[Dems_R_Losers]

I have two questions for these liberals:

1. How could evolution and natural selection produce homosexuals who cannot propagate the species?

2. Isn't natural selection among humans perverted by 50 million abortions?

[donh]

1. How could evolution and natural selection produce homosexuals who cannot propagate the species?

How come evolution and natural selection produces grandparents, who are well beyond their breeding years, but are hanging around sucking up resources their grandchildren could use?

2. Isn't natural selection among humans perverted by 50 million abortions?

Yes...it is "perverted" by favoring the existence of wanted offspring of intact, two-parent homes where new babies do not represent a significant added economic burden. Sounds pretty awful, doesn't it?

[Dimensio]

1. How could evolution and natural selection produce homosexuals who cannot propagate the species?

Well, to even assume that this could be a problem for the theory of evolution would suggest that you already accept that homosexuality has a genetic component. However, it's entirely possible for a genetic trait that inhibits reproduction to exist within a species if that trait is the result of a combination of different genes working together or if the trait is recessive. Moreover, homosexuality could be a phenotype, requiring environmental conditions to actually bring forth the trait already present within the genes. Finally, homosexuals are typically physically capable of reproducing -- there is no higher sterility rate in homosexuals than there are in heterosexuals. There are documented cases of homosexuals reproducing.

2. Isn't natural selection among humans perverted by 50 million abortions?

No. Natural selection occurs so long as reproduction occurs within a population, even if some percentage of the population terminates their pregnancies.

[RunningWolf]

Good point, especially #2

Wolf

[Virginia-American]

1. How could evolution and natural selection produce homosexuals who cannot propagate the species?

I know at least three gay men with children.

Also, if some particular combination of genes makes men more susceptible to homosexuality, and if having unattached men around promotes the survival of a group (which carries the genes which combined), then homosexuality wouldn't contradict the facts of biology. (I emphasized the "if"s because I don't have a clue whether or not that's the case.)