I found this article from tweet. It is about research being done in evolutionary psychology to explain how to fit homosexualtiy in with the
theory of evolution. The controversy is over the idea that macro evolution is explained by the idea that all living things do all they can to pass on their genetic information to the next generation. Individuals who have the best advantageous traits pass those traits to next generation. Therefore the question arises about how homosexuality helps humans do that? Here is a quote:
One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the "kin selection hypothesis." What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being "helpers in the nest." By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own.
Two evolutionary psychologists, Paul Vasey and Doug VanderLaan of the University of Lethbridge, Canada tested this idea for the past several years on the Pacific island of Samoa. They chose Samoa because males who prefer men as sexual partners are widely recognized and accepted there as a distinct gender category—called fa'afafine—neither man nor woman. The fa'afafine tend to be effeminate, and exclusively attracted to adult men as sexual partners. This clear demarcation makes it easier to identify a sample for study.
Past research has shown that the fa'afafine are much more altruistically inclined toward their nieces and nephews than either Samoan women or heterosexual men. They are willing to babysit a lot, tutor their nieces and nephews in art and music, and help out financially—paying for medical care and education and so forth. In a new study, the scientists set out to unravel the psychology of the fa'afafine, to see if their altruism is targeted specifically at kin rather than kids in general.
So the idea is that homosexuals could help raise their silblings' children and in doing so make sure that some of their genes get passed to next generation. I've got a few problems with this theory. No one who has children passes on all of their genes...just half of them. And when you have more than one child, there is no guarantee that any two get an identical subset - unless you have identical twins! Therefore any way you cut it quite a lot of genetic information can go missing and if you don't have kids of your own all the genetic information goes missing.This research does not convince me at all that homosexuality gives humanity any reproductive advantage.
The article is definitely not trying to come to the conclusion that homsexuality disproves evolution. it ends thus:
Do these findings have any meaning outside of Samoa? Yes and no. Samoan culture is very different from most Western cultures. Samoan culture is very localized, and centered on tight-knit extended families, whereas Western societies tend to be highly individualistic and homophobic. Families are also much more geographically dispersed in Western cultures, diminishing the role that bachelor uncles can play in the extended family, even if they choose to. But in this sense, the researchers say, Samoa's communitarian culture may be more—not less—representative of the environment in which male same-sex sexuality evolved eons ago. In that sense, it's not the bachelor uncle who is poorly adapted to the world, but rather the modern Western world that has evolved into an unwelcoming place.
The article admits that its not really a tight fit to apply the finding to all of humanity but they are gonna try to shoehorn it anyway! There is nothing wrong with choosing to stay single the problem is that the Bible tells us that it goes hand-in-hand with choosing celibacy. And its not because God wants us to be miserable because He wants us to have the best. This study does not prove that male sexuality evolved eons ago and besides if it really is inherited and if they never procreated then wouldn't that particular mutation never have been passed down to succeeding generations? Lots and lots of holes here.
Study reveals potential evolutionary role for same-sex attraction
Yesterday I heard that Michael Brown had Anthony Buzzard on his Line of Fire program during which they discussed the deity of Christ. Buzzard denies the deity of Christ and the Trinity. I was amazed at Buzzard's logic. He seems blind to quite a few scriptures. I mean did he just not see all the places Jesus was referred to being pre-existent and God? The exchange between Brown and Buzzard is awesome but too short. They didn't have enough time to really delve as deep as they would have like to. Hopefully in future interactions Brown will have time to press him on the texts I have questions on that I think Buzzard is missing. Yes indeed God is one being. Buzzard kept seeming to equate "being" and "personhood" and they ain't the same at all. ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=294657cc-56bd-4a50-9c1c-eddfbdd44ee4)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bceb07c5-1220-4b88-87ea-48fe59a03bf0)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=092115df-0c6d-4f8d-98e4-6c8179f74ee4)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=db30e223-780c-4243-9ff5-6361caa43671)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a099239c-52e7-4d8c-b3a9-b03cd6a79785)