Homosexuality and evolution

[Hunterpoet]

Thank-you Forrest.

If I may divulge further....

Scientifically, does homosexuality have any benefit to the species

Doubtful, unless the species is overpopulated. However, assuming there is a genetic predisposition for it, its not the only trait present in man that is not beneficial to us. For example, we crave sweets and salts. Those were in short supply on the African Savanna and thus those cravings were beneficial. However, they are not beneficial at all to us since we transitioned to a agricultural society around 10,000 years ago. Our feet, in fact, our entire muscular skeletal system is designed for running, much more so than most species. Thats a trait that was very beneficial to humans while we were hunter gatherers on the Savanna, yet is not nearly as beneficial today (it doesn't hurt, its just under utilized).

Basically, we spent around 200,000 years as hunter gatherers, and only 10,000 years or so growing our food rather than always having to hunt for it. We have yet to evolve sufficiently to this change in lifestyle, and are still largely programed genetically to be hunter gatherers. Thus our food cravings, how our body repairs itself, our activity needs and so on are not from an evolution standpoint adapted to our current habitat, diet, and lifestyle. This puts us at a disadvantage currently. One only has to look at the propensity of diabetes, obesity, and muscular / skeletal problems that we as a species are plagued with to see that.

A couple questions.

Based on your current understanding, what changes do you see in human physiology and anatomy once we have properly evolved to our current environment.

Specifically, what musculoskeletal problems do you feel are a result of our hunter gatherer anatomy in our present environment.

Those are questions better posed to a biologist or geneticist. However, given enough time as in tens of thousands of years or so, our bodies would probably adapt to our more sedentary lifestyle. The human body is fairly exceptional in the animal world in our capacity to run long distances. Our muscular / skeletal system is a just built for it. When you run in a natural motion, impacts hit the balls of your feet and are ultimately absorbed by your calves rather than your hips and knees as is the case for apes and many other animals. We are also able to cool ourselves far better than most warm blooded animals. For example, I can take my springer spaniel out with me on a 90 degree evening for a run, and after a couple of miles he is overheated while I am capable of continuing on for several more miles. We are capable of feats that few other animals are capable of. A couple of years ago 3 ultra-runners ran over 4300 miles across the Sahara averaging over 40 miles a day. That is longer than any migration for any large terrestrial mammal on earth.

Something else that is kind of interesting is that a study was done a few years ago where people were asked to describe what they would consider to be the perfect home place for them if they could build anywhere they wanted. By far the most common answer was a home on a hill, with a larger hill or mountain behind them, a close source of water, and overlooking a broad plane that was neither completely forested or grassland, but rather was a combination of grassland and widely spaced trees. Basically, what they were describing without knowing it was the African Savanna, and the choice dwelling locations for our ancestors.

There is also a theory that people with ADD are simply retaining more of the sensory / perception traits humans had while still primarily hunters. Its called the Hunter / Farmer theory.

Still curious as to the specific musculoskeletal problems that exist today due to our nomadic roots and modern life style. Can you name a specific condition?

While the gaunlet run is noteworthy, I don't believe it applicable. Those individuals trained for that event for a lengthy time and were accompanied by an entourage of support. It took them at least 107 days to complete their trek. Perhaps a more applicable event would be the long force marches( many exceeding 40 miles per day) performed by huge military units, and these individuals would have not had specific training. Also of interest would be all the musculoskeletal injuries from said marches, which I'm confident occurred. The human skeleton is built for movement, to include running, but not abuse. In an individual weighing 200 to 250lbs, forces as high as 10,000ppsi are transmitted across the hip joint during normal gait, depending on the surface walked upon. Knees and ankles are very susceptible to injury in individuals poorly trained and conditioned. I doubt that the nomadic people of the savanna conditioned themselves to run 40 miles a day, nor would they find a need to do so. Furthermore, animals and nomadic peoples are more conditioned to energy conservation than out right running, this is noted by LaRue in his 25 year study of the North American White tail Deer. You cannot afford to spend more energy than you are able to acquire.

Thomas Hartmann developed the hypothesis of the hunter vs farmer after his son was diagnosed with ADHD. I quote Hartmann, " it is not hard science, never intended to be ". Hartmann identified poor planning, organizational inability and avoiding social norms as hallmark symptoms. The Center for Disease Control lists the following symptoms, trouble paying attention, inability controlling impulsive behavior, acting without thinking of the consequences and in some cases overly active, ie, unable to sit still.

Not one of these symptoms described by Hartmann or the CDC would ensure a successful hunt, as a matter of fact, quite the contrary. I'am a seasoned hunter and can assure you that none of the traits ascribed to ADHD or ADD would be of any benefit while on the hunt.

I find the study you site comparing the " dream home" of modern man to the Savanna inconclusive. Who ever participated in the study was looking for asthetics, assured of a environment controlled structure with indoor plumbing. More noteworthy would have been the distance of the nearest 7/11 from their " dream home".

I doubt anyone described a swamp or wasteland for their " dream home ".

The human body is a remarkable machine, engineered by a remarkable creator, and it would seem to me that mankind has found all sorts of ways to use it and abuse it beyond it's physiological limits.

[Believer1997]

Well... based on the fact that the world's population continues to grow... I just do not think that homosexuality will have a thing to do with the downfall of the species. There are many, many, many more heterosexuals and they all seem to be thriving very nicely indeed. Now, I may be off base here, but I just do not see procreation going out of "style". I think we're all going to be just fine - Thank God.

[nebula]

I just do not think that homosexuality will have a thing to do with the downfall of the species.

Well, since this topic has veered off track from what I was driving at, now is as good a time as any to divulge what I was thinking.

I was contemplating Miss California's response to her question on homosexual marriage, and I was thinking, "How would I have answered?"

For some reason I thought something like:

"Same-sex unity is the one place where evolution and religion agree - a population of homosexuals leads to the downfall of the species."

I'm sure there are other, maybe better, ways of wording this, but that was the gist. (Translation: if anyone wants to nit-pick what I was thinking, please address the "spirit" of the response, no the "letter.")

So, I posted my question to see if any evolutionists would disagree that homosexual prevalence to a population would lead to a decline in the species to the point where they could no longer survive.

[Guest HIS girl]

'nebula'

However, we have to be careful about comparing ourselves to the animal population this way. Some animals in an overpopulated situation will begin eating their young. Not even China has advocated baby cannibalism.

Neb, sorry but this comment comes across as racist - I know you didn't intend that -

Cannabilism has been and still is prevalent in the world regardless of race or even overpopulation.

A state of mental instability also drives people to eat another human being.

[nebula]

Sorry, HS - I was thinking "China" in terms of a nation that is considered overpopulated. How would you have explained it?

[Guest HIS girl]

Sorry, HS - I was thinking "China" in terms of a nation that is considered overpopulated. How would you have explained it?

I know where you were coming from . It's all good.

[Believer1997]

I just do not think that homosexuality will have a thing to do with the downfall of the species.

Well, since this topic has veered off track from what I was driving at, now is as good a time as any to divulge what I was thinking.

I was contemplating Miss California's response to her question on homosexual marriage, and I was thinking, "How would I have answered?"

For some reason I thought something like:

"Same-sex unity is the one place where evolution and religion agree - a population of homosexuals leads to the downfall of the species."

I'm sure there are other, maybe better, ways of wording this, but that was the gist. (Translation: if anyone wants to nit-pick what I was thinking, please address the "spirit" of the response, no the "letter.")

So, I posted my question to see if any evolutionists would disagree that homosexual prevalence to a population would lead to a decline in the species to the point where they could no longer survive.

Well... if indeed there were a prevalence to homosexuality - I'm sure there would be some decline... although they would probably still procreate - don't you think? I don't know....

[Gauntlet]

How could homosexuals procreate among themselves without eventually turning into heterosexuals?

[Believer1997]

How could homosexuals procreate among themselves without eventually turning into heterosexuals?

Not being an expert... but having a few sex ed. classes under my belt Homosexuals of DIFFERENT sexes can and do procreate among themselves in order to satisfy their desire to have children.... it will be a couple of generations before we see a proclivity for those children to migrate toward heterosexuality or not... I think there is a whole school of thought on nature or nurture and we'll have to see if those kids adopt hetero sexual ways or not. Don't see why they won't ...

[forrestkc]

I just do not think that homosexuality will have a thing to do with the downfall of the species.

Well, since this topic has veered off track from what I was driving at, now is as good a time as any to divulge what I was thinking.

I was contemplating Miss California's response to her question on homosexual marriage, and I was thinking, "How would I have answered?"

For some reason I thought something like:

"Same-sex unity is the one place where evolution and religion agree - a population of homosexuals leads to the downfall of the species."

You are adding about 40 IQ points to Miss California to her an answer like that.