Gay gene

[Ceannairceach]

my beliefs cannot tolerate gays homosexuals or biosexuals. if it says in the bible that anyone sexual immoral is an enemy of God than thats what it means. it's not a hate crime, it's a good moral, gays are abomidable to God, i don't hate them i just follow God and what he says to me.

Biosexuals: 'Cause no one can do it like Mother Earth.

[Iuuvic]

You know what happens when you standardise DNA? You die. Every damn time. Lack of variety implies extinction.

Mmmm not quite. I submit to you, the single celled a-sexual reproductive system. It has been around since before dinosaurs, and will continue until long after we are gone. What basically happens is a single cell who loves itscellf very much (did you get the pun?) waits until the conditions are at the best time, and splits. It's a complicated and rather boring process, so I won't hammer you with the details. Suffice to say, the result is two identical copies of the parent cell, that is, the DNA is exactly the same.

Humans do not reproduce by asexual means...even if we did it would not mean we would have no genetic diversity (and survive). Remember that humans live in varied enviroments, we are not fine tuned to a specific place; meaning we are exposed to many variations of disease. We rely heavily on our biodiversity to survive in as many places as we do. Unless you want to live in a giant, germ free bubble...I personally don't like the idea of living in a bubble though.

*Even in cultures of such organisms you won't generally see a 'standardized' DNA forever. Continued reproduction will give way to change and change will give way to diversity which allows for a continued survival. In other words, no matter how an organism reproduces the species as a whole will not remain identical for long, there will always be genetic diversity. And if they do not change, which is unlikely given enough time, then they will all continue to share the same weakness and needs.

Make the mistake of thinking that organisms which reproduce with binary fission are immune to genetic diversity and you will end up regreting it, such is the case with many of the antibiotics humans have developed...

[Spetznaz Assault Teams]

Now that was a bit offending. You see, I didn't say bacteria. I said single celled organisms which rely on the a-sexual reproduction system. They are homogeneous.

How, pray, do you think bacteria and archaea reproduce?

Well, if by cellular division, they divide in half after copying their DNA. Emphasis on copying. I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything, and one of the things on the long list of things I don't know (the top being the minds of women) is how certain species reproduce.

[Hallistar]

I read it..where do you think I got some of these ideas from?

I call Alpha Plus.

I call World Controller. Soma!

I guess Brave New world did work, but only through the different classes of people regarding development, and the different races they used..plus I heard that the sterilized females that the guys would get it on with had facial hair..which sorta creeps the hell outta me

I was criticizing Hallistar.

Then they'll create new genes..you just gotta trust in future tech and think of the possibilities

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/respectscience.php

I don't think Brave New World is that bad though as a possible idea, but fine, I'll spend time learning more about the intricacies of genetic diversity first..I guess for now just assume my stance was a hypothetical, like this entire topic. As in, what if all that could be achieved without the whole issue of species dying off.

[The Emerald Legion]

Mmmm not quite. I submit to you, the single celled a-sexual reproductive system. It has been around since before dinosaurs, and will continue until long after we are gone. What basically happens is a single cell who loves itscellf very much (did you get the pun?) waits until the conditions are at the best time, and splits. It's a complicated and rather boring process, so I won't hammer you with the details. Suffice to say, the result is two identical copies of the parent cell, that is, the DNA is exactly the same.

Asexually reproducing mono-cellular life relies heavily on viral genetic transfer to maintain genetic diversity. Don't try to be patronising with basic high school biology, you'll get someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Why would you die every single time your environment changes? The state could manipulate the genes of the newborns if agreed upon to evolve them, disorders could be genetically programmed out, and an immune system log in the form of dna could be programmed in.

Because in order to adapt to environmental changes, natural selection is required. No genetic diversity => no natural selection => species death. Genetic manipulation is not a substitute for natural selection, and a continual recycling of a very limited set of genes destroys your immune system. Genetics is not a fucking computer, you can't just "program in" what you want in the way you're thinking of.

Genetics and natural selection aren't magic.

Genetics are blue-prints essentially, Natural Selection is the pants on head retarded process by which "important" genes are chosen not because of possible usefulness, but because the original mutant lived long enough to sire children who then contained that gene.

Damn mystical biology hokey.

[Hladgos]

Whoever wants to talks about *fill in the blank* genes, read NEXT by Micheal Crichton

[Salandriagado]

Asexually reproducing mono-cellular life relies heavily on viral genetic transfer to maintain genetic diversity. Don't try to be patronising with basic high school biology, you'll get someone who actually knows what they're talking about.




Because in order to adapt to environmental changes, natural selection is required. No genetic diversity => no natural selection => species death. Genetic manipulation is not a substitute for natural selection, and a continual recycling of a very limited set of genes destroys your immune system. Genetics is not a fucking computer, you can't just "program in" what you want in the way you're thinking of.

Genetics and natural selection aren't magic.

Genetics are blue-prints essentially, Natural Selection is the pants on head retarded process by which "important" genes are chosen not because of possible usefulness, but because the original mutant lived long enough to sire children who then contained that gene.

Damn mystical biology hokey.

How, pray, do you expect a species to evolve at anything like a sensible rate from a point of perfect genetic homogeneity?

How, pray, do you think bacteria and archaea reproduce?

Well, if by cellular division, they divide in half after copying their DNA. Emphasis on copying. I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything, and one of the things on the long list of things I don't know (the top being the minds of women) is how certain species reproduce.

Bang on. That is the only way of reproducing by cellular division. It is not possible to reproduce without first copying your DNA. That said, said copying is not the short term cause of quite a chunk of that variation - viral transfers do that.

[Iuuvic]

Asexually reproducing mono-cellular life relies heavily on viral genetic transfer to maintain genetic diversity. Don't try to be patronising with basic high school biology, you'll get someone who actually knows what they're talking about.




Because in order to adapt to environmental changes, natural selection is required. No genetic diversity => no natural selection => species death. Genetic manipulation is not a substitute for natural selection, and a continual recycling of a very limited set of genes destroys your immune system. Genetics is not a fucking computer, you can't just "program in" what you want in the way you're thinking of.

Genetics and natural selection aren't magic.

Genetics are blue-prints essentially, Natural Selection is the pants on head retarded process by which "important" genes are chosen not because of possible usefulness, but because the original mutant lived long enough to sire children who then contained that gene.

Damn mystical biology hokey.

Genetic tampering is also very much a give-and-take process especially in animals that have sooooo much non-coding DNA which, in many cases, we don't understand which genes it reacts with and why/when they will. You mess with the genes and you have a landslide of non-coding DNA to mess with aswell, much of the time its easy to overlook the effects of gene tampering, making it a 'wait and see' kind of process too. Remember that genes only make up around 1% of our total DNA, thats alot of information to sift through and test to see the effects you will get; often times you will need to sacrifice something to get the effect that you want.

[Dukopolious]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the majority of wealthy people in Ancient Rome Bisexual or homosexual? Back then, it wasn't opposed, even for such a religious place. If more people were open about it, it would be more widely accepted (As we are already seeing begin. Take New York for example.)

[The Emerald Legion]

Genetics and natural selection aren't magic.

Genetics are blue-prints essentially, Natural Selection is the pants on head retarded process by which "important" genes are chosen not because of possible usefulness, but because the original mutant lived long enough to sire children who then contained that gene.

Damn mystical biology hokey.

How, pray, do you expect a species to evolve at anything like a sensible rate from a point of perfect genetic homogeneity?

Well, if by cellular division, they divide in half after copying their DNA. Emphasis on copying. I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything, and one of the things on the long list of things I don't know (the top being the minds of women) is how certain species reproduce.

Bang on. That is the only way of reproducing by cellular division. It is not possible to reproduce without first copying your DNA. That said, said copying is not the short term cause of quite a chunk of that variation - viral transfers do that.

Well, for example you would be able to do this miraculous thing... it's called thinking, and building machines. And if we really needed diversity that bad we could always plunder other organisms.

Not exactly the best idea to start with. But by the time we could get ourselves into this mess we would probably have discovered other solutions.

[Salandriagado]

How, pray, do you expect a species to evolve at anything like a sensible rate from a point of perfect genetic homogeneity?




Bang on. That is the only way of reproducing by cellular division. It is not possible to reproduce without first copying your DNA. That said, said copying is not the short term cause of quite a chunk of that variation - viral transfers do that.

Well, for example you would be able to do this miraculous thing... it's called thinking, and building machines. And if we really needed diversity that bad we could always plunder other organisms.

Not exactly the best idea to start with. But by the time we could get ourselves into this mess we would probably have discovered other solutions.

So you're going to individually genetically manipulate every single individual new human? When there's a system in place that does it all for free? And you call this THINKING?

[The Emerald Legion]

Well, for example you would be able to do this miraculous thing... it's called thinking, and building machines. And if we really needed diversity that bad we could always plunder other organisms.

Not exactly the best idea to start with. But by the time we could get ourselves into this mess we would probably have discovered other solutions.

So you're going to individually genetically manipulate every single individual new human? When there's a system in place that does it all for free? And you call this THINKING?

If the new standard is better than the old standard then it was worth it.

Besides... cloning is an option. Make maybe a hundred variants of each gender. Clone them all for population.

Besides if I had my way we'd be manufacturing people in factories.

[DizKneeLandRand]

All that would do is create people who are physically hetero but psychologically gay, which means they would hate having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex but not understand why. That would probably drive someone to severe psychological damage and possible suicide.

[The Emerald Legion]

All that would do is create people who are physically hetero but psychologically gay, which means they would hate having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex but not understand why. That would probably drive someone to severe psychological damage and possible suicide.

IF they are physically hetero, then they are psychologically hetero.

Your mind is part of your body.

[Salandriagado]

So you're going to individually genetically manipulate every single individual new human? When there's a system in place that does it all for free? And you call this THINKING?

If the new standard is better than the old standard then it was worth it.

Besides... cloning is an option. Make maybe a hundred variants of each gender. Clone them all for population.

Besides if I had my way we'd be manufacturing people in factories.

The new standard would demonstrably be worse. No variation implies inbreeding implies harmful recessive mutations spreading like wildfire throughout the population implies extinction.

[Iuuvic]

So you're going to individually genetically manipulate every single individual new human? When there's a system in place that does it all for free? And you call this THINKING?

If the new standard is better than the old standard then it was worth it.

Besides... cloning is an option. Make maybe a hundred variants of each gender. Clone them all for population.

Besides if I had my way we'd be manufacturing people in factories.

And how would you control epigenetic variations in individuals? You would still a sort of biodiversity unless the world was covered in a massive bubble and every aspect of the enviroment fully controlled.

[The Emerald Legion]

If the new standard is better than the old standard then it was worth it.

Besides... cloning is an option. Make maybe a hundred variants of each gender. Clone them all for population.

Besides if I had my way we'd be manufacturing people in factories.

The new standard would demonstrably be worse. No variation implies inbreeding implies harmful recessive mutations spreading like wildfire throughout the population implies extinction.

Inbreeding requires breeding. If no breeding takes place and instead cloning is used... your whole argument dies.

And how would you control epigenetic variations in individuals? You would still a sort of biodiversity unless the world was covered in a massive bubble and every aspect of the enviroment fully controlled.

Bingo. I don't like nature. I want the world to be one massive controlled city.

[Peach Land]

Yea, and the more pressing "stupid gene". Then we won't have to bother with the stupidity of people.

Smartest post. Why waste time isolating the gay gene when there are much more pressing matters.

[DizKneeLandRand]

All that would do is create people who are physically hetero but psychologically gay, which means they would hate having sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex but not understand why. That would probably drive someone to severe psychological damage and possible suicide.

IF they are physically hetero, then they are psychologically hetero.

Your mind is part of your body.

True but the mind is far more complicated than the heart, lungs and other organs. There might be a trigger in the mind to lead to damage to the psyche if the person can't act on it's instincts. We still don't really know what triggers psychological disorders like schizophrenia. I'm not comparing being gay to being schizo.

[Iuuvic]

The new standard would demonstrably be worse. No variation implies inbreeding implies harmful recessive mutations spreading like wildfire throughout the population implies extinction.

Inbreeding requires breeding. If no breeding takes place and instead cloning is used... your whole argument dies.

And how would you control epigenetic variations in individuals? You would still a sort of biodiversity unless the world was covered in a massive bubble and every aspect of the enviroment fully controlled.

Bingo. I don't like nature. I want the world to be one massive controlled city.

I see, so this is not just a hypothetical its an unttainable hypothetical.

[Salandriagado]

The new standard would demonstrably be worse. No variation implies inbreeding implies harmful recessive mutations spreading like wildfire throughout the population implies extinction.

Inbreeding requires breeding. If no breeding takes place and instead cloning is used... your whole argument dies.

And how would you control epigenetic variations in individuals? You would still a sort of biodiversity unless the world was covered in a massive bubble and every aspect of the enviroment fully controlled.

Bingo. I don't like nature. I want the world to be one massive controlled city.

The principle still applies. If the genetic base is being reused, epigenetic markers will change in (and within) each generation, causing the recessive genes and mutations that will occur to be preserved.

[Hallistar]

IF they are physically hetero, then they are psychologically hetero.

Your mind is part of your body.

True but the mind is far more complicated than the heart, lungs and other organs. There might be a trigger in the mind to lead to damage to the psyche if the person can't act on it's instincts. We still don't really know what triggers psychological disorders like schizophrenia. I'm not comparing being gay to being schizo.

Removing a 'gay gene' would make them psychologically hetero, I don't think people turn physically hetero or homo since they both have the same genitalia for their gender.

[Salandriagado]

True but the mind is far more complicated than the heart, lungs and other organs. There might be a trigger in the mind to lead to damage to the psyche if the person can't act on it's instincts. We still don't really know what triggers psychological disorders like schizophrenia. I'm not comparing being gay to being schizo.

Removing a 'gay gene' would make them psychologically hetero, I don't think people turn physically hetero or homo since they both have the same genitalia for their gender.

One cannot remove a "gay gene". One could, theoretically, remove genes that increase the probability of homosexuality. However, this does not stop people being homosexual. Identical genetics does not imply identical characteristics.

[The Emerald Legion]

Inbreeding requires breeding. If no breeding takes place and instead cloning is used... your whole argument dies.



Bingo. I don't like nature. I want the world to be one massive controlled city.

I see, so this is not just a hypothetical its an unttainable hypothetical.

It's not unnatainable. Just very hard.

It's perfectly reasonable compared to some "Respected" ideologies.

[Hallistar]

Removing a 'gay gene' would make them psychologically hetero, I don't think people turn physically hetero or homo since they both have the same genitalia for their gender.

One cannot remove a "gay gene". One could, theoretically, remove genes that increase the probability of homosexuality. However, this does not stop people being homosexual. Identical genetics does not imply identical characteristics.

We're assuming this off of the topic hypothetical that there was one gay gene that completely determined one's sexuality.