The book I posted because it was interesting- you didn't need to argue it, I TOLD you it wasn't what I was looking for. As for the rest -you seemed not to be able to imagine an advantage to homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective- now you should be able to imagine some. But Neo, I said "an evolutionary advantage"- meaning these would be theories Neo, which would of course be "arguments that would work", but they would not be "proved" in the way I can prove what I had for dinner last night- neither you nor I can "prove" much of anything, in this regard. Evolution itself is still called a theory.
The ideas are there. The possible advantages are mentioned. That was what I was looking for and that was what I found. That you do not agree with the theories, is totally predictable. But now some have been posted.
You seem to think it is your job to dispute this stuff. Neo you don't have the background, nor, I think, do you understand what we are talking about. When it comes to science, you say the oddest things. Your comments about the mDNA article are downright funny. It isn't hideous if genes of the mother are trying to express themselves, it just "is." You've got to try to get your moral blinkers off when you read science. Nature isn't moral, it just is the way it is. Perhaps you will never be able to view nature that way, but it makes it impossible for me to take you seriously. |
