RE: Top misconceptions of Theory of Evolution you had to deal with
March 4, 2016 at 3:04 pm
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2016 at 3:11 pm by Alex K.)
(March 4, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Old Baby Wrote:(March 4, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Alex K Wrote: Dawkins' claim to fame is his gene centric view of evolution outlined in "The Selfish Gene" and "The extended Phenotype" (though oddly not published in te peer reviewed literature). It roughly goes as follows - a gene which increases the probability that males are homosexual might get passed on more efficiently because it makes sure that its carriers more likely have gay relatives helping with the rearing and do not attempt to kill and replace the offspring with their own. The gene boosting the homosexuality ratio does not need to get passed on by the homosexual individuals themselves to be selected for.
Yeah... I don't get it. I don't get how a gene "makes sure" of anything. It makes it sound like the gene is conscious and making selections while stroking its goatee. I'm 100% sure that it's a breakdown in my understanding of science and not in your explanation.
There are three issues here. If you accept for the sake of the argument that 1. there might be a gene that increases the likelihood that a carrier is homosexual (which I don't think is settled, but doesn't sound too far fetched), and that 2. having a small number of homosexual relatives is beneficial for survival and procreation, then this gene will be selected for and there is nothing magic going on: families in which the h-gene is present will produce more surviving offspring, and the h-gene becomes more frequent in the population. No genes do anything on purpose.
The details depend on how likely the gene makes an individual homosexual, and how helpful homosexual relatives actually are to ensure successful offspring.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition