"I think he's talking about us, Bert"
Posted on 06/18/2009 7:42:41 AM PDT by JoeProBono
Homosexual behavior seems pointedly un-Darwinian. An animal that doesn't pass along genes by mating with the opposite sex at every, well, conceivable opportunity, seems to be at an evolutionary disadvantage. So what’s in it for the 450-plus species that go for same-sex sex?
Two evolutionary biologists from University of California, Riverside, set out to answer that question in a paper published today in Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
"It's been observed a lot," says Nathan Bailey, a post-doctoral researcher at U.C. Riverside and lead study author, of same-sex sexual behavior in animals. "But it took people a long time to put it in an evolutionary context."
After studying dozens of published articles on the topic, Bailey and his colleague Marlene Zuk concluded that, in addition to being an adaptational strategy, "these behaviors can be a force," Bailey said. "They create a context in which selection can occur [differently] within a population."
In the Laysan albatross, for example, previous research has shown that a third of all bonded pairs in a Hawaii colony are two females. This behavior helps the birds, whose colony has far more females than males, by allowing them to share parenting responsibilities. It also gives more stability to the offspring of males, already bonded to a female, who mate opportunistically with females in a same-sex couple. Such a dynamic, then may force gradual changes in behavior and even physical appearance of the birds, the authors note.
Other researchers, however, aren't convinced that everything must fit into the evolutionary, adaptive rubric. "You have to think outside of that," says Paul Vasey, who studies Japanese macaque monkeys as an associate professor at the University of Lethbridge in Canada.
Interesting...I didn’t know that
What's in it for the dogs that hump stuffed dolls, furniture, and human legs?
What is the evolutionary "benefit" of j*cking off?
Scientific American has added itself the scrap pile of propaganda posing as useless infotainment.
"I think he's talking about us, Bert"
it eliminates animals that can’t detect the opposit sex. (whether mutation or caused by a shortage of members of the opposit sex)
PING
you are correct, this is POLITICS trying to be a force in real science.
If anything when there is a shortage of the opposite sex, it would probably cull those least likely to reproduce and continue the species into the future. (at least until the next mutation or shortage)
And what about when they engage in interspecies sexual conduct?
Animals also commit rape and incest, we would be best advised to rise above baser animal instincts of sexual desire and procreation.
What about it? I never suggested that these were measures of what should be acceptable for humans. He asked about why the animals do these things and said he thought it was done primarily in the absence of the opposite sex. I merely responded that this was not the case. I’m not sure what you are responding to but it certainly wasn’t an argument that I actually made.
The sex positive agenda seeks to end ALL moral judgments over ALL sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s). Talk of “scientific evidence” for a genetic component et al are just blather to make the medicine go down. Ultimately, sex positive advocates don't care “why”, it's just another excuse to make it palatable, ultimately they don't think ANYTHING should be “off limits”.
My confusion comes from the fact that you appear to be responding to and refuting points I never made, never brought up, and don't personally believe. The only thing I said was that animals have a wide variety of reasons to do the things they do - a statement so vague that it could be read as being in agreement with just about anything.
The constant appeal to the animal world just doesn’t do much for the homosexual movement.
It always comes across as making it look like they’re saying that gays are just like animals.
Do Gay Animals Change Evolution? No, just their dates. Some titles just demand a pun.
ummmm exactly who do you think these "other researchers" ARE that are "thinking outside the evolutionary box" ???
Thanks for sharing your views, dear metmom!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
