I found a pretty crazy article today titled "Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again", and it's actually a really interesting read! Here's an excerpt from it:
"While several studies find homosexuality in humans and other animals is biological rather than learned, a question remains over whether it's a hard-wired phenomenon or one that can be altered.
A new study finds that both drugs and genetic manipulation can turn the homosexual behavior of fruit flies on and off within a matter of hours."
I'd highly recommend you check out the full article (link below), and then feel free to come back and post your thoughts in the comments section of my blog! I'd love to hear your feedback!
Check out the Article at Fox News
Enjoy!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
The probability of a gay gene is so low it's ridiculous. Think about it. How are your genes passed on? The majority of gay couples don't procreate. A large number of them adopt children and some use artificial parenthood techniques but the simple fact is that an overwhelming number of gays don't have children.
This means that even if the trait were dominant (obviously not the case) it would only get passed on by about .5% of the population per generation. In short, if there were a gene controlling gayness, it would have been phased out of the human make-up long ago.
The probability of a gay gene its not that ridiculous (well, may be more than 1 single gene involved)
But the fact that have not been yet been phased out indicates that there is an evolutive advantage in been gay for a small niche in the population. which advantage? read the book "sperm wars" for a complete explanation of this theories
Who said the genes that control sex and attraction are the same.
I agree with Colby. Those who insist that homosexuality is genetic forget their basic high school biology.
To colby: your assumption that gay people cannot reproduce is absolutely hilarious.
Now hang on a minute - look at other things that are genetic and rare - Sickle Cell anemia is still around because someone who is a carrier is immune.
It's only when you get both recessives from both parents that it becomes sickle cell.
Homosexuality is not a negative or harmful trait, but it is something that usually results in a genetic dead-end.
And, you're assuming it only involves two genes. Have you looked at what genetic dance is done for something as simple as hair color?
I don't know if data for fruit flies is relevant to people, and I know for a fact that a "cure" for something that isn't a disease is going to be controversial as all get-out.
But it is interesting....
/begin drama
Ok. I like the sense of smell angle. So all of those pictures I see have male smell on them? What about LOVE. My being gay means I LOVE my boyfriend. *GASP* EVEN WHEN WE ARE NOT "COPULATING." Get real. Get over it. Why can't we all just get along? I don't tell my surrounding co-inhabitants ANYWHERE I HAPPEN TO BE that because I don't agree with them, they need to CONFORM IMMEDIATELY. /end drama
I would have to argue against Colby. The point is that if there is a gay gene, the gene will most likely be recessive. So it will be possible to pass on a gay gene without showing any signs of homosexuality from the parents and the probability could be very high considering all the other recessive genes that are pass along.
For goodness' sake.
Gene's express differently in different genders. A gene that in one gender expresses with a trait that significantly improves survival/reproductive success etc, and in the other gender expresses with a trait that is harmful to reproductive success (such as a tendency to homosexuality) but less harmful than the positive trait in the other gender is beneficial will still tend to be selected by evolution and passed on to the next generation. Nothing stops genes passing on evolutionarily disadvantageous traits in these circumstances.
I love it when people who are clearly non-scientists wax poetic about the nitty-gritty details of genetics (I'm talking about colby, et al. here).
The idea that homosexual tendencies simply *can't* be the result of a gene because clearly, homosexual couples don't get a chance to pass it on is so oversimplified as to beg the question of whether the proponent has even TAKEN high school biology, much less remembered any of it. It assumes:
* that the gene is completely dominant, rather than expressing as a range of the trait.
* that only one gene controls the trait
* that evolutionary fitness is solely the result of procreative likelihood.
I'm also bewildered as to where colby gets his ".5%" statistic. I can only assume he believes that only .5-1% of the population is gay, which is a drastic underestimate.
Perhaps if someone read the article, as opposed to spouting whatever they've been trained to spout out, they'd have realized that the chemicals ONLY cause the flies to become bisexual, not gay.
The only way to make 100% gay fruit flies was via "genetic manipulation."
This article reeks of bias. Someone, Fox has managed to take an article which shows homosexuality to favor genetics into some sort of proof that it's "much more than genetics."
I've never been to this blog, but it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about, AND that you more than likely are so uncreative that you can't think of your own ideas, so you just write up a summary about a controversial article, post it on digg, and enjoy your hits.
You aren't that clever, sorry.
I will give each and every one of you a million dollars the day that it's proven that homosexuality can be attributed to genetics.
Fucking ridiculous.
Look, I didn't claim to be an expert on the subject, I simply stated what I had learned as fact.
Ethan, my statement wasn't that gays couldn't reproduce, it was that largely, they don't. It's inherent in the fact that they can't do it with each other. If my wife and I were unable to reproduce, we'd probably adopt rather than go through donated egg or sperm banks so that the one of us who was able could still contribute our own DNA. You're talking about a very expensive process.
to Maggieliz: That's interesting. I hadn't thought of it.
Double post, my apologies.
To Karmajunkie:
.5% was derived from the percent of the population that was gay who also put their genes into having a child who in turn got the recessive "gay gene". It's unlikely.
I had forgotten how hard it was to make conversation on the internet without being vilified. Thanks for the reminder.
People who suggest that homosexuality is not genetic because it would have already been selectively removed, obviously have not thought about that concept fully.
Consider many diseases most likely rooted in genetics, such as infant death syndrome, erectile dysfunction, or impotence and sterility...all disorders that normally should never be passed on in nature.
It's perfectly natural to assume that homosexuality has been passed on in humans if you consider that homosexuality has been shunned since the beginning of civilization. Only recently has it been "acceptable" in society for homosexuals not to procreate as heterosexuals do -- by marrying and having families but still living closeted.
What is really striking is that homosexuality is very common in non-human animals, especially in animals without the ability to "choose" not to be gay or to "choose" to mate even though they are homosexual. Humans are unique in their ability to ignore their homosexual urges to procreate in a heterosexual fashion.
By recognizing that homosexuality has existed for hundreds of millions of years in non-human animals rules out the idea that it "should" be selectively removed over time.
colby said:
"Ethan, my statement wasn't that gays couldn't reproduce, it was that largely, they don't"
Colby, this really is not true at all, and I'm not trying to vilify you. Homosexual humans have been reproducing for thousands of years; only recently (in the last 50 years) has modern society really opened up to the idea that it's "OK" to be homosexual and thus more homosexuals are becoming comfortable with the idea of living life having not reproduced.
In fact, in the future, you will start to see many more homosexuals reproduce than ever before because laws will be passed to allow homosexuals to marry and the rate of state-supported adoptions by gay couples will rise, artificial inseminations will increase with the pace of technology, etc. There will, forthcoming, be more options for homosexuals to reproduce than there ever have been in the past, aside of course from reproducing in a heterosexual fashion.
To Scott:
good point! I'm relatively young. The idea that gayness was only recently viewed as acceptable hadn't occurred to me in the slightest. I guess my assumption going into it was that someone who was attracted to one sex but forced to hide it due to societal standards would just abstain from relations with members of the other sex rather than embracing it to fit in.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
Some of you kids need to re-take Bio (I'm aiming this at Johnny, particularly).
If there was a gay gene (and I'm not supporting or not supporting it) it could still be easily passed on. How do you think rare diseases are passed on? MUTATIONS.. carrier genes. Maybe all it takes is for one rna molecule to code for the wrong amino acid and you get a mutation resulting in homosexuality? Or maybe it's a recessive trait(s) that rarely gets passed on, but every once in a while it does? You don't know, so don't pretend you do. No one does yet..
colby said:
"I guess my assumption ... was that someone who was attracted to one sex but forced to hide it due to societal standards would just abstain from relations with members of the other sex rather than embracing it to fit in"
That is true, but just as there was societal pressure to hide homosexuality, there was equal, or perhaps greater, societal pressure to get married and raise a family in the "traditional" fashion. When you compound those together, you get a huge huge number of homosexual people reproducing, for no other reason than societal mandate.
In the generation we live in, both these pressures are reduced; there is more pressure to "come out" (it's laughable to suggest that there is an increasing percentage of homosexuals in society, actually there is probably the same percentage but just more homosexuals reporting) ...and at the same time there is less pressure, especially among females, to raise a cohesive family. Divorces are skyrocketing, women are choosing careers earlier and families later, and men are also waiting until they are older to get married (or they are choosing a popular alternative of living with a domestic partner in a heterosexual rel'ship). Getting married and having a family is just not what it used to be. This has helped wean homosexual people away from those pre-existing pressures.
Oh, one more thing. This article is largely useless in relation to humans because it discusses the pheromonal effect animals have on each other. Humans have evolved to have almost pretty much no vomeronasal organ function, which is one hallmark of the pheromonal system in animals. I think it would be wrong for researchers to continue on this path except in studying animal behavior.
drewcary said:
"I will give each and every one of you a million dollars the day that it's proven that homosexuality can be attributed to genetics."
I look forward to being $1 million richer in the near future. Homosexuality is definitely attributed to genetics rather than an emotional construct such as "choice." If you were able to grow a non-sexual human in an environment with no societal cues and then asked it to choose whether to be homosexual or heterosexual, the natural response would be heterosexual based upon the instinctual desire (choice) to procreate. If you then introduced that person into our society, it would overwhelmingly decide to be heterosexual. He would agree that homosexuality is too difficult a lifestyle to be "chosen" for no other reason than being offered the choice. Think Achem's razor!
Ok. Choice. I have always had crushes on guys, since first grade. It took an innumerable amount of help from my support group to come out to myself. That happened when i was 17, freshman year of college. Some one asked me why i wanted to be gay. who would? I have to be scared if my employer is going to can me (in Indiana, there is no recourse if they do) just for loving my boyfriend. Several of my friends and new acquaintances have left me because I am gay. So yeah, who would CHOOSE to be gay? I can't help it any more than I can stop breathing or eating.
Interesting read...I was wondering more in the terms of Fox news saying..."Jesus will heal" :)
Just as a quick point here - Everyone who says it can't be passed on because it's recessive and (as a general rule) homosexual couples cannot reproduce has clearly got a lacking in understanding.
Cystic Fibrosis, for example, causes infertility (97% of the time. Probably a similar rate to homosexuals who donate sperm), and yet it's very much still around.
So does that mean it is impossible for recessive genes to be removed from the gene pool?
There are many genes that when coupled with a different variation add a significant biological advantage, but when coupled with another copy of itself, cause debilitating disease.
A prime example is sickle cell disease. One copy of the gene provides good immuninty to malaria. Two copies will most likley kill you.
A couple each with one copy of the gene will produce offspring with a distinct environmental advantage 40% of the time, a child with no advantage or disadvantage 25% of the time, and lose 1 in 4 to the disease, which in many areas would be well below the death rate from malaria amongst those without the gene.
It is possible that having 1 copy of the (I suspect that there would be several genes contributing in practice) "gay" gene makes for a more nurturing father, a considerable adbvantage in a species with as long a childhood as ours. The odd occurance of a gay outcome would not negate the overall advantage of the additional nurturing and nature would select quite strongly for the gay gene to propogate.
Identical twin studies rule out genetics.
Post a Comment