The simple procedure causes the modified mice to reject the advances of their male counterparts and attempt to mate with fellow females.
Researchers found that disabling the FucM gene – which influences the levels of oestrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up.
Professor Chankyu Park of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejon, South Korea, who led the research, said: “The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental programme in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference.”
Scientists have long sought a genetic link to homosexuality, but the academics behind the latest study stressed that it was impossible to say whether their discovery had any relevance to human sexuality.
[...]
Professor Park now hopes to investigate whether the enzyme produced by the gene – fucose mutarotase – has any influence on human sexuality, but conceded that it may be “very difficult” to find willing volunteers.
He obviously has never been to San Francisco.
Thanks again, bobbo. Now back to the chase!
I personally agree with the “it’s partly genetics.” although my WAG would be more 50/50.
Let me address your straight/gay choice question later. I’ve got a better ball to throw in your court.
I am a big believer in genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, but not so much a believer in predestination.
Carl Sagan once said that the Human Animal is the only known creature that can actively and premeditatedly change it’s environment. I believe this to be true.
It is also factually known that numerous genes switch on/off according to environmental factors.
It is also well known that individuals can affect the expression of certain genes through the environment they choose to be in.
Would it be too much to suggest that an individual (who is already genetically predisposed to homosexuality) who places oneself in homosexual situations creates the proper conditions for the expression of “homosexual genes”? That is to say, participating in homosexual activities may cause a person to become a homosexual by activating the proper genes?
Therefore, both predisposition and choice?
Back to you!
(I feel the Christmas Spirit, and will feed you a simple answer to the situation I described above. It is a well known and widely accepted explanation for why two identical twins may have one straight and one gay.)
Ah Yea–I know “I” am up to beating that recent Wimbleton longest ever match. Lets see who can continue the dialectic before looping back? So far, you have shown progression, and I think I’m keeping up. I’ll go thru your post as the issues strike me:
It is a marvel you keep bring up new variations/slight twists on your erroneous position, maintain the error, yet as stated, continue on. Bravo.
You have really drunk the cool aid with this one: “That is to say, participating in homosexual activities may cause a person to become a homosexual by activating the proper genes?” /// Haw, Haw!! That would be funny if it weren’t so retarded. Have you no humanity???? The first homo experience I ever had was in the back row at a Mexican Cinema. Some old guy came over and put his hand on my knee. I changed seats. How come I didn’t go gay? What does “turning homo” even mean to you? Seriously==give me an example. (((Long discourse deleted here as it goes more to pan-sexuality rather than homosexuality. You just aren’t ready for that.)))
Ah Yea–it really is silly to think there is a “gay switch.” I mean, I know you are conservative and all, but really!!!
No introspection at all, have you. No empathy. No recognition that we are all the same and different at the same time. No dignity recognized in anyone except those that match your own mold????
Silly hooman.
I did not read your “excellent” linked article after the brief glance I gave it. Read it or similar many times before. It is part of my info base already=not news, so I may be off on specifics. Tell me that is so and why, and I will read the link to confirm.
So now, I will be unfair: Ay Yea==how many twins have been found to be split on the issue of sexual orientation? Of the one that was in the report, which one was faking? Can the gay locus of genetic material express itself on a continuum? Did the reference twins fall on that precarious border line? If its not “genetic” then have “they” identified those specific environmental conditions? Dressed in pink as a kiddie? Over involved Mother? Don’t you “feel” your prejudice being played to? If its 50/50 then you agree 50% have no choice and isn’t that the point? What would you think of Fire Island Psychiatric Community determining that the same environmental factors appropriate for gayness has affected YOU and you need the cure? Why can’t we accept people for what they are and leave them alone? How strong does a predisposition have to be before others make the choice environmentally for the kiddie?
You disengenuously say, or if not quite ignorantly say: “It is also well known that individuals can affect the expression of certain genes through the environment they choose to be in.” /// Want to give us as long a list of these choices available to us? After all, I am a Human Being==not an alligator setting the temperature gauge, or a tadpole setting the ph of water. Silly to confuse/conflate/misapply the science here as you do. The mark of dogma.
Again: What is a “homosexual condition?” And how are these conditions selected by a little kiddie? How does one of 10 kiddies in the same family grow up gay in violation of family desires? I MEAN===GET REAL!!!!
We have now gotten to the very basics of genetics.
You say “You disengenuously say, or if not quite ignorantly say: “It is also well known that individuals can affect the expression of certain genes through the environment they choose to be in.”
This is starting to get old. I’m obviously having a discussion with someone who really doesn’t know much about genetics. This is genetics 101. It’s like my saying 1+1=2, then you say “prove it”.
I first heard about your position many years ago while taking a course in biological determinism at UCLA. Your position was disproved and bankrupt then and it still is now.
I mean really, you don’t know this stuff.
It’s basic, fundamental, freshman biology/genetics!
In fact, there is an entire FIELD of genetics devoted to this entire subject, it’s called sociobiology!
Ugg, well at least try this:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801869/posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture#Interaction_of_genes_and_environment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29#Religious_views
Ignorance is bliss, but please stop making it a habit. When you say things like:
“I did not read your “excellent” linked article after the brief glance I gave it. Read it or similar many times before.”
Followed by:
“how many twins have been found to be split on the issue of sexual orientation?”
Well, if you are so well versed on the subject so that you don’t have to read the article, you would already have the answer, because it was in the article!!
Stop being lazy. Go get some answers.
bIO 101..
Genetics..001
Your chance of having a PERFECTLY born child that will never suffer from a Fault in genetics, ranging from diabetes or any of the MANY genetic conditions, are 1/10,000.
The human, body is always changing and adapting. It goes in 1000 directions at ALL times, and in each generation.
Conditions..
1. it Must survive birth
2. It must be able to EAT/Feed.
3. it must procreate..
That is ALL that is required to succeed in genetics.
After that, its all math. WE LEARN or DIE. WE learn to work together OR DIE.
All it would take is 1 group of IDIOTS to wipe 1/2 of the population OFF this planet.
Now Ah Yea==don’t throw a hissy fit. Lets see what ya got:
First link is: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801869/posts and I must say that is germane to NOTHING. What we are discussing is whether or not or to what degree sexual preference is genetically controlled. A cite to the inhertability of homosexuality is “related” but not on point at all. Are you so homophobic you can’t focus on what is actually being said?
So, bobbo = 1, Ah Yea = 0.
I’ll give you the benfit of the doubt and go to the next one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture#Interaction_of_genes_and_environment quick scan shows nothing on point. Word search does not show a match for homosexuality. What are you doing Ah Yea==throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks, or are these splatters your brain?
bobbo = 2, Ah Yea = 0
To full to have another beer, I’ll go on to number 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29#Religious_views
HAHJAHAHAAHHAahahahahah Collins???? The Intelligent Design advocate? You goddabekiddinme? Again, quick perusal and word search = homo does not show up.
Ah Yea, this is dissapointing. I know UCLA is for pretty boys on an allowance but this isn’t even laughable, its pathetic. And you were doing so well.
Bobbo = 3, Ah Yea = Not even trying.
That main linked article is too long for me to pour thru just on the off chance that your recollection of it is accurate: what percentage of twins are born with differing sexual orientation? I’m sure there are a few but you avoid the Forrest for an isolated tree: across time and cultures homo’s remain 5-7 % of the population. In families rabidly anti-gay, the gay still appears. The gay will commit suicide recognizing they can’t change their basic orientation. You and I would laugh if anyone suggested we could be placed in an environment that would change our orientation.
You not only reject a good portion of humanity, you actually reject any deeper understanding of yourself and your own humanity. But I already confirmed you are a conservative, why be redundant?
Total fail Ah Yea. And PS, I note you continue an inept attack on my position/arguments without ever addressing mine posed to you. Just the last shred of honesty you have going for yourself there. Lets see if you toss that out too?
I do wonder why you care. Evidently, you admit there are homo’s that don’t have a choice and some who do. Straights too. Of what concern is this to any of us? If my son was interested in sports or religion, I’d be very disapointed, but I would support him in his choices. What else is being human?
Conservatives==want the government out of their wallet but in bed with everyone else.
Silly. Now–how many split twins are there? You say its there so it should be easy for you to find and copy the sentence?
Looks like Beer for Breakfast, should I put an egg in it?
Ha, ha. UCLA. I’m just jealous.
So, as I have not witnessed you actively lie, just be sloppy as with the above, I word searched the linked article, and it is just as you say. Actually “on point.”
If one twin is gay, the other has a 50 % chance of being gay. If the % of gay in the population is 1-4% then that means the gay trait is over 10 TIMES more likely to produce a gay child than when that gene is lacking? Still powerful genetic influence/causation to any clear thinking person. Simple conservatives want a black/white world and when it isn’t, they pretend it is anyway.
Most of that article, that I actually read, is flawed. I say the current work, only just begun, not finished, talks about a “locus” of genes. The article went on about enlarged areas of the brain – irrelevant, or a single gene = irrelevant.
It is “complicated.” The junk dna thought to be irrelevant turns out to be chock filled with control hormones and what not. Maybe one twin gets all the homo-juice and there is not enough left over for the second one? That “nature” thing trying to suppress the homo state of being just like you conservative like? But you know, you got that gay gene thingamajig, and the other twin is not gay 50% of the time. That means the other 50% is gay meaning when that gay gene thingy shows up, the kiddies are gay 75% of the time. I’ll take 75% all day long at the race track.
So, we are all straight until the gay gene shows up and then 75% of the time a gay appears. But gay is not genetically controlled?
Tell me another story. Hey! Beer tastes pretty good at this time of the dark morning!!! Try it Ah Yea, it might loosen you up.
BTW–where is the link to “the study” that this key info is from? I smell BS, and I don’t think it is just your brains on the wall.
Here’s a peer reviewed article on the “locus” of genetic material linking homosexuality with increased female fecundity.
It won’t look quite the same as the other links in this thread. Heh, heh!
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002282
Not peer reviewed, but an EXCELLENT review of the literature, peer reviewed and otherwise including a demur against Ah Yea’s posted link.
Good for a deep readable background on the subject. Everyone will hate you:
http://epistle.us/hbarticles/borngay1.html
I think someone is fixated on the subject. I wonder why.
Wow, now I am just disappointed. in you.
Looks like you can never allow yourself to be proven wrong. I produce good information, which you won’t read because “That main linked article is too long for me to pour thru”.
Then, “quick scan shows nothing on point.”
And “word search = homo does not show up”.
(Again, really, stop being lazy. You want to debate but won’t put in the effort to come up to speed. You’re worse than Pedro. At least he will read the link.)
Lastly, “HAHJAHAHAAHHAahahahahah Collins?”
I want you to state, right here and now, that you are more educated and smarter than the participants in these articles.
You obviously think so. You believe that you know more than Collins or anyone else on the subject. Why is this?
You failed the test. Did you know that Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project and is now the Director of the National Institutes of Health?
If you didn’t know, then your ignorance is nauseating. If you did know, then your arrogance is nauseating.
So dismissing his peer reviewed work which completely debunks your ignorance because you feel he is a “Intelligent Design advocate” is ignorant and nauseating.
Then posting #68, a non-reviewed opinion, is just plain stupid.
Stop pretending you know ANYTHING on this topic. It’s embarrassing and juvenile.
If you want to debate something, learn about it first and entertain the possibility you can be horrifically wrong.
Like I said, stop being lazy. You’re wasting our time when you adhere to positions which any informed person knows was proven wrong 20 years ago.
Stop the act, bobbo. Your arrogance and ignorance is out for all to see.
Sigh. Has anyone here actually talked to a real live gay person? Has anyone heard a real live gay person talk about their sexuality and how they came to terms with it? I have. And I can tell you, it’s a grueling process and not all of them make it. Plenty of them would have loved to have a vaccine to turn them straight. And that doesn’t mean they think being gay is wrong, it’s just such a difficult road to travel with all the prejudice around it. Some of them have kids, and they have no problem hoping that their kids aren’t gay. Doesn’t mean they’re anti-gay, just that they don’t want their kid to have to go thru what they did.
It’s such BS that wingnuts claim homosexuals choose to be that way. You can tell from that belief they haven’t met a real gay person who has struggled to come to terms with himself. Some of them have to work really hard to accept themselves, especially the fundie types.
#71 said: “Sigh. Has anyone here actually talked to a real live gay person?”
Err, no. I heard they’re as real as unicorns, or that they like unicorns. I forgot.
“It’s such BS that wingnuts claim homosexuals choose to be that way.”
Well, the only one making such claims here is homosexual (or at least plays one on the blog). You have to ask him why he’s such a wingnut sheeple.
#70–Ay Yea==turning fantabulist now? Can’t look inside yourself for simple universal truths? Want to promote an early earth religious fundie as credible on the issue of homosexuality?
I did read ALL the references you provided before making post #68 and cautioned I had not read one of them only earlier in our discussion. YOU are being DISINGENUOUS. And that is disappointing.
And throughout, you only “attack” my position and NEVER respond to the questions put to you. Only half a debate you allow. Why is that?
I enjoy having my opinions/attitudes challenged. Two types of people in this world?
Prove me wrong. I read the bio of Collins you linked to. Tell us how it is relevant to this discussion in any way??
WE are all of ONE.
Skin, muscle, bone, DNA.
No Differences.
Cheers for the post guy, are you a guru. I guess you are. Word, Chloe