[csense]

Fitness applies to species (or other groupings), not individuals.

If fitness is correlated with survival and reproduction, then how can it not apply to individuals. It seems to me, this would be it's primary concern.

Ants and bees seem to do quite well with over 99% of the individuals being sterile.

Your analogy might have some bearing on the conversation if it was also the case that in human populations, one percent gave birth to the other ninety nine.

Individual homosexuals may not have their genes passed on but that has no more bearing on human evolution than the failure of many heterosexuals to bear children.

Well, I obviously disagree.

[furball4paws]

"If fitness is correlated with survival and reproduction, then how can it not apply to individuals. It seems to me, this would be it's primary concern. "

A simple thought experiment: If you are the fittest possum ever and you choose to cross the highway during rush hour - what are you? ROADKILL

But if there's a subpopulation just like you, eventually all possums will be like you.

Sweet Dreams :-)

[Dimensio]

Well, I obviously disagree.

Why? Please provide an explanation based in genetics that supports your assertion. Every time I hear this line of reasoning from a creationist I have to wonder if they even are aware of concepts as basic as "recessive genes".

And does this line of reasoning mean that you accept that homosexuality is purely genetic?

[Elsie]

If fitness is correlated with survival and reproduction, then how can it not apply to individuals. It seems to me, this would be it's primary concern.

Evolution is concerned only with the masses.

It matters not how wonderfully better an offspring is, if is unable to "pass on it's genes".