Mouse Homosexuality Linked to Genes

[AllieBaba]

Well nobody can pull that off with good results, that's a given.

People will sink much lower before we're through. But that's no reason to stop functioning.

 

[B. Kidd]

Thanks for reminding me to set some mice traps in my RV. The lil'fukkers get in there whenever I put it into storage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, I know the interpretation of the study is wrong because science tells me it is wrong. Sexual orientation cannot be tied to any one factor, but evidence supports the conclusion that environment has a greater impact than genes.

Also, every single study that has tied homosexuality to genes has been found to be wrong. The truth of the matter is that you pray to God this study is right. It isn't though.

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.

How does this demonstrate my ignorance?

Dogma means a belief that is not based on facts, and this certainly qualifies, as the Wiki article you linked to spells out. As of now no one understands exactly how genes produce anything, they just know that it happens. The central dogma of biology is that it occurs in the way you described, but it has not been proven.

 

[B. Kidd]

Does any one know if any genetic studies have been done that link worms to hermaphrodites?

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Interesting from a science and social aspect.

From a science aspect, genetics is always fascinating.

From a social aspect: if/when homosexuality is determined to have an organic cause their will no longer be any good excuse for people to discriminate against homosexuality as a "choice".

You know the bigots are scared.

 

[geauxtohell]

Are you a man or a mouse?

So we can just discredit any/all scientific advancements made using animals as a model?

Absurd and you know it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Nice try.

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. I would also like to point out that not all of the mice ended up being homosexual, which actually adds weight to the argument that it is not genetic.

Time magazine ran an erroneous article because of their political views, and you fell for it. I could site a lot of articles like this one that caused MSM to tout something before science was ready to commit. I would be willing to bet that this study will be quietly discredited, just like every other study like this has been.

Any takers?

Are you serious?

Here:

DNA=>mRNA=>Ribosomes=>Enzyme=>Enzymatic Function.

Are you suggesting that DNA/enzymes isn't linked to enzymes in the body or that a mutation can cause a dysfunctional or lack of an enzyme that causes a pathology or condition in the body?

I mean, there are only about two jillion pathologies that stem from mutations that screw up an enzyme.

 

[eagleseven]

You hope to God this study is wrong.

No, I know the interpretation of the study is wrong because science tells me it is wrong.

Perhaps you should write a letter to the editors BMC Genetics explaining why they should have rejected this article, then?

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.

How does this demonstrate my ignorance?

Principally, it shows that you do not understand the concepts upon which the past 50 years of genetic and medical discoveries have been based.

Dogma means a belief that is not based on facts, and this certainly qualifies, as the Wiki article you linked to spells out. As of now no one understands exactly how genes produce anything, they just know that it happens.

Have you fallen out of the 1950s? What year do you think this is?

---

Not only do we know exactly how genes function to make RNA and eventually protein, we know of the dozens of molecules needed for the process, we know all the nutrients our bodies need to perform the function, and we know the dozens of diseases and disorders that occur when this process malfunctions.

Further, we have observed the central dogma in action via electron microscopy and x-ray crystallography. Not only that, we but we have replicated the entire process in the lab, using cellular components.

Welcome to the 21st Century!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkdRdik73kU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkdRdik73kU[/ame]

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

LMAO. We apparently made the same post. I should really read these threads first before spouting off.

At any rate, QW apparently doesn't grasp the difference between genotype and phenotype.

 

[geauxtohell]

The gene that they targeted specifically removes a particular enzyme during the development of the mice. That may seem to you to be genetic, but it isn't.

What?

You are either so desperate to ignore this that you are being deliberately obtuse or you are blatantly ignorant of genetics and cell biology.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

How is it junk? Was their p value too high? Was the power too low? What specifically about the methodology and conclusion do you deem to be "junk"?

 

[geauxtohell]

Dogma means a belief that is not based on facts, and this certainly qualifies, as the Wiki article you linked to spells out. As of now no one understands exactly how genes produce anything, they just know that it happens. The central dogma of biology is that it occurs in the way you described, but it has not been proven.

Seriously, how many more patently false statements are you going to make about genetics in this thread?

We don't know how "genes" produce proteins? Really? We can't sequence DNA and tell which proteins will be produced? Really?

Ever hear of PCR or North,South, and/or West Blotting?

 

[eagleseven]

Ever hear of PCR or North,South, and/or West Blotting?

You're going to give him a brain aneurysm...QW is clearly making this up as he goes along.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ever hear of PCR or North,South, and/or West Blotting?

You're going to give him a brain aneurysm...QW is clearly making this up as he goes along.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around the whole "That's an enzyme, it has nothing to do with genetics" line.

Lesch?Nyhan syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lesch–Nyhan syndrome (LNS), also known as Nyhan's syndrome, Kelley-Seegmiller syndrome and Juvenile gout[1]:546, is a rare inherited disorder caused by a deficiency of the enzyme hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HGPRT), produced by mutations in the HPRT gene.

Yeah, clearly the two aren't linked whatsoever.

 

[eagleseven]

I am still trying to wrap my mind around the whole "That's an enzyme, it has nothing to do with genetics" line.

Rain has nothing to do with clouds, because clouds are white and puffy, while rain is wet.

 

[geauxtohell]

I am still trying to wrap my mind around the whole "That's an enzyme, it has nothing to do with genetics" line.

Rain has nothing to do with clouds, because clouds are white and puffy, while rain is wet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You hope to God this study is wrong.

No, I know the interpretation of the study is wrong because science tells me it is wrong.

Perhaps you should write a letter to the editors BMC Genetics explaining why they should have rejected this article, then?

How does this demonstrate my ignorance?

Principally, it shows that you do not understand the concepts upon which the past 50 years of genetic and medical discoveries have been based.

Dogma means a belief that is not based on facts, and this certainly qualifies, as the Wiki article you linked to spells out. As of now no one understands exactly how genes produce anything, they just know that it happens.

Have you fallen out of the 1950s? What year do you think this is?

---

Not only do we know exactly how genes function to make RNA and eventually protein, we know of the dozens of molecules needed for the process, we know all the nutrients our bodies need to perform the function, and we know the dozens of diseases and disorders that occur when this process malfunctions.

Further, we have observed the central dogma in action via electron microscopy and x-ray crystallography. Not only that, we but we have replicated the entire process in the lab, using cellular components.

Welcome to the 21st Century!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkdRdik73kU]YouTube - Molecular Biology's Central Dogma[/ame]

The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred from protein to either protein or nucleic acid.

This does not describe a process, it is simply an assumption that something is not happening, namely that information is not being passed between proteins, or from protein to nucleic acid. As it is impossible to prove that something never happens, this is not a theory, nor is it a hypothesis, it is a dogma, a belief. It may someday be dis-proven, but it will never be proven.

 

[geauxtohell]

This does not describe a process, it is simply an assumption that something is not happening, namely that information is not being passed between proteins, or from protein to nucleic acid. As it is impossible to prove that something never happens, this is not a theory, nor is it a hypothesis, it is a dogma, a belief. It may someday be dis-proven, but it will never be proven.

What? Proving that something doesn't happen is what a null hypothesis is for.

You're statements on this thread are just bizarre. As I said, you are either being deliberately obtuse or are just ignorant of cell biology if you claim that the process in which proteins are made is not well understood down to the nucleic acids that code for the amino acids that make the proteins.

 

[AllieBaba]

The gene that they targeted specifically removes a particular enzyme during the development of the mice. That may seem to you to be genetic, but it isn't.

What?

You are either so desperate to ignore this that you are being deliberately obtuse or you are blatantly ignorant of genetics and cell biology.

Even if it were to happen spontaneously, which is doubtful, it certainly would never account for the huge numbers of homosexuals that exist now and have existed forever.

 

[JBeukema]

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?
.

Do they not already do that as best as they are able when they select a partner with the desired traits?