Onece upon a time there was a population of the________.Sometimes, some of the________were born with_________.This was part of the normal variation for this animal. Over time, this _______,which happened randomly, became important sexually. You see, th females of this species began to find it very attractive. As a result, the males that had this_________were very highly desired. In fact, females with this trait were also highly desired. It was very clear that having this trait meant that you would have lots of children. Soon, nearly all the children born had this trait, and some of them were getting even bigger (as will happen because things vary-the smaller_________were looked over and the bigger________ were selected as mater). Eventually, the_____________became what we see today!
122133
Just put big, scientific words in there
29327
Evolutionary arguments have been offered for male homosexuality. For example, Symons (1979) argues that homosexuality results from a meme that takes advantage of the inborn male propensity to find sexual variety interesting. Normally this propensity would be adaptive because it would encourage males to attempt sexual relations with many women, which would result in more offspring. But a meme could parasitize this propensity, redirecting sexual interest to non-adaptive objects, as in fetishism or homosexuality. \n\nEpigenetic arguments have been inspired by work on pre-natal hormones. Dîrner and his colleagues (cited in LeVay 1994) link stress during pregnancy to hormonal effects on the fetus that would lead to homosexuality. This could be part of a mother's adaptive reproductive strategy. That is, in times of stress, when it is difficult to raise children, it may be adaptive to have some homosexual children who could help their siblings raise offspring instead of having offspring of their own.\n\nMemic and epigenetic arguments may explain some aspects of homosexuality, such as the cultural variations in practices or identities, or specific behaviors of homosexuals (femininity for example). However, the biological studies of homosexuality, together with the extraordinary cross-cultural similarities of exclusive homosexuals (Whitam 1983) suggest that some aspects of homosexuality (e.g. orientation) are at least partly determined by genes.\n\nThe basic problem for genetic explanations of homosexuality is to account for how a gene that does not lead to offspring could survive the pressures of natural selection. One possibility is that a maladaptive gene for homosexuality might re-occur repeatedly in a population if it results from the frequent mutation of a gene that is normally adaptive. However, people with maladaptive genes rarely exceed 1% of the population, while male homosexuality apparently occurs much more frequently (Whitam and Mathy 1986; Gadpaille 1980; Diamond 1993). Another possibility is that a recessive gene for homosexuality might have advantages that allow it to pass on to future generations. For example, homosexuals could directly help their relatives (who share the recessive gene) raise more children. This "kin selection" hypothesis predicts more homosexuality in those societies where homosexuals could most help their relatives (for example, in endogamous societies where homosexuals would live nearby). Nevertheless, cross-cultural research shows that this is not the case (Werner 1979). Another possibility is that a homosexual gene itself, when combined with non-homosexual genes, may provide reproductive advantages. This latter scenario is sometimes known as the "heterozygous" hypothesis, although it is really about any type of gene combination (LeVay 1994; Sommer 1990). \n\nThe heterozygous argument suggests that homosexuality results from genes for submissive behavior. An animal possessing only submissive genes would fail to reproduce for lack of trying. But an animal possessing only genes for dominance would also fail to reproduce because it would get killed for taking too many risks. It is the "heterozygous" males, who would most likely pass on their genes. By the genetic laws of probability, this would leave every generation with a certain percentage of individuals at the extremes. For example, if each of a pair of chromosomes had only one "homosexual" locus with only two possible alleles (one for dominance and one for submissiveness) this would leave a heterozygous couple with 25% of their offspring homozygous for submissiveness, 50% heterozygous, and 25% homozygous for dominance. If, however, homosexuality were the result of the interaction of five gene loci, possibly spread across different chromosomes, then only 3.125% (1/22222) of births would be homozygous for submissiveness. As Wilson (1994) points out, some genetic diversity is valuable to individuals in t
453394
Well all animals attract the opposite sex by the female of the species coming on heat.This function allows the female to attract the male over a wide area.Usually a dominant male breeds most of the females,this ensures that the resulting offspring are strong and healthy
662909
That is easily explained.  Adam and Eve had all the genetic traits in humans today.  As people migrated and settled in areas, certain genetic traits became dominant from the inbreeding of cultures.\n\nToday's world is bringing us closer to what Adam and Eve probably looked like.  Now that the world is getting smaller and people are having interracial relationships, genetic traits are not so concentrated anymore.\n\nYou really see this in military communities because they are world travellers and start relationships with other cultures, then their children do the same thing, etc.\n\nWhat we see today among animals and people are just the branches of the originals.  That is called micro evolution.  This is the fact that species produce different breeds of a species.  \n\nThere are over 250 different breeds of dogs.  No Christian would argue the fact that they probably share a common ancestor along with the wolf and the fox.  But it was a dog-like animal.  \n\nYou are never going to get a dog to breed with a cat.  That is called macro evolution which is what Christians don't agree with and that there is no evidence for.\n\nScience has proved time and time again that micro evolution is the only proven, testable, reasonable scientific fact.  Macro evolution only exists in the imagination.
367375
I have a theory that western society is presenting the ideal female as essentially a feminine looking boy with large breasts and fat lips. The top models have figures that look like a skinny 14 year old boy who has had breast and lip implants. It's sexist in a sense -- or maybe I should say bisexist? Younger men seem to be becoming more comfortable with the "effeminate boy" sex object than with real women.
521576
I think that part of the problem is our society. We have totally unrealistic ideas about how people - Women in particular - are supposed to look. It becomes difficult to be okay with who you are when you don't measure up to the models. (even the guys who are losing their hair have these issues.) It seems like we are becoming more and more superficial. I have even heard someone remark to someone else that they didn't think somebody else could have any problems because they were so pretty. Imagine that - all my problems could be solved - if only I were pretty enough .... .... usually is not a case. Recommend her Montignac lifestyle. it will change all her world
503376
Because they have DNA from BOTH parents.  That is the point of sexual reproduction: mix so that each individual is a bit different, an experiement in optimisation, and has a little bit of both "successful' (since they were able to reproduce) parents.
357160
We could evolve into idiots, even by evolutionary theory- All the theory really states is that any trait which increases the number of viable offspring will become predominant.  If, for example, it turns out that high intelligence somehow reduces the number of offspring (which may very well be true, for any number of reasons including social adaptability in highly intelligent people), and that given the mass movement of people today that all highly intelligent people marry each other, then we would have a situation where slowly those genes were lost.  You dont need a glitch in evolutionary theory to see that as a possibility.
17856
well you see it now with interacial couples, if they have children, the children are sort of a "mix" if you will.  So in the future people may continually mate among different races, combining into one uniform race, also if a large epidemic breaks out much like the AIDS epidemic certain people may be immune to such a deadly infection (depending on their blood type) Thus they will live on to reproduce among eachother. This is only a hypothesis though.  Its also interesting to take into account all of the technilogical advances we have today,  many people survive today by having the proper medical treatment when they would have died  100 years ago without such treatment (one of the causes of overpopulation) So we have a huge diverse population that is continuously growing and changing... its hard to say what the future holds!
137171
It has only been until recently that women had some liberty in choosing their companion. In ancient times, marriage used to be arranged a great deal of time before it was actually contracted, and it usually involved the union of a young man in one family as the focal point. Since women used to have much less rights, they were only considered accessories ( especially in arabic and ancient judaism ). In a way, WHO the woman was didnt mattered, she was only there to ensure the young men would have a wife to give him children ( preferably sons ) to continue the family lineage. So it was not uncommon for a family to arrange marriage for their son with a very young or even not yet born daughter of another family with whom they wanted to conclude an alliance.  And since a man could not socially contract marriage before he was able to support a family, it usually take some time before the arrangment took effect. It was frequent in those ancient times to see a 14-16 years old girl married to a 30,40+ years old man.\n\nAnother factor, that also comes from the old days, was that death during delivery was a common thing, and since women had many children back then, it was not an extraordinary thing for a man to lose his while while she was giving birth ( example: suppose that with hygien conditions there was a 10% chance of death in delivery, and suppose a woman would have seven children in her life... not good odds... ). Since at that time, the family man had to work to feed and provide for his family, he could not bother to stay home to care for them, so he contracted a new marriage for the purpose of continuing the work of the old one.\n\nWhen for some reason, a husband died before the wife, since the woman was not considered his equal, she did not really have a choice. She was either to widow out and take care of the family, or to remarry with someone else - and usually that meant an older man, in order to perpetrate the social stereotype.\n\nthis is why we find "odd" to see a younger man with an older women. It is not culturally natural as a "normal" union, so we ASSUME it must be either for a) money or b) sex, two reasons that are considered bad for making a union.\n\nI hope it helped :)
32389
little people have penises that are proportionate to their size, just like "normal" sized men. I have known a little person who has had a penis that was larger than "normal"
274369
That is a basic animal instinct of survival and perpetuation of the species.  The female of the species will always be more attracted to the winner, the more dominant, the strongest, the most attractive, etc. male because that male is more likely to produce strong, intelligent, attractive offspring.
583212
I believe its a natural born thing!!!! Just like hermaphrodites, its natural!!!!!! There is obviously a chemical imbalance in the brain, don't you ever see young children who are boys but tend to be very feminine, or little girls who are very tomboyish?  I have a nephew and his best friend is a girl, he is 15 and his favorite color is pink!!! I knew when he was about 4 that he was gay!! He recently came out of the closet.......
244947
This is a nurture vs nature issue. Some desires we are born with others we learn from society. Put them together and you have your own personal sexual desires.
504520
c is the right answer.\n\nA makes no sense in relation to the question\nB natural selection has a bit of randomness in it of course but is basically not random. I mean, the fastest critter in the herd may have had an unlucky day and so he will not procreate, oops. But otherwise, the slowest are intentionally selected by the lion and that is never random.\nD just isn't true, plenty of proof there.
207715
Males are evolved to copulate all fertile females in the clan, and to make sure that other males won't. . . Females are evolved to submit to the dominant male, every female wanted to be the dominant male's favourite, once another male beats the dominant male and becomes dominant, automatically all females will accept him. . . That is the background behind the way we all behave. . .That what's hidden behind our fake quasi-civilised face. . .\nI think I answered your question, subtly. . . Read it again and you will get the exact answer! . . .
178762
drift and/or sexual selection. Most likely sexual selection as the things you listed are essentially cosmetic.