If the dollar has little value, then donate a few.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

When will we learn?

Well what do you know, two gay genetic researchers from the university of Tennessee can not find a genetic link to homosexuality and doubt there is one. They further researched into sub traits  (epi marks) of genes and again find it was inconclusive as to any connection to homosexuality  but they do see a history of it running in some families.  The researchers go on to theorize it may be a  learned  trait. 

11 comments:

  1. Are you saying the genetic researchers are both gay, or they do research in gay genetics?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for posting the link along with your analysis. Somehow, the title of the article, "UT Researchers Find Genetic Trigger May Be Clue in Homosexuality," did not seem to lend itself well to the text of the link that you wrote, "researchers... can not [sic] find a genetic link to homosexuality and doubt there is one."

    Mr, Campfield, I think this speaks for itself as to the way that you bend reality and the broader world around you to justify--and likely to internally rationalize, as well--your support of homophobic policy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sorry but the article I Read said clearly there was no found genetic link and the authors doubted they would find one either If you can find in the article where they said that there was a genetic Link I stand ready to be corrected

      Delete
    2. This part, among others:

      "New research released Tuesday in the Quarterly Review of Biology found homosexuality could pass from one parent to offspring of the opposite sex.

      'When these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters,' researcher Sergey Gavrilets explained.

      The study explains epi-marks may be the trigger researchers have been looking for.

      Epi-marks are essentially an extra layer of information attached to our genes' backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out."

      Delete
  3. "Could" and "may"are not the same as "shall" or "do" . I "could" hit the lotto. I "may" give you all my winnings. .That does not mean I will

    ReplyDelete
  4. Senator Campbell, I get that you may not do much academic reading, but "could" in an academic article does not mean something is a distant possibility. It means that the author's research strongly suggests, or finds, something. The reason that chance words - "may," here - are used is because one study does not conclusively demonstrate, on its own because of limitations in scale or method, that homosexuality has genetic determinants. Any finding like that calls for a variety of follow-up studies. Something scientific is never "proven" in a singular article, but there becomes scientific consensus when something that been suggested or concluded many times over. This article would be a part of that project of building towards scientific consensus that sexual orientation is linked to genetics. To suggests that it somehow disproves, or says there is not a genetic link is dishonest and misrepresentative.

    Also, even if there's not a genetic link - which it seems there is, anyway - that's not an argument why homosexuality is immoral. It's strange to presume that something like homosexual conduct or relationships would be immoral absent being provably biologically inscribed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From the article...

    Gavrilets explained no "gay gene" has been discovered.

    "No major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic athematical modeling that genetic epi-marks are transmitted through families.

    Both Foster and Byers doubt a "gay gene"
    Gavrilets explained no "gay gene" has been discovered.

    "No major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection," he said.

    The study does find, however, a mathematical modeling that genetic epi-marks are transmitted through families.

    Both Foster and Byers doubt a "gay gene" exists, but believe genetics plays a large role.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just because you want or they want something to be so does not make it so they made quite clear there is no known genetic link.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Senator,

      As has been demonstrated by this blog post, genetics are very complicated. I like to use the simple analogy that genes are essentially a map for our physical traits and behavior. Different places on the map tell us what color our hair will be, what (to some degree) our personality will be like, and maybe even, as is currently being researched, our sexuality. However, this analogy of genes as a map falls short.
      Genes are more than just a “map” because the way that genes are regulated and expressed by the body (the way the map is read) actively affects a person’s phenotype (the way they actually are.) So, for example, two people who have exactly the same genetic sequences for hair color could actually have different hair colors because of the way their two bodies differently express those very same genes.
      This article does indeed state that there is most likely no “gay gene.” This means that there is no specific sequence for homosexuality; there is no place on the map that makes someone straight or gay. BUT, the study does find that genetic “epi-marks,” which help to regulate the expression of our genes, may play a significant role in determining one’s sexuality. So, while there is no single gene for sexuality, there is evidence that genetics on the whole influence sexuality. In other words, evidence supports that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. This link is simply more complicated that just a single gene sequence which codes for “heterosexual” or “homosexual.” Because sexuality is something much more complicated than hair color or eye color, it makes a lot of sense that there would be several genetic factors at play in determining sexuality. The author incorrectly assumed that all this did not need to be explained.
      Therefore, this article provides support to the idea that being homosexual is not a choice, but is part of one’s biology. Just as you can’t change what color eyes you are born with, you can’t change your sexuality.

      Delete
  7. Yes--as you just posted, "Foster and Byers... believe genetics plays a large role." But I don't know how you read this and deduce that "[researchers] doubt there is a [genetic link]", as you stated in your original post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The part that says despite numerous researches no genetic connection has ever been found

    ReplyDelete

Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1