I think people need to understand that, the reason why these undesirable traits still exist in the modern day is because people across all generation where able to marry, have sex and pass on their genes. You can't blame your genetics for not being able to get laid when the only reason you have those genetics was that someone with those exact features had sex.
To be fair, your ancestors could've had those genes, only recessive and not technically showing or activated. So it wouldn't have been a factor in the parents mating, but it could become a factor in their offspring.
Autosomal recessive conditions are serious genetic disorders passed down when a child inherits two copies of a mutated gene, one from each parent. Examples include cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, and Tay-Sachs disease.
For a child to develop an autosomal recessive condition, they must inherit two copies of the mutated gene, one from each parent.
Parents who carry one copy of the mutated gene are called carriers and do not typically show symptoms of the condition themselves.
Even though parents may be carriers, the chance of having a child with the condition is 25% for each pregnancy, according to the National Library of Medicine.
Not as science-y as Mr. barcode guy, but if you're a guy and most of the genes that express themselves in you are from your mother, you might still be in trouble. The logic being, yes a woman did find your father attractive enough to have sex (assuming no r@pe), but you have no historical precedence to suggest that a woman would find your mother (the genetic male version of your mother) attractive enough to have sex.
14
u/Low-Score3292 May 04 '25
I think people need to understand that, the reason why these undesirable traits still exist in the modern day is because people across all generation where able to marry, have sex and pass on their genes. You can't blame your genetics for not being able to get laid when the only reason you have those genetics was that someone with those exact features had sex.