Ever heard of Epigenetics? This may be cause of homosexuality

I find the above linked article quite interesting, being a gay man myself. I had never heard of epigenetics before and understand this study is very new and still needs further research and testing, but it does seem plausible. I am glad to see a scientific and objective view. If so, sexuality is just written into our genes and it is a “normal” variation, not a disease or disorder as it causes no health issues or adverse effects (similar to being left handed I suppose).
Anyway, interesting read.

Epigenetics is turning out to be a really interesting field of study. They think that the reason you’ll see a sudden explosion of new species after an extinction event (or when a species is introduced into a new environment) has to do with epigenetic changes.

From what I have seen, epigenetics is just another atempt at introducing the fairy tales of nurture. Most people don’t understand what they are talking about, and the rest, usually the journalists, deliberately make stuff up. It sells, of course.

So says the man who thinks homosexuality is caused by a virus. :roll:

George epigenetics is a well established biological principal. Whether is proves to be a mechanism in the development of homosexuality is clearly up for debate. One study proves nothing, but it is an interesting theory and one which has more evidence to support it at the moment than your viral theory. I am a bit puzzled why you would be willing to accept the possibility that viruses are the cause ( which is an environmental influence) despite a lack of any evidence, yet be so vocal against even the suggestion that epigenetics might play a role. Could it be you are letting your desire for a particular theory overrule reason because that theory fits your world view?
To quote a minor Star Trek character - “Challenge your preconceptions or they will challenge you”

I was commenting on epigenetics in general. If it plays a role in homosexuality, I have no idea. And be careful with the personal attacks. I am in no mood today for this nonsense, but I will respond accordingly if you continue this.

George, I don’t see any personal attacks here. If you’re referring to my post Im just trying to understand your rationale for questioning a well established biological principal after recently proposing one for which there is currently no evidence. It doesn’t seem to make much sense.

http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality I find the above linked article quite interesting, being a gay man myself. I had never heard of epigenetics before and understand this study is very new and still needs further research and testing, but it does seem plausible. I am glad to see a scientific and objective view. If so, sexuality is just written into our genes and it is a "normal" variation, not a disease or disorder as it causes no health issues or adverse effects (similar to being left handed I suppose). Anyway, interesting read.
I think it is probably much more complicated than that. There is no reason to think (IMO) there is only one cause. sexuality is not an either/or, more like a continuum.
http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality I find the above linked article quite interesting, being a gay man myself. I had never heard of epigenetics before and understand this study is very new and still needs further research and testing, but it does seem plausible. I am glad to see a scientific and objective view. If so, sexuality is just written into our genes and it is a "normal" variation, not a disease or disorder as it causes no health issues or adverse effects (similar to being left handed I suppose). Anyway, interesting read.
No, no, no. It's sin that causes it.
http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality I find the above linked article quite interesting, being a gay man myself. I had never heard of epigenetics before and understand this study is very new and still needs further research and testing, but it does seem plausible. I am glad to see a scientific and objective view. If so, sexuality is just written into our genes and it is a "normal" variation, not a disease or disorder as it causes no health issues or adverse effects (similar to being left handed I suppose). Anyway, interesting read.
I think it is probably much more complicated than that. There is no reason to think (IMO) there is only one cause. sexuality is not an either/or, more like a continuum. Yes, that is an interesting point. In other literature (sourced at the bottom of the link), I think some commentators raised the issue of bisexuality, coming to know ones sexuality later in life etc. Let's just say I go with the single cause of epigenetics, even if it was the "single" cause, it could just be the initial phase. Perhaps true self expression is controlled by environment (i.e. how accepting society is), but the "hard wiring" in the brain is still present.
From what I have seen, epigenetics is just another atempt at introducing the fairy tales of nurture. Most people don't understand what they are talking about, and the rest, usually the journalists, deliberately make stuff up. It sells, of course.
Could this be said about any newer attempts or endeavors in science? I imagine this type of thing has been said all throughout history. Think back to Galileo.

Finally Decided, as a gay person, what is your view on the cause(s) of same sex orientation?

Finally Decided, as a gay person, what is your view on the cause(s) of same sex orientation?
Well, it's always been something I've viewed and felt as innate. I am not oppose to the idea of it being multifactorial; but when I say that, I mean in the sense of self-discovery and expression of oneself (i.e. accepting oneself and living openly). As I meet more and more gay people, there is no stereotypical reason I can pinpoint and say, this is why that person is gay. In years past, people said it was environmental (something early on in the child's family or milieu). However, I've known people from all sorts of backgrounds who have turned out gay. Also, there are gay people in all cultures--I think that speaks volumes. My belief is that there is a scientific reason out there, oppose to a lot of the psychological speculation we've heard over and over. I'd love to follow the theory presented in the thread. Also, I know that if there is a scientific reason that can be proven and not censored out of the media, it will completely derail the Christian agenda (from whom I've been harassed, personally). What argument will they use then? I feel it will show that we need to put science and reason above what ambiguous an ancient text states.
From what I have seen, epigenetics is just another atempt at introducing the fairy tales of nurture. Most people don't understand what they are talking about, and the rest, usually the journalists, deliberately make stuff up. It sells, of course.
No, epigenetics does not support the nurture theory. It supports the genetic theory.

Of course, but that’s the problem here. People either don’t see of don’t want to see that it is still the genes that code for the epi-marks. Such genes would be selected against very quickly.
For more see here:

But I am sure I am simply wasting my time here. Everyone of you here has already decided that it can’t be want it seems to be–yes, a virus–and I will try my best to avoid posting any further comments regarding this topic anywhere of these forums.

Of course, but that's the problem here. People either don't see of don't want to see that it is still the genes that code for the epi-marks. Such genes would be selected against very quickly. For more see here: http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/homosexuality-epigenetics-and-zebras/ But I am sure I am simply wasting my time here. Everyone of you here has already decided that it can't be want it seems to be--yes, a virus--and I will try my best to avoid posting any further comments regarding this topic anywhere of these forums.
Not sure who wrote that article, but he has a poor grasp of epigenetics. Epigenetics has to do with which of your inherited genes are expressed. As such, identical twins can have genes express differently, causing one (for instance) to have blue eyes and the other brown. I dated a brown eyed identical twin, who's brother had blue eyes 30 years ago. actually, the brown eyed twin had 1 3/4 brown eyes. About a quarter of one eye was blue. The eye color was the easiest way to tell them apart.

George, no one has said that viruses couldnt some how play a role in this. All we have said is that there is currently no evidence to support that hypothesis. The Blog you refer to provides no additional evidence, only the opinion of some anonymous individual.
A hypothesis without evidence is just that, a hypothesis. It is not the obligation of the scientific community to disprove every hypothesis someone comes up with. If someone feels strongly enough about a hypothesis then they will do the research to either prove or disprove it, but to strongly defend a hypothesis before such evidence is available suggests an alternative agenda.

Sorry, he is not an anonymous individual. Greg Cochran is a professor of genetic anthropology form the Universrity of Utah, and his pathogen theory has been reviwed by Bill Hamilton who found it reasonable. So it’s your word against that of Hamilton.

BTW, are you going to tell Asanta that there is no evidence to show that epigenetics are responsible for MS? Maybe you could add a Star Trek quote or something.

BTW, are you going to tell Asanta that there is no evidence to show that epigenetics are responsible for MS? Maybe you could add a Star Trek quote or something.
I corrected that and used a better example.