3 ms·
I'm not sure what you mean. Humans have been social animals for a very long time, so it stands to reason that they would be genetically different from non human
by arnoooooo 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. Humans have been social animals for a very long time, so it stands to reason that they would be genetically different from non humans, although i'd expect similar results in other social animals.
- yorwba 6y agoAn example of similar results in other social animals are worker/soldier ants/bees/termites. They don't reproduce, but by contributing to the survival of their hive of relatives, they still end up spreading their genes.
- vagrantJin 6y agoAre they homosexual or asexual? Let's not confuse the two. They "cant" reproduce is quite a leap away from "can produce but won't" because as far as I am aware homosexuality has nothing to do with sexual reproduction and the required 'machinery'. Unless you have some solid papers or anecdotal experiences that say otherwise I'm willing to change my stance.
- vagrantJin 6y ago> There are theories for how a low percentage of homosexuality might be selected for. My initial response was to the above statement which to my eyes presupposes homosexuality to be genetically expressed. Which has nothing to do with social/environmental factors.