RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (43) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:41   

There is new talk of a "gay gene" being profferred by "scientists."

My question is this;

Would this not represent a refutation of evolution?  Or more modestly, would this not at the minimum represent a bad mutation naturally selected?  What in evolution would justify a selection of a "gay gene?"

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,15:51   

Gay people have kids all the time.  What's the logic behind the "refutation"?

Organisms with "bad mutations" can still pass their genes on.   Evolution doesn't require that only "good mutations" get passed on.

Go return the straw from where you stole it from.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,16:11   

Quote
new talk


uh, you're a bit behind the times there, eight ball.

and no, it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, unless you want to explore the exception proves the rule angle.

wait, why am i bothering to respond to an idiot?

forget i said anything.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,16:31   

I just thought of something. If a gay gene were to 'refute evolution', by default wouldn't that mean the gay gene was designed? And since God, WHOOPS I mean the Intelligent Designer supposedly hates gays so much, why would he design a gay gene?

It's quite a conundrum. Right up there with the Jesus-microwaving-a-burrito paradox.

(Hmm. Maybe the Intelligent Designer designed a gay gene for the same reason he put dinosaur bones on earth, to test people to see if they stayed faithful and to punish them brutally if they didn't?)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 12135
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,16:40   

Quote

wait, why am i bothering to respond to an idiot?
Lol. Yeah, I think most people are still in middle school when they realize that if they disagree with all the experts, it's probably not the experts who are wrong.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,16:51   

cogzoid,

So natural selection is really a meaningless term?  And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?  

So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation?

What would a "gay gene" entail?

This is the best example of drawing a conclusion and then finding the right evidence.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,17:23   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 04 2006,21:51)
cogzoid,

So natural selection is really a meaningless term?  And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?  

So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation?

What would a "gay gene" entail?

This is the best example of drawing a conclusion and then finding the right evidence.

Thordaddy, you are priceless.
Quote
So natural selection is really a meaningless term?  
Who said that? under those bloody great wads of straw there is a simple fact that you have allready been told.  Natural selection is pressure.  It's not absolute.  Simply put, Half-wits still exist.  There is pressure being put against Half wits, but clearly they exist.
Quote
And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?  

Uh according to the Ex gay ministries... (heh)
Quote

This is the best example of drawing a conclusion and then finding the right evidence.

Sorry, It fits in neatly with natural selection.  It's a poke in the eye for religion and it's half-wit pseudoscience child ID.
Just because you dont like it doesn't mean it's not true.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,17:34   

My half-assed hypothesis is that homosexuality increases in proportion to the level of pressure a population places upon its supporting environment.  Not so much a gay gene as, "how many offspring do we really need gene."


Since we're all in the mood for armchair science, I'd ask TD if a "god gene" will refute theology.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,17:48   

First of all, I think this whole gay gene idea is a load of crock.  Care to cite any studies to back your claim up?

But, barring that, I'm able to think abstractly and pretend that a gay gene exists.  Then ponder it's implications on our theories of science.

Quote
So natural selection is really a meaningless term?
Care to flush out your logic?  You jumped straight from "gay gene" to "natural selection is meaningless".  How do you get from A to B?

Quote
And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?
Certainly, but that doesn't stop gay people from pretending to be heterosexual.  Thousands of fathers come out of the closet every year, much to the devastation of their wives.  Did you see Brokeback Mountain?  Gay people that are "scared into the closet" will often times have families to seem normal.

Quote
So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation?
There's a chance of this, yes.  Perhaps the gene is recessive (like red hair) and only shows up when the kid happens to recieve two recessive gay genes.  This is standard practice for genes and straight out of 7th grade biology texts.

Quote
What would a "gay gene" entail?
Exactly!  What would a "gay gene" entail?  Where did you hear about them?

Quote
This is the best example of drawing a conclusion and then finding the right evidence.
What?!  Who drew what conclusion?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,18:13   

Hmmm....ok...couple of points

The Greeks were gay,really gay,crazy gay,they loved the.....
You get the point...

They had kids and a healthy society, but how?
Well the gay guys still had wives.
Seem strange?  Not really
They understood that sex created children, and since most humans want children, they had heterosexual sex.

Now, if there was a Designer, then he must have designed homosexuals.  Now, he probably used the "gay gene" to design them.  In other words...God is a gay gene designer.

Either way...it does, at first, reek of stupid...
Either Evolution let something slip in that doesnt benefit reproduction
Or a Designer designed organisms that have a difficult time reproducing.

I guess the only logic could be that the Designer preferred homosexuals...good luck selling that to the ID supporters...
But then again, from all the examples the designer sucks...

Everything aside though, there are obviously Evolutionary pathways as well as Designer pathways that could explain the presence of a "gay gene".  So its really a mute point

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,18:23   

It seems to me, Thor, that a gay gene, or for that matter a congenital development origin of gayness refutes the idea that gayness is a sin, rather than refuting evolution.

It does seem difficult for a gay gene to coincide with natural selection, but it does not seem difficult for congenital devlopmental causes to fit with evolution.

However, it has been pointed out that a small number of gay people in a group can enhance survival. People think it's all about having as many kids as you possibly can, but it isn't. It's about quality of life and raising the kids to adulthood. Hunter-gatherers and for that matter chimps, produce offspring about every 3-5 years. More than that is too much. If you look at a highly social animal  like wolves, you see that only one pair regularly produces offspring (the alpha male and female) while other relatives such as uncles and aunts help to care for and raise the pups.

More labor, hunters, and childcare is what a group of humans needs, not just everyone to pump out as many kids as they possibly can.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,20:29   

avocationist opines,

Quote
It seems to me, Thor, that a gay gene, or for that matter a congenital development origin of gayness refutes the idea that gayness is a sin, rather than refuting evolution.


I will agree with you in part.  What I see is that science is succumbing to political pressure to find a "gay gene."  The whole point is TO USE SCIENCE to refute gayness as a sin and USE SCIENCE to legitimate the behavior.  It's an example of providing the conclusion (gayness is genetic/inborn/immalleable) and finding the evidence to fit this conclusion ("gay gene").  

But what would it REALLY MEAN to find a "gay gene?"  We must find a unique "modification" in self-avowed and/or practicing homosexuals.  But then the question becomes... is this really a "gay gene" or a bad mutation?  I don't think there is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for survival... evolution's only purpose.

Quote
It does seem difficult for a gay gene to coincide with natural selection, but it does not seem difficult for congenital devlopmental causes to fit with evolution.


Again, it seems that you identify with the problems of a "gay gene" and so you simply propose the next best thing, namely, homosexuality as a congenital development.  Again, we can only conclude that homosexuality must be a congenital birth defect because it REJECTS evolution's only purpose.  What would such an admission do to undercut the argument for abortion if "homosexual" fetuses were first on the list?

Quote
However, it has been pointed out that a small number of gay people in a group can enhance survival. People think it's all about having as many kids as you possibly can, but it isn't. It's about quality of life and raising the kids to adulthood. Hunter-gatherers and for that matter chimps, produce offspring about every 3-5 years. More than that is too much. If you look at a highly social animal  like wolves, you see that only one pair regularly produces offspring (the alpha male and female) while other relatives such as uncles and aunts help to care for and raise the pups.


I think this is weak rationlization.  You seem to be saying that evolution devised a congenital birth defect that causes men to be sexaully-attracted to other men men (same for women) and NOT reproduce SO AS TO regulate life's propensity to reproduce and overpopulate themselves into extinction?  This is the nature of homosexuality?  

Quote
More labor, hunters, and childcare is what a group of humans needs, not just everyone to pump out as many kids as they possibly can.


And yet they don't, but they need not be homosexual either.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2006,20:44   

PuckSR opines,

Quote
Hmmm....ok...couple of points

The Greeks were gay,really gay,crazy gay,they loved the.....
You get the point...
 
They had kids and a healthy society, but how?
Well the gay guys still had wives.
Seem strange?  Not really
They understood that sex created children, and since most humans want children, they had heterosexual sex.

Now, if there was a Designer, then he must have designed homosexuals.  Now, he probably used the "gay gene" to design them.  In other words...God is a gay gene designer.


This is fallacious reasoning.  If one believes gayness is a chosen behavior then the "gay gene" need not exist and God need not design homosexuals.  These are merely ad hoc hypotheses.  There is no scientific evidence for either a "gay gene" or a Designer.

Quote
Either way...it does, at first, reek of stupid...
Either Evolution let something slip in that doesnt benefit reproduction
Or a Designer designed organisms that have a difficult time reproducing.

I guess the only logic could be that the Designer preferred homosexuals...good luck selling that to the ID supporters...
But then again, from all the examples the designer sucks...


Again, if homosexuality is a behavior then neither science nor ID are in trouble.  But you seem to preoccupied to see how science is being USED by certain ideologues.

Quote
Everything aside though, there are obviously Evolutionary pathways as well as Designer pathways that could explain the presence of a "gay gene".  So its really a mute point


Please provide these "pathways."

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,01:39   

I would have thought it would be worse if there is a gay gene. At the moment it is assumed to be purely psychological. Therefore people say it is a choice, and try to cure it through psychological means. If it is genetic, then they will say it is a disease, and no doubt the templeton foundation will fund research into a cure.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,01:44   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,01:44)
 There is no scientific evidence for either a "gay gene" or a Designer.

Wait a minute, I thought you were on the side of ID?  
Which as we all know, says there is scientific evidence for a designer.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,01:50   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 05 2006,01:29)
Quote
However, it has been pointed out that a small number of gay people in a group can enhance survival. People think it's all about having as many kids as you possibly can, but it isn't. It's about quality of life and raising the kids to adulthood. Hunter-gatherers and for that matter chimps, produce offspring about every 3-5 years. More than that is too much. If you look at a highly social animal  like wolves, you see that only one pair regularly produces offspring (the alpha male and female) while other relatives such as uncles and aunts help to care for and raise the pups.


I think this is weak rationlization.  You seem to be saying that evolution devised a congenital birth defect that causes men to be sexaully-attracted to other men men (same for women) and NOT reproduce SO AS TO regulate life's propensity to reproduce and overpopulate themselves into extinction?  This is the nature of homosexuality?  

No, hes saying that it seems likely that the complex of genetic variations and environmental pressures that mean you end up with homosexuals, has survived in the gene pool because in family groups in which one or two members do not  necessarily have their own children, but spend time helping rear the children of their relatives, more of the children survive to adulthood and breed.  

Furthermore, what can you tell us about why men are attracted to women, and women to men?  Is it their brain structure?  Hormones?  The voice of Cupid in their ear?

  
George



Posts: 315
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,02:05   

Quote
Please provide these "pathways."


Purely hypothetically, assume that the "gay gene" is X-linked.  A man in a hunter-gatherer society with a "pink X" chromosome has a sister with one pink X and one non-pink X.  Humans live(d) in family groups with a fair degree of cooperation.  The gay man has no offspring, but his sister has children, some of which carry the pink X.  If the efforts of the gay hunter improve the likelihood of his nephews' and nieces' survival relative to those children without a childless uncle to help care for them, then this means that there is postive selection for the pink X trait.

Not that I believe there is such a thing as a "pink X" gene.  If there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it will be a more complex multi-gene trait or the byproduct of the actions of other genes regulating hormones, sexual behaviour, etc.  I think that many if not most gays are actually bisexual in varying degrees (though I'm open to correction), rather than simply 100% gay, which suggests that homosexuality is not controlled by a single gene.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:18   

To actually insert just a little science into the debate ( :D )

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18424690.800.html

If homosexuality is an inherited trait, why do genes for it survive? Because these genes may make women more likely to reproduce.

Andrea Camperio-Ciani's team at the University of Padua, Italy, asked 98 gay and 100 straight men to fill in questionnaires about their families. They found mothers and aunts had more children if related to a gay rather than a straight man. Mothers of gay men averaged 2.7 babies, compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. Aunts on the mother's side had 2 babies compared with 1.5 for maternal aunts of straight men (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004).

The team suggests that gene variations on the X chromosome make women more likely to have more children, and men more likely to be gay. "We think of a gene for male homosexuality, but it might really be a gene for sexual attraction to men," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist at Stanford University and a writer on sexuality.

But the "maternal effect" could at most account for only 14 per cent of the prevalence of male homosexuality, the Italian team cautions. "Our findings, if confirmed, are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality." :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:27   

And even a book review:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721225.600.html

Jim McKnight's Straight Science? asks why, if there is a homosexual gene, should the human genome maintain a population predisposed to non-reproductive sex? McKnight argues that straight men carrying just one gay gene have a reproductive advantage. That's to say they make better fathers and their children are more likely to survive. McKnight has political nous, but—let's face it—he'll still get a kicking. Published by Routledge, £14.99, ISBN 0415157330.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,04:48   

I'll try and dig out stuff on the effects of exposure to hormones in the womb out as well.  IIRC, the idea is that a fetus is exposed to different hormones in the womb, and exposure to the "wrong" amount of some of them at the "wrong" time will lead to the parts of the brain concerned with sexual attraction being altered to a different way.  I.E. if your a homosexual man, the part of your brain related to what you find sexually attractive has been feminised in the womb.  

Its a neat idea, and sidesteps a lot of the messy genetic wragling, by putting the causes back to the mother genetics and environmental circumstances.  Which is what people often overlook, the way these things are presented in the media or by some researchers amounts to genetic determinism, whereas in most cases the genese merely decide which football pitch you are playing on, rather than which side wins.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:07   

I realize it's a total waste of time to argue with certain people, but here goes anyway...

Quote
I will agree with you in part.  What I see is that science is succumbing to political pressure to find a "gay gene."  


'Political pressure'? From the mighty liberal gay lobby in Washington DC? Who on earth would THEY be?

Quote
The whole point is TO USE SCIENCE to refute gayness as a sin


'Sin' is a subjective religious construct, TD. Science cannot prove or disprove it. And no, science and religion are not the same thing.

Quote
and USE SCIENCE to legitimate the behavior.  


'Legitimate' is not a verb, TD.

Quote
But what would it REALLY MEAN to find a "gay gene?"  We must find a unique "modification" in self-avowed and/or practicing homosexuals.  But then the question becomes... is this really a "gay gene" or a bad mutation?  I don't think there is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for survival... evolution's only purpose.


"Evolution must conform to my massively oversimplified characterization of it, or it is not valid".

Where have I seen that before?

Incidentally, you seem to have edited it out, but in a previous message you went on about how disease-prone and domestic violence-prone homosexuals were, and why this was evidence we should teach children in schools that gays are bad. Two questions: (a) I think your 'higher rates of domestic violence' claim is horseshlt. Got actual proof of it, from someone other than James Dobson? And (b) should kids be taught the fact that LESBIANS are less prone to sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals? If not, why not?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1773
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:28   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ April 05 2006,09:18)
To actually insert just a little science into the debate ( :D )

...

Not read the article yet. Probably will later. Quick question before I do.

Is the fact that most people are heterosexual and therefore the more babies that a mother has, the probability of having a homosexual child increases considered?

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:44   

Thor,

Quote
I will agree with you in part.  What I see is that science is succumbing to political pressure to find a "gay gene."  The whole point is TO USE SCIENCE to refute gayness as a sin and USE SCIENCE to legitimate the behavior.  It's an example of providing the conclusion (gayness is genetic/inborn/immalleable) and finding the evidence to fit this conclusion ("gay gene").
There could indeed be such pressure. In that case, tho, it won't stand th test of time. But there is more than a gene. What about studies that show birth order has a role? There are also some studies showing a different brain organization, and this is what I consider the most promising. In fact, I am all but sure that this is going to turn out to be the case. The brain of the embryo gets a little different development and this changes the sexual and emotional behavior. There really is a tremendous amount of evidence that sexual behavior is brain-dependent and hormone-dependent. But again, people are complex and there could be more than one type of gayness and more than one cause. There are even more than one kind of left-handedness.

The people who are convinced homosexuality is a sin are unable to look dispassionately at the evidence. The only acceptable evidence is that it is a 'behavior." It actually rather surprises me how men can think that other men are so easily swayed away from being excited by the female body. Could you? When people say that it makes me wonder if the person making the accusation is really fully heterosexual. I don't intend this as an insult but I think you can see the logic. In a normal male, the attraction to the female is strong. If one doubts that another person has a strong hold on their heterosexuality, it might mean that it is weak in their own self.

The thing is, Thor, that research into development and behavior is showing (and feminists of a certain stripe aren't liking it I think) that male and female behaviors and inner feelings are pretty much hard wired from birth. Yet there is a tremendous overlap because actual brain development has a wide continuum of structure.

Quote

Again, it seems that you identify with the problems of a "gay gene" and so you simply propose the next best thing, namely, homosexuality as a congenital development.  Again, we can only conclude that homosexuality must be a congenital birth defect because it REJECTS evolution's only purpose.
I don't assume it is a congenital defect for any other reason than that it makes so much sense in the real world, where I live among gay people and read books about the unbelievably tiny amounts of hormone during embryonic development that it takes to influence an animal's behavior for life, and where I look at men and women and see that homosexuals, especially the more "end of spectrum" effeminate gay men and masculine gay women appear in myriad ways to not have the brains typical of their gender.

Are you aware that the male infant makes his own male brain with his testosterone? That things can interfere with his testosterone?

I am not considering this question from an abortion angle, just a truth angle.

Quote
You seem to be saying that evolution devised a congenital birth defect that causes men to be sexaully-attracted to other men men (same for women) and NOT reproduce SO AS TO regulate life's propensity to reproduce and overpopulate themselves into extinction?  This is the nature of homosexuality?  
It may or may not be part of nature's natural variation, but it might also be a mistake. Many mistakes get made during embryonic development. Lack of perfect nutrition means a child will not live up to his genetic potential. But producing variety does help in tight situations, because just a few individuals might have what it takes to survive the situation. And humans are the least instinctive and the most capable of varied behavior. Not every individual should have the goal of reproducing as fast and as early as possible. A society is stronger if there are some people with other skills and interests. We are not sea turtles whose main strategy is chucking out as many eggs as possible.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,05:57   

Quote
If there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, it will be a more complex multi-gene trait or the byproduct of the actions of other genes regulating hormones, sexual behaviour, etc.  I think that many if not most gays are actually bisexual in varying degrees (though I'm open to correction), rather than simply 100% gay, which suggests that homosexuality is not controlled by a single gene.


All this is better explained through the congenital development theory. It gives you the complex spectrum of behaviors that we actually see in real life. And any gay genes could easily fit in with it, too.

It also explains why many homosexuals have some heterosexual attraction, altho some don't seem to at all.

I came up with the idea that much homosexuality is developmental before I knew what I had read things that confirmed it, because of close observation of some gay friends I had years ago. At that time, the psychological explanations, the cold father, the overprotective mother were all the rage, and I saw that it isn't true.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,06:18   

A friend of mine, who is homosexual, has a twin brother (is that English?) who is not.
And this is easily noticeable from their manners.

My two cents.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,06:26   

Quote
A friend of mine, who is homosexual, has a twin brother (is that English?)


Yes, that's perfectly grammatical, not to worry.

Quote
who is not.
And this is easily noticeable from their manners.

My two cents.


You're talking about an identical twin, I assume?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,06:59   

whereas what I wrote was not English.

Apparently there are mirror image twins. My sister's husband is an identical twin but one is left-handed and one right.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,07:04   

Quote
Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution?


Well, he hasn't refuted it yet, so I'm inclined to answer "no."  And, as a side note, I didn't even know Mike Gene was gay until I read it here.

EDIT: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,07:12   

Quote (improvius @ April 05 2006,12:04)
Quote
Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution?


Well, he hasn't refuted it yet, so I'm inclined to answer "no."  And, as a side note, I didn't even know Mike Gene was gay until I read it here.

EDIT: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

No, I think TD is referring to Big Gay Gene from South Park.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,07:16   

I thought that was Big Gay Al.  Or was Gene the name of Stan's gay dog?

  
  1264 replies since April 04 2006,15:41 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (43) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]