In yet ANOTHER Evolution debate...
Lot's of people don't reproduce yet are productive members of their community. The point is that any genetic element that produces homosexuality destroys genetic mutations that might otherwise be beneficial to the gene pool.
Now I have my answer. Homosesxual Evolution = Socialism = University Elitism = Indoctination into a non-democratic state. How's that for a Unified Field Theory?
I'd rather they teach Creationism than your POS slop.
43 comments
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???
I mean, I... What?
"Lot's of people don't reproduce yet are productive members of their community. The point is that any genetic element that produces homosexuality destroys genetic mutations that might otherwise be beneficial to the gene pool."
If you think that proves Evolution wrong, you don't know what Evolution is. Typical fundie.
"The point is that any genetic element that produces homosexuality destroys genetic mutations that might otherwise be beneficial to the gene pool."
And Messianic Servant at least has the right approach for describing what "gay evolution" could mean.
Evolution leads to that stuff?
Here, I'll take your fundy strategy of "point A to undesirable point B by far fetched process" and throw it right back at you:
RELIGION LEADS TO CHILD ABUSE
Oh wait, that's not far fetched enough since I can actually provide examples of that happening.
Actually, any kind of sex could eliminate beneficial mutations from the gene pool. Remember, you only pass on half of your genome to your offspring, so there's absolutely no guarantee that whatever genes made you such a success will propagate to the next generation.
So, by your argument, to prevent genetic loss we should all reproduce by cloning. At which point where we stick our genitals would have zero impact (assuming it's not in a mains socket).
If one group has fewer breeding members in a similar population compared to another group, that would leave them fewer new mouths to feed each breeding cycle, and more members to gather food and/or defend the group. While they produce fewer babies per year, perhaps more of their babies would survive or thrive. Could be a case for a population selecting for, or not selecting against, gay members.
toothache wrote:
"Methinks food and mates are far too easy to find nowadays..." Well, food is, at least.
Toss that word salad, baby!
Humans have the latter plan. Human babies are labor intensive. (No pun intended)
Nieces and nephews share 1/4 of their DNA with their aunts and uncles. So gay aunts and uncles help their DNA continue on to future generations by helping with neices and nephews, who may well carry recessive genes leading to more future gay aunts and uncles in other generations.
Kin selection. Read it, bitch.
Actually, the genetic element that produces homosexuality causes an increase in fertility in women and since you don't need as many men as you do need women the loss of men from the genepool does not affect us as strongly...
And in any case the behavioural advantages to showing mild homosexual tendencies such as not seeing every man in the world as a threat to your dominance is a massive advantage in that we can get more ladies as a group than as an individual.
Socialism and communism is why you have healthcare, can read and write and indeed have the weekend off... You dumb ass...
Nature has a lot of mechanism which lead to sterility. It may mean something. And, before you go forward, learn to differentiate the different DISCIPLINES, which are not related to one another.
"...any genetic element that produces homosexuality destroys genetic mutations..."
So because of homosexuality, the X-Men will never be real?
Bummer.
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.
