Using one of our board's own, Pud. As we all know, Pud is g@y, yet he has at least one son. How can this be you ask? I would like to hypothesize and that takes us to the nature vs. nurture debate.
Pud is in fact nearly 61 years old, which means he grew up in a time where being g@y was EXTREMELY unacceptable. Back then being g@y was considered a mental disorder. In order to comply with the then social standards and be considered socially acceptable, Pud gave up the c0k and became straight for a while. Heck, he even got married and had a kid or two!
As social standards changed over time, however, Pud realized he was miserable in his relationship. When he was in bed staring into the eyes of his wife, he didn't see her, he saw Fabio. Consequently, Pud got divorced and his kids either had two dads or they had one dad who was single but g@y.
So there you go, there IS a way that can explain how evolution may in fact exist in some form (most of it is still lies and the theory that humans descended from apes and whatever else before that is obviously preposterous) and how g@ys can also become that way because of social conditioning.
I personally don't think there's a g@y gene and like Mav, I think people become that way through culture and their social settings. I just like to prove to the people who DO believe there's a g@y gene that it completely negates the theory of evolution and natural selection. And I mean it negates it so completely that the argument is simply over right there and it proves that evolution is a myth.
Any comment here Miquel? This is your people.
Hit a trendline that has been in place for years. I would buy a re-test. Production has already peaked and when the massive rig cuts catch up, CL will surge.
It's true that gays like Pud can have kids if everyone were gay, the population would be on a downward trajectory over time and the species would be wiped out of existence so my thoughts are still true.
How come I can't ever get Professor Pud's perspective? He tells me to have an open mind and I indeed learned about evolution in high school. Yet when I prove that I understand the theory and provide a scenario that he says is true, which is literally IMPOSSIBLE given said theory, he does not show up.
N asi soldiers tried to systematically remove the very race (they have all the traits of a race and so that's what I will refer to them as) you claim to hate so why are you now being a hypocrite? They were also going to eliminate Christianity over time. Of course you would support them.
By making the species stronger, smarter, more durable, etc.? If so, why would evolution not eliminate a g@y gene?
Nothing says survival like a gene that virtually guarantees over time that reproduction would cease to exist in a species while also causing diseases like AIDs that literally REDUCE the lifespan of that species propagator.
Why do you think this lobster no longer exists? Did he have your infamous "g@y gene"?
However, scientists don't agree on how and when the arthropod's distinctive body plans first evolved. Arthropods have a hard exoskeleton and a body with multiple segments. And modern arthropod legs are highly specialized; each leg does just one thing, and does it well, whether the job is eating, breathing, sensing or even copulating.
But Yawunik's front limbs were different from its modern cousins. Though they look rather dainty, the predator's long frontal appendages were dual-purpose weapons for hunting and grabbing prey.
Each frontal limb had three long claws, two of which sported long rows of teeth to capture food. Long, whiplike flagella extended from the tips of the claws. Aria thinks these flagella were sensory organs that could detect a potential dinner nearby. Yawunik could also sweep its arms backward and forward, spreading them out during an attack and then retracting them under its body when swimming, he said.
"This dual function is very, very special, because it does not appear in modern forms." Aria said. "If you take insects as an example, they have a very constrained body plan. But the constraints were not the same in Yawunik."
LOL! Terrorist mercenaries. If you disagree with the military, why don't you go after the politicians rather than the soldiers who are simply following orders?
Once again, there is very little, if any difference between the radical left and radical Islamists.
Barry said just yesterday that he's keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely. The left is full of hypocrites.
The left is afraid because they know more and more people are waking up to the fact that it's a hoax.Instead the left is taking the Orwell 1984 approach and trying to change history (data) and destroy all evidence contrary to their views.
I will give you thumbs up TA for another correct call. Not sure what your time frame is but this was good for today. If I didn't own so much NG I might've joined you last night.
I like Cruz and he brings a fresh perspective to the GOP primary but that doesn't mean he's my favorite guy to win the GOP nomination. Maybe he will be. Right now I am not convinced he's electable either.
As things stand, he has a very small chance at winning the nomination though so it's a moot point.
The scary part if there's people in this country that actually think this hag is qualified to be POTUS.
Conservative thought on campus these days is rare, though for some it’s still not rare enough. Witness the growing campaign by politicians, unions and environmentalists to intimidate into silence any academic or program that might challenge liberal ideology.
Congressional Democrats have grabbed most of the attention here, with their recent attempt to cow climate skeptics. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT and a Cato Institute scholar, earlier this month described in these pages how House Rep. Raul Grijalva was targeting seven academics skeptical of President Obama’s climate policies, demanding documents about their funding and connections. A trio of Senate Democrats is working to muzzle more than 100 nonprofits and companies that have questioned the climate agenda, with a fishing expedition into their correspondence.
Largely unnoticed is that the congressional climate crusaders didn’t come up with this idea on their own. For several years a coalition of liberal organizations have been using “disclosure” to sully the names of conservative professors and try to shut down their programs.
Apparently the only kind of thought not allowed is that which might “undermine,” according to UnKochMyCampus, “environmental protection, worker’s rights, health care expansion, and quality public education.” Stopping such research is the mission of this organization, which is spearheaded by Greenpeace, Forecast the Facts (a green outfit focused on climate change), and the American Federation of Teachers.
The group’s website directs student activists to a list of universities to which Koch foundations have given money, and provides a “campus organization guide” with instructions for how to “expose and undermine” any college thought that works against “progressive values.” Students are directed to first recruit “trusted allies and informants” (including liberal faculty, students and alumni) and then are given a step-by-step guide on hounding universities a
And today you see what a flaming pile of poo that part of the world is. She has no change at being POTUS.