Samurai136 0 #76 January 8, 2003 As far as sexuality and cloning is concerned; clones are less identical than identical twins. Here are the results of a quick web search: Quote Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers * 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual * 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual * 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991. Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters * 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian) * 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual * 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277. Sounds like the jury is out on this one. If your twin/ clone is gay you have a 50/50 shot at either being genetically 'determined' gay or 'choosing' to be gayKen"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #77 January 8, 2003 clearly, though, a twin of a homosexual has a greater-than-average chance of being homosexual as well. This might suggest, if not genetics, then something to do with something the developing embryo is exposed to. I'd like to see the figures for two siblings who were NOT twins. Fraternal twins are no closer to each other genetically than two non-twins, but the fraternal twins would both have been exposed to the same pre-natal environment at the same time. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #78 January 8, 2003 Quote Bi-sexuals piss me off. They need to pick a side. To be more specific, they don't need anything. You are the one who needs them to pick a side. It's entirely unclear to me why it matters to you however. I sure wish you would explain why you believe there's a problem. Did a bisexual person do something bad to you once? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #79 January 8, 2003 I've always believed you were born with it, having several gay friends growing up. After taking biology extensively and learning about just how often genes mutate, etc., even the sexual preference, ets. I've concluded, even more, that it's a small chance of being BORN gay/lesbian. I think there are SOME people who choose b/c of a trend, or lack of fitting in w/ a crowd, etc., but for the most part, I think gays are truly born with same-sex preferences. My biology professor, an evolutionist mind you, so he wouldn't care much for what the Bible says, blah, blah, blah,....basically spent one class day on showing us how it IS possible AND CAN happen that some people are born that way. Also, being gay goes WAY BACK IN HISTORY. Look at the Greek culture, ancient statues of men and men and women and women. Homosexuality goes as far back as heterosexuality. I'm heterosexual, just like I'm blonde, and white...I was born w/ genes to make me that way. I'm Christian, I've read the Bible, but like I've said before in another different thread, the Bible can be interpretted in many different ways (hence why people believe they need a priest to help them) and I think the supposed phrase that "gay is a sin" is not really saying that at all. Just my thoughts.... Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #80 January 8, 2003 My father's view(christian) is that it's the sin, not the sinner. He's fine w/ homosexuals and believes the behavior is sinful. I guess in the christian scheme of things homosexuals are no better/worse off than the rest of the sinners.Ken "Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #81 January 8, 2003 You didn't read the follow up post to that. it was a joke - I'm just jealous that I am not sexually attracted to both men and women to have more options. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #82 January 8, 2003 >If it were genetic, there would be no homosexuals. Lack of breeding > would have made them extinct a long time ago. Sickle cell anemia is a genetically inherited disease. If that's all it was, evolution would have gotten rid of it a long time ago. However, it also makes you immune to malaria, and thus a society that has even a small portion of the population with genes for sickle cell anemia will survive a malaria epidemic. Sometimes there are benefits to a genetic trait that aren't obvious at first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #83 January 8, 2003 Quote You didn't read the follow up post to that. it was a joke Oh! Sorry. Two other people were making the same claim seriously in another thread so I was primed to take it seriously. Ooops. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #84 January 8, 2003 >What about Mongoloids? Are you talking about trisomy-21 (Down's syndrome?) I think trisomies are a common problem in human development, an imperfection in the process of meiosis during sex cell development. Trisomy-21 means you have three copies of the genetic material in the 21st chromosome. Some trisomies your body can compensate for (amazingly enough) and some kill the fetus off early, so they're usually not seen. Your body can't compensate well for trisomy-21 but the fetus generally survives, which is why it's seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #85 January 8, 2003 Bill, you must be reading my mind....my thoughts, on EVERYTHING you've said, EXACTLY Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #86 January 8, 2003 >What research would determine if a lifestyle was a "disorder" or not? The DSM-IV (bible of mental disorders) lists an awful lot of things as disorders, including things like social phobias and substance abuses. Many people use this manual to diagnose people who drink at all (or who get drunk) as alcoholics; but the DSM is careful to define that a disorder only occurs when significant damage to one's health, ability to live in a society, ability to work etc. is shown. If you went through the DSM you could probably find a dozen 'disorders' to attribute to anyone. Got a new job and you hate it? You must have adjustment disorder. Your kid doesn't like sleeping in new places? He must have separation anxiety disorder. Like many things, you can read a lot into that book. Because of this I think it's sometimes abused by victims looking for an excuse - "I can't do well in school - I have ADHD!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #87 January 8, 2003 >There are numerous genetic defects of the 23rd chromosome pair > that express a phenotype different from the genotype. A 'clone' with a defect in a chromosome that differs from the original is not a true clone. A clone is a genetic copy of the parent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #88 January 8, 2003 REALITY CHECK!In common with most people, my sexual preference is: YES! YES! AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE!!!! YES! YES! YES! YES!.....Then again, with 4 kids so far, perhaps I should really...YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!... Although personally I prefer to "Pot the Pink". I understand that this is because of where the pleasure receptors ar located... In women (and possibly homosexual men), the pleasure receptors are located toward the back of the brain, while in men the pleasure receptors are located further forward... and about 3 feet down (give or take 8")Mike. PS: Seen my new pic? Yep... Bought a scanner... Yes it's me... And it's AWESOME as wallpaper (then again maybe I just think so 'cos it's me!. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #89 January 8, 2003 To add to the ADHD part...a lot of research has shone more than half of children "diagonsed" don't have it but have another problem, disregarded, such as a sleeping problem that caused the lack of focus and attention. Once the sleep is corrected, the children were found to no longer have "ADHD".Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #90 January 8, 2003 Continuing to hijack the thread, there's a custom in America to make trends of popular mental disorders which excuse laziness. Several years ago everyone had (or thought they had or just claimed to have) dyslexia. Every slip of the tongue, spelling error, or poor word choice was reflexively explained by "I have dyslexia." It's astounding how many people suddenly acquired this convenient disease then equally suddenly forgot about it when the trend faded. Then it was depression. Everyone has is, at least when they're in a sour mood or just don't feel enthusiastic or motivated. Besides, the drugs they give away like candy are numbing much the way television is, and people seem to enjoy that. More recently it's been the attention disorders which equally well excuse laziness and lack of interest. This one has been around for about as long as the trends usually last, so I'm expecting another shift soon. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #91 January 8, 2003 Yes. The original comment was that if preference was genetic, then gays would not exist because they aren't reproducing. It may rarely occur, but generally Downs Syndrome adults do not reproduce. I citing an example of a non-reproducing segment of society which still occurs. If being gay was genetic, it could still occur. Personally, I believe that the "one answer" is incorrect. Genetics, environment, traumatic emotional events... many things can be a contributing factor. I personally know examples of all these. A boy who was gay from day 1. A sexual abused girl. Bi people whose environment was more accepting. I also don't think that other peoples sex lives are all that interesting or important. The only impact that peoples sex lives have on others is predators. That applies to any sexual preference or sex. For the rest, who cares? I have more important stuff to consider. Of course, if my sex life improved a little, that would be a plus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefallfreak 0 #92 January 8, 2003 Quote Bi-sexuals piss me off. They need to pick a side. Uhh, I'm Bi-Sexual - I believe in sex twice a day...lol. FFF A Hard On Doesn't Count As Personal Growth "Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #93 January 8, 2003 Exactly! [sarcasm] Welcome to Disorders du Jour, how may we help you? Here are today's specials: ADHD - get it quick, because it doesn't do anything for very long. OCD - special of the day, every day, because we like doing it over and over. Depression - Don't worry about choosing, just wallow in a big bowl of this. All our dishes are dairy-free, because you've probably also decided you're lactose intolerant, and we cater to your every whim. One Day Only - Free Meds with Every Order! (Sponsored by Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac.) [/sarcasm] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefallfreak 0 #94 January 8, 2003 Quote typical male response. Typical female response... FFF "Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #95 January 8, 2003 Quote>If it were genetic, there would be no homosexuals. Lack of breeding > would have made them extinct a long time ago. Sickle cell anemia is a genetically inherited disease. If that's all it was, evolution would have gotten rid of it a long time ago. However, it also makes you immune to malaria, and thus a society that has even a small portion of the population with genes for sickle cell anemia will survive a malaria epidemic. Sometimes there are benefits to a genetic trait that aren't obvious at first. You've got me there, Bill. No arguements from me. I presented a viewpoint, and that's all it is, my viewpoint. I respect yours also, and I even learned something today. Thanks! Blues!It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #96 January 8, 2003 QuoteQuote>If it were genetic, there would be no homosexuals. Lack of breeding > would have made them extinct a long time ago. Sickle cell anemia is a genetically inherited disease. If that's all it was, evolution would have gotten rid of it a long time ago. However, it also makes you immune to malaria, and thus a society that has even a small portion of the population with genes for sickle cell anemia will survive a malaria epidemic. Sometimes there are benefits to a genetic trait that aren't obvious at first. You've got me there, Bill. No arguements from me. I presented a viewpoint, and that's all it is, my viewpoint. I respect yours also, and I even learned something today. Thanks! Blues! I wasn't going to respond, but the sicke cell anemia analogy is wrong. Inherited diseases have to be fatal prior to reproduction or prevent it for them to be evolutionally removed. Sickle cell anemia doesn't meet that test, or it wouldn't exist. Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #97 January 8, 2003 >I wasn't going to respond, but the sicke cell anemia analogy is > wrong. Inherited diseases have to be fatal prior to reproduction or > prevent it for them to be evolutionally removed. Sickle cell anemia > doesn't meet that test, or it wouldn't exist. Not at all. Evolution is not survival of the survivors, it's survival of the fittest. Someone born crippled, or sickly, or weak, will not thrive and will not reproduce as well as someone who is strong - at least, in a competitive society. We've messed around with that over the last 10,000 years by protecting the weak, but it still holds for other species - and it held for the few million years before we became civilized. You are right that ordinarily sickle cell anemia would be eliminated from the gene pool due to that effect. However, in societies where that happened, the entire society was occasionally threatened with extinction through malaria. Societies with some recessive genes for sickle cell anemia were not. This is a case where a seeming genetic 'flaw' is preserved because it is occasionally a survival trait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #98 January 8, 2003 Forget malaria. If sickle cell anemia killed or sterilized 100% of all carriers before they could reproduce it would be gone in short order. Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scottbre 0 #99 January 8, 2003 Survival of the fittest doesn't apply to species that have the ability to compensate for weaknesses using technology (humans). "Your mother's full of stupidjuice!" My Art Project Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #100 January 8, 2003 QuoteSurvival of the fittest doesn't apply to species that have the ability to compensate for weaknesses using technology (humans). I disagree. It applies exactly the same. The difference is in the evolving definition of "fittest". It used to be how big/strong/fast you were and how well you could hunt. Now it may be how smart and adaptable you are, and whether you can hold a good job that puts plenty of food on the family table, giving you plenty of time to reproduce. There is still a spectrum of success and failure, but our changing society is emphasizing different means of differentiating who will reproduce and who won't. Technology does not alleviate the pressures of natural selection. For example, income is part of the equation. With a higher income, you can have better dietary options, better healthcare, better enviroment, and more spare time to reproduce. Those advantages are frequently passed on to children as well, making them more successful. I'm not saying financial darwinism is good or bad, just that there is a factual basis that it exists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
