https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7756091/Mothers-diabetes-pregnancy-increase-risk-children-getting-heart-disease.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7756011/Humans-owe-existence-ALCOHOL.html

It's not a case of survival of the fittest, not since the start of the Neolithic eras, at any rate. More like survival of the fattest.

Err, I do NOT agree that war  always weeds out the worst. For one thing, WW1 for England was voluntary at first, so that all the bravest men went to war, while the cowards stayed at home and saved their own lives for a time, until forced consscription came up. Even then, the wiliest cowards would take on jobs like quartermaster etc. in order to avoid fighting on the front-lines. Indeed, there's a theory that ww1 and ww2 acted like a major dysgenics programme on some of the human race.

Errm, unless you can prove that vegans are more likely to commit crimes, this makes no sense.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7723189/Cake-fashioned-look-like-raw-turkey-divides-opinion.html

Given that foods have become ever more highly processed as we reached the modern age, one would have to assume that there were far more homosexuals nowadays than in ancient times. That does not seem to be correct. Look at  ancient Sparta, for example, which raised boys with young men from c. 12-30(?), with women in similiar homosexual relationships, and then only allowing heterosexual sex/marriage, with the woman being forced to have a boy's haircut so as to not "discourge" her husband on the wedding night.

I am sure there  are many other causes, I just don't view testosterone-levels or health/ill-health as being markers for, ah, "non-mainstream" sexual behaviour. One exception,  though:- most of humanity,   with the increasing exception of  Christian Europe from  c.1100AD to the present day,  indulged in incest to a large extent(mostly cousin-cousin marriages but these were not just for 1 generation, but for countless millennia. That would have, on a genetic level, caused a lot of  ill-health.

 I have never heard of a rise in homosexuality coinciding with periods of  famine  Also, technically, male-female relationships(in the ancient world) were all about raising a family with babies). Homosexual relationships, arguably, were not about having children, but about forming social bonds etc.(look at the Spartan men all having to raise a young boy to adulthood, for example). In another case, male lions often are affectionate to male lion-partners, but that is because it is a lot easier for  a due or trio of male lions to get rid of male lions in another pride so that they can get hold of the female lions, than if they were to only  try singly, one at a time.

These explanations for homosexuality do not add up. For example, the lack of testosterone theory does not explain how plenty of homosexuals in history have been quite violent, clearly-testosterone-filled-types such as Sulla or Alexander The Great. Plenty of homosexual royalty had far better nutrition in the Middle-Ages and Renaissance than  people from the lower classes. So, poor nutrition does not explain homosexuality. There is one scientific claim, that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay:-

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/gay-brothers/480117/

I grant that parents' good nutrition would likely help, epigenetically, to  reduce the number of genetically-defective children. For example, it is well-known that alcoholic parents are  more likely to produce epileptic children than other kinds of parents. So, well-fed parents  will produce well-fed children who are far less likely to grow up with defective reproductive apparatuses with lower testosterone-levels, but homosexuality is another issue.

Yet another extinction claim:-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7732247/Death-Neanderthals-result-inbreeding.html

I agree that any State intervention is bad. For example, we already now have an awful anti-smoking ban in Austria. First the autocrats started forcing owners of bars and restaurants to have smoking and non-smoking areas. Then, people in buildings were forbidden from smoking outdoors in alleys, like they are allowed to in the United Kingdom. Now, it seems that there is no smoking to be allowed anywhere in public. This has forced owners of bars etc. to change their whole setup once again to comply with the laws. On top of that, restaurants have already been forced to include an alphabet system to show what types of food they have in their menus, for those with allergies. I mean, anyone with serious allergies knows how easy it is to mix foods when preparing then in a restaurant or processing them in a factory.So, it makes sense for such people to only cook at home if they get serious ill-health from eating allergenic foods. Not safe, otherwise.

In those days when smoking was still allowed in 1 room in every office-building, they would arrogantly refuse to aerate the relevant room, so entering into such a room  made one feel like a WW1 soldier during a gas-attack.

On the raw, palaeolithic diet front, when that courageous  raw-meat-eating Southern(?) couple went on that Wifeswap TV series, switching with that black, urban,  middle-class couple, the moronic public went hysterical and some utter sadists tried to get the police to arrest the white parents  for child abuse, but the local police pointed out at the time that  the children, fed on a raw-meat/raw milk diet were actually very healthy, so there was no reason to denounce them.

I suppose the next step is for buyers of meat to get lynched outside the butcher's etc.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7715309/Light-pollution-driving-INSECT-APOCALYPSE-scientists-claim.html