3 ms·

>> passing on those tuskless genes aka being born without turks

• Ma8ee 4y ago
  Uh, no. You haven't passed on any genes until you have fertil offspring. Being born is of course necessary, but far from sufficient.
  • Broken_Hippo 4y ago
    That's not true. If you have offspring, they have some of your genes. They don't have to be fertile. For a better example, take humans: If you have a child and they grow up to be infertile, you have still passed on your genes. If they choose not to have children - even if fertile - you've still passed on your genes. Your particular mix of genes just won't live on in subsequent generations. Grandchildren aren't a requirement for you to simply pass on genes.
    • bearmode 4y ago
      I think we all know they're talking on an evolutionary level here, not just individuals...
      • carlmr 4y ago
        You shouldn't "Uh, no" people if you're just 50% correct some of the time.
        • Ma8ee 4y ago
          The “Uh no” was to someone who tried to correct someone who was right while being 100% wrong themselves. And in the context, I was 100% right.
    • Ma8ee 4y ago
      If your children are infertile, you are from an evolutionary perspective a dead end.
  • tremon 4y ago
    You being born is the ultimate proof of genes having been passed on. In what way is that not sufficient?
    • Ma8ee 4y ago
      But you haven't passed on any genes. You have only been passed genes. That is, if the choice of language confuses people: You have only been given those genes. You haven't given any genes to anyone else who can give those genes further, which is what matters in an evolutionary perspective.
      • tremon 4y ago
        And your parents passing on their genes to you doesn't matter, from an evolutionary perspective? You have only "been given" those genes, as if by magic?
        • Ma8ee 4y ago
          Uh?
• zelphirkalt 4y ago
  Ah, Turks ... I see. clears throat and scrolls on