|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality Can Be Genetically Turned On & Off | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2662 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
A study published today by Nature Neuroscience (online only) "finds drugs or genetic manipulation can turn the homosexual behavior of fruit flies on and off within a matter of hours.".
Here's a link to an article about the paper for those who don't have access to Nature Neuroscience: Homosexuality Turned On and Off in Fruit Flies | Live Science Here's a cite to the paper: Nature NeurosciencePublished online: 9 December 2007 A glial amino-acid transporter controls synapse strength and homosexual courtship in Drosophila Yael Grosjean, Micheline Grillet, Hrvoje Augustin, Jean-Franois Ferveur & David E Featherstone It seems they found a "genderblind" (GB) mutation. Males carrying GB were attracted to males; females, females. By altering the amount of glutamate in those carrying GB, the researchers could turn homosexuality on and off. They think that "glutamatergic synapses were altered in some way". They were also able to turn homosexuality on and off by altering synapse strength with something other than glutamate.
The team figured fly brains maintain two sensory circuits: one to trigger heterosexual behavior and one for homosexual. When GB suppresses glutamatergic synapses, the homosexual circuit is blocked, the thinking goes. So they did more tests. As expected, without GB to suppress synapse strength, the flies no longer interpreted smells the same way. The smells in question come in the form of pheromones, chemicals that affect sexual behavior in much of the animal kingdom. This finding is going to present a problem for the "Gay-is-a-choice" crowd. I'm curious. How do our local "Gay-is-a-choice" folks view this finding?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Take a Pill and Sin no More. No longer must you suffer in Sin and Sodomy, your Salvation is at hand. No longer need the Homosexuals claim that they cannot Help themselves; Rescue from their continued Perversion, Debauchery, Immorality and Aberrant Behaviors is here.
Hallelujah Brothers and Sisters your Salvation is at Hand. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
In the past, I have presented some research that "cured" homosexual animal of their homosexuality, particularly in goats and sheeps. The researchers used some kind of hormonal treatments to achieve this goal. I'm too lazy to dig up the articles now, but at the time this group of researchers got blasted by gay rights crowd and lost a lot of their fundings because of the implication they found.
You should talk to nem_jug about this, since he has said several times now that if we could show him homosexuality is in fact in nature and not simply by human choice then he will accept it. Personally, I don't really care if homosexuality is a choice or not. The question of whether this is a choice or not should have absolutely no bearing on gay right issues. I just want to point that out before we lose track. Although Hoot Mon did say that once we can "cure" people of homosexuality then homosexuality will indeed be a matter of choice. This is the reason why I think Hoot Mon is an in-the-closet homophobe. He said this without even considering the fact that if that is the case then heterosexuality would also be a choice. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Once we turn the gene off can we still call them fruit flies?
Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I don't believe primary sexual preferences are a choice, but I'm not certain this will pose much of a problem to those who think it is.
First of all humans aren't fruit flies. It probably goes beyond simple smell effects to get homosexual activity popping for us. Second, even if it is chemical based, humans have the ability to choose to restrain their activity. For example if someone showed that they could get animals (flies or whatever) to rape each other based on chemical changes, I doubt the "rape is a choice" crowd will change their mind. If something is viewed as "wrong" or "aberrant" the choice is in expressing it, regardless of a drive to do it. Humans have an arguably better ability to analyze and change their own behavior than fruit flies. Third, as Jar seems to be suggesting, they'll likely embrace this kind of study. It is easy to transform this study into a statement that homosexuality is an aberrant behavior, a malfunction as it were, and one that may very well be correctable. I'm not taking it this way, but I'd bet they will. h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Holmes, yes, while what you say is true regarding the "choice" crowd, you have to keep in mind one very important argument that those people make against homosexuality. The argument is it's not found in nature. You should talk to nem_jug about this. Even after I showed him many examples of animal that persistantly and consistantly have homosexual tendencies as well as animal that form monogomous relationships with same sex partners, he still dismissed all my examples as "dogs humping other random dogs". He even told us that he would finally accept homosexuality as "natural" (whatever that means) if we could show him that it is found in nature. I don't think you can get anymore natural (non-choice) than fruit flies.
Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2662 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
First of all humans aren't fruit flies. These tiny red-eyed animals ” known to scientists as the species Drosophila melanogaster ” are essential workhorses in thousands of biomedical research laboratories around the world. Decades of study have revealed that the tiny insects, which bear little resemblance to people, nevertheless share much of our genetic heritage. The page you’re looking for isn’t available. | National Institutes of Health (NIH) We have been using Drosophila for research for years and we've just found the GB gene. And we won't know until we find an analogous "human gay gene" whether it's more complicated or not. Currently there are a couple of "gay gene" candidates. Mom's Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons | Live Science And there is research that shows gay men respond differently to pheromones. Sexual Pheromones: Myth or Reality? | Live Science
For example if someone showed that they could get animals (flies or whatever) to rape each other based on chemical changes ... Straight out of the creo handbook.
For instance, if scientists were able to document that a “rape gene” existed, we certainly would not blame an individual for possessing this gene, but neither would we allow him to act upon that rape disposition. http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp Humans have an arguably better ability to analyze and change their own behavior than fruit flies. Really. So you could choose to be gay if you wished? Your attraction to the opposite sex is that pliable?
It is easy to transform this study into a statement that homosexuality is an aberrant behavior, a malfunction as it were, and one that may very well be correctable. No more than any genetic variation is "aberrant". Are green eyed people "aberrant"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Good point. Some distinguish between whether it is "natural" and whether it is found in nature. But for those claiming it isn't found in nature this would SEEM to be a problem. Then again, if repeated denials of the obvious are already occurring, the trend is likely to continue.
If male dogs humping male dogs are simply two dogs humping random dogs, how does that not count for humans? Or was the point exclusivity? h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Straight out of the creo handbook.
Yeah, that was the point. Crank down the condescension a few notches, I was explaining how they would likely react. Taz just added a point I hadn't thought of... outright denial.
We have been using Drosophila for research for years and we've just found the GB gene.
Yeah, I used to help my ex prep them for her lab. I'm aware of their utility and extensive use. That said, humans do have a much more complex brain and sophisticated behavior system than flies. While we may share similar conditional inputs (for example reactions to pheromones), that does not necessarily effect us as dramatically (directly) as flies. Pheromone studies with humans show just that. I think "gay gene" is a misnomer, arising with modern hysteria over sexuality. There are genes which as part of their activity, result in predispositions for homosexual behavior. Its "purpose" is not to make people gay. If we are addressing my own position, I believe that developmental environments during gestation effect sexuality more than genetics. And social situations can also effect how one's sexual feelings are manifested.
So you could choose to be gay if you wished?
No, and that would not be the anti-gay crowd's point either. Whether you are attracted to the same sex or not, you do have the ability to stop yourself from acting on those feelings. Flies generally don't have much self-awareness, analysis, or control. Humans have great amounts of self control. That is what the rape analogy is supposed to highlight. Whether people are predisposed to wanting to rape, they do have the "choice" not to.
No more than any genetic variation is "aberrant". Are green eyed people "aberrant"?
They aren't aberrant to me in the sense that the anti-gay crowd would use it. Remember, I'm just saying how they would dismiss the study. Let me see if I can Devil Advocate for them a little further on this point. Green eyes may be a variant, but humans are capable of determining which variations are harmful, or in some sense a malfunction of their actual purpose, and green eyes are clearly not that. That is color of eye does not change the function of the eye. Color-blindness, or blindness itself on the other hand would be a malfunction, and detrimental. Thus it is not simply a variant, but aberrant. In such cases humans rightly try to correct those problems. The purpose of sexuality is to reproduce, hence any condition (genetic or other) which directly effects an ability to reproduce according to their physical gender would be a malfunction, and hence aberrant. Why wouldn't it be important to fix that just the same? Clearly according to the fruit fly model, humans wouldn't care once they were switched... and it would make everyone happy. h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
You'd have to ask him. Personally, I don't think he makes a lot of sense at times.
Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 171 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
The real scientific breakthrough will occur when they find the gene that controls canine tibiaphilia - the propensity of certain dogs to have sex with the lower halves of human legs. While some analysts have attributed this to random limb humping, the experimental data show a definite correlation (confidence factor of p = 0.95) for canine sexual intercourse with male human legs. While tibiaphilia has not been frequently noted in humans, this might well be due to the dearth of research into this important area of hominid behavior. I'm sure Prof. Jugglenuts can enlighten us about this affectation and will not just regress to a "love the shin, hate the shinner" position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 171 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
The purpose of sexuality is to reproduce, hence any condition (genetic or other) which directly effects an ability to reproduce according to their physical gender would be a malfunction, and hence aberrant. Why wouldn't it be important to fix that just the same? The mandate of evolution is not reproduction but the perpetuation of the genome. Reproduction (sexual or otherwise) is one part of this but an equally important part is for a species to not exhaust its resources. Various species have developed a variety of strategies to accomplish this, including varying sex (i. e., male to female) ratios, limiting reproduction to certain "alpha" male and female members of the pack, and perhaps to genetically induce homosexuality into a portion of the population when stressing resources is a more eminent threat than is decimation of the species. The human species does not appear at the present time to be threatened with bottlenecking or annihilation, but there are some early indications that the population density has reach the point where resources are being stressed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
"love the shin, hate the shinner"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... sweet. h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
The mandate of evolution is not reproduction but the perpetuation of the genome.
I believe switching sex is an environmental conditional reaction. While set within the gene, it is not that one is born to change into what will be needed. Rather one is born and can change as needed. I'm not sure about the limited repro thing, but that would seem the same. And on this thread's topic, I think it could be argued that this study is not showing a genetic change based on fly population necessity. It appears to be a "defect" in sexual function which can be inherited. Unfortunately appealing to population issues as a reason for homosexuality in humans is also problematic. As you note, humans don't seem to be overtly threatened, and gays have been around for quite some time. What's more, they have had children and there is a growing desire in the gay community for them to have children. There goes their benefit to society. h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
This finding is going to present a problem for the "Gay-is-a-choice" crowd. Until some evidence is presented that the mechanisms for sexual preference are matched in these flies and in humans, I don't see how it presents a problem for anyone. And as far as the gay-is-sin crowd are concerned, does it make a difference? Temptation is to be resisted, the presence or otherwise of that temptatation is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024