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.Its not my word against Hamilton's. It simply Hamilton's opinion with no supporting evidence which is the point I am trying to make. Opinion does not add support to a hypothesis no matter who's opinion it is, only empirical evidence does.
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.Even if it were a virus, does the person infected have any control over the fact that s/he is gay?
Even if it were a virus, does the person infected have any control over the fact that s/he is gay?No, and even that doesn't matter. If a person WANTED to be gay, so what. As long as the partner is of the ability/age to consent, I really don't care if it is by choice or they were born that way. Either way, I would support their choice. (Lois, this isn't directed toward you. :) )
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.The original article is based on collaborations of several universities as well. Also, having research reported by the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis doesn't seem like an easy feat.
Even if it were a virus, does the person infected have any control over the fact that s/he is gay?No, and even that doesn't matter. If a person WANTED to be gay, so what. As long as the partner is of the ability/age to consent, I really don't care if it is by choice or they were born that way. Either way, I would support their choice. (Lois, this isn't directed toward you. :) ) I doubt it's a choice for anyone. The way i see it, people have an natural orientation that they have no control over. I can't imagine anyone choosing to be gay if s/he was heterosexual--and vice versa. It's not an easy life to be gay. And I doubt it's actually possible to choose. It's possible to experiment, but a person can't change his or her orientation, IMO. Throughout history many gay people have forced themselves to pretend to be heterosexual. That is not being heterosexual. This can lead to disaster for themselves and most especially for a spouse. ....
There’s a stand up comic who has a routine about people “choosing” to be straight. He points out that women make us men do all kinds of things that we men don’t like to do, shave, bathe, wear fancy clothes, respond to our asking of “What’s wrong?” with “Nothing!” and so on, while guys are basically willing to nail anything that’ll hold still long enough, and that, logically, it’d make more sense for us to be gay, than straight.
There's a stand up comic who has a routine about people "choosing" to be straight. He points out that women make us men do all kinds of things that we men don't like to do, shave, bathe, wear fancy clothes, respond to our asking of "What's wrong?" with "Nothing!" and so on, while guys are basically willing to nail anything that'll hold still long enough, and that, logically, it'd make more sense for us to be gay, than straight.But you don't have the choice!
Isn’t there something funny in asking for the causes of being gay? I think asking for the causes of being straight is just as interesting. As a byproduct one might get the answer why about 5% of all humans through all cultures are gay. The idea that we should look just for the causes of being gay suggests that then we can do something about it. And that suggests that we think being gay is not ok.
The common argument ‘when all people were gay, we would be extinct in one generation’ is not a causal argument. The kind of reasoning here is similar to the anthropic principle ]. Because we exist, and proliferate sexually, it follows that there must be a minimum percentage of straight people. But that is not a causal explanation at all.
So again, looking for the causes of being gay alone is somehow funny.
And about epigenetics: I found two different (overlapping) definitions of it:
- study of the mechanism that determines which genes will be expressed in a cell
- study of how such mechanisms can contribute to inheritance over at least one generation
Genes contain the blueprint for enzymes and other proteins. Which genes are activated is determined by chemical processes in the cell, which in turn are determined by external influences and by the proteins it contains already, which in turn… To look for a mono causal explanation as if the genes determine it all is naive. The only thing we really know is that changes in phenotype are not transcribed into the genotype: here the causality is definitely in one direction.
Epigenetics might show however that there is a second (but weaker) mechanism for inheritance. I have no idea what that has to do with nurture. We’re still talking inheritance.
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.Yeah, this is a big strike against the "nurture" idea of sexual orientation. Also, the fact that other primates, other mammals, other non-mammalian organisms, have been observed engaging in same sex behavior. Anybody who considers themselves to be a rationalist, cannot deny that same sex attraction is part of the biosphere.
Epigenetics might show however that there is a second (but weaker) mechanism for inheritance. I have no idea what that has to do with nurture. We're still talking inheritance.Epigenetics has everything to do with nurture in that environmental influences are the trigger for epigenetic changes. In one well known study Agouti mice which are fed different diets can develop epigenetic changes leading to dramatic alterations in phenotype which are then transferred to the offspring. (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/obesity-epigenetics-and-gene-regulation-927). Other environmental factors including emotional stress have been implicated as the cause for some epigenetic changes. Obviously human studies of this sort are not as easily done but it is a hot topic of research at the moment as a quick google scholar search will show (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=human+epigenetics&btnG;=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&as_ylo=2013).
There are at least two types of epigenetics. One would be based on and programmed by the DNA, like the methylation, but these are usually reset in the offspring. The second would be changes introduced by the environment. These cannot be passed onto the next generations, as there is no evidence that Lamarckism (i.e., inheritance of acquired characteristics) works.
Epigenetics has everything to do with nurture in that environmental influences are the trigger for epigenetic changes.I stand corrected. I was thinking mainly about the nature/nurture debate. But when even emotional stress has impact...
There are at least two types of epigenetics. One would be based on and programmed by the DNA, like the methylation, but these are usually reset in the offspring. The second would be changes introduced by the environment. These cannot be passed onto the next generations, as there is no evidence that Lamarckism (i.e., inheritance of acquired characteristics) works.George read the mouse study in my post above. The traits referred to in the study are environmentally induced changes in the epigenome and they are indeed passed on to the next generation. Methylation can be induced by external stimuli. After Darwin's theories were accepted Lemark's ideas were largely ridiculed. He deserved the criticism since his scientific methods were not scientific at all and his theories were mostly wrong , but sometimes you can come to the correct conclusion the wrong way. Epigenetics does not vindicate Lamark in any way ( The examples he used were not acquired characteristics or epigenetic phenomena) but it is showing us that in some ways acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring for at least one or two generations and perhaps more. We still have a lot to learn about this phenomena though.
Jumping away from Epigenetics, but sticking with the theme…
Have you folks heard/read this one
Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation ~ ~ ~ Empirical basis The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation.[3] According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%.[4][5][6][7][8] The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men.[9] There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.[10][11] ~ ~ ~ Theories on the cause Anthony Bogaert's work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother's body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.[6][16][20][21] The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers.I don't know what to think of it one way or other... and actually, for me, the most amazing part of the story was being introduced to the "in-utero maternal immune response." The folds within folds of complexity never cease to amaze.
Jumping away from Epigenetics, but sticking with the theme... Have you folks heard/read this oneI heard about it some time ago and it makes sense to me. I think there is something in it and it deserves further investigation.Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation ~ ~ ~ Empirical basis The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation.[3] According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%.[4][5][6][7][8] The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men.[9] There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.[10][11] ~ ~ ~ Theories on the cause Anthony Bogaert's work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother's body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.[6][16][20][21] The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers.I don't know what to think of it one way or other... and actually, for me, the most amazing part of the story was being introduced to the "in-utero maternal immune response." The folds within folds of complexity never cease to amaze.
There are at least two types of epigenetics. One would be based on and programmed by the DNA, like the methylation, but these are usually reset in the offspring. The second would be changes introduced by the environment. These cannot be passed onto the next generations, as there is no evidence that Lamarckism (i.e., inheritance of acquired characteristics) works.George read the mouse study in my post above. The traits referred to in the study are environmentally induced changes in the epigenome and they are indeed passed on to the next generation. Methylation can be induced by external stimuli. After Darwin's theories were accepted Lemark's ideas were largely ridiculed. He deserved the criticism since his scientific methods were not scientific at all and his theories were mostly wrong , but sometimes you can come to the correct conclusion the wrong way. Epigenetics does not vindicate Lamark in any way ( The examples he used were not acquired characteristics or epigenetic phenomena) but it is showing us that in some ways acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring for at least one or two generations and perhaps more. We still have a lot to learn about this phenomena though. Yes, I know they can be passed onto the next generation, which is why I said they are "usually" reset in the offspring; although "usually" is not probably an adequate word here, as the chance of that happening is very rare and a few studies here and there prove very little. The problem here is that homosexuality is not that rare at all. `
Jumping away from Epigenetics, but sticking with the theme... Have you folks heard/read this oneI heard about it some time ago and it makes sense to me. I think there is something in it and it deserves further investigation. This is really interesting, I have a friend who has a histamine reaction to her pregnancies which became worse and more uncomfortable with each subsequent pregnancy. There didn't appear to be a difference with the sex of the infant. I wonder what, if any, effect it will have on her last child, a son.Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation ~ ~ ~ Empirical basis The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation.[3] According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%.[4][5][6][7][8] The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men.[9] There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.[10][11] ~ ~ ~ Theories on the cause Anthony Bogaert's work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother's body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.[6][16][20][21] The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers.I don't know what to think of it one way or other... and actually, for me, the most amazing part of the story was being introduced to the "in-utero maternal immune response." The folds within folds of complexity never cease to amaze.
Jumping away from Epigenetics, but sticking with the theme... Have you folks heard/read this oneI heard about it some time ago and it makes sense to me. I think there is something in it and it deserves further investigation. This is really interesting, I have a friend who has a histamine reaction to her pregnancies which became worse and more uncomfortable with each subsequent pregnancy. There didn't appear to be a difference with the sex of the infant. I wonder what, if any, effect it will have on her last child, a son. Only time will tell. It doesn't happen in every case, though,or even in most cases. It's just that surveys show that a statistically significant number of gay men have older brothers.Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation ~ ~ ~ Empirical basis The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation.[3] According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%.[4][5][6][7][8] The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men.[9] There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.[10][11] ~ ~ ~ Theories on the cause Anthony Bogaert's work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother's body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.[6][16][20][21] The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers.I don't know what to think of it one way or other... and actually, for me, the most amazing part of the story was being introduced to the "in-utero maternal immune response." The folds within folds of complexity never cease to amaze.
Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother. It is well documented in birds, for example, that the higher the status of the female, the more likely she is to have a male offspring. And we can see it in humans as well. The sex ratio is 50/50, but the sex ration of the kids in the US government is 60% boys and 40% girls. Basically, the higher the socio-economic status of the woman (not the man!) within the group of people she knows, the more likely she is to have a boy. Having boy is expensive–expensive in regards to the mother’s health. Women who have boys are also more likely to suffer from autoimmune diseases.
I would be interested to know what other impacts having older brothers has. Are the younger ones sicker? Do they end up making less money?
Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother. It is well documented in birds, for example, that the higher the status of the female, the more likely she is to have a male offspring. And we can see it in humans as well. The sex ratio is 50/50, but the sex ration of the kids in the US government is 60% boys and 40% girls. Basically, the higher the socio-economic status of the woman (not the man!) within the group of people she knows, the more likely she is to have a boy. Having boy is expensive--expensive in regards to the mother's health. Women who have boys are also more likely to suffer from autoimmune diseases. I would be interested to know what other impacts having older brothers has. Are the younger ones sicker? Do they end up making less money?George, other than a higher risk of preterm labor and gestational diabetes I haven't seen anything indicating mothers who give birth to boys have higher rates of illness. i tried doing a search but couldn't come up with anything. I'd be interested in reading about that if you have any links. Also could you explain what you mean about the ratio of kids in the US government being 60% boys/ 40% girls? Are you talking about the children of government workers? If they were studying differences based on socioeconomic class, what are they comparing that group to? Government workers aren't necessarily of a higher socioeconomic class. it depends on what sort of government workers you are referring to and who you are comparing them to. At any rate, a 60/40 ratio seems awfully high. I'd love to see the source of that data. It would be interesting to see exactly how the study was done and how they came to their conclusions.