Evolution - how does homosexuality fit in with 'survival of the fittest'?
Not interested in queer-bashing, thanks.
Answers:
Well it doesn't of course. But then much of human behaviour doesn't. We keep people with illnesses alive, we support and nurture the disabled, we make places in our society for people who contribute little or nothing.
That's because human society is geared to allowing everyone to achieve their potential, to odd concepts such as 'wealth' or 'nation' or to activities such as exploration or leisure. In other words, humans have largely developed beyond 'survival of the fittest' and have created societies which place importance on more than mere biological factors.
Who knows, it might be the death of us all in the end. But for the time being, while homosexuals can contribute just as much as anyone else to what society considers important, 'survival of the fittest' is as largely irrelevant to them as it is to the rest of the human race.
I think it should be fairly obvious that as homosexuals do not pass their genetic material to the next generation, homosexuality does not fit with survivial of the fittest.
Great question. My guess is that it is a mutation, but not mutated enough to be fatal.
There's no proof, but anything that keeps an animal alive long enough to breed will tend to survive as a trait. Think dominant vs submissive males, and maybe you'll get at least one way of seeing it.
(and bear in mind, it doesn't have to have arisen in humans - it could be a much older survival tactic).
china will be a great example in the next 2 generations, as the percentage of women has dropped (due to child culling - they all want boys), and this will really affect their national status in the next few decades
In most animal species homosexual activity is a form of extablishing dominance by the Alpha or dominant male of a group. It is used in most Canine species, in birds, in other primates and even to a lesser extent in big cats. It is a way for the dominant male to show that they are the stronger and that the other males are not suitable choices as mates or for breeding. This was a way to keep weaker, inferior males from passing on their genetic material, they keeping the species strong.
it Don't....have a Great Day
It's natures way of removing flaws in the species.
Well, I've seen many gay guys who are VERY fit!!
The nature of your question assumes that at some point the human race will evolve to the pinnacle of it's fitness.
Homosexuality may be considered a taboo topic in today's society, but homosexuality in the animal kingdom has always been. As for survival of the fittest [& without "queer-bashing"], the only way I can see that it would fit in is given that homosexuality is considered a deviation & that homosexual couples cannot reproduce together, it cancels out that gene or characteristic. On the other hand, given that these couples cannot reproduce together the "survival of the fittest" mechanism maybe that they donot contribute to over population. I really don't think that there is a sensitive answer to this question, or a true/right answer. & I really don't see why there still needs to be the labels of homosexual/hetrosexual, a couple who loves each other is a couple in love. That is a great thing.
I guess homosexuality as a preference doesn't necessarily prevent people from procreating. Plenty of gay men and women have children these days.
I don't think that being a homosexual means you are not fit. Many hetero or bisexuals are so unfit they wouldn't be able to survive in the wild.BUT I think it's more like nature's way of protecting the Earth from over-population. Nature makes some men/women homosexual who will then not mate and produce offsprings (well, that's the original idea but then again, there's IVF treatment these days etc.). I don't think it is genetic either so it's not something nature would want to get rid of.
It is against survival and..
Scientificaly polution and stress as a result of competition because of over-population cause a change in genetic composition on animals and concerning the human animal nobody dares research or question they say its there human right full-stop
Future advancements in cloning can allow to clone a baby by using both partners chromosomes.
Survival of the fittest and evolution is just a way to eliminate the need for God. If you believe in evolution wasn't Hitler just pressing fast forward on this natural process? Why should we fault him for that?
Some non-Western cultures, particularly some tribal cultures, as well as some ancient cultures, include periods of homosexuality as part of a normal life.
In ancient Greece, pedastry was practiced by some men. A man would adopt a young boy just entering puberty and have a homosexual relationship with him. The boy would be learning sexual skills, relationship skills etc. during this time. When the boy became an adult, his older partner would then be influencial in helping to choose a wife for him. In that scenario, the homosexual relationship led to patronage by a more powerful member of society as well as the acquisition of useful skills.
In some tribal societies, high levels of homosexuality can be observed in the pubescent and young adult populations, with heterosexuality emerging in later years of life. While the logical conclusion is that those transiently homosexual people would be less successful (fewer years in a potentially reproductive relationship), it is actually seen that they subsequently form more stable relationships with the opposite sex than do their peers who remained entirely heterosexual.
The transiently homosexuals are observed to have better communication and relationship skills than their entirely heterosexual peers. It is thought that the homosexual relationships during youth allow a chance to develop such important skills without the pressure of offspring resulting.
In a species like H. sapiens where few offspring are born, it is important that one chooses the best mate possible with which to produce offspring. Having sub-optimal offspring decreases the chance of the baby surviving, so is a waste of effort for the parent if it doesn't survive. Therefore, one wants the best quality mate. but if socially and physically immature, it's likely that the mate will be taken by a stronger member of society (possibly injuring the individual in a mating fight), or the relationship will break down before the child is successfully raised.
Therefore, having a homosexual period in life allows further physical development (a 20-something is better equiped physically than a teenager just entering their teens) and a chance to develop important social skills.
If you go by the biopyschosocial model (I'm not certain that it's true, but it certainly creates a good thought mode), evolutionarily, same-sex pairing off creates nonreproductive couples that do not add to the population burden, but support the existing population through labor. The redirection of reproductive drive is a population control, and the industry of same-sex couples adds to the fitness of their nieces and nephews. The couples get the benefits of intimacy and bonding that have been demonstrated to prolong life and improve health.
The hypothesis does not fully explain the behavior, and Man tends towards polygamy, as any other primate where dimorphism produces larger males. Alpha males and harems do not fit this model, and there is no evidence that monogamous drive is coupled to this behavior.
If anything, it suggests that homosexuality is not genetic in nature. Since homosexuality does not pass down from generation to generation, it has no effect on the gene pool.
Since homosexuality is not a genetic trait that can be passed to kids, it doesn't really deal with survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest deals with traits that can be passed on to offspring.
This made me cringe when I re-read it, and the spell check function stopped working. Hope this helps, at least to some extent.
1. Homosexuality maybe a natural state
It seems that animals have practised all types of sexual behaviour that we would consider deviant. Including what we would define as homosexuality. This would suggest that homosexuality is more natural that most people would realize and perhaps it is repressed in some human societies and cultures for a variety of different reasons. In the West, particularly, cultural and religious values such as Christianity have discouraged homosexual conduct. This may have been due to homosexuality being viewed as malproductive behaviour for any number of reasons by the early Semites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_ani.
2. Homosexuality is part of a wider pleasure seeking experience.
It maybe that homosexuality is not natural as outlined above. But a gentic kickback from the animal kingdom to create pleasure. Suggesting that there is an instinct to seek sexual arousal and satisfaction - instead of one instinct to solely reproduce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/animal_homo.
3. Diversity
Firstly, Darwinism aims to create as much diversity in any given species to ensure at least some of the species would survive due to illness or external catastrophies. It maybe that homosexuality maybe a Darwinian way to create as much diversity in society - sexual diversity.
4. The Darwinian Concept of 'Survival of the Fittest' may not be completely right
So the idea, that the strogest survive, or there is an instinct to procreate maybe wrong. There maybe an instinct to seek pleasure sexually and procreation is a big part of this, and that the 'strongest' animal of that species, just may seem to have a better opportunity to do this. However this is not always the case as there are many species that mimic female behaviour to successfully reproduce, not necessarily being the strongest at all, but the most successful in their species.
As a hetrosexual male, it seems to me hetrosexuality is natural, though this may not reflect the bigger picture. What we consider to be scientic evolutionary fact maybe more complicated. And gay guys provide less competition for us with the ladies..Damn their camp 70s disco music and obssession with fitness.
Much of human survival is based our social relations. It might come down to genes, but what practices allow a given person the ability to live longer, to survive, in order to pass on those genes? For humans, it's culture (our main means of adaptation, e.g., when it gets cold, we put on clothes we don't grow fur!) and especially our social relations, creating 'cliques' that protect us against other animals in our group that might beat us up (dominance) and provide a safety net for information about dangers in the environment. One argument for the origin of language, for instance, is that it replaced grooming. You know how chimps sit and pick through each others' fur for lice? That creates and demonstrates social relationships. But you can only groom one animal at a time. With speech, we can verbally 'groom' each other, and 'groom' more people at a time. It phenomenally expands our social networks, and thus our opportunities for survival and passing on our genes (see Dunbar, below).
OK, given that, let's move on to homosexuality. Another way that primates create and maintain social relationships is through sex or other forms of erotic behavior. It also builds bonds -- at least in smaller societies (not like in a big city where people can and do have anonymous sex). We can observe this in primate society alot, particularly among the Bonobo chimps. Sex serves important social functions. Those bonds are not just between males and females or the purpose of procreating. Sharing sex demonstrate friendly intent. So sex can also be a means of creating allies -- and that can be same sex as well as opposite sex. What does a male, for instance, gain from sex from a male? An ally.
IF, as with bonobos and many humans, most are not exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, then the act of having same-sex relations does not prevent that individual from procreating because they also have heterosexual sex. But it means that that individual has male friends that will protect him in cases of danger.
OR, if you have an individual that is exclusively homosexual, it does not preclude passing on his genes because that individual has brothers and sisters who have about the same genetic structure as him. Those brothers and sisters do procreate, and he is the uncle who brings them food, protects the little ones, etc. So, he HAS helped to pass on the family genes.
The nature of your question assumes that all outcomes are superior to earlier ones and that everything in the world is the result of a battle to survive and multiply. As we know very little about plants, insects, birds, fish, etc. it (Drawinism) is a useful theory, but it does not explain human nature - our urges, our tendencies to be intellectual in arts, our choice in entertainments, in deed it does not explain the human world.
(It also does not explain why millions of very different species of lifeform coexist on a planet with 2-10 climate zones and 2-5 soil types and with deadly bacteria, .)
Evolution theory does not explain why things often go backward, the rise of obesity & malnutrituion, company reforms that make things worse for the company, the loss of experience & knowledge, and the arbitrary scattering of war zones and peaceful countries around the world.
Changes are often or generally/usually context dependant rather than evolution-related, and gayness is just as unexplainable today as are the myriad of sex fantasies we all share.
In chimp culture, only the alpha male and a few chosen lieutenants get to pass on genetic material. Ah, but who gets to be Alpha male? The homosexuality in chimps is not only there as a means to establish dominance, it is there to help forms bonds and alliances. If chimp D is never going to be an alpha male, but makes alliances with Chimp A through grooming and more overt homosexual behavior, chimp D may get a chance to pass on his genes.
A gene that conveys fitness to one sex may be detrimental to another. This is a popular theory of homosexuality, based on the variance of gene expression by sex in humans. There are others, but I think this one is simplest in explanatory power.
By reading the above answers and information from othes media . i think everthing is evolving on earth leaded and managed (or mismanaged) by human for thousands of years. Right now the homosexuality is comfortabily fitting in our social life everywhere on the earth. And it will evolve in style over the years . and it would not be an issue.
Well to come out these days you need to be pretty confident and be used to defending yourself, so that makes you strong I suppose . and homosexuals do pass on genetic traits - they have children
actually it doesnt but youre talking about humans and human evolution doesnt follow strict natural guidelines like it does with plants and animals. youre right to say gay men dont obey darwin but humans are the only species that allow for this. in the wild a gay animal would be alone and die alone and not breed but gay men still have families, just not their owvn.
the church is anti-gay but only on religious grounds and i wonder would the church embrace science just this once to justify their stance? maybe not.
There's always the argument that in the past homosexuals have been forced into heterosexual partnerships and parenthood, conserving the 'gay gene'.
I'm not convinced by that, and I don't think homosexuality is entirely determined by genetics. I'll buy that there might be a genetic component, but I'm sure there are more complex environmental components too.
As far as explaining how any genetic component could be preserved, I'd tend to favour the explanation that many people are neither exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, and pass on their genes. I'd also tentatively be inerested in the idea that homosexuals add to the fitness of their siblings so the putative gene is conserved through inclusive fitness.
The evolutionary model shows that if an individual member of a species survives to maturity so that it reproduces it's genes, those genes along with everything they encode in the individual and that species will survive.
The creation model shows that male and female members of a species sexually unite to reproduce. This is why "God created them male and female", according to Genesis.
In either case, homosexuality does not comfortably fit. Without medical intervention, or a relaxation of the homosexual moral code, their genes cannot be passed on and they cannot reproduce.
This would seem to suggest that homosexuality (not homosexuals themselves) is at best an evolutionary mistake, at worst scripturally immoral conduct. Honestly, I cannot think of how homosexuality would fit with evolution or creation, but I would be interested to find out what other people think.
I am not gay-bashing. You have a right to be be treated with utmost civility and respect, whatever lifestyle choices you make.
If 13 cows were talking to 6 dancing sheep and 9 of them were hamsters, how many chips are snow boarding?
Whats the best way to lose a few pounds when you dont want to go gym?
Anybody sympathise with me on this one?
Why do we need leap years (they occour once every 4 years normally) and what is the diffrence between the ye.?
Why don't people try to break with conformity and follow a life that is different not based on social status.
If you don't have children, what is your routine when you get in from work (State your country)?
What's the most Pyscho thing you have ever done?
how do we.?
Answers:
Well it doesn't of course. But then much of human behaviour doesn't. We keep people with illnesses alive, we support and nurture the disabled, we make places in our society for people who contribute little or nothing.
That's because human society is geared to allowing everyone to achieve their potential, to odd concepts such as 'wealth' or 'nation' or to activities such as exploration or leisure. In other words, humans have largely developed beyond 'survival of the fittest' and have created societies which place importance on more than mere biological factors.
Who knows, it might be the death of us all in the end. But for the time being, while homosexuals can contribute just as much as anyone else to what society considers important, 'survival of the fittest' is as largely irrelevant to them as it is to the rest of the human race.
I think it should be fairly obvious that as homosexuals do not pass their genetic material to the next generation, homosexuality does not fit with survivial of the fittest.
Great question. My guess is that it is a mutation, but not mutated enough to be fatal.
There's no proof, but anything that keeps an animal alive long enough to breed will tend to survive as a trait. Think dominant vs submissive males, and maybe you'll get at least one way of seeing it.
(and bear in mind, it doesn't have to have arisen in humans - it could be a much older survival tactic).
china will be a great example in the next 2 generations, as the percentage of women has dropped (due to child culling - they all want boys), and this will really affect their national status in the next few decades
In most animal species homosexual activity is a form of extablishing dominance by the Alpha or dominant male of a group. It is used in most Canine species, in birds, in other primates and even to a lesser extent in big cats. It is a way for the dominant male to show that they are the stronger and that the other males are not suitable choices as mates or for breeding. This was a way to keep weaker, inferior males from passing on their genetic material, they keeping the species strong.
it Don't....have a Great Day
It's natures way of removing flaws in the species.
Well, I've seen many gay guys who are VERY fit!!
The nature of your question assumes that at some point the human race will evolve to the pinnacle of it's fitness.
Homosexuality may be considered a taboo topic in today's society, but homosexuality in the animal kingdom has always been. As for survival of the fittest [& without "queer-bashing"], the only way I can see that it would fit in is given that homosexuality is considered a deviation & that homosexual couples cannot reproduce together, it cancels out that gene or characteristic. On the other hand, given that these couples cannot reproduce together the "survival of the fittest" mechanism maybe that they donot contribute to over population. I really don't think that there is a sensitive answer to this question, or a true/right answer. & I really don't see why there still needs to be the labels of homosexual/hetrosexual, a couple who loves each other is a couple in love. That is a great thing.
I guess homosexuality as a preference doesn't necessarily prevent people from procreating. Plenty of gay men and women have children these days.
I don't think that being a homosexual means you are not fit. Many hetero or bisexuals are so unfit they wouldn't be able to survive in the wild.BUT I think it's more like nature's way of protecting the Earth from over-population. Nature makes some men/women homosexual who will then not mate and produce offsprings (well, that's the original idea but then again, there's IVF treatment these days etc.). I don't think it is genetic either so it's not something nature would want to get rid of.
It is against survival and..
Scientificaly polution and stress as a result of competition because of over-population cause a change in genetic composition on animals and concerning the human animal nobody dares research or question they say its there human right full-stop
Future advancements in cloning can allow to clone a baby by using both partners chromosomes.
Survival of the fittest and evolution is just a way to eliminate the need for God. If you believe in evolution wasn't Hitler just pressing fast forward on this natural process? Why should we fault him for that?
Some non-Western cultures, particularly some tribal cultures, as well as some ancient cultures, include periods of homosexuality as part of a normal life.
In ancient Greece, pedastry was practiced by some men. A man would adopt a young boy just entering puberty and have a homosexual relationship with him. The boy would be learning sexual skills, relationship skills etc. during this time. When the boy became an adult, his older partner would then be influencial in helping to choose a wife for him. In that scenario, the homosexual relationship led to patronage by a more powerful member of society as well as the acquisition of useful skills.
In some tribal societies, high levels of homosexuality can be observed in the pubescent and young adult populations, with heterosexuality emerging in later years of life. While the logical conclusion is that those transiently homosexual people would be less successful (fewer years in a potentially reproductive relationship), it is actually seen that they subsequently form more stable relationships with the opposite sex than do their peers who remained entirely heterosexual.
The transiently homosexuals are observed to have better communication and relationship skills than their entirely heterosexual peers. It is thought that the homosexual relationships during youth allow a chance to develop such important skills without the pressure of offspring resulting.
In a species like H. sapiens where few offspring are born, it is important that one chooses the best mate possible with which to produce offspring. Having sub-optimal offspring decreases the chance of the baby surviving, so is a waste of effort for the parent if it doesn't survive. Therefore, one wants the best quality mate. but if socially and physically immature, it's likely that the mate will be taken by a stronger member of society (possibly injuring the individual in a mating fight), or the relationship will break down before the child is successfully raised.
Therefore, having a homosexual period in life allows further physical development (a 20-something is better equiped physically than a teenager just entering their teens) and a chance to develop important social skills.
If you go by the biopyschosocial model (I'm not certain that it's true, but it certainly creates a good thought mode), evolutionarily, same-sex pairing off creates nonreproductive couples that do not add to the population burden, but support the existing population through labor. The redirection of reproductive drive is a population control, and the industry of same-sex couples adds to the fitness of their nieces and nephews. The couples get the benefits of intimacy and bonding that have been demonstrated to prolong life and improve health.
The hypothesis does not fully explain the behavior, and Man tends towards polygamy, as any other primate where dimorphism produces larger males. Alpha males and harems do not fit this model, and there is no evidence that monogamous drive is coupled to this behavior.
If anything, it suggests that homosexuality is not genetic in nature. Since homosexuality does not pass down from generation to generation, it has no effect on the gene pool.
Since homosexuality is not a genetic trait that can be passed to kids, it doesn't really deal with survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest deals with traits that can be passed on to offspring.
This made me cringe when I re-read it, and the spell check function stopped working. Hope this helps, at least to some extent.
1. Homosexuality maybe a natural state
It seems that animals have practised all types of sexual behaviour that we would consider deviant. Including what we would define as homosexuality. This would suggest that homosexuality is more natural that most people would realize and perhaps it is repressed in some human societies and cultures for a variety of different reasons. In the West, particularly, cultural and religious values such as Christianity have discouraged homosexual conduct. This may have been due to homosexuality being viewed as malproductive behaviour for any number of reasons by the early Semites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_ani.
2. Homosexuality is part of a wider pleasure seeking experience.
It maybe that homosexuality is not natural as outlined above. But a gentic kickback from the animal kingdom to create pleasure. Suggesting that there is an instinct to seek sexual arousal and satisfaction - instead of one instinct to solely reproduce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/animal_homo.
3. Diversity
Firstly, Darwinism aims to create as much diversity in any given species to ensure at least some of the species would survive due to illness or external catastrophies. It maybe that homosexuality maybe a Darwinian way to create as much diversity in society - sexual diversity.
4. The Darwinian Concept of 'Survival of the Fittest' may not be completely right
So the idea, that the strogest survive, or there is an instinct to procreate maybe wrong. There maybe an instinct to seek pleasure sexually and procreation is a big part of this, and that the 'strongest' animal of that species, just may seem to have a better opportunity to do this. However this is not always the case as there are many species that mimic female behaviour to successfully reproduce, not necessarily being the strongest at all, but the most successful in their species.
As a hetrosexual male, it seems to me hetrosexuality is natural, though this may not reflect the bigger picture. What we consider to be scientic evolutionary fact maybe more complicated. And gay guys provide less competition for us with the ladies..Damn their camp 70s disco music and obssession with fitness.
Much of human survival is based our social relations. It might come down to genes, but what practices allow a given person the ability to live longer, to survive, in order to pass on those genes? For humans, it's culture (our main means of adaptation, e.g., when it gets cold, we put on clothes we don't grow fur!) and especially our social relations, creating 'cliques' that protect us against other animals in our group that might beat us up (dominance) and provide a safety net for information about dangers in the environment. One argument for the origin of language, for instance, is that it replaced grooming. You know how chimps sit and pick through each others' fur for lice? That creates and demonstrates social relationships. But you can only groom one animal at a time. With speech, we can verbally 'groom' each other, and 'groom' more people at a time. It phenomenally expands our social networks, and thus our opportunities for survival and passing on our genes (see Dunbar, below).
OK, given that, let's move on to homosexuality. Another way that primates create and maintain social relationships is through sex or other forms of erotic behavior. It also builds bonds -- at least in smaller societies (not like in a big city where people can and do have anonymous sex). We can observe this in primate society alot, particularly among the Bonobo chimps. Sex serves important social functions. Those bonds are not just between males and females or the purpose of procreating. Sharing sex demonstrate friendly intent. So sex can also be a means of creating allies -- and that can be same sex as well as opposite sex. What does a male, for instance, gain from sex from a male? An ally.
IF, as with bonobos and many humans, most are not exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, then the act of having same-sex relations does not prevent that individual from procreating because they also have heterosexual sex. But it means that that individual has male friends that will protect him in cases of danger.
OR, if you have an individual that is exclusively homosexual, it does not preclude passing on his genes because that individual has brothers and sisters who have about the same genetic structure as him. Those brothers and sisters do procreate, and he is the uncle who brings them food, protects the little ones, etc. So, he HAS helped to pass on the family genes.
The nature of your question assumes that all outcomes are superior to earlier ones and that everything in the world is the result of a battle to survive and multiply. As we know very little about plants, insects, birds, fish, etc. it (Drawinism) is a useful theory, but it does not explain human nature - our urges, our tendencies to be intellectual in arts, our choice in entertainments, in deed it does not explain the human world.
(It also does not explain why millions of very different species of lifeform coexist on a planet with 2-10 climate zones and 2-5 soil types and with deadly bacteria, .)
Evolution theory does not explain why things often go backward, the rise of obesity & malnutrituion, company reforms that make things worse for the company, the loss of experience & knowledge, and the arbitrary scattering of war zones and peaceful countries around the world.
Changes are often or generally/usually context dependant rather than evolution-related, and gayness is just as unexplainable today as are the myriad of sex fantasies we all share.
In chimp culture, only the alpha male and a few chosen lieutenants get to pass on genetic material. Ah, but who gets to be Alpha male? The homosexuality in chimps is not only there as a means to establish dominance, it is there to help forms bonds and alliances. If chimp D is never going to be an alpha male, but makes alliances with Chimp A through grooming and more overt homosexual behavior, chimp D may get a chance to pass on his genes.
A gene that conveys fitness to one sex may be detrimental to another. This is a popular theory of homosexuality, based on the variance of gene expression by sex in humans. There are others, but I think this one is simplest in explanatory power.
By reading the above answers and information from othes media . i think everthing is evolving on earth leaded and managed (or mismanaged) by human for thousands of years. Right now the homosexuality is comfortabily fitting in our social life everywhere on the earth. And it will evolve in style over the years . and it would not be an issue.
Well to come out these days you need to be pretty confident and be used to defending yourself, so that makes you strong I suppose . and homosexuals do pass on genetic traits - they have children
actually it doesnt but youre talking about humans and human evolution doesnt follow strict natural guidelines like it does with plants and animals. youre right to say gay men dont obey darwin but humans are the only species that allow for this. in the wild a gay animal would be alone and die alone and not breed but gay men still have families, just not their owvn.
the church is anti-gay but only on religious grounds and i wonder would the church embrace science just this once to justify their stance? maybe not.
There's always the argument that in the past homosexuals have been forced into heterosexual partnerships and parenthood, conserving the 'gay gene'.
I'm not convinced by that, and I don't think homosexuality is entirely determined by genetics. I'll buy that there might be a genetic component, but I'm sure there are more complex environmental components too.
As far as explaining how any genetic component could be preserved, I'd tend to favour the explanation that many people are neither exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, and pass on their genes. I'd also tentatively be inerested in the idea that homosexuals add to the fitness of their siblings so the putative gene is conserved through inclusive fitness.
The evolutionary model shows that if an individual member of a species survives to maturity so that it reproduces it's genes, those genes along with everything they encode in the individual and that species will survive.
The creation model shows that male and female members of a species sexually unite to reproduce. This is why "God created them male and female", according to Genesis.
In either case, homosexuality does not comfortably fit. Without medical intervention, or a relaxation of the homosexual moral code, their genes cannot be passed on and they cannot reproduce.
This would seem to suggest that homosexuality (not homosexuals themselves) is at best an evolutionary mistake, at worst scripturally immoral conduct. Honestly, I cannot think of how homosexuality would fit with evolution or creation, but I would be interested to find out what other people think.
I am not gay-bashing. You have a right to be be treated with utmost civility and respect, whatever lifestyle choices you make.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.