d1 said...pierrec45 said...theDoctor said...
yeah well, unless you got a contract with jim rose...
hemaphrodite ain't quite natural either, well it might occur naturally but human(sic) evolution ain't built upon it
Human evolution ain't, but human (and other species) are built on a process that relies on mutations, which generate things like hermaphroditism, and, according to most scientists, homosexuality through genetics. Ergo even the changes that do not lead to full reproduction of fertile offsprings participate in the process of the evolution of the species.
Includes all the weirdos in this forum
On a more humorous note: "even those who think homosexuality is not a transmissible disease don't want their kids to catch it" (bad joke...)
If there were any scientists on this forum, they would point out that homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics. It is determined in utero, and linked to exposure to the mother's hormones. The grades vary, and societal and religious pressure has forced many borderline homosexuals to attempt living generally unhappy heterosexual lives. Such couples would produce offspring as normal as anyone else's.
Ignorance is also not genetic, but its permanent form, called stupidity, usually is.
Interesting that you would claim to represent all of science. Your friends have misled you. There is absolutely no proof anywhere, and certainly no scientific consensus, on your claim that it's all utero in humans and that the case is closed. If it's the case, please tell us of the exact utero reproducible recipe that produces this particular characteristics. (Please don't bring the "the-mother-was-stressed thing you find in some studies - vague and directed towards a certain conclusion. Also none of the studies that show that hormones can be influenced in the foetus show that there is no genetic possible predisposition, so don't bring that one up either.)
Until then, you'll find that many believe it's a combination, some that it's purely environmental (or even beyond birth), some that it's 100% genetics for that particular individual. The usual twins studies show a slight correlation, but are some tainted it seems... I thought there was no debate on the pleiotropy of many traits vaguely related to masculinity - for all the good and bad that it brings, and sexual dimorphism. I do not know of a scientist that will claim that full dimorphism (differences between male and female: hormones, physical, etc.) is entirely due to vague utero stress things in humans. Would like to hear if there is such a school of thought...
That I know of, unlike just about any other human traits these days, there is just about no loci research on this question. I vaguely understand the ethical reasons why it should be so, but there is a counter-reaction "it's pure utero induced and I don't need to prove it" that goes too far in this field. I asked my neighbour's daughter to bring up this ethics question at her anthropology class, and she just about got attacked. (knew she would)
"Such couples would produce offspring as normal as anyone else's" And I thought you claimed to represent both science and stupidity... . Genetically acquired traits are not necessarily transmissible, nor transmitted.
Grades vary: I do not know that for science, but I'll take your word for it, sure, why not.
That grades may vary does not imply 100% utero and environmental factors.
For that statement to be true you would have to prove that all genetically-acquired traits are off-on - a tall order.
before you make assumptions. 
