Speakeasy: Scientists alter sexual orientation in worms
Scientists alter sexual orientation in worms
by C1ay - 10/31/07 6:04 AMUniversity of Utah biologists genetically manipulated nematode worms so the animals were attracted to worms of the same sex - part of a study that shows sexual orientation is wired in the creatures' brains.
"They look like girls, but act and think like boys," says Jamie White, a postdoctoral researcher and first author of the new study. "The [same-sex attraction] behavior is part of the nervous system."..
"The reason males and females behave differently is that the same nerve cells have been rewired to alter sexual preference," he adds. "Our conclusions are narrow in that they are about worms and how attraction behaviors are derived from the same brain circuit. But an evolutionary biologist will consider this to be a potentially common mechanism for sexual attraction."...
More....
Implications?
The implications are clear, but they've been clear for years
by Dave Konkel [Moderator]
- 10/31/07 6:13 AM
In reply to: Scientists alter sexual orientation in worms by C1ay
Hi, Clay.
Those who insist on believing that sexual orientation is a "choice" will reject these data as being "junk science," just as they've rejected previous genetic data or the fact that most animal species show about the same %age of homosexuality as do humans -- 5-10%.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Are you saying, Dave...
by J. Vega - 10/31/07 11:07 AM In reply to: The implications are clear, but they've been clear for years by Dave Konkel [Moderator]
Dave, if sexual orientation is not a "choice", then are you saying that the primary factor in orientation is genetic? Could it be something else rather than choice or genetics?
Consider something like sadists who get sexual satisfaction thru cruelty. Is the reason for that sexual orientation choice, genetics, or something else?
I have no idea, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] - 10/31/07 11:11 AM
In reply to: Are you saying, Dave... by J. Vega
My guess is that being either D or S is not a conscious choice, but isn't genetic either -- that it's probably rooted in an individual's personal history (Freud would say "parental relationships").
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Why is it irrelevant, Dave...
by J. Vega - 10/31/07 11:35 AM In reply to: I have no idea, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. by Dave Konkel [Moderator]
Why is it irrelevant, Dave? The study said "It seems possible that if sexual orientation is genetically wired in worms, it would be in people too. Humans have free will, so the picture is more complicated in people.".
So if it seems possible that "homo" sexuality is "genetically wired" in humans, why just that form of sexuality and not other forms of sexuality?
How is "sexual orientation " defined?
by duckman - 10/31/07 11:51 AM In reply to: Why is it irrelevant, Dave... by J. VegaEven to those who BELIEVE sexual orientation is genetic, have limits for it.
Let's consider something...
by J. Vega - 10/31/07 8:26 PM In reply to: How is "sexual orientation " defined? by duckmanLet's consider eunuchs (castrated males). Here we have a historical base population. Examples are harem guards, males in the Forbidden City in China or in some cases castrati in boys' choirs.
In those cases, after they were castrated they still had the same genetic makeup. The study said "part of a study that shows sexual orientation is wired in the creatures' brains". It seems that if that were the case, after the castration their brains their brains would still be genetically "wired" to be attracted to either males or females (or possibly both, I guess).
I guess then the question would be after the castration would they still have an attraction. The study's claim would appear to say that they would. I also guess that the best group to examine would be the young pre-sexually active males. If later in life they still had an attraction, would 5 to 10 percent of them have an attraction to males?
re: eunuchs
by Dick White - 11/6/07 6:15 AM In reply to: Let's consider something... by J. VegaI don't know much about sexual orientation in the Forbidden City or of the castrati, but I have read that the harem guards were not asexual as a consequence of their castration. The castration was of the testicles only, leaving the *****. They may have had significantly diminished desires, but they were allowed to engage in relations with "off-duty" members of the harem, even to the point where the guards performed a useful function in keeping the lusts of the young harem members satisfied while awaiting their "turn" with the principal. The relevant consideration was not the sex, per se, but the certainty that there would be no offspring from the guards' liaisons with the harem members. The original hard-wired genetic orientation was still there after the physical alteration.
dw
You need the sex hormones to be interested at all, J.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] - 11/7/07 7:00 AM
In reply to: Let's consider something... by J. Vega
And castration "fixes" that. Besides, you might be interested, but can't do anything about it! Hmm -- I wonder what the affect of viagra etc. might be...
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
the affect of viagra etc
by jonah jones - 11/7/07 7:56 AM
In reply to: You need the sex hormones to be interested at all, J. by Dave Konkel [Moderator]
maybe you'd have somewhere to go without knowing why?
.,
But, Dave...
by J. Vega - 11/7/07 10:07 AM In reply to: You need the sex hormones to be interested at all, J. by Dave Konkel [Moderator]
But Dave, wasn't the implication in the study mentioned in the original post that "sexual orientation is wired in the creatures' brains? Your saying "you might be interested, but can't do anything about it!" would seem to indicate that you hold with the idea that "orientation" is genetic. Whether or not a person can act on their orientation is not the basic question, it is the basic reason for that orientation, whatever it might be.
The study in the original post deals with attraction to the same sex and genetics, but let's consider that implication with an orientation other than homosexuality. If, as the study implies, homosexuality is genetic then would that mean that the orientation of child molesters is also genetic?
Claiming it to be genetic does not lessen the
by dirtyrich - 10/31/07 4:08 PM In reply to: The implications are clear, but they've been clear for years by Dave Konkel [Moderator]
stigma associated with homosexuality... there are numerous disorders, including behavioral, that have a genetic influence. If anything, this will open the door to homosexuality being considered as a disease.
No quite so fast ...
by Bill Osler - 10/31/07 5:41 PM In reply to: The implications are clear, but they've been clear for years by Dave Konkel [Moderator]
I have no idea whether these findings are applicable to humans and I have no idea what the quality of the research is. Either way, it does not matter ... but not for the reason you repeatedly claim.
It may or may not be the case that homosexual orientation is a choice. Personally I suspect that orientation is multi-factorial, but it does not matter from a theological perspective. The injunction in Scripture is not against homosexual orientation. It is against all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. I cringe at the thought that the adjective 'heterosexual' is even remotely needed to qualify the word 'marriage' but that is another discussion entirely. But I digress.
Sexual activity is almost always a choice. The only obvious exceptions are rape and child molestation.
The only acceptable choices from an orthodox Christian perspective are heterosexual marriage or celibacy. You may not like it, but that is the orthodox teaching.
Re: No quite so fast ...
by C1ay - 11/1/07 5:07 AM In reply to: No quite so fast ... by Bill OslerFrom a theological perspective, if this is truly condition one is born with, are such people creations of your God? Does your scripture call on you to judge his creations and condemn them simply because of how he made them? It seems rather contradictory that one birth defect will draw love, understanding and pity for the affcted and another draws judgment and condemnation. What an unhumanistic philosophy to live by.
Not sure "birth defect" is the correct designation...
by EdH - 11/1/07 5:55 AM In reply to: Re: No quite so fast ... by C1ayBut, if God created pain, war and death, it seems to me homosexuality is nothing much to get over.
People judge things and condemn them, sometimes in accordance with their religion and sometimes without. That's a fact of life. I don't see what is "unhumanistic" about it. It may be that your antipathy for religion is coloring your reaction.
I go along with Dr. Bill. It's the behavior, not the person that is at issue. IF one believes. Which is a choice also.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
