While there is no way to definitively say that homosexuality CANNOT be selected for, it is very likely, in fact, that homosexuality is highly selected AGAINST. For a particular trait to be selected for (via natural selection) one of two conditions must be met.

First is that the trait endows the holder with a significant survival advantage, which allows the holder a greater opportunity to procreate. An example would be a bird that flies much faster than other birds. This bird is able to more effectively evade predators, and thus has a much higher survival/procreation rate.

Second is that the trait allows the holder to reproduce in an exceptionally efficient manner. An example would be a male peacock whose feathers are much more attractive to females than the feathers of an average male. This male has many more opportunities to procreate, and will thus pass on genetic information to a disproportionately large number of offspring.

Of course, there can be many different combinations of the above two scenarios — combinations including traits that are positive in one category and negative in the other. In these cases, the stronger of the two usually prevails. An example: a male muskrat has a mutation that causes brown splotchy fur instead of the standard plain brown fur. This splotchy fur enables the muskrat to blend into his surroundings better than the normal fur, and thus enhances his survival rate. On the other hand, the splotchy fur makes him less attractive as a mating partner, thus decreasing his reproductive efficiency. Is the mutation selected for or against? It depends which effect is more powerful. If the mutation provides a 10% increase in survival rate, but a 90% decrease in reproductive efficiency, the mutation is selected against. Similarly, if the mutation drastically increases survival rate but only has a negligible impact on reproduction, the mutation is selected for.

While it can be debated whether or not homosexuality improves survival rate, at most there would be only a slight benefit. On the other hand, homosexuality causes a severe decline in reproductive efficiency because, by definition, homosexuals do not engage in reproductive sex.

This leads me to conclude that homosexuality as a genetic trait would be highly selected against.

I am sorry I cannot… however I would like to point you to something a posting on my blog this morning… its a posting about a video hosted at TED by Jane Goodall… amazing… and has some interesting information that I believe is very important and demonstrates that there are many others who do believe we have a moral obligation… which includes religious organizations… to assist in preservation of life…

Goodall Talk

I am sorry… you started your argument by saying … being a liberalist and an evolutionist are mutually exclusive… why would your analysis then start with… all liberals believe in evolution… or that all evolutionists believe in being liberal… if this is just to show they are mutually exclusive than great… but you then drive to other conclusions about either group based on them both being true….

My point is that there is a fallacy in the simultaneous promotion of the two points. I couldn’t find any place in my original post where I insinuated that all liberals are evolutionists or the reverse. Obviously there will be people who subscribe to one or the other, but not both, and in this case I have no point to make. Again, it’s in the simultaneous promotion of the two where I claim the fallacy lies.

you believe that the process of self selection does not constitute reasons for helping people (be it financial welfare or other forms of welfare, education, healthcare, fire fighting, police, army – protection, etc)…

To be clear, in my post I asked the question of whether self-sacrificial obligation to help others is antithetical to what we find in nature, the supposed product of natural selection.

are you saying that there is no way homosexuality could be selected by nature? is homosexuality a choice?

I’m not sure how this is related to the post or ties in. Are you saying that all liberals are homosexuals?

To answer the question here, I don’t know of any scientific studies that conclude homosexuality to be a product of natural selection. It seems to me that would be illogical as homosexuality would inhibit proliferation of the species. That only leaves the options of mutation or personal choice, right?

of course you know … I am both a liberal and an evolutionist… I do believe all people deserve the same rights… I do believe our world is full of self-selected animals/plants etc…

Interesting. Can you point me to any scientific evidence that supports this way of thinking? If not, can you share your thoughts on how humans, in opposition to the rest of the animal kingdom, evolved this sense of moral obligation that somehow supersedes our instinct for self-preservation and effectively negates the naturalist mantra of “survival of the fittest”?

are you saying that there is no way homosexuality could be selected by nature? is homosexuality a choice?

of course you know … I am both a liberal and an evolutionist… I do believe all people deserve the same rights… I do believe our world is full of self-selected animals/plants etc…