Quote:
Originally Posted by ynwa03
Question for the atheists who see homosexuality as no more right or wrong than heterosexuality: How does this idea co-exist with the idea of evolution and natural selection?
|
Oddly stated, lots of religious people accept evolution and have this view that nothing is wrong with homosexuality.
Anyhow, here's a great piece I read in 06, you get 2 biologists, one very famous and another not so much discussing evolution and homosexuality.
Its a very interesting read, here's some tidbits:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...osexuality.php
Quote:
|
Roughgarden is an awkward case that provokes a difficult split in people's opinions. She is 100% right that homosexuality is common and that its prevalence ought to be regarded more seriously as an indication of an interesting and enlightening phenomenon in evolution. However, she's completely wrong in rejecting sexual selection: in rejecting a simplistically heterosexual view of nature she swings too far the other way, adopting a simplistically homosexual view instead of a messy, complex, and almost certainly more correct mixed view. She's rather superficial in her treatment of Darwin. And most annoyingly, she has a bad habit of playing the transgender card and accusing her critics of disagreeing with her because of some LGBT bias.
|
Key counter points, the points are made at the link I posted.
Quote:
Homosexuality is selectively neutral. This is an idea I favor, and Roughgarden herself notes that it is counterintuitive.
Homosexuality promotes community bonding. This is the idea that Roughgarden favors: that some degree of homosexuality confers a direct advantage to individuals living in a community, because it facilitates bonding between same-sex individuals. It's a tool for avoiding expensive, wasteful conflicts.
Homosexuality is coupled to other advantageous traits.
Homosexuality is a product of weak genetic specification.
Homosexuality is a byproduct.
|
Also if reading is hard, damn you ADHD generation, here's a nice short video: