Here's why evolution hasn't eliminated homosexuality

[Olowkow]

It isn't implied that male homosexuality must be helpful to the other sex. They only say that "The theory is called "sexually antagonistic selection." It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other."
We don't know that homosexuality is "reproductively harmful" to the male sex. But, if it is (in total), and it's also genetically determined, this is a mechanism whereby it could still be selected for.
It seems interesting to me, and cool that they're trying to test to find out if it actually is the mechanism involved.



Sure, which is why it's worthwhile to continue to test their theory.

No question that the research should be pursued. The distinction between "must be" and "as long as it is" helpful to the other sex is a subtle distinction. So I'm not sure you are disagreeing with me.

 

[Roboramma]

[Shrug] I notice your sig quotes Asimov, speaking outside the field of his degree. Asimov was a biologist, not a physicist, philosopher or astronomer. I think, with certain intellects, a degree is a jumping-off point, not a definition.

Oh, I agree with your point here fully. I was only trying to say that while Sagan was great, he shouldn't be viewed as an authority on biology.
That said, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is still one of my favourite books.

I wonder what a conversation between Asimov and Sagan would have sounded like? Would Sagan, the astronomer, have ignored Asimov, the biologist, as Asimov discussed the Big Bang? Would Asimov have discounted Sagan's thoughts on DNA mutation?

Maybe we should ask Randi. He doesn't have a degree at all, yet knew both men and could hold his own with each.

Well said. I agree with all of the above, and if I implied the converse, well, my fault.

I think, though, that in my post I said more than that sagan wasn't a biologist - I was only pointing that out to suggest that he may have made mistakes. Actually, though, I think that at the time that book was written group selection was more favoured by biologists than it is today, so even there (assuming I'm right ) he can't really be faulted specifically for not being a biologist.

 

[arthwollipot]

One theory of the cause of homosexuality was stressed births. Supposedly the rate went way up for babies born during the bombing of London. Twins, even if separated, would still suffer from the same birth 'stress'- if that theory holds.

Well, one problem I can immediately see with that theory is that children born during the Blitz would have reached their sexual maturity during the sixties - a time when people began to be a lot more open about their sexuality. Anyone who came out during the sixties is likely to have been born around that time.

.
Ask Cheney.

Sure, because he's an authority on biology.