<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Feb 7 2003, 05:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Feb 7 2003, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not to sound gaybashing, but homosexuality is a negative-survival trait. If we constantly tailor the world to keep everything equal, then sooner or later possibly a majority of humanity might turn into negative-survival trait carriers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not actually true... look at it this way:
If a person has a child, you could say that their "rate of genetic continuance" necessary to maintain a constant population size is 1 (IE, they need to have a single child who is continuing their genetic pattern). Now, that person might have a brother, who is going to share approximately 50% of the same number of genetic markers as the homosexual individual, which means that the children of his brother are going to have about 25% identical genetic markers to the homosexual individual.
This homosexual individual is not going to be contributing directly to the genetic continuance of his genetic line (IE, he's not gonna be having any kids)... but he IS in a position (since he has no kids of his own) to help raise the children of his family members. If, through the efforts put into helping raise the children of his relatives (taking care of them while the relatives are out hunting, teaching them skills, etc), the homosexual causes one of them to survive until that child has a kid of it's own, he's upped his genetic line's rate of genetic continuance by 0.25. If he helps four children survive and have kids of their own, it's upped to 1.0 (the same as if he had a kid). This pattern continues as far as you want to carry it.
If homosexuality were a "survival negative" trait, why is it found in about 10 percent of the human population? I'd expect much lower numbers...
Becuase homosexuality is recessive in all of the population, even the military (insert cry of military fanatics wanting to kill me)
If you think about it, the dominant homosexuality trait doesn't continue but over time human DNA mutates slightly and recessives become dominants. sh!t happens. For one reason or another homosexuality doesn't exist as more then 10% of the population for a reason.
<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Feb 21 2003, 02:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Feb 21 2003, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Becuase homosexuality is recessive in all of the population, even the military (insert cry of military fanatics wanting to kill me)
If you think about it, the dominant homosexuality trait doesn't continue but over time human DNA mutates slightly and recessives become dominants. sh!t happens. For one reason or another homosexuality doesn't exist as more then 10% of the population for a reason. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not going to argue that homosexuality isn't a recessive trait, because it obviously is one. However, *any* survival negative trait, dominant <i>or</i> recessive, ends up being bred down to extreme rarity over a few hundred generations... 10% is not what i would call "extreme rarity."
Granted, it's not as "survival positive" as being heterosexual in most cases... that would result in a 25% ocurrence rate (the "average" rate of occurrence for a recessive trait in a hypothetical, basic gene pool). But 10% ocurrence is significantly greater than the rate for, say, sickle-cell anemia (another syndrome that comes in on a recessive trait), which tends to kill off the person carrying it.
sickle-cell anemia is a little bit of a poor choice, because in the African regions it's a positive survival trait. The sickle shape of the cells means that Malaria can't attach to the cell and so the person very rarely/never gets Malaria, meaning that they live a lot longer then they would have. that's why sickle-cell is seen mostly in black Africans.
and 25% is the base, but don't forget societies restrictions. My friend (who is now openly ****) didn't come out till he was finally convinced that his friends would accept him 100%
Think of the 50% divorce rate among newlyweds. It's gotta happen for a reason for some of them, besides money and such.
I remember reading an article about this last year. Scientists have been working on this for a long time now (at least 10 years).
I don't think it's possible right now. I didn't look at your website, but it's probably a hoax.
I find it disturbing though, that in the future, this may become reality. I don't know how they would achieve such a thing, but it's clearly not normal.
Aside from the whole "it's FRIGGIN impossible for a man to give birth cause he needs the works", just think about the psychological(sp) aspect. If a man gives birth, who will become the mother and father figures for the baby... Don't forget that men, do NOT produce milk <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
I mean, what the hell is a baby gonna think when he is being breast-fed by a man, when is basic instincts tell him that women are suposed to do that...
What will happen once the man has given birth? Where will all the, now useless organs go?
Anyways... if I look down to my cr0tch, I clearly see there is no way a football can come out of me.... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
It has already been said but, ADOPTION is something you should think about too....
Jobabob, you ever been around a pregnant woman? I have had some of the worst days of my life being in a class with a pregnant teacher..
The pain isn't just during birth. There's mood swings a'plenty during the pregnancy, and there's bound to be other side-effects (morning sickness, anyone?)
There was something I read in New Scientist about a woman whose baby grew outside the womb, attached to the muscle of the belly. I believe both the mother and child survived ceasearian section, but I cannot remember the details.
So you need an egg - you could take a donor egg (and possibly insert someone elses DNA into), fertalise it... Work out how to get the foetus to grow without a womb. (its happened, but presumably it doesn't happen very often). Pump lots of hormones into the father to make him more like a pregnant woman (these would probably make him very ill). Then cut him open to unwrap the bundle of joy...
Extremely unlikely to happen any time soon. Think of the ethical concerns for the experiments. Also there is little need. **** couples, may want it, but not enough of a reason to justify the risks - when surrogate mothers poses so little direct threat to the child.
So I would be surprised if this ever came to pass.
Comments
Not actually true... look at it this way:
If a person has a child, you could say that their "rate of genetic continuance" necessary to maintain a constant population size is 1 (IE, they need to have a single child who is continuing their genetic pattern). Now, that person might have a brother, who is going to share approximately 50% of the same number of genetic markers as the homosexual individual, which means that the children of his brother are going to have about 25% identical genetic markers to the homosexual individual.
This homosexual individual is not going to be contributing directly to the genetic continuance of his genetic line (IE, he's not gonna be having any kids)... but he IS in a position (since he has no kids of his own) to help raise the children of his family members. If, through the efforts put into helping raise the children of his relatives (taking care of them while the relatives are out hunting, teaching them skills, etc), the homosexual causes one of them to survive until that child has a kid of it's own, he's upped his genetic line's rate of genetic continuance by 0.25. If he helps four children survive and have kids of their own, it's upped to 1.0 (the same as if he had a kid). This pattern continues as far as you want to carry it.
If homosexuality were a "survival negative" trait, why is it found in about 10 percent of the human population? I'd expect much lower numbers...
If you think about it, the dominant homosexuality trait doesn't continue but over time human DNA mutates slightly and recessives become dominants. sh!t happens. For one reason or another homosexuality doesn't exist as more then 10% of the population for a reason.
If you think about it, the dominant homosexuality trait doesn't continue but over time human DNA mutates slightly and recessives become dominants. sh!t happens. For one reason or another homosexuality doesn't exist as more then 10% of the population for a reason. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to argue that homosexuality isn't a recessive trait, because it obviously is one. However, *any* survival negative trait, dominant <i>or</i> recessive, ends up being bred down to extreme rarity over a few hundred generations... 10% is not what i would call "extreme rarity."
Granted, it's not as "survival positive" as being heterosexual in most cases... that would result in a 25% ocurrence rate (the "average" rate of occurrence for a recessive trait in a hypothetical, basic gene pool). But 10% ocurrence is significantly greater than the rate for, say, sickle-cell anemia (another syndrome that comes in on a recessive trait), which tends to kill off the person carrying it.
and 25% is the base, but don't forget societies restrictions. My friend (who is now openly ****) didn't come out till he was finally convinced that his friends would accept him 100%
Think of the 50% divorce rate among newlyweds. It's gotta happen for a reason for some of them, besides money and such.
Scientists have been working on this for a long time now (at least 10 years).
I don't think it's possible right now.
I didn't look at your website, but it's probably a hoax.
I find it disturbing though, that in the future, this may become reality.
I don't know how they would achieve such a thing, but it's clearly not normal.
Aside from the whole "it's FRIGGIN impossible for a man to give birth cause he needs the works", just think about the psychological(sp) aspect.
If a man gives birth, who will become the mother and father figures for the baby...
Don't forget that men, do NOT produce milk <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
I mean, what the hell is a baby gonna think when he is being breast-fed by a man, when is basic instincts tell him that women are suposed to do that...
What will happen once the man has given birth? Where will all the, now useless organs go?
Anyways... if I look down to my cr0tch, I clearly see there is no way a football can come out of me.... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
It has already been said but, ADOPTION is something you should think about too....
The pain isn't just during birth. There's mood swings a'plenty during the pregnancy, and there's bound to be other side-effects (morning sickness, anyone?)
Site seems to be a hoax (on topic).
So you need an egg - you could take a donor egg (and possibly insert someone elses DNA into), fertalise it... Work out how to get the foetus to grow without a womb. (its happened, but presumably it doesn't happen very often). Pump lots of hormones into the father to make him more like a pregnant woman (these would probably make him very ill). Then cut him open to unwrap the bundle of joy...
Extremely unlikely to happen any time soon. Think of the ethical concerns for the experiments. Also there is little need. **** couples, may want it, but not enough of a reason to justify the risks - when surrogate mothers poses so little direct threat to the child.
So I would be surprised if this ever came to pass.