>>13616804>>13616825This, I guess the closest thing you could say to the purpose is continuation.
But by my understanding, traits aren't 'chosen' or anything like that, they mutate more or less randomly, and the traits that reside in creatures who survived and procreated will be continued down the line - whether or not it was thanks to that trait that they survived and procreated.
So yeah there's usually a correlation between a trait and survival/reproduction rates, but not always, so sometimes random shit that does nothing or might even be somewhat negative gets passed on. So maybe homosexuality is just a frequent gene that mutates into the pool rather than being passed down, although some homos would pass on their genes (closeted/in denial, sperm donors etc).
But I don't know if there's even a consensus that homosexuality is genetic at all, I think there are fairly equal arguments that its a mental thing that develops, rather than something you're born with. But feel free to correct me.
>>13616809This one is interesting but again I don't know that evolution is that personified, I don't know that it does things so intangibly like making large scale changes to control population.
However, there is that odd phenomenon where significantly more males are born after a major war. BUT, the current consensus on that is that tall men are more likely to survive war for some reason, and that tall men are also more likely to have male offspring. So if that's the case, its still just individual natural selection, not some guiding hand of a force we call evolution.
Its all in the genes.
