Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3353 sci.med:18871 sci.psychology:3080
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov!xanth!mcnc!wolves!wolfe
From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (Wolfe)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.med,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: The persistance of homosexuality in a gene pool
Message-ID: <1990Jul29.050038.24791@wolves.uucp>
Date: 29 Jul 90 05:00:38 GMT
References: <1990Jul23.022511.28161@mtcchi.uucp> <11095@netcom.UUCP> <10615@cs.utexas.edu>
Reply-To: wolfe@wolves.UUCP (Wolfe)
Organization: Red Wolfe Software @ The Wolves Den
Lines: 60

In article <10615@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-----
>In article <1990Jul27.180834.6875@cid.aes.doe.CA> afsipmh@cid.aes.doe.CA 
>>> Seeing as how there would be no heredity to speak of WITHOUT 
>>> the aforementioned [sexual] desire, I would think this rather, 
>>> ahem, conclusive.
>
>In article <11095@netcom.UUCP>, jfh@netcom.UUCP (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>> You're confusing two different desires, that to have children and 
>> that to have sex with someone of the other sex. ...
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unnecessary heterosexism

>Mr Hamilton is confusing the practicalities of today with the
>realities that shaped human evolution.  Throughout most of the
>human past, the desire to have children did not mean diddly
>squat.  People copulated for desire or social reason, and lo and
>behold the kids came along.  Planning births or avoiding it was
>not really a factor.  Indeed, there is good reason to think that
>early humans did not even know the connection between sex and
>pregnancy.  
>
>Russell

	Sorry to disappoint you, but there are very clear indications in the
earliest known records that indicate that the relationship between sex
and pregnancy were well known.
	It is also clear that there was a crude understanding of
heredity as well.  Early man used selective breeding to modify the
animals that were domesticated.  The "9 months" period of human
gestation was well known in early records.

*OPINION*
	Just because the sexual immaturity of modern america leads many
people to be unaware of their own bodies, we should not assume that
"early humans" did not know about sex.  There are some indications in
early writings that there was a (suprizing to the modern mind) level of
sophistication in terms of sexual and procreational knowledge in several
places and times.

	Additionally, homosexuality could persist in the gene pool via
several mechanism that have nothing to do with its supposed effect on
reproductive success.
	It could be a recessive, multi-linked trait that follows along
with some strongly conserved gene.
	It could re-arise as a spontaneous mutation in a manner similar
to one form of hemophilia that is a single base-pair transcription
error.
	It could confer some kind of reproductive advantage in a manner
analagous to the protection that sickle-cell trait provides against
malaria.

	This discussion is fairly feckless anyways, since there is no
convincing proof either way as to a genetic basis for all forms of
homosexual behaviour.
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe   ...mcnc!wolves!wolfe         [use the maps!]
Domain: wolfe%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org    wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>