Why are there fags if they can’t reproduce and proliferate their genetics? Wouldn’t natural selection have killed them off by now?
Why are there fags if they can’t reproduce and proliferate their genetics...
Wyatt Morales
Jacob Collins
>Why are there fags
Why are there homophobes?
Luke Hernandez
Irrelevant
Jaxon Kelly
Because natural selection is the history of species, and not individuals. Having a low percentage of gays was an evolutionary advantage for early human communities.
The reason for that is men are expendable, whereas women's bellies are not. One dude can fertilize all the women in a tribe. Therefore there is no risk in having a slight overabundance of females in the heterosexual game. In such a community, homosexuals act as providers like other males, but not as lovers. Even among the hetero males, only prehisto-chads got to reproduce anyway.
Just look at those things in walruses groups, only the big alpha male reproduces, and the other males just diddle each other.
Dominic Miller
why are there lesbos then?
Thomas Ross
there are no lesbos
Zachary Cox
The more fags and soyboys there are, the more pussy I get. So keep pumping those chemicals in the water and keep pushing for (((vegan))) food everywhere.
Chase Hughes
It would take way more effort for a system to arise where no members of species ever get sexual release in any way other than reproductive intercourse.
Natural selection isn't some magic "always make everything better" force. Nature is more lazy than it is efficient and if something flawed works well enough than it will persist.
It's only conscious designers who care about being perfect and not having any random sloppiness involved in their work. A designed solution would be to have all organisms only ever having sex for reproductive purposes, while the natural solution is to have a generalized mechanism for sexual arousal that can result in non-reproductive sex acts.
Jace Brooks
Or rather I should say, it's well known that women sexuality is much more fluid than in men. Men's tastes (not only in sexual orientation but also taste in women and sexual activity) fixates very early and doesn't move much.
Women becoming lesbos is more of a social thing, not a genetic one.
Julian Bell
>Because natural selection is the history of species, and not individuals.
Dumbest thing I've heard all day. How do you explain the gay gene passing on if they never reproduced? The real answer OP is that the gene responsible for causing homosexuality in men is actually beneficial when in women. Also animals tend to tend to have sex with each other regardless of sexuality or gender. Having sex with anything is more advantageous than being picky about who you do it with. That's how you get shit like monkeys fucking frogs or dogs humping teddy bears.
Robert Collins
>Fags can't reproduce
They have kids all the time, just faking it in marriage they don't really care about.
Xavier Carter
>Dumbest thing I've heard all day.
Well then you should read it again and think about it a little more, because when you understand that sentence you'll be way less mystified about evolution.
Evolutionary pressure applies to groups.
Another thing that I didn't mention that may have contributed: one biological particularity of humans is the so-called "loss of estrus", i.e. we don't have a mating season and are sexually available all year. It has various advantages, but it also means the aggressive behaviours linked to sexual competition are also more prevalent, which presents a risk. You can say having homosexuals partly relieves this sexual competition pressure.
Luke Foster
Evolution applies to individuals. Grouping can provide more benefit to individuals than being alone does explaining why groups exist, not the other way around. It works a lot like Max Stirner's union of the egoists. If an organism doesn't reproduce then its genes do not pass down. Genes don't magically transfer themselves between a grouping.
Julian Reed
>Grouping can provide more benefit to individuals than being alone does explaining why groups exist, not the other way around.
Nigger what the fuck are you talking about. I'm telling you our ancestors evolved in groups, therefore we evolved traits that favour the functioning of those groups.
>Stirner
well memed but that's not a biologist
Henry Wilson
I'm not arguing that the species didn't evolve to be a social species due to it being advantageous. I'm arguing that individuals needing to sacrifice their bloodline for the benefit of the group would not have their genes passed down. You still haven't explained how that would work. How would such an individual pass down its genes so that the group could still benefit from it if it never reproduced?
Liam Perry
Forgot picture explaining why groupings exist.
Tyler Hall
>Genes don't magically transfer themselves between a grouping.
Yes they do, and it's not "magic", it's called sex you virgin.
Because a genetic code isn't a fucking blueprint. There isn't a "gene of gay" and a "gene of chad" and a "gene of brainlet", phenotypes are determined by multiple genes so you can perfectly arrive at a setup where only heteros reproduce but still a fixed percentage of their offsprings are gay.
And stop talking about whether or not grouping is optimal, that's not the argument here.
Sebastian Price
>Why are there fags if they can’t reproduce and proliferate their genetics?
Maybe homosexual males don't stay exclusively homosexual their entire lives. Perhaps they have an advantage when it comes to women due to their perceived non-threat status by women or on another level that the heterosexual male is not aware of.
>Why are there homophobes?
Homophobic individuals maybe feel threatened by homosexuals due to the aforementioned reasons or because the male sees an easy target to boost his perceived masculinity. Which in the larger context results from a societal stigma perpetuated by the masses of predominantly heterosexual males who obtain a sexual reproductive advantage to keeping homosexuality "under control".
Like anything in the biological world on a mass scale its a fluid and changing game. I look these questions from the strict perspective of a sexual reproductive strategy. Consider the sole biological purpose of DNA which is to survive and replicate. Perhaps this is one of the many manifestations through which this perceived complex behaviour takes place on a large scale.
Hudson Davis
>Yes they do, and it's not "magic", it's called sex you virgin.
So if a gay person never has a child how do their genes transfer between a population again? How does this mysterious sex thing transfer genes from one individual to another without reproducing?
>Because a genetic code isn't a fucking blueprint. There isn't a "gene of gay" and a "gene of chad" and a "gene of brainlet", phenotypes are determined by multiple genes so you can perfectly arrive at a setup where only heteros reproduce but still a fixed percentage of their offsprings are gay.
So then the argument here still doesn't apply. He's claiming being gay is a trait that is beneficial in itself, not different rearrangings of genes, which btw is not how genotypes work.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Christian Brooks
you don't understand
Let me give you an example. You could ask similarly "why does anybody have genetic neurodegenerative diseases"?
Because it turns out the genes linked to those diseases also favour intelligence (we discovered 536 so far). If you got a lot of them, you'll be smart. If you got too many, you'll be a schizo.
Nobody with those diseases reproduces. Yet they still appear in the offsprings of people who are not afflicted by those diseases.
>How does this mysterious sex thing transfer genes from one individual to another without reproducing?
Similarly to my example, it transfers because overall groups with those genes perform better than groups that don't, even if the actual gays don't reproduce, because the related genes are part of the group's gene pool.
It's not that hard to grasp:
tribe made of parents A and their 10 kids, one is gay due to the parent latent genes.
tribe made of parents B and their 10 kids have no gay
tribe A outperforms tribe B because of the reduced sexual competition. tribe A's genepool perpetuates, with the specific gene combination that leads to homosexuality expressing itself in only 10% of individuals.
tribe B dies and its genepool disappears
what don't you understand?
Tyler Robinson
Do you have a source for this? I've read most of the 8th edition of Campbell & Reece's biology textbook a few years ago and none of this is ringing a bell. If you have a source I'd prefer to go directly to that.
Justin Allen
Because straight/gay isn't binary
Wyatt Ramirez
the general concept I'm referring to is just a particular case of genetic drift
if you mean the thing with the intelligence genes it's still very recent, until 3 months ago we only knew of 50 loci, the 536 is a result from a massive study ( biorxiv.org
Ethan Jenkins
Yeah I'm aware of the workings of genetic drift but I still don't see how having infertile offspring is beneficial compared to having fertile offspring in any scenario. If you have a source for that concept I'd appreciate it since I'm still not fully convinced for a bunch of reasons. Also cool about the intelligence thing, didn't know about that.
John Gutierrez
Well there's the Kirkpatrick paper: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Do note he does mention but doesn't favour the hypothesis I mentioned (kin selection), but he does offer another one that's linked to social behaviour.