It’s my browneyed wife’s fault. She’ll have to give up the law practice and do whatever it is primitive underevolved creatures do, like, I don’t know, hit rocks with sticks or something.

“EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGIST GENERAL’S WARNING: Use of this product may inhibit the formation of meaningful opposite sex relationships, thereby reducing your chances of producing offspring.”

http://www.cosmeticeyes.com/brown-eyes-2.html

By the way. I prefer brown eyes and smaller breasts. Does that make me a weirdo mutant with the wrong DNA mutations?

Yes. Your genes are doomed because you can’t tell when members of the opposite sex are interested in you. However, if you spend your free time taking care of your siblings’ kids, you might have a shot at passing on your genes, or your parents’ genes, anyway.

Homosexuals, not having children of their own, have time on their hands to help rear the children of their straight relatives. It has selective value for the group to have a small but not insignificant percentage of homosexuals in the population.

Remember- these “evolved” traits supposedly came about during the hunter/gatherer days. So, homosexuals in the population wouldn’t have been sitting around with time on their hands, just because they had no kids of their own. I think we can all agree there must have been quite large populations of these societies, and just as we see today- not every single person would have had children to begin with. You could easily argue that those straights without kids would have taken care of the kids of others. Then again, even they wouldn’t havehad much time to do so, as everyone would have been out looking for food, shelter, safety from animals, etc. On top of all of that, the straights without kids still have the opportunity to have children. The homosexuals, if they are homosexuals due to biology (this has yet to be seen itself) would not have that chance to have kids at all. They could always call themselves homosexual, yet reproduce with the opposite sex- but then there goes the idea that they were biologically “created” homosexual to take care of kids. Plus- we have to remember that darwinian-wise, all newly formed groups (like homosexuals) are mere accidents via mutations that have no rhyme of reason in where they appear and which ones stay in the lineage. Point being- NDE couldn’t possibly use any intelligence and thought to say “homosexuals are good for this purpose”, thus the mutation will stick.

I think homosexuals would, worldwide, have an issue with being described as a distinct form of human, different in a mutation here and there in their genetic code that makes them different.

I’ve heard this somewhere before, and I’m sure the scientists in question wouldn’t like to be linked to the group of people from whom I heard it.

That group also thought polygyny might help them.

Everything old is new again.

This contradicts the idea presented earlier that polygyny favors females and monogamy favors males. Now they are saying females favor monogamy and males polygyny. What?