a little behind the times. And the intro at the beginning of the article is a bit uninformed, for example:

Assumption 1) All inherited traits have to be harmful or hurtful.

Reality: Some traits are neutral or not harmful enough to kill said organism before it reproduces successfully.

Assumption 2) All inherited traits are genetic.

Reality: Some species, it seems, may also evolve socially; parents pass on behaviors to their offspring that help them to reproduce more successfully. I think this might be taken to a cultural/societal level: some societies encourage behaviors that help them be more successful than others . . .

Assumption 3) All sex is for reproductive purposes only.

Reality: This is the assumption that the book in question seems to be trying to reform. In social species, sex is also a means of solidifying social relationships, etc., etc. as is discussed in the interview. This opens the discussion beyond just the “selfish gene.”

Assumption 4) No homosexual reproduces (before A.I.)

Reality: Often, “homosexuals” are really “bisexuals” and might have both hetero and homo-erotic encounters. This does not preclude them from reproducing. Also, the society in question needs to be taken into account — in our culture, gay people often hid (hide?) their preference, got married, had kids, came out later.

I still think we should be careful of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater (that’s not successful reproduction, now is it?) The theory of evolution is a useful tool that I see as being expanded upon, not gotten rid off.

]]>