Yes, I have looked it up and found more sources for this story, so to believe it is a credible story. However, I still will not believe the results of this study until it can be replicated by several more teams of researchers.

the reason I'm so cavalier in dismissing this study as garbage is that geneticists (like my former prof. who heads the lab I intern in) are extremely pessimistic about studies which infer connections by comparing only the sequences of DNA. Rest assured you can find some strange data if you do the right blast searches (which compare overall similarities in DNA sequences).

I would not be surprised if you could link people who ball their toilet paper before they wipe with a unique set of similar genes. These genes would be total garbage that have nothing to do with their behavior, but you can claim youve found the toilet balling genes. Before a researcher claims success in identifying a genes' function they must first explain the function in totality. Gene--protein--function-- down stream effects....

There is so much DNA out there and such powerful tools available for comparing sequences, you can find some remarkable and totally irrelevant coincidences.

Thank you. It's nice to know that someone else around here is using common sense.

No, you're supposed to believe that the scientist did not want to perform two separate studies at the same time. If these genes are not exactly in the same location on the female chromosome (assuming they do exist) then that's a hell of a lot more work. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he's trying to do now. However, he felt he had enough information to publish, so he did. He may have done it this way (in a manner some of you may call incomplete) so he can reference it in a (NIH, probably) grant application.

I personally don't put much credit to it myself. In order for a gene to do anything it needs to make a protein, or regulate another part of the genome which does. They seem to have no idea what these regions of DNA do. Not to say that it'll be disproven, but they're far from convincing me.

I'm not saying that all of these studies are made up, or even that the scientists involved have even chosen a side. I'm simply saying that this is only the most recent in a series of studies that end up with conflicting data. To view this as a final say on the matter seems presumptuous at best.

I don't know how much I believe that a string of several genes is wholly responsible for a person being gay. While I do believe that it is not nessicarily a concious desicion someone makes, I do think that there is definatly some kind of genetic/hormonal difference in homo and bisexuals. I also think that it also has something to do with enviornmental behaviors. I don't quite know how it would all link together for the end result, as we know it.

I am, however, quite shocked that someone would even consider aborting a fetus purely for the fact that the child may or may not carry a gay gene. If that's what this country is coming to then I'm getting out of here first chance I get. I can not believe anyone would condone that or find it even remotly acceptable. Would those people also abort their child if they thought the kid would be born with blonde hair? Definatly calls quite a few ethical questions in to place.

I believe this gay gene(if its true) will better the world for everyone(or at least shut the catholic church up) what we need right now are antidiscrimination laws to give equal respect(i wish) to everyone

The anti-gays will just say that these people are horrible mutants, or use it as an excuse to treat them as inhuman (they have different genes than we do). It will also bring in the possibility of aborting gay embryos, as was mentioned earlier in the thread. No matter which way homosexuality is "explained", the bigots will find a way to use it to their "moral advantage."

Well they only Just Mapped the Human Genome
 

They only finished mapping the human genom approx 2 years ago. When they make a study they often focus on only one gender first, as it removes much of the variability. I know from other studies that they have done that they have focused on female twins instead. The reason the use geneticaly identical twins (male or female) is simple. The can rule out some of the environmental "noise" that occurs in the study.

Example: In a recent (large) study of genetically identical female twins they found what they call a spirituality gene. (not a joke, this even made newsweek and many Large media outlets)

They were able to tell by the DNA who would describe themself as a "spiritual person". It had a lot to do with the formation of the parietal lobe of the brain. The twins would describe themselves as haveing a sense of "God" in thier lives.

Interestingly enough.. being spiritual did not mean that any particular one of the twins would necessarily "go to a worship service", depending on thier particualr faith. So while they would say that they have a sense of "god" in thier lives, they would only go to thier church, synagogue or temple if the community was nuturing enough. So there we have it... they needed external reinforcement in order to fully express who they are genetically.... WOW!

In My opinion this is right where the Nature vs Nurture debate rubber hits the road. It also starts to go where REII was leading us to.

BY THE WAY REII... YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD POINT!!! THANKS FOR MAKING THIS DISCUSSION EVEN BETTER!!

One step closer to creating my genetic super baby.

Just cause some of them didn't go to church does not mean the spirituality gene wasn't still active in them, maybe some of them had their own spiritual beliefs and did not always accept what they had been told.

Zephyr... thats my point..

to feel spiritual = genetic... to go to church = environment

spiritual people didn't necessarily attend a service...

The same thing is done when researching other medical issues, such as heart disease. For years, women with heart disease were treated using the information garnered from studies performed on men, with the expected poor results. Separate studies need to be performed because of the major physiological differences (e.g., hormonal) between men and women.

Not what I was expecting. I read the thread title as "Gay Hens have been found, finally....." and thought, "Gay hens? WTF I didn't think anyone would be looking for such a critter."

Actually, I don't think they're even close to mapping the entire genome. In a Genetics class Im taking, the prof mentioned that they've actually only got 5% or something like that... I'll see if I can find a link to prove I'm not crazy...

C'mon now... I think there's a little blunder in this so called "spirituality" gene conclusion. I would highly disbelieve any idea that genes affect spirituality directly, and I feel this is the way that the research was taken (not to mention that it was performed in a manner to be biased to a religious-based result). Genetics affects more general characteristics. While sexual preference is a "general" human characteristic (at least in my method of thinking) since it does not involve complex thought, religion is a much more complex behavior being somewhat philosophical and requiring many levels of thought. This being said, if their research is accurate, I believe what they may have found is a gene that relates to the propensity of the individual to deal with abstract concepts or some other area of thought which would tend the individual towards religion.

People define "mapping" differently in this regard... They do have it "sequenced", but they don't know what the heck most of it does. A la they know what the letters are but they're still mostly illiterate.

You may be right... but then again you didn't do the study. Read for your self.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/pre...725072,00.html

From Time Magazine..
S O C I E T Y
Is God in Our Genes?
A provocative study asks whether religion is a product of evolution. Inside a quest for the roots of faith
By JEFFREY KLUGER
(click link to read the ARTICLE)

That's not the study... That's an article about the study which actually cites very little of the study itself, and provides more of a vague background on both genetics and religion. I find very little useful information is actually presented in it. Now if someone actually wanted to track down the actual published scientific article (from whatever scientific journal it was published in... Nature or GENE, perhaps?) then that may actually provide some insight into whether or not this is total crap.

........Sigh....

i can't believe that.....how can anyone think of giving up a baby just because it might be gay?

The mind and the body are not seperable, they both function from the feedback of the other. If your sick it can make you depressed.

Its not JUST in the mind or JUST in the body, it can logically only exist as a relationship between the two.

In statistics its called stratifying data. And anyone educated in statistics knows that NOT doing it would constitute a lack of common sense.

How about just loving your child? If you plan on being a parent, neither the gender or sexuality should be a concern or a choice imo.

Exactly! If I were gay, the discovery of a gene is the last thing Id want. Itll open a can of worms for gays where the bad will outweigh the good. ie itll be called illness like alzheimers, and the possibility of corrective genetic surgery which is bound to happen. And many gays are unhappy about being gay, so how many of them would elect to take corrective surgery if given the chance? Itll make a rift in homosexuality.

i agree with the fact that environment plays a large part, and the whole gene thing brings an interesting twist on things, though the lesbian thing isnt really explained so it could just be coincidence, if they can find the same thing in females then it will be a lot more solid, it is kinda sick to abort a fetus because they "might" be gay, but its their choice to make not ours i suppose

I've wondered about this, I'm straight with some gay friends. We've talked and they claim they always knew it, but at some point, they made a conscious choice. No matter to me, its their life.

My question....I love to cook, better than a lot of women I know, got a decent fashion sense and prefer to do the shopping... but I really like boobs... is it possible to be ''half gay''??

wow gay gene must have been found by a christian scientist(hehe), this may sound really bad you have to face the fact that being gay is a choice not a genetic predisposistion, and to say that there is a gay gene is about as factual as telekenesis, dragons, and mind readers :)

You're post makes no sense, christians are the ones who think they made a choice, because it can only be a sin if they made a choice. Also, the least you can do is back up your argument with anykind of at least semi-factual evidence. Fuckin' ignorant people.

Christian Scientist is an oxymoron science is the study to explain the unknown ie how the earth was created etc. All i can say is that if theres a gay gene there must be a gene that decides wether your a coke or pepsi person is because being gay is a personal preference, i dont have any scientific proof this is how i feel and what i will believe, and if you believe in subconscious decisions then you will might agree with me. Id also like to note im very atheist.

P.S ill finish post later.

I find it amazing how many people just "beleive" with out using reason.

This thread has nothing to do with Christianity, religion or a politcal issue.

Scientists found a group of genes that were "exactly the same" 60 percent of the time in a large group of homosexual twin males.

These genes were not found to be the same in other non-homosexual males. We are not talking about a single gene... but a group of them.

Statistically speaking this is a very significant find. It will inevitably lead to further study and possible to a conclusive find.

Interestingly some of the people who claim to be the most "objective" on the tilted forum have shown their true colours. Let's check our "beleifs" at the door if we aren't willing to back them up with either "sound philosopy" or science.

Not a judgment... just an observation.

for only 60%? Is that actually significant? I don't know anything about bioinfomatics, but it seems kinda low. I wouldn't go around calling it the "gay gene" on a 60% match.

60 percent is Very significant especially when they are finding a GROUP of genes sequenced the same and not found in non-gays. Remember that this is not about ONE gene.. but a whole section of genes.

also there were sections in other gays that were similar.... but not 'the same'.

Wow, interesting.

Hmm but I thought being gay had more to do w/ hormones (levels of testosterone or estrogen .. or maybe lack thereof ) . I swear I read that somewhere.

And if this is all true and people would consider aborting a fetus b/c it has a 'gay gene' ...

wow, just wow.

I didn't read most of the second page because I couldn't take it anymore. Too many posts about "the male chromosome" and lesbians being affected by "the female chromosome" because they're female.

Genetics 101:
Normal people have 23 pairs of chromosomes. 1 pair (the "sex" genes, X/Y) was previously the concentration of research for "gay genes". Nobody ever found anything significant. This study looked at the other 22 pairs of chromosomes, called the autosomal chromosomes, which both men and women have. Men have chromosomes 7, 8, and 10 (or whatever chromosomes they claimed these DNA sequences are on). Women also have chromosomes 7, 8, and 10.
Please, I'm begging you, no more posts about "man genes" and "woman genes".

As for the issue of the actual article, a lot of people who seem to have a knowledge of genetics have pointed out that absolutely no characteristic of an individual is influenced solely by genes. Everything is a combination of genes and environment. They did find a gene or two a while ago that they claim to be "God" genes, I think they calle them VMAT1/2, which make people more apt to seek some form of spiritual belief. Who knows.