Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later[^][v]#792,989
It's a recruitment gene
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#792,998
Keep in mind that long term species survival does not necessarily mean that every individual need be maximally reproducing. If there is an evolutionary adantage specied-wide that a trait imparts, yet lessens reproducing for some individuals, then that trait may be "banked" and activated by some set of circumstances.
Meta (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,159
@previous (Sheila LaBoof) > maximally reproducing
Right, but like, a same sex couple doesn't reproduce at all.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,162
there is no gay gene, retard
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,165
> Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it just doesn't seem like a very good reproduction strategy.
This is like asking why the 'infertility gene' hasn't been bred out. Retard.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,238
@793,159 (Meta)
There are otherwise homosexual people who somehow manage to make pregnancies from time to time, but the main thing is that the genetics that makes it possible is not necessarily limited to the people that turn out homosexual. Add in the epigenetic complication, and it's anybody's guess as to how it carries in the species. Personality traits, certain strengths and weaknesses both mental and physical, diseases -- all of these things occur but exactly how and why in varying frequencies from generation to generation could be a bit complicated.
DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 49 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,251
Let's say there really is a gay gene. Up until recently, homosexuality wasnt as accepted, to say the least. So they were in their closets, getting married to the opposite sex as a disguise, even having children so no one suspects they were gay.
So the gay gene was spreading. Now that everyone is celebrating gay folks, and they dont hide behind fake marriages and families, perhaps now is the time the gay gene will die out.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 9 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,253
@OP
I seriously doubt there is a single gene responsible for homosexual behavior, none of the research support that particular notion. On the other hand, I'd also argue that we have no control over who we feel attracted to, or for that matter, whom we love.
Anonymous H double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,254
@793,251 (DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew)
How about the "bixsexual" gene? Would that also die out, assuming that one exists?
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 6 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,291
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,292
What about the "I'm so fat I want to swallow my blueberries whole without chewing them" gene?
Meta (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 16 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,295
@previous (J)
From a Darwinian point of view, obesity is not a problem.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,296
@793,291 (I)
I don't agree with TheSheep on a lot of things, but he's not really saying anything bad there. It's an interesting hypothetical idea about genetics and homosexuality.
I doubt it would stand up to scientific scrutiny, especially since IIRC genes aren't the only factor identified as probable biological causes homosexuality. But it was an interesting thought.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,311
@previous (K)
It's becky/FA hivemind... like a retarded cow cattle, running where everyone is running because everyone is running like that.
If I wrote 2+2 is 4, they would argue it's not.
Anonymous K replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,325
@previous (DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew)
I do think that you are often incorrect on certain topics, and chuckle at your assumption that Becky and Fake anon only disagree with you because of conformity. But again, this time you were okay.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,327
> From a Darwinian point of view, obesity is not a problem.
If that's your idea of 'fitness' ?
Meta (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 43 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,348
@previous (Meta)
It doesn't prevent me from reproducing.
Anonymous J replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,349
@previous (Meta)
In your pathetic attempt to eat healthy, you can't even be bothered to chew blueberries ? You'd rather shovel them in your mouth and swallow them whole?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,350
@793,339 (Meta)
Biology doesnt do jack shit when society as a whole is retarded.
Back in the days, if a girl was fat it meant she had plenty to eat a.k.a. was wealthy and money is always sexy, so they got boned and reproduced.
So if there was an obesity gene, it spread like wildfire.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,353
There are gene mutations that cause people to be sterile that haven't been knocked out due to evolution. Passing on genes through sexual reproduction is only one of several ways genes propogate.
Meta replied with this 9 years ago, 28 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,366
Meta (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,371
@793,350 (DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew)
I thought getting fat was necessary back in the old days when food was scarce. If you could eat surplus calories, you had to store them because you might not have enough food later.
@793,353 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
How the fuck does a sterile gay person pass on their genes??!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 42 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,392
@793,371 (Meta)
They obviously don't and yet genetically-caused sterility is still around. Sexuality is even less easily well understood than fertility so my hunch is there have always been and will always be people attracted exclusively to the same sex. The fact that gay people are "out" now doesn't really mean shit and even if it did, it would take thousands of years to disappear anyway.
Meta (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 17 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,403
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
This is your brain on Dawkins.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#793,404