More genetic evidence of sexuality

[Tikker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071025/sc_ ... s_sex_dc_1

coles notes

gene switched in a worms brain turned female worms lesbian

neat stuff

[Gypsiyee]

curse you science, trying to say that those heathens have a reason for being so despicable!

that is pretty neat stuff - do they have any plans on testing on a different species that isn't a hermaphrodite though?

[Ouchyfish]

So they can cure gay folks then?

hahaha sorry had to say it. *ducks*

[Zanchief]

So this is scientific evidence that God created gay people and since he made us in his image...

[Ouchyfish]

Just seems to me if some almighty being made us and didn't want us doing certain shit he/she/it would have found ways to keep us from doing so.

[Tikker]

curse you science, trying to say that those heathens have a reason for being so despicable!

that is pretty neat stuff - do they have any plans on testing on a different species that isn't a hermaphrodite though?

I would think they'd test it on just about anything available (assuming the christian right doesn't firebomb them)

[Ouchyfish]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071025/sc_nm/worms_sex_dc_1

coles notes

gene switched in a worms brain turned female worms lesbian

neat stuff

I have seen this gene switch occur in human females when alcohol was present.

[Shneider]

Welcome to two decades ago?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 4BA9579F7B

[Tikker]

shockingly enough, there was a reason the post started with MORE proof, as opposed to EXCITING NEW GENETIC BREAKTHRU

nice try tho

[Shneider]

Sorry for misconstruing neat stuff as EXCITING NEW GENETIC BREAKTHRU.

Carry on.

[araby]

mutants!

[Eziekial]

on that note. if they do find that "gayness" is caused by a genetic issue, would you be ok with the government funding research into a cure?

[Tikker]

it's not a disease..

it'd be like trying to find a cure for blue eyes....

[Lueyen]

it's not a disease..

it'd be like trying to find a cure for blue eyes....

If homosexuality is the result of genetics from a social standpoint I can see you saying it's not something that cure for is warranted, but not from a logical one. Any other genetic trait that removed the will of a person to procreate would be viewed as a genetic disorder. If after tomorrow all future babies were born with blue eyes, man kinds survival as a species wouldn't be in jeopardy. However if after tomorrow all babies were born homosexual, absent scientific or medical intervention, the survival of our species would be in jeopardy.

[Harrison]

Lueyen, you stop making sense right fucking now!

There is no sense-making in a debate on sexuality, race, or religion!

I demand that you spew ignorance and stupidity at once!

[Evermore]

next big find, a gene that will stop cottage cheese thighs, or male pattern baldness...

[Ouchyfish]

I need someone to switch on the gene for using 100% of the human brain so I can read minds and levitate objects, etc.

[Zanchief]

Lueyen, you stop making sense right fucking now!

There is no sense-making in a debate on sexuality, race, or religion!

I demand that you spew ignorance and stupidity at once!

See, he made a good point in this argument, but to go drag in a previous argument where you got completely owned to just to try to hold on to an ounce of your dignity is not cool.

I'd just let that one slide so I don't bump that thread and make you look like a cockface again.

[Gypsiyee]

it's not a disease..

it'd be like trying to find a cure for blue eyes....

If homosexuality is the result of genetics from a social standpoint I can see you saying it's not something that cure for is warranted, but not from a logical one. Any other genetic trait that removed the will of a person to procreate would be viewed as a genetic disorder. If after tomorrow all future babies were born with blue eyes, man kinds survival as a species wouldn't be in jeopardy. However if after tomorrow all babies were born homosexual, absent scientific or medical intervention, the survival of our species would be in jeopardy.

Fair enough, but looking at it from a 'cure the gays' standpoint is just not feasible. Basically you would be treating people who do not wish to be treated, are perfectly happy, harm no one, and you're forcing someone to conform to our idealistic assumptions of what one should be.

By the very same logic, any woman who has had her tubes tied and has no children should be 'cured' and have the operation reversed, because the desire to not have children is a genetic disorder.

The difference is, if it came down to a matter of procreation and letting the world survive you would likely not find any homosexual male or female protesting and saying they would not take part in furthering the generations of the human race.

Basically, the one who chooses to physically alter themselves to not have children puts us more at risk than someone who simply does not at will procreate, but still has the means to and would if necessary. So why, then, is it so much easier to look down our noses at the person who can, but doesn't, than the person who makes it so that they cannot?

If it all boils down to procreation, an argument that is used countlessly in 'why you shouldn't be gay or give gay people rights', that's where I start to question the logic of those who are so anti-gay.

[10sun]

it's not a disease..

it'd be like trying to find a cure for blue eyes....

If homosexuality is the result of genetics from a social standpoint I can see you saying it's not something that cure for is warranted, but not from a logical one. Any other genetic trait that removed the will of a person to procreate would be viewed as a genetic disorder. If after tomorrow all future babies were born with blue eyes, man kinds survival as a species wouldn't be in jeopardy. However if after tomorrow all babies were born homosexual, absent scientific or medical intervention, the survival of our species would be in jeopardy.

This is without a doubt one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.

Are you saying homosexuals reproduce or that they do not?

If they do not, how is the allele getting passed along?
If they do, what is the problem?

Just because someone is homosexual does not erase their desire to reproduce; being homosexual is a difference in whom you are attracted to. True, there is little chance that Butt Babies can be had, same with Fist Children, however there are quite a few homosexual couples out there that adopt, practice in vitro fertilization, & find surrogate parents. If those practices weren't so prohibitively expensive for the most part, I would be willing to bet that more long term homosexual partners would take part. At this point the argument is straying into a whole other realm, just go back and recap for me how these genetic traits are being passed along if there is no reproduction please?

Thanks,
Adam

[Narrock]

I need someone to switch on the gene for using 100% of the human brain so I can read minds and levitate objects, etc.

Read George Noory's "Worker in the Light." Then go to JZ Knight's RAMTHA seminar/workshop.

[Lueyen]

Gypsiyee - There has been no serious suggestion that there is a genetic trait that prompts someone to have an operation to render themselves in capable of reproducing, and that would be kind of a reach since it requires a medical procedure. There is a conscious decision made, not a genetic pre-disposition. And I'm not looking down my nose at anyone, I just don't see how someone can hold true to a belief in evolution, the idea of weeding out genetic based deficiencies, and not view a genetic trait that would make an individual behave in such a way that there is no chance of reproduction as anything but a genetic deficiency. A genetic trait that rendered people infertile during or shortly after puberty would be a more appropriate comparison, and I guarantee we'd be looking for a cure for something like that.


10Sun - First of all, there isn't "little chance that Butt Babies can be had", there is absolutely zero chance... shocker I know. If you read what I wrote previously, you will note that I did make the comment

absent scientific or medical intervention

. In vitro fertilization I would call medical intervention, as it's not something you find other species doing in the wild. Genetic code is not passed along when someone adpots a child. Homosexuality has been around long before any scientific or medical means for it to be actually passed on genetically, so at least your question of how if it is genetic has it been passed on is a valid one. Genetic traits need not manifest themselves in every generation, nor is there no variation. There need not be any reproduction taking place for a genetic trait to manifest, that is a basic fundamental block of evolution, genetic mutation happens otherwise we'd never have new variations. Just because a particular mutation failed to be passed on to off spring, does not mean it will not appear again.

[Harrison]

I see no difference between possibly curing baldness and the possibility of curing homosexuality brought about by genetic predisposition.

I believe environment can create homosexuals as well, not just a predisposition inborn. In my opinion, saying all homosexuals will have a certain gene, is ridiculous.

[10sun]

10Sun - First of all, there isn't "little chance that Butt Babies can be had", there is absolutely zero chance... shocker I know. If you read what I wrote previously, you will note that I did make the comment

absent scientific or medical intervention

. In vitro fertilization I would call medical intervention, as it's not something you find other species doing in the wild. Genetic code is not passed along when someone adpots a child. Homosexuality has been around long before any scientific or medical means for it to be actually passed on genetically, so at least your question of how if it is genetic has it been passed on is a valid one. Genetic traits need not manifest themselves in every generation, nor is there no variation. There need not be any reproduction taking place for a genetic trait to manifest, that is a basic fundamental block of evolution, genetic mutation happens otherwise we'd never have new variations. Just because a particular mutation failed to be passed on to off spring, does not mean it will not appear again.

Well, they have succeeded in implanting embryos into male mice...
so butt babies might actually happen in this life time in the human species.

The truth of the matter is, the genetic trait is probably a recessive allele combination where most people are carriers of at least part of the "gay gene", but it does not manifest itself... similar to how two brown eyed people can have a blue eyed baby. Although from the wording that I am seeing in the text, it seems to be just one allele, so it would be more like someone being able to taste PTC.

For someone to be able to do that, their parents both have to be carriers and the allele combination from the parents must be a recessive allele from the mother and a recessive from the father. The odds of that happening even if both parents are carriers of the recessive allele is 25%. Lets assume that both of the parents have one dominant and one recessive allele in their gene coding for simplicity's sake for now. [Also remember the assumption that this is a single gene, not a multigenic system... if that were the case, one would have to know how many different genes were in the system & what each one shifted the organism's sexuality towards... kinda like height].

Homosexuality would not be a new mutation of the genetic code, if you believe that all creatures share a common ancestor, the fact that they are experimenting on worms should be an indicator of how long this particular gene has been around. If not, perhaps even God thought that worms should have a trigger to turn them gay, I don't know. Irrelevant aside from pointing out that this is not some random mutation that is occurring over and over again in the human population. The chances of a single gene mutation occurring causing an identical phenotypical outcome in two people is somewhere to the order of 1/2^24th and I believe that there are quite a few more people around than that and unless it is caused by UV radiation, the diversity and equal mix amongst all the races throughout the ages makes no sense.

Remember that the folks expressing the homosexual gene are also naturally selected against (if you believe in Natural Selection), which would reduce the allele frequency in any given population.

So yes, it is quite obvious that genetic traits can be passed along generation to generation without any outward appearance.

It is also important to bear in mind that historically, homosexuality has been looked down upon violently through the ages. Hence, many homosexuals have been forced to lead lives that were not truly their own, marry, have children, pass on the genetics, etc etc etc. With the ability for homosexuals to come out and live strictly homosexual lives, there should be a decline in homosexuals over the coming years because they will not be passing along the "gay gene" to future generations. That is why I support gay marriage.

[Tikker]

it's not a disease..

it'd be like trying to find a cure for blue eyes....

If homosexuality is the result of genetics from a social standpoint I can see you saying it's not something that cure for is warranted, but not from a logical one. Any other genetic trait that removed the will of a person to procreate would be viewed as a genetic disorder. If after tomorrow all future babies were born with blue eyes, man kinds survival as a species wouldn't be in jeopardy. However if after tomorrow all babies were born homosexual, absent scientific or medical intervention, the survival of our species would be in jeopardy.

well, genetically speaking, in your theory, it should never have made it past 1 generation of gay folks

being gay doesn't preclude the possibility of reproducing. take a look at any mammal species. the percentage of "Gay" critters is roughly the same as it is in mankind