Posted on 10/10/2015 11:44:56 AM PDT by mjp
This week, a team from the University of California, Los Angeles claimed to have found several epigenetic marks—chemical modifications of DNA that don’t change the underlying sequence—that are associated with homosexuality in men. Postdoc Tuck Ngun presented the results yesterday at the American Society of Human Genetics 2015 conference. Nature News were among the first to break the story based on a press release issued by the conference organisers. Others quickly followed suit. “Have They Found The Gay Gene?” said the front page of Metro, a London paper, on Friday morning.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
The point is that homosexual orientation is an outcome variable, and can be arrived at by any of numerous routes. Heredity has yet to be shown to play a role, although pre- and perinatal influences are likely in a number of cases.
There is simply no one answer to the question of "nature vs nurture," and in fact we really don't need one sovereign answer. We just need to take people as they come.
It doesn’t matter. Today’s “science” has become a political arm. Scientists will say their stats say what they want them to say, and the Sheeple will believe what they want to believe.
It would seem that a gay gene would have been selected out many moons ago.
The money quote, and it applies to all epigenetic studies:
“It’s also plausible that someone’s sexual orientation influences epi-marks on these genes. Correlation, after all, does not imply causation.”
Epigenetics research studies for factors that are chemical in nature or which by some form of nurture [actions] produce chemical reactions that leave their mark on active or dormant genes, implying they are possibly factors in how/why a gene is or is not active. Few of these studies have shown how the epigenetic marker arrived (they are not inherited), only that it exists.
The ONLY “definitive” epigentic studies claiming to find a “gay gene” will have take gene samples at birth, of a very large group and then conducted their epigenetic studies 20 years later.
If the epigenetic markers are not there at birth, then “gay gene” or not, something in nurture (something in life experience) was a cause/impetus for them being there 20 years later. THAT would imply life experience, not someone’s genes was the “cause”.
It is telling that even the researchers failed to see the importance of the facts in their own data sample - 37 pairs of genetically identical male twins were “discordant”, meaning both of the two were not “gay”.
If THAT fact was not a scientific signal to them that their epigenetic studies needed to begin with gene samples at birth, and then wait 20 years and sample the surveyed group again, then their approach to science is altogether suspect. It would say that like far too many scientists today, they are not really scientists of a particular field but mere statisticians seeking to prove a statistical correlation exists and then promote that correlation as a cause.
Guess this is bi-sexual phobia from the born gay folkes
It would say that like far too many scientists today, they are not really scientists of a particular field but mere statisticians seeking to prove a statistical correlation exists and then promote that correlation as a cause, often doing so in order to demonstrate a further correlation with their godless, anti-JudeoChristian worldview.
I understand your addition to my text. I didn’t use your ending phrase because while it might apply to some researchers many are just wrong about real scientific methods and strict adherence to the maxim that correlation is not causation. Some are that way because they themselves have been poorly taught in the sciences, some are just lazy, some are seeking more research funds and feel a need to “produce” and some have political agendas regardless and irrespective or religious beliefs. And yes some are super anti-religious and anti-G-d, like Mr Dawkins in the U.K.
Maybe they just haven’t looked up the butts of the other genes yet.
Studies on identical twins separated at birth consistently show that the genetic component of male homosexuality is about the same as the genetic component for addiction to drugs, about 50-70%. The genetic component for female homosexuality is too small to measure.
My take on it is that male homosexual behavior is an addiction as much as anything else. As such, it is a disorder, like heroin addiction, and it has health effects that follow on such disorders.
Nicely stated. Thanks. Like every human endeavor, science is full of very fallible humans, although many try to cloak it in the most august and impeccable altruism and nobility. We’re onto them.
I’ve read that gay Gene prefers his name to be spelled jean.
Oh no, I am sure they will start a breeding program and only gay children will allowed to be born. The world is upsidedown..
It's given that women are inherently bisexual.
How does a microbiologist tell the difference between a gay gene and a normal gene?
You imply that these outcomes are equally likely. Not at all. The small number who are monogamous are a teeny tiny percentage of the whole. The vast bulk of homosexuals, say 95%, are super promiscuous. Five Hundred to a thousand "sex" partners are regarded as typical of this group. They don't have "ménage à trois", they have menage a dix". Orgies with 8 people are not uncommon.
They are also heavily disease infested, and the vast bulk of any societies reservoir of nasty venereal diseases are kept alive by this group.
They also prefer children. They won't admit it because that sexual attraction is still too taboo for them to come out of the closet about, but the fact is that anyone who can be sexually attracted to a male butt hole, can find a child's just as interesting.
They also tend to kill themselves. Suicide is the number one cause of death among this group.
They are a sick group of people, and society used to lock them up in asylums prior to the 1960s. Back when the country was founded they simply hung them.
more like 50% cultural (because society allows it) and 50& perverted mind. genetics is zero. every study so far has come up with this same answer.
The author says it more eloquently than I could.
You could put me on a gay planet filled with gay men and I wouldn’t be compelled to switch to their team. That’s why I think genetics are a factor here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.