Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I don't know why you chose to quote bible quotes at the end of your post, I never brought religion into this. And I never said that genetics didn't have something to do with someone's sexual preference, my question had to do with people who believe it is ENTIRELY based on genetics. I do know about recessive genes, co-dominance, hidden and expressed alleles, etc., but perhaps my original question was too vague.
As a very obvious atheist, I can assume you support the theory of evolution. So in an evolutionary sense, can you agree that having one gene coded to not replicate should die out eventually? Tell me how this doesn't make sense.
You make a good point about different combinations of genes having different effects on some people (similar to sickle cell anemia being resistant against malaria).
I could really care less what sexual orientation a person is, whether it is due to a choice, environment, genetics, upbringing, or (as I believe) a combination of all these things. It doesn't bother me. The fact that you use derogatory phrases as descriptors tells me enough about your stance on it.
In an evolutionary sense, can you agree that having one gene coded to not replicate should die out eventually?
Not if it's double-recessive and only becomes activated in overpopulated environments.
In this case, it would actually become beneficial to the survival of the species.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
upthorn wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
In an evolutionary sense, can you agree that having one gene coded to not replicate should die out eventually?
Not if it's double-recessive and only becomes activated in overpopulated environments.
True, but only if it exists in a true dominant-recessive relationship. Almost all genes, however, have different levels of dominance and recessiveness, like hair color (ie black, brown, red, blond, etc), or expression (like skin color). Blond hair is not simply the lack of a black hair gene, it is the most recessive of the bunch. So if this one "homo gene" as xebra calls it does exist as a simple dominant-recessive expression (either you have two of the gene and you're gay, or you have one or none and you're not), then it is possible to say it wouldn't die out due to 3/4 of the population having at least one recessive gene. I guess you could argue that it maybe has different levels of expression, so bisexuals just have less expressed homosexuality, but I don't know of any theories about that.
So if this one "homo gene" as xebra calls it does exist as a simple dominant-recessive expression (either you have two of the gene and you're gay, or you have one or none and you're not), then it is possible to say it wouldn't die out due to 3/4 of the population having at least one recessive gene. I guess you could argue that it maybe has different levels of expression, so bisexuals just have less expressed homosexuality, but I don't know of any theories about that.
I think you missed the point of my post. There is no "homo gene." There is no "one gene coded to not replicate." However, even if there were, such a simple view is not sufficient for you to immediately assume that the gene would be selected against in all cases. Let's say there is a gene that causes one sex to prefer their own sex exclusively, and has no other effects. Such a gene would exert no selective pressure on females of species where males essentially rape females. Most animals where a herd of females mate exclusively with a dominant male qualify, for example, horses, lions, and sea lions. Significant populations of Homo sapiens also qualified throughout much of human history (and still do today), due to strict tribal structures, arranged marriages, religious rules, etc. Such a gene should also exert no selective pressure on modern human females since lesbians can (and do) choose to artificially inseminate. Such a gene should exert no selective pressure on many domesticated animals whose breeding is closely controlled by humans, and not the animals.
Now let's talk about another interesting effect. It is possible for it to be necessary for two genes to be found together. Quite recently there was an impressive bit of research done in the area of malaria resistant mosquitoes. Creating and breeding such mosquitoes is nothing new, but it's always been a problem figuring out how to make the antimalaria genes propagate in the wild. What the researchers did was to actually engineer two genes. One gene codes for sterility, and is dominant, so only requires one copy. The other gene, also dominant, codes for two things: it makes the mosquitoes resistant to malaria and it deactivates the sterility gene. Thus, the first generation offspring of such mosquitoes (even if they mate with wild mosquitoes) must carry the antimalaria gene or they can't reproduce themselves. Also, fully half of the first generation will carry both the antimalaria gene and the sterility gene. Both mathematical models and breeding studies with unaltered mosquitoes confirmed that this sort of scenario results in the both the antimalaria gene and the sterility gene becoming more common with each generation. That's a highly contrived, specific, and completely artificial example, but you can imagine how it's possible for similar effects to cause seemingly bad genes to propagate. It surely must be the case that many bad genes interact with other genes to allow them to express exceptionally positive traits more effectively.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Put better then I could have, xebra.
But a real question--
Hot dogs come in packages of 8, and so do buns (where I shop at least)
Hebrew national makes some of the best tasting hot dogs on the market (I could give two shits about them being "coshure" or whatever that term is) but they come in packages of 7. Why in gods name would they short you on 1 per package? Who do they think they are fooling? They are already more costly then the others there, but only packaging 7 is just plain cruel.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Thank you for that post xebra, very interesting stuff about the mosquitoes.
And while I still believe that homosexuality is somewhat affected by upbringing and/or environment, you and various others have shed some light on the genetics component for me. Thanks.
Hebrew national makes some of the best tasting hot dogs on the market (I could give two shits about them being "coshure" or whatever that term is) but they come in packages of 7. Why in gods name would they short you on 1 per package? Who do they think they are fooling? They are already more costly then the others there, but only packaging 7 is just plain cruel.
How much do seven Hebrew National hot dogs weigh? Perhaps their seven weighs as much as another brand's eight, and abattoirs tend to package meat according to weight, not number? My question is motivated by a similar discussion on the Straight Dope.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
You might be right, weight is probably the answer. Funny though that due to arguments like this one many companies switched from 10 to 8, (as discussed in that article) but I dont know how 7 makes any freaking sence. Next time im at the store, I think ill check and see if its exactly a pound or whatever.
There are people who have had one sexual orientation first, but later in life that has changed to something else. If genes had something to do with sexuality, shouldn't it stay the same the whole life? I don't really know anything about genes, but I don't think they can control mental things like sexuality, I think they only control physical things.
If genes had something to do with sexuality, shouldn't it stay the same the whole life?
Genes can also become active or dormant due to environmental factors (such as climate or diet), so just because something has a genetic component or basis (which we have evidence for in this case, though we also have evidence that it's not the whole story) doesn't mean it will hold true throughout an organism's life. Also the people involved could be lying (for example, a homosexual who gets married to someone of different gender to conform to societal pressure).
Like any preference, it's likely to drift a bit over long periods of time. It still has genetic and environmental pressures from an early age, and is still laregly out of the individual's control though.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Warp: You mean, now that nobody is paying attention to your question (which was answered to most people's satisfaction), it's drifting off topic? Or perhaps you didn't notice the other questions which have been discussed until a satisfactory answer has been found?
One thing I wonder about, is if there are any major non-capitalist countries about. Since a young age I've detested the concept of money and always wondered if society shouldn't be based more on something like skill. Or perhaps, somewhere where things that all human beings need to stay living are free, and luxuries cost money. I have done a little reading on communism, but noticed that the problems occur when greed sets in. So, I guess my question is this.
Is it feasible for a large human society to exist indefinitely that is not centred around personal gain? Or is humanity too greedy by nature?
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
LagDotCom wrote:
Or is humanity too greedy by nature?
Bingo. 99% of the community could work together in peace and community support, however that 1% could easily ruin it. And think of 100 people you know. If there isn't at least 1 that is greedy or thinks that the world revolves around them, you have been very lucky so far in life.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I dont know about that...
Without rules and punishment, I would think its more like 99% of people who would steal, pillage and rape (if they knew there was no greater punishment for their actions), and 1% who would actually coexist peacfully. People only really act for their own gain. we could adress examples of this, but I really dont think that pretending people care about the survival of others is just wishful thinking.
Without rules and punishment the world would be exactly like it is today. Because the reason there are rules and punishments is because there are no rules against that, and no punishment for making rules and punishments.
Warp: You mean, now that nobody is paying attention to your question (which was answered to most people's satisfaction), it's drifting off topic? Or perhaps you didn't notice the other questions which have been discussed until a satisfactory answer has been found?
There's no specific topic in a thread like this, so it's not possible to "drift off topic".
What I meant was that instead of people asking questions and other people answering them, the thread has become a forum where many people express their personal opinions about a controversial subject (ie. they are not asking questions nor answering them, just throwing their opinion in), which is not what this thread was originally about.
I think this thread has lost its original meaning. It's not a Q&A thread anylonger.
So in order to help the topic get back to its original use, you asked/answered a question. Hm.
Warp wrote:
What I meant was that instead of people asking questions and other people answering them, the thread has become a forum where many people express their personal opinions about a controversial subject (ie. they are not asking questions nor answering them, just throwing their opinion in), which is not what this thread was originally about.
People are asking questions, and they are being answered. All opinions I have seen seem to be valid attempts to address a question raised in the topic. How is that now what this topic was intended to be?
Dear TASVideos think-tank,
I'm taking care of a vBulletin forum, which is getting spammed constantly. We've lost touch with the administrator, have no access to the server, and can't make new mods. The only solution at present is to delete the spam manually, which is a ludicrous waste of time.
So I'm thinking, if I can't add a Turing test to the registration page to keep bots out, couldn't I at least automate the process of deleting spam, the same way bots are creating it? How would I go about doing such a thing?
...Or is there a better solution I haven't thought of?
Why are the Zelda games named after Zelda and not after Link? Imagine if Super Mario Bros was called Super Princess Peach (after all, the basic premise is the same).
(Yes, I know there's a game named Super Princess Peach, but there you play the titular character, which kind of proves my point again. :P )
because it's the legend of the princess zelda, not the legend of link. it's quite different from super mario bros. the former emphasizes the heroic context, whereas the latter just, well, is about delivery guys (and later plumbers). you'd (almost) only see link save zelda, when mario is used for whatever.
I guess the creator of zelda wanted to show more of the rpg side, but failed miserably, since most non gamers believe zelda is the name of the hero, while it's a girl's name.
I never sleep, 'cause sleep is the cousin of death - NAS
Dear TASVideos think-tank,
I'm taking care of a vBulletin forum, which is getting spammed constantly. We've lost touch with the administrator, have no access to the server, and can't make new mods. The only solution at present is to delete the spam manually, which is a ludicrous waste of time.
So I'm thinking, if I can't add a Turing test to the registration page to keep bots out, couldn't I at least automate the process of deleting spam, the same way bots are creating it? How would I go about doing such a thing?
...Or is there a better solution I haven't thought of?
Turn off guest posting, turn on admin auth needed for new posters, instruct users to e-mail you with the subject line "Fuzzy Navels" to get their account approved for posting.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
What NES game has the largest ROM file? I ask because I noticed that AD&D dragon strike has 512 KB, which is the same size as Super Mario World for SNES.
Joined: 4/30/2006
Posts: 480
Location: the secret cow level
huh... I was just thinking about the relative sizes of games on different systems the other day, it would be interesting to know which is the biggest.
Looking through my ROMs, Megaman 4&5, Nightshade, and TMNT 2&3 are all 512 as well.
What NES game has the largest ROM file? I ask because I noticed that AD&D dragon strike has 512 KB, which is the same size as Super Mario World for SNES.
