[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
That's my point. Homosexuality appears in nature. It cannot be bread out since it's not an inherative trait.
Geneticdamage accures quite often thouhg.

Your knowledge of genetics is obviously very bad. If there is a gay gene (and it looks pretty likely that there is a gene connected to it) then it is an inherited trait.
 The chance of the same mutation occuring in every single gay person on the planet in exactly the fashion as to make them gay is so astronomical that it makes the chances of winning the lottery look like a dead cert.
 The gay gene is obviously either inherited or non-existant. Any other claim is complete poppycock.

Originally posted by TrashMan
I don't know about that.. We humans are stunningly diverse yet we have been living motly monogamus for a long time.

Absolute complete and utter nonsense. Muslims to this day are still permitted to have 4 wives. Monogomy is in no way the most common way of doing things. Affairs and other forms of outright polygamy are the norm. When about 60% of men admit to having an affair at some point in their marriage it's absolute nonsense to try to claim that monogamy is the norm.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


No. Nothing is refuted. Being left handed or right handed simply doesn't affect anything even remotely significant.

You should have said that before posting some tripe about learned behaviour, then.

Originally posted by TrashMan
That's my point. Homosexuality appears in nature. It cannot be bread out since it's not an inherative trait.
Geneticdamage accures quite often thouhg.

It's too frequent to be simple random mutation, so what specific damage or factor could possibly affect a multitude of animals in such a specific manner? As far as I can tell, you're suggesting not only some mysterious damage occurs, but that it occurs with exactly the same symptoms and effect in (for the example of sheep) 6-10% of Rams.

One would almost thing such a thing was guided if it was true.

Originally posted by TrashMan

On the oter hand, as some of you here said, animals don't have the emotional or especially mental complexity of us humans.
And homosexuality still appears by creatures with the brains the size of peas.
If it were the product of complex effects from our sorroundings (upbringing)  why would then animals be so affected too?

Now, this is where you aren't really making sense.  Firstly, homosexuality in animals doesn't preclude that gene being spread, as it is most likely recessive.  i.e. a homosexual animal could be born to 2 heterosexual animals.

Secondly, as you pointed out, humans are substantially more mentally complex than animals.  That means it does not follow that the cause of homosexuality within animals must be the same as for humans.  You could indeed say the complexity of human intelligence and behaviour actually makes it more likely for homosexuality to be introduced by environment.

You will note, no doubt, that this does not rule out a genetic pre-disposition.  AFAIK most scientific studies have concluded human sexuality is a mixture of genetics and environment.

Originally posted by TrashMan

So when a man is born with 6 fingers and it doesn't hamper him at least. you still wouldn't say it was mutation/genetic damaged - that he is "damaged" in some way?

Sorry?  What on earth is this in relation to?  If someones born with 6 fingers, then no, they aren't damaged in any way.  They are different.

Hell, depending on the dexterity of that extra finger, they might be better.

Originally posted by TrashMan

But they need a third party to facilitate it. I would call it a step backwards.

No they don't.  1 man + 1 woman.  Homosexuality doesn't prevent heterosexual sex being physically possible, as should be evident.  I believe there are numerous cases, for example, of lesbian couples enlisting a gay male to assist in procreation.

Of course, by that reckoning all technology is a step backwards.  It' worth noting that evolution is not just a physical but behavioural process, thus including the impact of technology and society.

Originally posted by TrashMan
I don't know about that.. We humans are stunningly diverse yet we have been living motly monogamus for a long time.

besides a smalelr family ensures more focus and care on the offspring. and mroe resources spanetn on each offspring.

Um, that's not really true.  Polygamy was probably more common in the ancient world than monogamy.  It was practiced in ancient Persia, ancient India, the modern and ancient Islamic world, Asia , China (i.e. concubines), tribal Africa and North America.  When the Romans were beginning to advocate a monogamous society, it was very much against the trend of the time; and even then the men were given unrestricted access to their female slaves.

EDIT; the latter is credited with being the cause for addition of monogamy into the bible, at the time of Paul IIRC.

The ethnographic atlas (http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf, page 4) lists more societies as being at least partially polygamous than as monogamous. (see also http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/uncgi/Ethnoatlas/atlas.vopts)

Whilst it's true that having a monogamous relationship might allow focusing of relationships, that's ignoring the problem of infant death;  in ancient times when childbirth was risky, it was essential to maximise the prospects of having offspring (for example).  Also the status symbol value of having multiple wives in, say, tribal societies.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Sorry?  What on earth is this in relation to?  If someones born with 6 fingers, then no, they aren't damaged in any way.  They are different.

Hell, depending on the dexterity of that extra finger, they might be better.

People with 6 fingers are having mutation in their genes.  I do not recall which gene and what type of mutation it is, but I am certain that it's a relatively common phenotype for birth defect.

I do not think it does any direct damge and the additional fingers are generally weak.  But it must have some psychological effects on the person for being different from the crowd in general.

Anyhow, the extra one might be useful day if that person have a accident and happend to lose one of the regular fingers.  A transplant from his own

[Flipside]

Well, at least you wouldn't have to worry about rejection

Seriously though, if homosexuality were a 'fault' or 'mutation' it would appear far less frequently than it does. Also, as has been mentioned earlier, if it were purely genetic, like blue eyes or heart conditions, then it would have been self-destructive, there might have been the odd 'case' now and again but certainly not entire communities of homosexuals.

Now, before anyone starts on the 'Great Gay Conspiracy' where Gay men have been secretly breeding with their wives with some kind of world domination plan, think. We know that homosexuality was around throughout history, and that every race has it's own homosexual section, even if they try to supress it. So, how was this amazing global conspiracy communicated 2000 years ago? How did they advertise this plan to homosexuals and only homosexuals etc etc? There is no plot.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Wild Fragaria


People with 6 fingers are having mutation in their genes.  I do not recall which gene and what type of mutation it is, but I am certain that it's a relatively common phenotype for birth defect.

I do not think it does any direct damge and the additional fingers are generally weak.  But it must have some psychological effects on the person for being different from the crowd in general.

Anyhow, the extra one might be useful day if that person have a accident and happend to lose one of the regular fingers.  A transplant from his own

Psychological, maybe.  But that's again delving into society rather than genetics.

'sides which, anyone who takes the piss out of another person for having 6 fingers or webbed feet, etc, is simply a dick and deserves to be punched - preferably with a 6 fingered webbed fist - until they bleed.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Wild Fragaria
People with 6 fingers are having mutation in their genes.  I do not recall which gene and what type of mutation it is, but I am certain that it's a relatively common phenotype for birth defect.

It is indeed an inherited trait and rather surprisingly it's actually a dominant one.

Here's an article about it I found after a quick google search

[aldo_14]

I'm not getting an article there.

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by aldo_14
'sides which, anyone who takes the piss out of another person for having 6 fingers or webbed feet, etc, is simply a dick and deserves to be punched - preferably with a 6 fingered webbed fist - until they bleed.

By someone who is left handed. And gay.

[karajorma]

That's rather odd. I'd closed that window before I cuyt and paste the link I didn want and I'm pretty sure I never did select that one.

Anyway, here is the one I wanted to link to.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by karajorma
Your knowledge of genetics is obviously very bad. If there is a gay gene (and it looks pretty likely that there is a gene connected to it) then it is an inherited trait.
 The chance of the same mutation occuring in every single gay person on the planet in exactly the fashion as to make them gay is so astronomical that it makes the chances of winning the lottery look like a dead cert.
 The gay gene is obviously either inherited or non-existant. Any other claim is complete poppycock.

If my knowlede is bad then yours is subatomic.

READ MY POSTS. No gey gene asa such that is carrier over. A normal healthy geene that gets damaged - that's a big difference.

And frankly, it occurs rather often - far more often than you think.

[Kazan]

TrashMan the proability of the SAME EXAC mutation independant simultaneously on between 5% and 10% of the human population is so small as to be effectively impossible

just becuase YOU cannot understand how multiple inheritance and codominance works doesn't mean it doesn't work.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan


If my knowlede is bad then yours is subatomic.

READ MY POSTS. No gey gene asa such that is carrier over. A normal healthy geene that gets damaged - that's a big difference.

And frankly, it occurs rather often - far more often than you think.

It's amazing that you can insult someones intelligence  whilst simultaneously completly missing the point by a country mile.

EDIT; actually, I was being a bit too kind.  That's simply ****ing idiotic and you should really, really at least try to back up these wild statements before making them.  Otherwise you look a bit of a tit.

The odds of a random genetic mutation occuring that has the same effect in 5-10% of people, without any particular geographical locality, over recorded history, are simply astronomical.

It's very simple.  For that amount of people to be gay, and for it to be a genetically determined behaviour, it has to be an inherited characteristic.  Perhaps recessive, but still inherited.

If you're using damage synonymously with mutation (again, worth noting there is not a single human genotype anyways, as you can see just by looking out on the street), then it clearly is not a negative one or natural selection would have bred it out.

Moreso, that's supported by the presence of homosexuality within animal species; I would say identical traits, if they are genetic, being shared by multiple species would imply that trait is not negative as to be removed by natural selection.

What you are trying to do, I would guess, because there is no medical or non-emotive evidence that homosexuality is 'damaging', is to label the initial genetic mutation - if there was one - that cause a homosexual predisposition gene as damage rather than mutation.  As damaging mutations are bred out, clearly that's not the case.  Moreso, by that context any mutation - say red hair - can be said to be caused by 'genetic damage'.

[mikhael]

Remember boys and girls: if Trashman doesn't agree with it, its a damaged gene. If he doesn't care about it, or it doesn't do anything, its a harmless mutation.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by mikhael
Remember boys and girls: if Trashman doesn't agree with it, its a damaged gene. If he doesn't care about it, or it doesn't do anything, its a harmless mutation.

It's a free world to express yourself and it's fine if you want to talk your opinion.  But talking nonsense and making up false information to pontentially mislead others is just plain wrong.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by TrashMan
 READ MY POSTS. No gey gene asa such that is carrier over. A normal healthy geene that gets damaged - that's a big difference.

Genes get carried over from generation to genration, whether is it's normal or abnormal.  You have got to have a hell lot of evidents to prove that some of them, in particular the 'damaged-gay-gene', don't get carried on and why.

Originally posted by TrashMan
 And frankly, it occurs rather often - far more often than you think.

Do you have any reference apart from the news source like the "Onion" and your own made-up theory about damaged-gay-gene to show that gene even exist?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
If my knowlede is bad then yours is subatomic.

Sorry Trashman but you lose. I've never claimed to be an expert but I'll quite happily provide links to support my point of view if asked to. You provide nothing beyond assertions that you are correct and everyone else in the world is wrong.

Your theory is contrary to every single thing I've ever read on genetics (And I'm not even talking about scientific stuff here. I've NEVER heard anyone claim what you have claimed so I've got to conclude that you're making it up as you go along.

 Due to the fact that you almost certainly won't provide any documentation to show where you've got these notions of how genetics works my knowledge of "Genetics according to Trashman" is limited to whatever nonsense you choose to write in these forums.

My knowledge of genetics as it is understood by the rest of world however is clearly better as you have failed (and no doubt will continue to fail) at providing a single link that coroborates your view of genetics.

Originally posted by TrashMan
READ MY POSTS. No gey gene asa such that is carrier over. A normal healthy geene that gets damaged - that's a big difference.

I did read your posts and frankly your comments on genetics are laughable at best.

You're claiming that the gay gene isn't inherited but that a healthy gene gets damaged. Quite frankly I can't understand how anyone who claims to understand how genetics works could possibly say this.

First lets get some things clear. ANY damage to DNA is a mutation regardless of how it occurs.
 If the damage occurs to the DNA in the sperm or egg cells or the cells that produce them you have a germ line mutation and it WILL be inherited (Almost all cells produced by a mutated cell will carry the mutation). If the mutation occurs outside of the germ line then the mutation will not be inherited.

If as you claim the gay gene isn't inherited the mutation must occur some time after fertilisation. In fact it must occur after the cells that will eventually form the reproductive system have diffrenciated or otherwise the damage would be passed on to the next generation because germ line cells would carry the mutation.

Here's where it gets odd. What you're claiming is that once the sex cells have formed (i.e while the person is still normal) something happens during development to cause the gene in the stems cells that eventually end up forming the brain to mutate. Whatever this is it happens to the 10% of people who are gay and not to everyone else.

AFAIK that is actually theoretically possible. I've never heard of a mutation being that common but it is possible for the gay gene to be on a hotspot on the genome and be heavily affected by mutations. I've never heard of anything that high, the mutation rate for Duchenne muscular dystrophy is ~ 1 x 10e-4 and this is considered a high mutation rate. For this you'd ned 1x10e-1 or 1000 times higher than  a very high mutation rate. If the mutation causes people with it to become gay then this part of the theory possibly works.

Unfortunately there are two huge problems with that approach.

1) Mutations are virtually random. There's no reason to expect that the mutation would actually result in the gay gene any more than a gene that caused you to be sexually attracted to blancmange. I'm sure you've got some bull**** reason to explain this though. Save it. The second one is the killer.
2) Why would only the DNA in the brain cells mutate? This mutation would occur all over the body. DNA replication doesn't give a toss where it occurs in the body. The mutation can occur at any time in any cell. Replication is caried out by proteins that don't particularly care where in the body they are so this mutation is going to occur in every cell in the body that replicates.
  Sure you can say that the mutation isn't expressed in any other organ in the body and you'll be fine with that explaination until you get to the germ line cells. Sorry but it's game f**king over here. If the gene appears in the germ line cells the gay gene is hereditory and will get passed onto the next generation.

Originally posted by TrashMan
And frankly, it occurs rather often - far more often than you think.

As you can see from the above I don't give a toss what you say the mutation rate is for this gene. It doesn't matter in the slightest.
 If the mutation is rare you can't explain the number of gay people there are in the world. If it isn't then it will become hereditory very quickly.

Your entire theory is patent nonsense. I don't even need to do much science to prove it. Sheer logic can do that.

[kode]

please leave ol' trashy alone. his family situation is giving him enough problems as it is.

[Windrunner]

i can see that this is going into one of those threads.
closed..