Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: "Scientists Say" blather (Read 81894 times)

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #225 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
No, Bel. It simply hosts some posters who are propagandists for the "life style" -- some, for personal reasons and some for bad philosophy...  :)
It's a nice thing that the only answer I got it's the best one.
A matter of attitude.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #226 –
Quote from: ersi on
And a question to peopes knowledgeable in gene stuff: Genes are stuff that transfer from parents to offspring, right? Gays, being gays, don't beget offspring. So, supposing there is such a thing as the gay gene, it came about and is sustained how exactly?
Ah ah, I have an answer for that.
It comes from Lucifer, the fallen angel.  :happy:

Gays should be glad about it.  :lol:
If they have enough intelligence to follow that line that would be a problem.
A matter of attitude.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #227 –
Quote from: ersi on
And a question to peopes knowledgeable in gene stuff: Genes are stuff that transfer from parents to offspring, right? Gays, being gays, don't beget offspring. So, supposing there is such a thing as the gay gene, it came about and is sustained how exactly?
From my understanding there isn't really an anything gene, more like collections of genes that can lead to certain traits in specific circumstances. Supposing there is a collection of genes that can lead to homosexuality, it would be sustained by a small percentage of homosexuals providing a competitive advantage to those who broadly share their genetics (including the small chance of bearing a homosexual child). I imagine that most deviations from the norm are primarily a consequence of the physical environment, such as their parental epigenetics combined with the hormones and food available in the womb and to a lesser extent early life. Secondarily of course there's a child's social situation, although I rather have my doubts that can make anyone gay.[1] It wouldn't surprise me if a pedophile were formed in similar ways to a homosexual, for example with a bit too much or too little of this hormone or other.
1 More concretely, while I believe that desires can be molded by praising and shunning certain wants, e.g. causing a bisexual to ignore their homosexual or heterosexual tendencies in favor of the other, I have my doubts as to whether desires can be made to appear out of thin air as in Room 101 in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Or that if they can, it might only be possible through Room 101-type tactics.↵

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #228 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
Supposing there is a collection of genes that can lead to homosexuality, it would be sustained by a small percentage of homosexuals providing a competitive advantage to those who broadly share their genetics (including the small chance of bearing a homosexual child). I imagine that most deviations from the norm are primarily a consequence of the physical environment, such as their parental epigenetics combined with the hormones and food available in the womb and to a lesser extent early life. Secondarily of course there's a child's social situation, although I rather have my doubts that can make anyone gay.
That's my understanding too. And a further aspect is that parents can only transmit what they have and they cannot transmit what they don't have. Being parents, they cannot transmit gayness in genes, because, being parents, they are not gays. Gayness can only be transmitted by nurture, by environment.

So, the gay gene argument should not be there, if people were scientific and rational. Yet people say "We were born this way, so we have the same rights." Or "God made me this way, so it cannot be a sin." No, they are not born like this and God did not make them this way. Just things happen and we react, overcome, or submit.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #229 –
Quote from: ersi on
Being parents, they cannot transmit gayness in genes, because, being parents, they are not gays.
Sorry but you are wrong. Bisexuals could transmit such genes simply because many homosexuals fake to have a normal, heterosexual life.

At the earlier gay propaganda, they always refused to have homosexual genes because they considered that to be a biological stigma. It was a form of biological handicap and they claimed to be normal people asking for "rights".

Since they become politically stronger, they defend biological genes as a legitimation for a repulsive sexual behavior being considered as "natural".

I really don't have patience for such clowns.

A matter of attitude.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #230 –
Someone needs to learn about recessive genes.
For example: supposing all blondes were sterile, it wouldn't extinguish the blonde gene, and prevent blondes from existing all around.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #231 –
Quote from: Barulheira on
Someone needs to learn about recessive genes.
For example: supposing all blondes were sterile, it wouldn't extinguish the blonde gene, and prevent blondes from existing all around.
Right, supposing the blond gene exists. However, soon the gene would die out, if blondes remain sterile.

The thing with gays is that they have self-imposed sterility, so their gene cannot originate nor propagate. If they have intercourse with the opposite sex, it makes them bisexual by definition. So, no gay gene any way you look at it.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #233 –
Gay genes now? This is a recent study No, it doesn't prove there's a single gay gene.

Quote
Scientists presenting at the 2015 meeting of the American Society of Genetics announced the discovery of a gene-based algorithm that could predict male homosexuality with 70 percent accuracy. It’s the first time a gene-based model has been used to predict sexual orientation, giving credence to the idea that homosexuality has a biological basis.

Exciting as the claim may be, it’s crucial not to oversimplify the findings.

The scientists from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine discovered that methylation, a form of DNA modification, in certain regions of the genome differed between homosexual and heterosexual identical twin brothers. What they did not find were the elusive “gay genes.” Amid the ever-present “homosexuality is a choice” chants of the anti-gay community, it is, naturally, tempting to claim that this study is concrete proof that sexual orientation is entirely genetic. To say so would be simplistic and, well, wrong. But it does constitute evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis.


So we still don't for 100 percent what causes homosexuality, but evidence continues to mount for a biological basis. Even if it's found not to be genetic, it could still have a biological basis stemming from conditions in the womb. "Born this way" does not necessarily equal a specific gene.

Whatever the cause, the ones that try to use pseudo-philosophy that lacks crucial components of any legitimate philosophy to deny people equal protection under the law (as required by European constitutions and the American one at the minimum) remain the ones that need to look inside themselves to discover the cause of their immoral behavior.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #234 –
Quote from: Barulheira on
Quote from: ersi on
However, soon the gene would die out
No.
Yes, if by "sterile" you really meant sterile, i.e. not reproducing anymore. A species or subspecies that does not reproduce will die out. At least has thus far. Not sure how non-propagating features can remain in recessive potential too long. My school education is getting old, maybe science has evolved meanwhile.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #235 –
Quote from: ersi on
Not sure how non-propagating features can remain in recessive potential too long.
Provided they don't cause any harm they can theoretically stay around forever. Some genes are advantageous and therefore multiply more fruitfully, others aren't and are selected against. Most are basically neutral, either not doing much of anything or not doing much of anything that matters. From our perspective, a lot of our DNA is probably parasitic. Except that something like a colony of gay DNA may very well be helpful by providing extra manpower to the tribe, so tribes with said gay DNA would be more successful than those without.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #236 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
Except that something like a colony of gay DNA may very well be helpful by providing extra manpower to the tribe, so tribes with said gay DNA would be more successful than those without.
Kipling's Just So stories seem to have found a new audience… :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #237 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
something like a colony of gay DNA may very well be helpful by providing extra manpower to the tribe
Gay DNA now provides manpower...  :faint:
A matter of attitude.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #238 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
Quote from: ersi on
Not sure how non-propagating features can remain in recessive potential too long.
Provided they don't cause any harm they can theoretically stay around forever. Some genes are advantageous and therefore multiply more fruitfully, others aren't and are selected against. Most are basically neutral, either not doing much of anything or not doing much of anything that matters.
Perhaps, but we already agreed that theoretically this particular gene cannot arise and practically no such thing has been detected. Biological basis for homosexuality is a delusion on many levels.

Also, theoretically, if it ever emerged at a point in time, it will perish at some point in time. If it doesn't propagate, it will disappear faster than you can say "blueberry pie". And no harm, you say? Lack of propagation is the very definition of harm, insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned. In the theory of evolution, reproduction is all that matters.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #239 –
Quote from: ersi on
Biological basis for homosexuality is a delusion on many levels.
Not quite. At this point homosexuality can be detected with 70 percent accuracy using genetic algorithms. It's merely that no specific "gay gene" has been detected, yet. The differences in brain structure between heterosexuals and homosexuals is well documented and has long been noted. A person cannot choose to alter their brain structures in this way. Previous to this, studies have noted twins separated at birth of a high probability of both being gay - ruling out upbringing. Even before this, homosexuals have long noted they didn't choose to be gay in time period when society was more hostile to homosexuality than it is today. Of course, "therapy" to cause a homosexual to be heterosexual has been a complete failure and often results in psychological damage to the "patient."
Quote from: ersi on
Also, theoretically, if it ever emerged at a point in time, it will perish at some point in time. If it doesn't propagate, it will disappear faster than you can say "blueberry pie". And no harm, you say? Lack of propagation is the very definition of harm, insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned. In the theory of evolution, reproduction is all that matters.
Here you're betraying your like of knowledge of both sociology and genetics. Barulheira already noted recessive genes. BBC has an interesting article on the evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality It also dispels the myth that queer people don't propagate (37% do have children with 60% being biological children.)  written in layman's terms. Sociology requires a bit more explanation. Rather he knew it or not Befrager evoked Emile Durkheim organic theory of sociology when he compared society to an organism. In the crudest possible terms for easy understanding, he was an early sociologist that noted society is an orgasm and part of society serves a function much like an organ in a human body. So what is the function of homosexuals in this line of thinking? Have you noted how many people in artistic vocations are homosexual, or at least bisexual? This includes in the  renaissance era. They help generate the culture in a way out of proportion to their numbers. The BBC article also notes they often serve has the "nest helpers" In evolutionary terms, this would increase the chance of the heterosexual child reaching adulthood. Humans are a social species and LGBT people in general are good for broking peace between bickering parties. Homosexuality survives because it serves one or many purposes and will note disappear.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #241 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Here you're betraying your like of knowledge of both sociology and genetics. Barulheira already noted recessive genes.
And you are betraying your lack of knowledge of sociology, genetics, theory of evolution and logic. A general principle always trumps an individual case. This is particularly so when there is no individual case to begin with, as in case of a gay gene. At best it's a hypothetical case that may be worth considering, if there's a general principle under examination.

The general principle of the theory of evolution is that only advantageous genes remain, where advantageous means specifically advantageous for survival and propagation. The gay gene, if it were to exist, cannot provide such advantage, therefore it cannot exist, not even as a recessive gene. And it hasn't been found either, so your appeal to genetics is futile.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
BBC has an interesting article on the evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality
The article happens to recount the same issue I just told and says, "Scientists don't know the answer to this Darwinian puzzle, but there are several theories." It's a puzzle exactly for the reasons I told you. And I can theorise a solution too - drop the Darwinian element and it ceases to be a puzzle.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Rather he knew it or not Befrager evoked Emile Durkheim organic theory of sociology when he compared society to an orgasm.
Your icky mind is grossly slipping into your typos, I'm afreud.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
...part of society serves a function much like an organ in a human body.
Do you realise what it takes for this theory to work? Group minds, like in beehives and anthills the way I and Frenzie have discussed. The beehive or anthill is the mental entity which divides the classes/castes/functions among the individuals who belong to it. This theory is good enough for me to explain mass phenomena and other weird behaviours in society, but it shouldn't be good to you or Frenzie, because it's anti-Darwinian.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #244 –
You could google it up. I don't think you need me to explain elementary genetics to you.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #245 –
You don't think you need to explain yourself? Thanks for your opinion. I will pay attention to it next time as soon as it has some backup.

Edit: As far as Wikipedia goes, it was irrelevant of you to bring in the concept of recessive gene.
Quote from: Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_%28genetics%29
Dominance in genetics is a relationship between alleles of one gene, in which the effect on phenotype of one allele masks the contribution of a second allele at the same locus.[1][2] The first allele is dominant and the second allele is recessive. For genes on an autosome (any chromosome other than a sex chromosome), the alleles and their associated traits are autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive.
I read it this way:

- Dominance/recessiveness applies to aspects (alleles) of a single gene, not to a gene. A gene is not dominant or recessive, its aspects are. In fact, in my own language from school years I remember the concept of "recessive trait", not "recessive gene".
- The last long sentence, really important. Sex genes operate in a different way, not by ordinary dominance/recessiveness. This means that, insofar as genetics goes, sex is not a continuum, but a binary either/or thing. One is either a male or a female, not "with a recessive male gene, dominantly female" or whatever.

Again, thanks for your opinion. I thought you knew better. My mistake.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #246 –
Quote from: ersi on
Your icky mind is grossly slipping into your typos, I'm afreud
Cute, but fails to address the possibility that homosexuality serves a function in society
Quote from: ersi on
Group minds, like in beehives and anthills the way I and Frenzie have discussed.
And you'll note the lack of advancement in ant and bee "society." Groups minds by definition have group think. Nobody has any new ideas nor new solutions to problems. That's a prescription for a perpetual dark age, or the inability to recover to from one.
Quote from: ersi on
he gay gene, if it were to exist, cannot provide such advantage, therefore it cannot exist, not even as a recessive gene.
Did you take university level science at all? If so, how long ago was that? In fact, genes that create direct disadvantages in life expectancy and overall health survive. There's even indications that virus DNA has entered the human genome In fact "indications" is far too weak of a word. There are reasons why homosexuality may be beneficial to humanity as species . Humans are not ants and bees.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #247 –
Maybe I should just answer like Barulheira. "No." "Wrong." "Wrong again.
Quote from: ersi on
One is either a male or a female, not "with a recessive male gene, dominantly female" or whatever.
Okay, one more semi-real answer. How do you explain intersexed babies than, ie with XXY chromosomes? Even biological sex is not necessarily binary.
“What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #248 –
Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Maybe I should just answer like Barulheira. "No." "Wrong." "Wrong again.
Quote from: ersi on
One is either a male or a female, not "with a recessive male gene, dominantly female" or whatever.
Okay, one more semi-real answer. How do you explain intersexed babies than, ie with XXY chromosomes?
Abnormalcy. Deviance. Find your preferred politically-correct pseudo-scientific euphemism for that and maybe we can continue from there.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on
Even biological sex is not necessarily binary.
Yeah, like bees have three sexes: queen, males, and workers. Frenzie suggested something similar would apply to humans too, gays being the workers. I find it both politically incorrect and pseudo-scientific, but you may pursue this line of thought, if you wish.

Re: "Scientists Say" blather

Reply #249 –
You like to play words. Okay, "allele" is the correct word. Now let's explain how recession works (which is my point, nothing about "continuum" straw men as usual).
Let's make a thought experiment. For the sake of clarity, let's exaggerate it dramatically. If it works in the worst case, it works in any case.
Let's suppose a health gene. "H" is the dominant allele of health, and "x" is the recessive allele of death. "HH", "Hx" and "xH" are healthy individuals, while "xx" are dead born babies.
Healthy individuals will pass along the "x" death allele to the next generations, bearing mostly healthy children, and eventually bearing dead babies. Theoretically it can last forever.