[/quote]welcome to post-nerd-reboot SMBC you must be new here
it is all terrible
I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Why do you volunteer your time for a comic you don't enjoy?
[/quote]welcome to post-nerd-reboot SMBC you must be new here
it is all terrible
I don't volunteer my time for the comicGuest wrote:I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Why do you volunteer your time for a comic you don't enjoy?Edminster wrote:welcome to post-nerd-reboot SMBC you must be new here
it is all terrible
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always
gödel stop spreading fud
He enjoys annoying people on the forum.Guest wrote:I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Why do you volunteer your time for a comic you don't enjoy?
ol qwerty bastard wrote:bitcoin is backed by math, and math is intrinsically perfect and logically consistent always
gödel stop spreading fud
How is it coherent? "All human beings ever" are not optimized for heterosexual reproduction, even setting aside the fat loser shut-in portrayed in the comic. I was born intersex and sterile, for example.not wrote:I'm confused about this comic. apparently what it says is that anyone who makes a coherent argument against homosexuality being genetic is a fat loser? Why on earth would anyone ever want to read this?
The idea is that any genes that contributed to you being sterile are genes that will now no longer be passed on. Any trait that inhibits the ability pass on genetic information is apparently against survival of the fittest where the most fit to survive is the one who is able to reproduce the most.smbcfan wrote:How is it coherent? "All human beings ever" are not optimized for heterosexual reproduction, even setting aside the fat loser shut-in portrayed in the comic. I was born intersex and sterile, for example.not wrote:I'm confused about this comic. apparently what it says is that anyone who makes a coherent argument against homosexuality being genetic is a fat loser? Why on earth would anyone ever want to read this?
Actually, most (if not all) genetic traits do need to make the species more fit to survive or it needs to be dying away. Sickle Cell anemia, to use your example, can actually make the person with only one of the sickle cell genes more resistant to malaria infections. This is why areas that have a lot of malaria have a larger distribution of sickle celled individuals despite the fact that having two of the genes causes other problems. Most genetic conditions either have an underlying benefit or are caused by something else (defect, mutation, loss of data). A third option is that sometimes it isn't bad enough to affect reproduction (i.e. Huntington's disease doesn't become expressed until middle age).Gangler wrote:Yeah, if everything that was in everyone's genes always contributed towards survival and survival of the species then we wouldn't really have a medical term for genetic conditions. If sickle cell anemia can work it's way through lineages just continuing to pop up once every few generations or so when all the right pieces are in place I see no reason that genetics can't at the very least be a contributing factor towards homosexuality. I mean, I'm not a doctor, but that just makes sense.
The very premise of "Survival of the fittest" implies the presence of a those who are not necessarily fit in the sense the phrase means it in. Unless we're done evolving now and I didn't notice, the human genome is far from perfect within the context of evolutionary discussion.
While I don't disagree that sexual orientation is most likely based on more than just genetics I think it's worth pointing out that being gay doesn't necessarily mean you won't biologically have children or you don't have the willingness to reproduce. Even if you're married to someone of the same sex, it's still not uncommon to have a surrogate mother, have a child through artificial insemination, etc.gavin wrote: Homosexuality, a trait that specifically affects the ability/willingness to reproduce, should not exist genetically (or should quickly be dying out rather than increasing like it is). This is why it is far more likely that it is caused by something else.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
And I think you'll find this is true of most of regulars at this point.Edminster wrote:I don't volunteer my time for the comicGuest wrote:I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Why do you volunteer your time for a comic you don't enjoy?Edminster wrote:welcome to post-nerd-reboot SMBC you must be new here
it is all terrible
Yepgavin wrote: I still don't understand why the argument is so prevalent in today's society. Even if homosexuality was choice, I don't see it being anyone else's business.
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
While everyone's glad that you see orientation as no one's business, some things need to be cleared up about genetics and traits.gavin wrote:Actually, most (if not all) genetic traits do need to make the species more fit to survive or it needs to be dying away. Sickle Cell anemia, to use your example, can actually make the person with only one of the sickle cell genes more resistant to malaria infections. This is why areas that have a lot of malaria have a larger distribution of sickle celled individuals despite the fact that having two of the genes causes other problems. Most genetic conditions either have an underlying benefit or are caused by something else (defect, mutation, loss of data). A third option is that sometimes it isn't bad enough to affect reproduction (i.e. Huntington's disease doesn't become expressed until middle age).Gangler wrote:Yeah, if everything that was in everyone's genes always contributed towards survival and survival of the species then we wouldn't really have a medical term for genetic conditions. If sickle cell anemia can work it's way through lineages just continuing to pop up once every few generations or so when all the right pieces are in place I see no reason that genetics can't at the very least be a contributing factor towards homosexuality. I mean, I'm not a doctor, but that just makes sense.
The very premise of "Survival of the fittest" implies the presence of a those who are not necessarily fit in the sense the phrase means it in. Unless we're done evolving now and I didn't notice, the human genome is far from perfect within the context of evolutionary discussion.
Homosexuality, a trait that specifically affects the ability/willingness to reproduce, should not exist genetically (or should quickly be dying out rather than increasing like it is). This is why it is far more likely that it is caused by something else. Something non-genetic like a defect or mutation is more likely. This would account for why one identical twin is not 100% likely to be gay if their twin is gay.
I still don't understand why the argument is so prevalent in today's society. Even if homosexuality was choice, I don't see it being anyone else's business.