Nataki Yiro wrote:I really don't feel like teaching you genetics. Especially if you get bad grades, because we all know that when you get bad grades in college it's because you didn't read the book and if you did it was the night before the test.
I'll try to sum up because I'm tired and really want to be in bed.
Except some of us have already PASSED our classes ... and put in a good deal of time within the various fields. I am definitely not an expert in genetics, but I have a hard time believing this is what your professor or textbook actually taught you. It is wrong. I may be a little fuzzy on some of the more technical aspects, but you are nowhere near that technical. This is stuff you should have learned in HIGH SCHOOL or even upper elementary, not college!
To be specific:
When a gene is retarded you get a defect.
First, the term you appear to be seeking is "repressed", not retarded. That is the term for a gene that is present, but not expressed. The other term you might be seeking is dominant -- the gene that is expressed. The term for the expression of a gene, or allel is phenotype. The term for ANY change within or to any of these proteins is
mutation, not "defect".
Since genes are linked in proteins, when one gene is defective the others are effected. Most defects hamper brain function (this is because our genes are assorted on the homologs [allele pair]) and the chances of you hitting something involved in brain function is pretty high. Like I said not all of these defects effect the brain, but we are talking about behavioral defects.
WRONG! You have taken a little bit of correct information and expanded it into something that is completely wrong.
MOST mutations are either neutral -- have no effect OR have a negative effect -- that is, result in death or extreme ill health of the subject. "Defect" would mean only a specific phenotype with a negative outcome... a subjective term, unless specifically meaning something resulting in death or a particular negative outcome such as loss of hearing, sight or, yes, brain function.
Genes affect all kinds of things in all kinds of complex ways. NO ONE knows exactly what even a large percentage of either human or animal genes do. It was only within the past couple of years that scientists in the genome project finished
mapping human genes -- that is registering what more or less goes where. We do know the
expression of some genes, but not very many -- yet. the brain is EXPECIALLY complex and unknown.
We DO strongly suspect that most
behavior is based on a
combination of factors. These include genes, but ALSO include introduction of chemicals and hormones (those produced within the womb and from outside -- be it through food, the air, skin or some other unkown source), diet and chemical exposures post birth (some of which WILL actually affect genetics, more of which will most certainly affect the development of a child's brain -- lead & mercury are prime examples, AND the environment, etc. ... PLUS there is a good chance there are yet other factors no one really understands yet. (magnetics, for example -- understand I am not saying that I know magnetic fields affect childhood development, I am saying it DOES affect animals and
some people think it
might affect humans ... whether it does or does not is yet to be determined).
You have many kinds of disorders (Autosomal, X or Y-Linked, etc.) but typically Multifactorial or Polygenic Disorders are the cause of hampered brain function without a having a million other things wrong with you. Like you being a shem, being infertile, being a vegetable, etc.
This is just plain wrong. Very few disorders have been directly and firmly linked to specific genes. Downs happens to be one, dwarfism is another. In MOST cases, it is strongly suspected that not only a combination of genes is required, but a combination of other factors (as noted above) is necessary. Most infertility, specifically, has nothing at all to do with genes.
These genes are passed down through family, so you would see constant evidence of it occurring in a blood line and not just randomly. Have you ever met a whole family of gay people?
You still think it is genetic? I can keep going if this topic interests you... but it will have to be in the morning because I'm going to bed.
Some of the best evidence supporting (notice I did not say "proving") the idea that homosexuality is genetics is that identical twins, even when raised completely separately (adopted at birth) are most often (the overwhelming majority -- exceptions are very few) either both homosexual or both heterosexual. Also, homosexuality is found within normally heterosexual wild animals and farm animals both. And, though you generally don't find a "whole family" of homosexuals, there is a slightly greater chance of siblings being homosexual than those in the general population.
NONE of this is absolute proof. BUT, it is pretty strong evidence that at least
part of the "homosexual equation" is genetics.
FURTHERMORE, there is a lot more to biology than just genetics. A child who is exposed to lead absolutely loses brain function, but that is not a genetic cause. So too do some scientist postulate that children exposed to certain hormones -- either produced by the mother or from the "outside" -- might lead to homosexual tendencies.
To add further mud to the muddy waters, you are completely ignoring the segment of the population that is born without clear female or male genetalia. They are BORN with any combination of male and female parts. A LOT of the evidence for genetic sexuality comes from these children. In the past few decades, parents of these children were basically instructed to "pick" a sex -- based on which seemed "dominant" and then act as if their child were fully that sex. This is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY complicated and a very emotional subject, but one thing is clear -- that sex and genetics and hormones are nowhere near as clear as the appearance of outward genetillia would suggest.
OVERALL --- you need to do a better job of checking your facts ... and I mean in JURIED, REPUTABLE science journals, not whatever appears at the top of the "Google" search. A LOT of science is accessible within the internet, but a LOT MORE isn't. Why? BOTH because a lot of this research was done back in the dark ages of, say, 10-20 years ago, when the internet was in its infancy. AND because science research publication takes money -- LOTS of money. The information most easily accessible is that put forward by large companies becuase they have a profit stake in the outcomes and groups with specific agendas and interests they wish to put forward. Hardly the most unbaised sources. This thread and others provide the best proof yet of why children need to learn EARLY basic critical thinking skills. You demonstrate again and again that you cannot distinguish between evidence put forward by scientists practicing good scientific methodology and those who start out with an agenda they want to prove. And no, I am not naively stating that even all good science it completely unbiased. But, let's get real ... when your funding source is an oil company, you are far more likely to accidentally or intentionally overlook all but the most serious anti-oil evidence.
