Mouse Homosexuality Linked to Genes

[JBeukema]

If the effect resulted from the manipulation of the genome, it's genetic by definition.

If the genome itself were to remained unchanged, yet the gene were turned off via epigenetic processes, it'd be epigenetic by definition. (Although, in common parlance, that'd still generally be considered an extension of 'genetic')

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it is biochemical. I can take mice with the exact same gene and flood their developmental environment with the needed enzyme and eliminate possible eliminate the observed effect, or remove the needed enzyme from the environment of mice without this mutation and produce the same results.

If it was genetic, and came about as a result of manipulating this gene, then every mouse would have the same sexual orientation. Since that did not happen the deciding factor was something else, and it will become clear what that factor actually is after more research, just like it always has in the past.

 

[JBeukema]

*facepalm*

1) With the same gene? You said it was the absence of a gene.

2) If the effect resulted from the manipulation of the genome, it's genetic by definition. If the gene is present and normal but inactive due to epigenetic factors, it's epigenetic by definition. (Although, in common parlance, that'd still generally be considered an extension of 'genetic')

3)If the gene is present yet damage to some structure prevents normal operation of the functions the gene normally reguilate (eg: damage to a part of the brain), then that is another matter.

This study specifically dealt with genetic changes. The changes in biochemical function that had the (more) direct effect of influencing apparent sexuality were in turn the result of genetic factors. The genetic changes are the root cause of the matter much as the squeezing of the trigger causes the hammer to move, causes the gun to fire, causes the bullet to accelerate, causes the bullet to contract and enter JKF's head, causes the transfer of inertia, causes his head to come apart, causes the brainstem to cease working (combined with exanguination) causes his heart to fail, causes him to die.

To claim the matter was caused by genetic factors yet is not genetic is to claim that a sphere is not spherical.

 

[syrenn]

And just WHY are we looking at this gene? For the purpose of what?

Could it be because we want to try and fix homosexuals?

It doesn't take much of a leap to guess where all of this could be going. Gene therapy is in our futures. Is fixing the gay gene the long term goal?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Any takers?

Sure.

From the summation, emphasis mine.

The observation that FucM-/- female mouse exhibits a phenotypic similarity to a wild-type male in terms of its sexual behavior appears to be due to the neurodevelopmental changes in preoptic area of mutant brain resembling a wild-type male. Since the previous studies indicate that AFP plays a role in titrating estradiol that are required to consolidate sexual preference of female mice, we speculate that the reduced level of AFP in FucM-/- mouse, presumably resulting from the reduced fucosylation, is responsible for the male-like sexual behavior observed in the FucM knock-out mouse.

This clearly indicates that the homosexual behavior of these mice is due to a lack of the fucose mutarotase gene, which prohibits anomeric conversions of monosaccharides. This indicates, if the study actually bears up under scrutiny, that homosexuality in this mutation of mouse is linked to a lack of an enzyme, and not to genetics.

Your argument only makes sense if you ignore the central dogma of biology, that is:

DNA(genes) --> RNA --> Proteins(enzymes)

Genes themselves do not directly cause traits, but rather affect the body through producing proteins (including enzymes) which have thousands of uses all over the body.

That does not address the fact that this is a preliminary study, and that further investigation will almost certainly find that they did something wrong, missed something, or that they are flat out being misquoted. I am actually glad you used the word dogma in describing the DNA - RNA - enzyme link by the way.

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Dogma - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You need to base your debates about science on facts and actual science, not faith. The dogma that sexual orientation is determinate is not based on science, and never has been.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

*facepalm*

1) With the same gene? You said it was the absence of a gene.

2) If the effect resulted from the manipulation of the genome, it's genetic by definition. If the gene is present and normal but inactive due to epigenetic factors, it's epigenetic by definition. (Although, in common parlance, that'd still generally be considered an extension of 'genetic')

3)If the gene is present yet damage to some structure prevents normal operation of the functions the gene normally reguilate (eg: damage to a part of the brain), then that is another matter.

This study specifically dealt with genetic changes. The changes in biochemical function that had the (more) direct effect of influencing apparent sexuality were in turn the result of genetic factors. The genetic changes are the root cause of the matter much as the squeezing of the trigger causes the hammer to move, causes the gun to fire, causes the bullet to accelerate, causes the bullet to contract and enter JKF's head, causes the transfer of inertia, causes his head to come apart, causes the brainstem to cease working (combined with exanguination) causes his heart to fail, causes him to die.

To claim the matter was caused by genetic factors yet is not genetic is to claim that a sphere is not spherical.

Nit picking over semantics?

1.) The gene was engineered out of the mice in the study. If the same gene that was engineered out is present in healthy mice, and the environment is manipulated to prevent the particular enzyme from forming, that will produce the same results of this experiment. Does that clear it up for you?

2.) If the effect is biochemical in nature it is biochemistry, regardless of the cause. I am concentrating on the effect, and you want me to debate the cause.

3.) The study specifically induced a genetic change to effect the developmental biochemistry of the mice. The root cause of the defect was the resulting behavior was the biochemical imbalance, and not the genetic defect. That was a contributing factor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And just WHY are we looking at this gene? For the purpose of what?

Could it be because we want to try and fix homosexuals?

It doesn't take much of a leap to guess where all of this could be going. Gene therapy is in our futures. Is fixing the gay gene the long term goal?

Homosexuality is not a disease, or a defect, it is perfectly normal. Don't you know your liberal talking points?

 

[L.K.Eder]

It might make people feel better to lie to themselves and others and pretend as if they have no choice over what they do in life. But no one will ever truly be free until they can stop lying about it and take responsibility for their choices.

the day the ignorant bigot gene is identified, you will have an excuse for your choice.

 

[JBeukema]

Nit picking over semantics?

*facepalm*

1.) The gene was engineered out of the mice in the study

Making it a matter of genetics. By definition. If you still can't grasp that, you're simply stupid.

2.) If the effect is biochemical in nature it is biochemistry, regardless of the cause. I am concentrating on the effect, and you want me to debate the cause.

*facepalm*

3.) The study specifically induced a genetic change

Again, making it a matter of genetics. By definition.

to effect the developmental biochemistry of the mice. The root cause of the defect was the resulting behavior was the biochemical imbalance, and not the genetic defect. That was a contributing factor.

Actually, it was the root cause. If you can't understand that if A causes B and B, in turn, Causes C, A is the root cause of C, then you're simply stupid and I fear the day you're responsible for providing any medical care some someone who is sick or injured.

The virus the makes the man sick is the root cause of the sick man's death when the sickness kills him.

 

[JBeukema]

It might make people feel better to lie to themselves and others and pretend as if they have no choice over what they do in life. But no one will ever truly be free until they can stop lying about it and take responsibility for their choices.

the day the ignorant bigot gene is identified, you will have an excuse for your choice.

God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AllieBaba]

It might make people feel better to lie to themselves and others and pretend as if they have no choice over what they do in life. But no one will ever truly be free until they can stop lying about it and take responsibility for their choices.

the day the ignorant bigot gene is identified, you will have an excuse for your choice.

It's neither ignorant nor bigoted to cast a jaded eye on junk science.

The study won't establish that homosexuality is genetic. Feel free to continue studying, though.

 

[bodecea]

Homosexuality Linked to Genetics in Mice - TIME NewsFeed

Another of science's epic debates has finally been resolved: it turns out that homosexuality is genetic. (In mice, at least.)

According to a study published in the BioMed Central Genetics journalthis month, researchers from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology were able to prove a link between genetics and sexual preference in female mice.

The procedure involved removing the females' (conveniently-abbreviated) FucM genes, which caused their brains to be masculinized—essentially turning the mice into lesbians. Researchers reported that after the gene was removed the mice “exhibited a masculine behavior, such as mounting to a normal female partner as well as showing a preference to female urine.”

The peer-reviewed article can be found here.

While any researcher can tell you that mouse studies never directly apply to humans, this does prove that homosexuality can be induced by genetic manipulation of mammals.



To think, a simple genetic deletion can cause homosexuality in mice...fascinating.

No! No! No! No! No! No!


Just thought I'd get that out early.

 

[Nonelitist]

So.... one day they can change this gene or replace it before birth... and I choose to do so to avoid having a homosexual child.

Does the "its my body, I can do what I want with it" allow me to do that?

I doubt they do...showing their hypocrisy.

 

[syrenn]

And just WHY are we looking at this gene? For the purpose of what?

Could it be because we want to try and fix homosexuals?

It doesn't take much of a leap to guess where all of this could be going. Gene therapy is in our futures. Is fixing the gay gene the long term goal?

Homosexuality is not a disease, or a defect, it is perfectly normal. Don't you know your liberal talking points?

I know homosexuality is not a defect or a disease. Which is why i look at all of this with a frown. I see its out come being abused to show that it is a disease and something to "fix" and or cure

 

[eagleseven]

That does not address the fact that this is a preliminary study, and that further investigation will almost certainly find that they did something wrong, missed something, or that they are flat out being misquoted.

You hope to God this study is wrong.

I am actually glad you used the word dogma in describing the DNA - RNA - enzyme link by the way.

You need to base your debates about science on facts and actual science, not faith.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of any scientific background.

Central dogma of molecular biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term was coined by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, in 1959.

 

[AllieBaba]

And just WHY are we looking at this gene? For the purpose of what?

Could it be because we want to try and fix homosexuals?

It doesn't take much of a leap to guess where all of this could be going. Gene therapy is in our futures. Is fixing the gay gene the long term goal?

Homosexuality is not a disease, or a defect, it is perfectly normal. Don't you know your liberal talking points?

I know homosexuality is not a defect or a disease. Which is why i look at all of this with a frown. I see its out come being abused to show that it is a disease and something to "fix" and or cure

Yeah, don't worry. The outcome won't be anything like that. Let them follow it to its logical conclusion. They'll feel more idiotic that way.

 

[eagleseven]

I know homosexuality is not a defect or a disease. Which is why i look at all of this with a frown. I see its out come being abused to show that it is a disease and something to "fix" and or cure[/COLOR]

If we reach the point where human fetuses can be genetically engineered in-utero, this will be the tip of the ethical iceberg. Should parents have the right to choose their child's inborn traits?

Still, that is no reason to stop the science.

 

[RadiomanATL]

"Gay mice? Oh boy!"​

 

[AllieBaba]

I know homosexuality is not a defect or a disease. Which is why i look at all of this with a frown. I see its out come being abused to show that it is a disease and something to "fix" and or cure[/COLOR]

If we reach the point where human fetuses can be genetically engineered in-utero, this will be the tip of the ethical iceberg. Should parents have the right to choose their child's inborn traits?

Still, that is no reason to stop the science.

No, there's no reason to reason to stop the science.

I personally love genetics. I don't think you can be a true genetic scientist and not appreciate you're getting a glimpse of God.

 

[eagleseven]

If we reach the point where human fetuses can be genetically engineered in-utero, this will be the tip of the ethical iceberg. Should parents have the right to choose their child's inborn traits?

Still, that is no reason to stop the science.

No, there's no reason to reason to stop the science.

I personally love genetics. I don't think you can be a true genetic scientist and not appreciate you're getting a glimpse of God.

Or playing God