This Is Interesting
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
Yeah I can understand that you want more involvement that voyeurism.
I almost went with "*** at me bro" but thought I'd better not.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Nature has no intentions.
For centuries, people have been getting abortions (or just abandoning infants) because they thought the baby might have unwanted features. I think it's a tragedy if people deliberate choose to abort a baby over the probability of some sexual orientation, but it's common enough.
Also, homosexuality is too complex and varied in its structure to be the result of one influence, from what I can see.
Hartsock
Banned
Would this statement go against evolution?
I guess so, otherwise why would they call it an inherited trait?
I s'pose I never really thought about it enough, but I never knew that the hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established. But I think we've discussed the extinctiion argument to death.
edit: OK, so after reading some of the comments, I guess I'm not the only one who didn't now about the "long established hereditary link"
Lets party.
Do gay people often **** around you or something? Sounds like a personal problem.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
No. Many -- or even most -- scientists don't see evolution as heading in any kind of direction.
BTW, am I the only one who didn't really understand that article? Could someone explain it to me like I'm ten?
Some little markers on a childs DNA get mixed up. And boys get an attraction to men from their mothers and girls get an attraction to women from their fathers.
Hartsock
Banned
Only through heterosexual means ........ or science.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
No. In fact, the lack of a purpose to nature is central to evolutionary theory.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Epigentic markers are sequences that tell a cell how to change DNA code into protiens. They vary somewhat from person to person, just like DNA. They change, just like DNA. Since both sperm and ovum have these markers, they are inherited. However, my understanding is that it is a very difficult task to determine exactly which markers act on which strands of DNA, and what effect they have.
The article is about a claim that the pattern of homosexuality in many families fits a pattern that would be associated with epigenitic markers, AFAICT.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Yeah, because a ten-year-old would understand that.
Still, I think I understand it better now. Doesn't seem like too major of a revelation -- the evidence already seemed to be saying that that homosexuality arose at least partly from biological factors rather than solely as a product of upbringing. I guess it's nice that we may have discovered the mechanism, but I can't say that I care much.