Today I was watching my 8-month old sleep and how perfectly formed her eyelashes are. I marveled that evolution could, supposedly, make her little eyelashes such an optimal shape and size to confer the slight advantage of having a little less dust in her eyes, but evolution is not powerful enough to cull things like homosexuality out of the population.
42 comments
"evolution is not powerful enough to cull things like homosexuality out of the population."
It's not powerful enough to cull fundie idiots out of the population either. But the gay gene increases fertility in women so homosexuality is a benefit, so evolution keeps it in the population.
I marveled that evolution God could, supposedly, make her little eyelashes such an optimal shape and size to confer the slight advantage of having a little less dust in her eyes, but evolution He is not powerful enough to cull things like homosexuality out of the population.
Homosexuality is beneficial to a tribe, that's why it hasn't been culled out. If parents die, a homosexual aunt or uncle can step in and take care of the child. Children with homosexual relatives will therefore survive when children with no homosexual relatives die out. Plus, it's a safety-valve against overpopulation.
Evolution isn't "powerful", it just is. As long as things are good enough, and give you a slight advantage in having offspring that have offspring, they stay.
that's because you don't understand how gay men would provide for their siblings offspring, or how lesbian aunties would help nursing said offspring.
It's also the case that lesbians and gay men can breed, and did so for self-protection
Damn, yeah, and the only possible explanation is that your specific supernatural sky-pixie, out of the thousands and thousands of other mythical supernatural sky-pixies "made her" that way?
Too bad evolution is not powerful enough to cull things like religious stupidity out of the population.
That's because homosexuality is likely an evolutionary boon to control population growth, dummy.
Also, I hope you're not staring at your daughter for hours on end because that's just creepy.
For the last time, not every mutation has to be beneficial to be carried over. Do people with green eyes have any real advantage over those with brown? No. It's a benign mutation, providing no real advantage whilst also not harming the carrier. Homosexuality is the same way.
Ever heard of a little thing called kin selection? Remember, it's not the individual being passed down, it's the genes. Think of bees, ants, termites, other eusocial insects. All the members in a colony are very closely related and nearly all female - but only one, the queen, reproduces. The rest make absolutely sure that the queen can reproduce.
How could this evolve? Because all the members of the colony are very closely related to each other and the queen - i.e. they share the same genes. It's not too different from a multicellular organism: a bunch of single cells that share genes band together to create a single organism, increasing the chances of those specific genes being passed down.
Evolution isn't all about the individual.
This is actually a thing that has been studied. Your problem is you pose a question, then don't follow up and look for answers. Instead you use an implied answer to arbitrarily condemn people.
One of the strongest *GENETIC*(and just because you're born a certain way doesn't imply pure genetics) factors is thought to be the gender-specifc-fitness boost.
A non sex-related gene for masculine preference can cause the women in your genetic heritage to be far far more successful, biologically speaking. This gene sometimes gets expressed in men too, but doesn't represent nearly as large disadvantage as it presents an advantage for the female family members. Much the same is true for feminine preference in male members.
There's a reason the Kinsey scale has become a useful tool for social science.
Homosexuality is not necessarily a negative for a society, dust in the eyes is. Also, eyelashes have other benefits such as keeping other things from the eyes and shielding the eyes from bright sunlight.
evolution is not powerful enough to cull things like homosexuality out of the population.
Assuming homosexuality is genetic or acquired in utero, it's not obvious that evolution would cull whatever is causing it. There are many genes that have multiple effects, some good and some bad. There are genes that allowed the growth of the human brain over that of other apes. But they also can allow the growth of brain tumors. The advantages of an increase in brain size outweigh the increased risk of tumors. Genes for homosexuality may confer other advantages that we don't know about; for example, occasional male homosexuality may be a risk that is acceptable in order to confer some genetic advantage to the mother. This stuff is not that simple.
Are you kidding me? Eyelashes suck. They always hang in your vision and even get caught in the eye which is the worst damn thing.
Nobody ever claimed evolution was perfect, that's why men have nipples and the food tube is right next to the air tube.
Also a tip of the hat to Hasan Prishtina for hitting the nail on the head.
Evolution can't be true because of perfect, precious baby lashes and because homosexuality hasn't been bred out of existence?
image
Also:image
Funny how God can't eliminate things like homosexuality, either. Oops. Also funny how same sex attraction is an intrinsic phenomenon documented in multiple species. It's as if it may be completely natural and serves a purpose.
I, Evolution, unleash my awesome POWER upon thy . . . uh . . . thy (hm) . . . EYELASHES! , that's what. Yeah, that's the ticket. Heh heh. Hot Damn, I'm awesome.me , boy. I'll fuckin' cull his ass, right out of the fuckin' population.
Today I was watching my 8-month old sleep
Today I was watching my 12 year old have his inflamed appendix removed. I marveled at how God really fucked up when he created man. The wisdom teeeth will come out next, then he'll get cancer probably.
Praise God!
Ok, so let's think this one through.
Let us assume that homosexual people do not produce any offspring. Let us also assume that at some point there will be so many people with homosexual offspring that heterosexuality is a minority.
Under those conditions, people with heterosexual offspring will produce more descendants, which leads to a reversal in a few generations, since homosexuals produce no offspring. In other words, natural selection favours heterosexuality under those circumstances.
Now, you were saying?
"and how perfectly formed her eyelashes are"
image
Sorry, that caught me off guard. But hey, you wanna know why homosexuality hasn't evolved out of existance? I'll tell you why. It is because there's no problem with being gay. Shocking, isn't it?
The way I heard it, there is no "gay" gene, that makes both homosexual men and lesbians gay. There is a "loves cock" gene, and if a man has it, he loves cock, and has fewer kids. If a woman has it, she loves cock, and has more kids. It balances out. There's a similar gene for "loves pussy", and if you have both, you are likely bisexual.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
