Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it wasn't happening. Plenty of other animal species also engage in homosexuality but we likely don't have prehistoric records of their activity either.
-
-
-
They engage in homosexual activities, but there is no exclusive homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
May it be that such evidence requires writing to exist in the first place?
-
Exactly what I was thinking. Isn't the author saying, "We have no records of something happening from before there were records"? Or maybe I just don't understand the nature of the phrase PRE-history?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think the most obvious explanation is just that there's really no reason to bother with homosexual behavior unless there's a fair number of other people around who are interested in the same thing. You wouldn't typically see that until the rise of large cities.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
New conversation -
-
-
@Evolving_Moloch@FinchesofDarwin - thoughts? -
Paper looks interesting but I think the tweet gives a bit of a misleading impression. "no evidence of male homosexuality from prehistory" is a meaningless/dubious claim, and there's evidence of same sex behavior in some HGs but not others. And seehttps://twitter.com/Evolving_Moloch/status/1167283230677954561 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Almost always linked to competition between males for mating with the females. Lions are an infamous examples. Exceptions are half a dozen---including humans.
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.