What is surprisingly NOT scientifically proven?

You gave me 7 articles, but only the one about the FucM gene in mice is from a scientific journal. However that can be easily dismissed because that experiment was dealing with a human induced mutation not usually possible outside of a lab environment. It says that mice lacking the alpha-fetoprotein were infertile and leads to the failure of the estrus cycle. Even if the mutation did happen naturally, you cannot deny the inexorable elimination of the gene from the gene pool because infertile individuals cannot reproduce, and hence the inability of the said gene to be passed on. The same can be said for humans. I won't deny that genes increasing the likelihood of homosexuality apprear by mutation or whatever. But those genes won't be passed on because homosexuals obviously don't have offspring. The genes would appear but don't persist because natural selection is a process which removes traits not beneficial to increasing the chance of reproductive sucess, and homosexuals have zero reproductive sucess to speak of anyways.

Easy.

/r/AskReddit Thread Parent