←back to thread

262 points Anon84 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.293s | source
Show context
HarHarVeryFunny ◴[] No.44412495[source]
Genetics is messy - as I understand it most genes don't code for a single thing, so assuming evolution is "selecting for schizophrenia" that only implies that there is an evolutionary benefit to some of the things controlled by the same gene(s) that control schizophrenia, that outweighs the disadvantage of schizophrenia.

Homosexuality is interesting from this perspective too - common enough that evolution has to be selecting for it, yet basically fatal to reproduction, so what are the benefits that evolution is selecting for? Is it advantageous to groups, or maybe the same genes confer an individual benefit to non-homosexuals?

replies(4): >>44412512 #>>44414429 #>>44415065 #>>44415308 #
no_wizard ◴[] No.44412512[source]
I always wondered if it was natures check on overpopulation. I know that is controversial to say, but it seems most fitting on its face
replies(2): >>44412768 #>>44415560 #
1. missedthecue ◴[] No.44415560[source]
Do rural populations have lower rates of homosexuals as a % of offspring? How would nature "know" we are overpopulated and bias towards homosexuals?