Replies

My math point was aimed at that narrow issue. However, you cannot say "look at large populations" without considering how it spread so largely to begin with. Few recessive traits cannot be directly kept alive by the reproduction of those who posses the trait and therefore MUST pass the gene on. Type O blood is an example. It is both recessive and the most common blood type. But if O people could not reproduce it would become more rare with time, whether the population is small or large.

Here is something on evolution. The theory of evolution claims that genes that aid the growth of the species are favored while those that don't do not survive. Any genetic trait that renders the species infertile should die, according to that theory (again, nothing about the physical state of the human species suggests that it is "normal" for them to mate as same-sex couples - homosexuality is based solely on desire/psychology/emotion/etc) Homosexuality as a human trait is not just a gene variation, it is a species ending variation:

How Evolution Works

Mutations are accidents in reproduction. The only place where such mutations can occur is in the production of the haploid cells (cells with a single set of chromosomes) in the sperm and egg, or in the joining of the two in conception. A reproduction accident anywhere else in the body will affect only the cell that suffers the accident. Such accidents will not be added into the gene pool and thus are not mutations. In such an accident, the sick cell is quickly replaced by a well one and the incident is over. Yet when such an accident occurs in the sperm or egg, it will appear in every cell in the offspring. This mutation then has a 50% chance of occurring in each grandchild. If the recipient of the mutation has several children, the odds are that the mutation will join the species gene pool by way of one or more of his children.

Natural selection then determines the fate of the mutation in the species gene pool. The test is not survivability or excellence. The test is in species population growth. If the mutation aids the growth of the species population then it is successful and will remain in the gene pool. If it does not, natural selection will remove it from the gene pool (through death and hardship).

Here are a few examples concerning man and evolution to help gain understanding of the way evolution works. The effects shown are not necessarily caused by genetics, but evolution treats all conditions as if they were. Note that natural selection acts as if all genes are involved in the success or failure of the individual. Each case that reduces the expected offspring is considered a vote against each gene in the genome. Each case that equals or exceeds the expected offspring is considered a vote for each gene in the genome. The mixing of genes in recombination allow individual allele selection over the long period of time.

Effect1: The new gene shortens the life to 35 years. Natural selection would not see this defect as detrimental since the children will be old enough to fend for themselves by that time.

Effect2: The parent has too many children. If so many children were born that the resulting death or misery rate reduced the number of the children who had children, evolution would see this as detrimental. If society takes care of his children for him they will be healthy enough to raise more children and evolution would judge the condition as beneficial

Effect3: The parent does not take good care of his children. If society does not interfere by taking care of the children for him, the suffering children are less likely to raise children of their own and evolution would judge that the condition is detrimental. If society cares for his children, evolution will judge the condition beneficial.

Effect4: The new gene lengthens life to 150 years. Evolution will not see this change as beneficial. Neither will it see later mutations that degrade it as detrimental, until the life expectancy gets so low that it affects child bearing and raising.

Effect5: The man is a murderer of children. His murder of someone else's children will affect the evaluation of the genes of their parents adversely. If the murderer has sufficient children of his own, evolution will not see anything detrimental in his lineage.

Effect6: The man is cruel and vicious with his wife. As long as he does not kill her or otherwise render her unable to care for her children, evolution will see no harm. Even if he kills her and society takes over the raising of his children, evolution will still see no harm

Effect7: The man dies of an accident before he has children. Natural selection will see this death as detrimental

Effect8: A young lady decides not to marry and have children. Natural selection will see this as detrimental.

Effect9: A man decides to adopt children instead of having his own. Natural selection will vote for the genes of the natural parents of the children and vote against the adoptive parent's gene set.

A great difference clearly exists between the goals of evolution and those of a compassionate culture. We are built one way, but we want to be another way. Luckily there is a large overlap where both evolution and man desire the same thing. Unfortunately, where we differ the choices are all quite painful