Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Rick Warren on sex and evolution:

From his December 2005 interview on Larry King: (emp add)
WARREN: Well, again, I would just say I think to me the issue is, is [being homosexual] natural? Is it the natural thing? I mean here's an interesting thing I have to ask. How can you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and homosexuality at the same time? Now think about this.

If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool.
That, of course, is invalid reasoning. There are lots of reasons why a species may contain the potential for homosexuality (or "non reproducibility") within the genes.

One possibility is that during periods of overpopulation and food scarcity, a number of non-reproducing offspring are born. In a generation, that would result in a greater food-to-animal ratio and increased survivability of the species. Studies of mice have been revealing. In situations where there is significant overpopulation, researchers discovered that there were noticing (often for the first time), male-on-male sex.

Or sometimes a fraction of the population is simply non-reproducing but helping the rest of the group with their offspring. This is often seen in bird species where all sorts of arrangements are found.

Ten years ago there was a documentary (The Life of Birds, especially episode 9, "The Problems of Parenthood") by David Attenborough that showed some remarkable situations: birds kidnapping a newborn, two males and one female (but only one male mates). Attenborough's point was that there can be many modes for survival and species success. One male and one female can work, and is the preferred arrangement for isolated, non-social animals. But where there a species exists in groups, many other situations can prevail.

Warren speaks of science like a tenth grader. Knows a little, but not enough.


Ask Ted Haggard if homosexuals can reproduce.

According to Warren's theory, there would also be no genetic causes for infertility.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/24/2008 5:01 AM  

Your theory isn't one that I've heard before, and on its face, it doesn't really make sense (though it makes a lot more sense than Warren's). Even in your scenario, the non-reproducing genes would be less likely to survive.

Another theory which I *have* heard is that the genes for male homosexuality are linked to larger family size in heterosexual women.

In other words, if a woman gets the gene, she passes it on to many children, but if a man gets the gene, he's much less likely to, which actually would explain why gay genes don't die out.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/24/2008 6:35 AM  

60 Minutes had a segment on male homosexuality a few months ago.

One quite striking claim---the chance of being born (male) gay increases with number of older brothers. First male child: 2%. Every succeeding male child: 2% more.

The scientist in the interview claimed this observation was extremely robust.

The conjecture is that it's the woman reacting to the maleness of the fetus and changing the uterine environment in such a way as to somewhat feminize the brain. (And that her body "remembers" the maleness of past fetuses.)

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/24/2008 8:20 AM  

Anonymous @ 12/24/2008 5:01 AM wrote, Ask Ted Haggard if homosexuals can reproduce.

Yeah, there's always the chance that gayness is adaptive because so many women are fag-hags.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/24/2008 8:22 AM  

Here's a summary of the studies from the BBC. Wraning: it's four years old.

By Anonymous Rockie the Dog, at 12/24/2008 8:53 AM  

I'm 12/24/2008 6:35 AM. Looks like I saw the same study from the BBC article Rockie the Dog mentioned.

The other theory mentioned in that article seems almost Lamarckian, but I can buy it.

I'm still curious about Q's theory. Anyone seen that before?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12/26/2008 9:36 PM  

Post a Comment