or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Gaydar
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gaydar - Page 4

post #46 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetBlast View Post
Seconded. Screw this, I'm going to go look at overpriced shoes at Lord & Taylor.

JB

I was looking for tips on how to hone my gaydar. I'm terrible.
post #47 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post
I'm not a genetisist, but I don't think it works like that. I think that a gene doesn't just control one thing, it controls several. so there may be a gene that, along with several other things, makes every tenth man that has that gene by gay. if that were the case, and the assumption was that gay men make good uncles, then that gene would self perpetuate well, if the advantage of having a gay uncle raised ones ability to preproduce.

The first part of your statement is true but not the conclusion. Genes cannot self-perpetuate; they need to be passed on to your offspring for the traits they activate to remain in the population. In other words, if every tenth gay uncle never has any kids, irrespective of the adaptive value of having gay uncles, they have no one to pass their genes to and will become extinct.

An interesting corollary of this discussion is that if gay people today are increasingly open with their homosexuality and stop reproducing (i.e. they don't marry and have kids for show and remain closet homos as they used to) and there seems to be evidence of this, then they will remove themselves from the gene pool within a few generations - assuming of course that there is indeed a gay gene.
post #48 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL72 View Post
The first part of your statement is true but not the conclusion. Genes cannot self-perpetuate; they need to be passed on to your offspring for the traits they activate to remain in the population. In other words, if every tenth gay uncle never has any kids, irrespective of the adaptive value of having gay uncles, they have no one to pass their genes to and will become extinct.

An interesting corollary of this discussion is that if gay people today are increasingly open with their homosexuality and stop reproducing (i.e. they don't marry and have kids for show and remain closet homos as they used to) and there seems to be evidence of this, then they will remove themselves from the gene pool within a few generations - assuming of course that there is indeed a gay gene.

...but there isn't.
post #49 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonglover View Post
I was looking for tips on how to hone my gaydar. I'm terrible.

Thin, neat and single.
post #50 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonglover View Post
...but there isn't.

I have no idea. I'm not aware of the latest research in this area. I was just making an argument based on the assumption that there is.
post #51 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagonesque View Post
Thin, neat and single.

I would add Youtube performances of Proud Mary to that list.
post #52 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL72 View Post
The first part of your statement is true but not the conclusion. Genes cannot self-perpetuate; they need to be passed on to your offspring for the traits they activate to remain in the population. In other words, if every tenth gay uncle never has any kids, irrespective of the adaptive value of having gay uncles, they have no one to pass their genes to and will become extinct.

An interesting corollary of this discussion is that if gay people today are increasingly open with their homosexuality and stop reproducing (i.e. they don't marry and have kids for show and remain closet homos as they used to) and there seems to be evidence of this, then they will remove themselves from the gene pool within a few generations - assuming of course that there is indeed a gay gene.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that there were such a thing as a "gay gene", I'm not sure your conclusion would follow. With the reduction of societal prejudices against gay people, and with the increase in medical sophistication, gay couples are now much more able to start families with babies who carry their genes -- through the use of surrogates, in vitro fertilization, whatever.
But there's a more fundmental problem that runs through this discussion. Concepts like "fitness" and genetic "advantages" can sometimes be deduced retrospectively, although even that is a complicated endeavor. Given the variety of factors (only some of them understood) at play and the time scales involved in evolution and Darwinian "selection", trying to make such judgments or predictions prospectively is, for a variety of reasons, generally a fool's errand.
post #53 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL72 View Post
I would add Youtube performances of Proud Mary to that list.

Oh come on, not even a raging 'mo would put something like that on YouTube.
post #54 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connemara View Post
Oh come on, not even a raging 'mo would put something like that on YouTube.

post #55 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL72 View Post
The first part of your statement is true but not the conclusion. Genes cannot self-perpetuate; they need to be passed on to your offspring for the traits they activate to remain in the population. In other words, if every tenth gay uncle never has any kids, irrespective of the adaptive value of having gay uncles, they have no one to pass their genes to and will become extinct.

An interesting corollary of this discussion is that if gay people today are increasingly open with their homosexuality and stop reproducing (i.e. they don't marry and have kids for show and remain closet homos as they used to) and there seems to be evidence of this, then they will remove themselves from the gene pool within a few generations - assuming of course that there is indeed a gay gene.

again, I am not a genetisist, and I may have understood this incorrectly, but you don't need to have direct descendants to carry on your genes - look at animals like ants and bees, for instance, that work to allow their siblings to reproduce, on the assumption that that will carry on their genes. a gene could carry a trait that helped others that carry that gene reproduce successfully, not nessasarily every individual that carries that gene.
post #56 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonglover View Post
...but there isn't.

I don't know that there is, but we don't know that there isn't. there may be.
post #57 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post
Assuming for the sake of discussion that there were such a thing as a "gay gene", I'm not sure your conclusion would follow. With the reduction of societal prejudices against gay people, and with the increase in medical sophistication, gay couples are now much more able to start families with babies who carry their genes -- through the use of surrogates, in vitro fertilization, whatever.

That's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post
But there's a more fundmental problem that runs through this discussion. Concepts like "fitness" and genetic "advantages" can sometimes be deduced retrospectively, although even that is a complicated endeavor. Given the variety of factors (only some of them understood) at play and the time scales involved in evolution and Darwinian "selection", trying to make such judgments or predictions prospectively is, for a variety of reasons, generally a fool's errand.

I agree with this too. I wouldn't bet my Tramezzas on predicting the outcome of any evolutionary processe but it's still interesting to consider.
post #58 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL72 View Post
That's true.



I agree with this too. I wouldn't bet my Tramezzas on predicting the outcome of any evolutionary processe but it's still interesting to consider.

Agreed. Since I think we wear different shoe sizes, there's no incentive for me to try to sucker you into that bet. Of course, by the time we knew the outcome neither of our descendants might even have feet.
post #59 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post
Agreed. Since I think we wear different shoe sizes, there's no incentive for me to try to sucker you into that bet. Of course, by the time we knew the outcome neither of our descendants might even have feet.

I think humans will evolve webbed feet given the distinct evolutionary advantage they will confer in the coming global warming era.
post #60 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL72 View Post
I think humans will evolve webbed feet given the distinct evolutionary advantage they will confer in the coming global warming era.

So I guess Kenneth Cole is really positioning the brand for the future.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Gaydar