Scientists finally give up on "strictly genetic link" to homosexuality
-
By Bryan Fischer December 13, 2012
Researchers Peter Bearman of Columbia and Hannah Bruckner of Yale furnished proof that, as a matter of fact, gays aren't "born that way."
If gays are "born that way," then the concordance rate in identical twins should be 100%. If one twin is gay, the other one ought to be 100% of the time since they share identical DNA. After all, if one identical twin is tall so is the other. If one is blond, so is the other. If one has green eyes and red hair, so does the other.
But what Bearman and Bruckner found, after studying data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, is that the concordance rate is only 6.7% for males and 5.3% for female identical twins. This is overwhelming scientific proof that homsoexuality is not genetically determined.
In one small step for mankind, scientists are starting to bend in the direction of actual data rather than blindly adhering to the kind of political correctness that punished scientists like Galileo who followed the truth rather than prevailing, intimidating and threatening cultural trends.
In a piece in US News, Jason Koebler reports that scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis are now saying that whatever the hereditary link may happen to be, it is not "a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities." Well, good for them.
Koebler adds, quite sensibly, "Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce." I've often observed that Darwinians should be even more resolutely opposed to the normalization of homosexuality than evangelicals, since the whole point of evolution is the propagation of the species.
So scientists have abandoned the search for the gay gene. As I have said before, I suspect that not even homosexual activists today want the gay gene to be found, even if it exists, because of advances in prenatal genetic testing. It is now possible to routinely screen for 3500 genetic defects while a child is still in the womb.
So these activists rationally fear that preborn children who are detected with this gene will be aborted before they even have the chance to be born. After all, if 90% of babies in the womb who are diagnosed with Downs syndrome never draw their first breath, what are the chances that parents disposed to abortion will not exercise the same choice with regard to the gay gene?
The scientists in Koebler's article, in my view, are now resorting to genetic subterfuge and are coming dangerously close to saying that homosexuality is the result of a genetic defect, a genetic abnormality. In other words, read from one angle, these same scientists are saying that homosexuality is the result of a birth defect. All this in an effort to maintain some ever thinner thread of connection between biology and homosexuality.
They posit that "homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link." (Carefully note the word "seems.") These "epi-marks" are "extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed."
Now these epi-marks are "usually, but not always, 'erased' between generations. In homosexuals, these epi-marks aren't erased — they're passed from father-to-daughter or mother-to-son." This according to William Rice, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara and lead author of the study.
According to Rice, these epi-marks "provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation."
But if these epi-marks are not "erased," as they normally are, then when they "carry over to opposite-sex offspring, it can cause the masculinization of females or the feminization of males," which can lead to a child becoming gay.
So in other words, when something goes wrong genetically, and these markers are not erased, the epi-markers which provide an evolutionary advantage to parents instead do evolutionary damage to their offspring.
Now these researchers are quite at pains to avoid saying anything like this, but the logic to me seems inescapable: Homosexual children, on this theory, are born evolutionarily and genetically disadvantaged. They have been overexposed or underexposed to testosterone because something has gone wrong in the process of genetic transmission. In other words, they are the product of a genetic abnormality at best, a birth defect at worst.
Now Rice is quick to add all kinds of qualifiers. These markers are "highly variable" and only "strong" epi-marks will result in homosexual offspring. But if Rice is correct, I expect many abortion-minded parents will want to know exactly how strong this epi-marker is in their unborn children so they can decide whether or not to exercise reproductive choice.
In fact, I expect that if this theory gains some currency, it will not be long before we have legislation from the homoexual lobby prohibiting "sex-selection" abortions on any child carrying this epi-marker. They'll be happy to let you abort anyone else, but these children will be as protected in the womb as unhatched bald eagles.
Koebler's article adds even more qualifiers and caveats. The model "still needs to be tested on real-life parent-offspring pairs," "is a "story that looks really good," although "more verification [is] needed," and "we need other studies to look at it empirically."
Rice says his theory "can be tested and proven within six months," because "it's easy to test." And, he concludes, "If it's a bad idea, we can throw it away in short order."
I'm guessing this is a theory that will soon find its way to the scientific dustbin, if only because homosexual activists will find themselves not wanting it to be true even if it is.
Under a Judeo-Christian moral construct, we can freely admit that we do not understand the origin of all of our impulses. But it is not necessary to understand the source of every impulse to know that self-destructive impulses must be resisted at all costs. That's what the message of the gospel is all about — that there is power in Christ to resist dark impulses, no matter what the source, that will destroy us if indulged.
It was fashionable for a time — and it may be still — to believe that alcoholics were born with a predisposition to alcoholism. But even if they were "born that way," genetics was disallowed by those who loved them as an excuse to engage in behavior that would destroy them, their lives, their health, their marriages and their families.
I do not for one moment believe that homosexuality is pre-determined, either genetically or epigenetically. But even were it true, it would make no ultimate difference. We are still back to the simple truth that homosexual behavior, regardless of the source of the impulse, is always a matter of choice. And by God's grace, everyone is capable of making better choices, starting today.
-
The scientists in Koebler's article, in my view, are now resorting to genetic subterfuge and are coming dangerously close to saying that homosexuality is the result of a genetic defect, a genetic abnormality. In other words, read from one angle, these same scientists are saying that homosexuality is the result of a birth defect. All this in an effort to maintain some ever thinner thread of connection between biology and homosexuality.
I do not for one moment believe that homosexuality is pre-determined, either genetically or epigenetically. "
The hypothesis for an epigenetic cause of homosexuality put forth by these scientists can be described as a series of statements:
1. Empirical studies demonstrate that XX fetuses are canalized to blunt androgen signaling (lower sensitivity to T) and XY fetuses are canalized to boost androgen signaling (higher sensitivity to T).
2. Empirical studies demonstrate the production of XX- and XY-induced epi-marks in embryonic stem cells and extensive sex-specific differences in gene expression at this time. Epi-marks laid down during the embryonic stem cell stage are also established to influence gene expression later in development. This stem cell period is the most plausible candidate time point for the production of epi-marks influencing sensitivity to androgens later in development (canalization of fetal androgen signaling).
3. Epi-marks produced in embryonic stem cells are mitotically transmitted to cell lineages leading to both the soma and the germline, and contribute to pseudo-heritability when they escape erasure across generations (nonerasure in the primordial germ cells and in the zygote and first few cell divisions of the next generation). Animal models as well as human data unambiguously demonstrate that such a multistep escape from erasure does occur at nontrivial frequency.
4. Epi-marks blunting (in XX fetuses) or boosting (in XY fetuses) androgen signaling will be sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) when they have a nonzero probability of carryover across generations and are expressed in oppose sex descendants. Such carryover will contribute to discordance between the gonad and one or more sexually dimorphic traits.
5. The modeling work done by these scientists shows that SA-epi-marks are favored by natural selection over a broad span of parameter space because there is a net benefit to the carrier (due to canalization of sexually dimorphic development) that is not offset sufficiently by transmission (and fitness reduction) to opposite sex descendants.
6. Genetic mutations causing SA-epi-marks are expected to fix in populations and are therefore not expected to be polymorphic except transiently during their initial spread within a population. Therefore, no association between genotype and homosexuality is predicted.
7. Because the androgen signaling pathways differ among organs and tissues (e.g., use of different AR cofactors), the same inherited SA-epi-mark can affect only a subset of sexually dimorphic traits, e.g., no effect on the genitalia, but a large effect on a sexually dimorphic region of the brain.
8. Shared, gonad-discordant SA-epi-marks that carryover across generations would contribute to the observed realized heritability of homosexuality, e.g., monozygotic twins share the same SA-epi-marks coinherited from a parent.
9. Unshared, gonad-concordant SA-epi-marks, produced during fetal development, would contribute to the low proband concordance of homosexuality observed between monozygotic twins, i.e., they need not share SA-epi-marks generated during development that occurs after the twins have separated.
10. Homosexuality occurs when an individual inherits one or more gonad-discordant SA-epi-marks that are not masked nor erased by the production of de novo gonad-concordant SA-epi-marks that accrue during ontogeny. The SA-epi-mark(s) influence androgen signaling in the part of the brain controlling sexual orientation, but not the genitalia nor the brain region(s) controlling gender identity.
An illustration of these steps:
Reference
W.R. Rice, U. Friberg, S. Gavrilets, et al. (2012) Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development. The Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 000. The University of Chicago Press. DOI: 10.1086/668167
-
That rocks spinny and bears! :cheers:
These things are interesting indeed but I must admit I'm too ignorant about them.
Go figure just two days ago I met a fella whom I didn't see since the times we were both baby moles and both had still to grow a fur!
To be honest he recognized me before since I wouldn't have expected him to grow meanwhile a smooth and white fur
"Cum on Igas! both your mom and dad were black like me! I remember it as if it was yesterday!"
"Ok that's that. Moreover all my bros and sis are black too but I came out this way"
"Unbelievable! Does it depend on epigenetics by chance?"
"Nooo don't be silly, no need to have recourse to that. A not very common biological inheritance of genetically recessive alleles is more than enough to explain my albino fur"
"Oooh well it suits you quite well dear… btw what's that nice red box you are carrying with you?"
"Ah! that's a X-mas gift for my BF who is waiting for me to catch up with him soon. He is literally crazy for the candied worms..."
"But Igas!!! So you are gay too!!"
"Of course. That's a pity I'm already engaged dear otherwise... :blind: Well I'm reaaaly in a hurry now but don't forget to come and see us! we are digging our hole no more than 45000 scratches from here at the third left branch of the red lombrils tunnel, Byeeeeee!"Now spinny and bears, while I was watching my ol' friend going away and disappearing in the darkness, I couldn't avoid to think he had carried his fur color and smoothness , even that smell which still reminded me of him in our good times with him to me. But his homosexuality had not a color, a smoothness or a smell since it was simply a thing I had attached to him and made me wonder how comes we think to treat so different things in the same way.
-
OMG this is hilarious! Christian "scientists" attempting to explain homosexuality does not have biological underpinnings by the merely describing the common phenomena of biologic variation. If it isn't hard coded into DNA, then "God" didn't intend it and it must be labelled sinful and must be shunned.
There are hundreds of thousands of DNA variations that create the phenotypical individualism we see throughout the human race. Not to mention the additional variation that is created as biology interacts with environment. How ridiculous to sanctimoniously proclaim superiority of one variation over another.
Variation is an integrate part of life that has allowed it to adapt and advance into many different strata of life. Macro-Evolution describes how certain variations will tend to be advantageous, but are wholly dependent on the type of environment to which they are exposed over long periods of time, as in hundreds of thousand to millions of years. Yet, in the micro-evolutionary scale, in which we live, variety IS the normal and desirable process of life. But if one makes certain suppositions about life's origin, one no doubt will be led to faulty conclusions that actually have no foundation in true science. And so it goes with our Christian "scientist" brethren.
-
@AndyZ:
OMG this is hilarious! Christian "scientists" attempting to explain homosexuality does not have biological underpinnings by the merely describing the common phenomena of biologic variation. If it isn't hard coded into DNA, then "God" didn't intend it and it must be labelled sinful and must be shunned.
There are hundreds of thousands of DNA variations that create the phenotypical individualism we see throughout the human race. Not to mention the additional variation that is created as biology interacts with environment. How ridiculous to sanctimoniously proclaim superiority of one variation over another.
Variation is an integrate part of life that has allowed it to adapt and advance into many different strata of life. Macro-Evolution describes how certain variations will tend to be advantageous, but are wholly dependent on the type of environment to which they are exposed over long periods of time, as in hundreds of thousand to millions of years. Yet, in the micro-evolutionary scale, in which we live, variety IS the normal and desirable process of life. But if one makes certain suppositions about life's origin, one no doubt will be led to faulty conclusions that actually have no foundation in true science. And so it goes with our Christian "scientist" brethren.
Of course here things could get slightly more complicated Andy cause if we can say that variation is an integrate part of life we could say also that this "variation" may be predicated of things we don't denote as living. English then has a wonderful word: lively.
But, closing this semanic bracket which could lead us off topic, when we come toa true science
a false science
a junk science
a sound science….etc.thence the quite deep hole of the science, its methods and its problems seems to open...
