- NEW!
Help answer this question below.
So far as I am aware, there is not a direct evolutionary purpose. But the prevalence of homosexuality across the animal kingdom suggests that that it is probably a side-effect of something which does have a a purpose.
Contrary to appearances, studies have shown that families which include homosexuals do not produce less offspring at the next generation than those without. It would appear that, both in humans and animals, nurturing aunts and uncles can improve the chances of their (genetically related) nephews and nieces. Pairs of male geese have been shown to raise more goslings than heterosexual pairs (they "steal" the first clutch, leaving the heterosexuals free to raise another clutch).
It therefore appears that a moderate level of homosexuality is not genetically harmful, and if the genes that hypothetically cause it persist, they probably have some advantage. On can say, empirically, that if homosexuality were unequivocally bad, then evolution would have filtered it out. The fact that it has not shows that it must be, at worst, neutral.
I don't know. But I do know that, generally speaking, they are kind, compassionate, artistic, creative people. So perhaps their purpose is to entrich mankind.
Some theorize that there is, citing overpopulation as the primary reason. I've no opinion on it one way or the other until I can research it further. +5
Does there NEED to be?
+5
Yes. Homosexuality in males serves the function of increasing the reproductive success of their mitochondria. There is no benefit to the mitochondria for resources to be wasted on the males since their DNA passes down only through the female line. A 'male killer' gene in the mitochondria may make the males infertile for some reason, prompting them to help the survival and reproduction of their sisters. This should be fairly common in any animal species and also plants with regards to their chloroplasts. Plants with this will have their male parts withered.
This may explain things like the higher death rate of male embryos and maybe even baldness.
no its sick
Homosexuals can be highly interesting and creative personalities, so they are certainly useful to the evolution of human as a whole.
In that other answer of mine you can read an explanation of the fact that evolution did not make homosexual behavior disappear:
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/8333194
yes you go from masturbation to shagging A.se
Now there is a thought.
good question.
What is the definition of an inherited trait?
by Answerbag Staff on December 3rd, 2009
| 1 person likes this
Is stupidity ever an inherited trait? If so, would that indicate that some races are less intelligent than others?
by Random on June 22nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Do you find Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection Absurd? (Note: He himself found that his own theory seemed absurd to begin with.)
by Carlos.Flores on June 13th, 2011
| 2 people like this
Does someone need to be a "tool" to properly identify and use tools? What does "being a tool" mean?
by genericdust on September 26th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Do you believe in eugenics and social darwinism? Why or why not?
by Anonymous on October 14th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Is there an evolutionary purpose for homsexuals?
Comments
Oh, so close.
by Anonymous on November 21st, 2009
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html
.
It's a very long(45 page) paper which basically states. That women who are more fertile than normal may end up overloading the populace with one common set of DNA. To keep this down, families with fertile women tend to have gay children, and that auto-corrects that possible imbalance. No way did I do it justice here, but it's a very interesting read.
by ConservativelyLiberal on June 8th, 2010