Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Cope “Your existence proves that even ugly ancestors found a way to pass on their genes."

Lazyandtalentless

Lazyandtalentless

Wizard
★★★★
Joined
Oct 21, 2024
Posts
4,397
The statement is dumb because genetics are complex. Just because someone is ugly doesn’t mean their ancestors were. Traits don’t always pass down predictably, and features can skip generations or mix in unexpected ways. You could inherit good traits from distant relatives, even if your immediate ancestors didn’t look the same. Also, deformities like Crouzon syndrome or other genetic conditions can happen due to mutations that aren’t linked to your ancestors’ appearance. Also, you could have been born with good genes but ruined your appearance due to something like mouth breathing.
 
It was also easier for men back then. The standards nowadays are ridiculous for men. Many of us could have got a gf 50-100 years ago
 
Evryone has mostly female ancestors for a reason
 
This is true, that's why they call it the genetic lottery.
 
My father has blue eyes, is blonde, and looks like a high tier normie.

On the other hand I have brown eyes, brown hair, and am a below average sperg.

Just because your parents have better genetics doesn't mean that you will get all of the positive traits associated with being a muh human.

(I seriously need to do a dna test though because I don't look like my father at all.)
 
My father has blue eyes, is blonde, and looks like a high tier normie.

On the other hand I have brown eyes, brown hair, and am a below average sperg.

Just because your parents have better genetics doesn't mean that you will get all of the positive traits associated with being a muh human.

(I seriously need to do a dna test though because I don't look like my father at all.)
Also jfl my parents want me to have kids one day because I may have the blue eye gene still even though my eyes are brown. :kys:
 
well when you live in a time where you get 1 like on a facebook picture and your looksmatch gets 100+
yeah shit becomes fucked
but anyways the people who say this shit either lucked out financially/genetically or just retarded boomers who lucked out financially
 
Last edited:
Standards were lower and also genes are basically random, you can have two ugly people produce a Chad and have two attractive people produce a Incel or Ugly Woman:

IMG 7950


Henry Cavill’s Brothers look Average.
 
Standards were lower and also genes are basically random, you can have two ugly people produce a Chad and have two attractive people produce a Incel or Ugly Woman:

View attachment 1351287

Henry Cavill’s Brothers look Average.
its such a gamble really
i ended up losing that gamble
 
The statement is dumb because genetics are complex. Just because someone is ugly doesn’t mean their ancestors were. Traits don’t always pass down predictably, and features can skip generations or mix in unexpected ways. You could inherit good traits from distant relatives, even if your immediate ancestors didn’t look the same. Also, deformities like Crouzon syndrome or other genetic conditions can happen due to mutations that aren’t linked to your ancestors’ appearance. Also, you could have been born with good genes but ruined your appearance due to something like mouth breathing.
yup, genetic recombination, plus phenotypic expression means that normie and even chad can spawn subhumans. That is why you can have tallfags and shortcels both be brothers.
 
True. My father has a similar face to me, but is a bit taller, has a much better frame, and not only looks like a former thug but actually was a thug when younger (high pain tolerance, excitement seeking and so on all have a genetic component as well and are integral for doing stuff like that.)

This is true, that's why they call it the genetic lottery.
 
Meanwhile going back to prehistoric times when for every 15 women that reproduced only 1 man did

Sure buddy boyo, men have it all good. Its not that Chads take everything when women are the one's choosing!
 
True. My father has a similar face to me, but is a bit taller, has a much better frame, and not only looks like a former thug but actually was a thug when younger (high pain tolerance, excitement seeking and so on all have a genetic component as well and are integral for doing stuff like that.)
Why don't you try joining a gypsy gang and try thugmaxxing then?
 
hey google how many people didn't pass their genes
 
Why don't you try joining a gypsy gang and try thugmaxxing then?
That's why I mentioned high pain tolerance and the other stuff in that comment, you need to have decent genetic base for thugmaxxing to even be an option in the first place:feelsthink:. There's nothing like thugmaxxing HSPs, you aren't gonna be "le scary thug" with a nervous system that lights up like a Christmas tree when somebody so much as pinches your finger lol, and that's in addition to the obvious like being muscular or at least somewhat tall which are also a must and don't even need to be mentioned here.

hey google how many people didn't pass their genes
The ultimate blackpill showing the survivor's bias in the "everyone before you procreated" cope:yes::yes:.
 
This + our ancestors lived in a way different time where they didnt had to compete against literally the whole world
 
The statement is dumb because genetics are complex. Just because someone is ugly doesn’t mean their ancestors were. Traits don’t always pass down predictably, and features can skip generations or mix in unexpected ways. You could inherit good traits from distant relatives, even if your immediate ancestors didn’t look the same. Also, deformities like Crouzon syndrome or other genetic conditions can happen due to mutations that aren’t linked to your ancestors’ appearance. Also, you could have been born with good genes but ruined your appearance due to something like mouth breathing.
They are stupid and should not have done it
 
it's just crazy to think about how your genetic lineage that goes back billions of years is going to end with you :feelsrope::feelsrope::feelsohgod::feelsohgod:
 
I am tired of existence
 
The statement is dumb because genetics are complex. Just because someone is ugly doesn’t mean their ancestors were. Traits don’t always pass down predictably, and features can skip generations or mix in unexpected ways. You could inherit good traits from distant relatives, even if your immediate ancestors didn’t look the same. Also, deformities like Crouzon syndrome or other genetic conditions can happen due to mutations that aren’t linked to your ancestors’ appearance. Also, you could have been born with good genes but ruined your appearance due to something like mouth breathing.
or it could be because we live in a new timeline with technological development rapidly absorbing our lives female entitlement breaking the dating dynamics and the fact that we are facing the repercussion of the industrial and sexual revolution and that we eat more softer food also could it be that until around 1800, Westerners were subject to harsh Darwinian conditions that selected for robust genetic health. Infant mortality was at about 50 percent, and those born with disadvantageous mutations (and virtually all mutations are disadvantageous) simply did not survive long enough to pass along their genes. Those who did survive were ideally adapted to their environment. They tended to be intelligent, mentally and physically healthy, and to possess “pro-social” personality traits hmm or is it simply just because of our personalities, hmmmmmmm :feelshehe::feelshehe::feelshehe:
 
or it could be because we live in a new timeline with technological development rapidly absorbing our lives female entitlement breaking the dating dynamics and the fact that we are facing the repercussion of the industrial and sexual revolution and that we eat more softer food also could it be that until around 1800, Westerners were subject to harsh Darwinian conditions that selected for robust genetic health. Infant mortality was at about 50 percent, and those born with disadvantageous mutations (and virtually all mutations are disadvantageous) simply did not survive long enough to pass along their genes. Those who did survive were ideally adapted to their environment. They tended to be intelligent, mentally and physically healthy, and to possess “pro-social” personality traits hmm or is it simply just because of our personalities, hmmmmmmm :feelshehe::feelshehe::feelshehe:
not to mention foid nature being kept in check
 
It was also easier for men back then. The standards nowadays are ridiculous for men. Many of us could have got a gf 50-100 years ago
Heinrich Himmler proves this point. He had a whole family and I probably mog him in some of his less photogenic pictures
 
It's much harder for a sub5 to pass on his genes nowadays than it was a century ago (or even just 50 years ago for that matter).
 
It was also easier for men back then. The standards nowadays are ridiculous for men. Many of us could have got a gf 50-100 years ago
Also social media wasn't a thing back and also not to mention they have never heard of GENETIC RECOMBINATION

Genetic recombination is a bitch, you could have a gigachad dad and a ultra Stacy mom and genetic recombination would turn you into a sub3
 
Also social media wasn't a thing back and also not to mention they have never heard of GENETIC RECOMBINATION

Genetic recombination is a bitch, you could have a gigachad dad and a ultra Stacy mom and genetic recombination would turn you into a sub3
Absolutely true
 
Also social media wasn't a thing back and also not to mention they have never heard of GENETIC RECOMBINATION

Genetic recombination is a bitch, you could have a gigachad dad and a ultra Stacy mom and genetic recombination would turn you into a sub3
or it could be because we live in a new timeline with technological development rapidly absorbing our lives female entitlement breaking the dating dynamics and the fact that we are facing the repercussion of the industrial and sexual revolution and that we eat more softer food also could it be that until around 1800, Westerners were subject to harsh Darwinian conditions that selected for robust genetic health. Infant mortality was at about 50 percent, and those born with disadvantageous mutations (and virtually all mutations are disadvantageous) simply did not survive long enough to pass along their genes. Those who did survive were ideally adapted to their environment. They tended to be intelligent, mentally and physically healthy, and to possess “pro-social” personality traits hmm or is it simply just because of our personalities, hmmmmmmm :feelshehe::feelshehe::feelshehe:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top