Researchers swapped one gene in fruit flies, and found that a biological female fruit fly showed all the mating behavior of a male fruit fly, and the reverse in male fruit flies.
I see it all the time on Queer Eye. Those guys wear DKNY jeans, and they are all about “product.”
How do those guys on Queer Eye keep in shape? It takes all the training in the wrold for me to stay fit, and every time I look in the mirror I think I need more time on the bike. I think those guys have an extra X chromosone.
That’s going to throw a heck of a monkey wrench in the evolution machinery, huh? 
That’s going to throw a heck of a monkey wrench in the evolution machinery, huh?
Assuming you aren’t completely facetious, I ask: why?
I was only 90% facetious.
The other 10% is due to the fact that it seems unlikely that fruit flies configured so would survive natural selection. Color me incredulous.
I was only 90% facetious.
The other 10% is due to the fact that it seems unlikely that fruit flies configured so would survive natural selection. Color me incredulous.
Of course not. The point is that sexual orientation in fruit flies appears to be genetic. Mutations and recessive genes do exist.
The point is that sexual orientation in fruit flies appears to be genetic.
Really? Sexual orientation in fruit flies? I don’t know, maybe, but it seems like kind of a stretch. I think the point is probably just that the sexual “rituals,” such as they are, of fruit flies are genetically programmed. Did any of the deformed female fruit flies actually try to mate with another female?
Anyway, what’s the real point you’re trying to make?
Come on Vitus you know what Ken is trolling for;)
.
“Come on Vitus you know what Ken is trolling for;)”
Ooh,ooh, let me try, let me…
If scientists can make fruit flies change mating behaviours, then being gay must be genetic in humans, and therefore we have to allow gay marriage and all attest that we thing being gay is swell.
Did I get it right?
We’ve been around each other too long.
I get the feeling that if all of us were sitting at a bar having discussions we’d all be finishing each others sentences.
Heres the real debate. So many people see a genetic basis of homosexuality as a validation of it as being “ok”. But here is the problem, if it is due to a genetic abnormality, should it be “fixed”, ripped from their chromosome? many genetic diseases are on the road to being corrected, should this be one them? Should we eradicate homosexuality as we did smallpox? I think the genetic basis of homosexuality can be used as proof that it is not a choice, but its acceptance, should not be on that basis, but on the basis that differences between people should be celebrated.
If scientists can make fruit flies change mating behaviours, then being gay must be genetic in humans, and therefore we have to allow gay marriage and all attest that we thing being gay is swell.
Read at least the abstract - it’s in the journal “Cell”. Who says anything about swellness? It’s s an interesting finding, doncha think? FWIW, it does suggest that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation – in fruitflies who probably aren’t too concerned about their standing in society in general.
Obviously, as a human, if you’re gay, you go straight to hell. Everybody knows that.
Really? Sexual orientation in fruit flies? I don’t know, maybe, but it seems like kind of a stretch.
she-fruitlies normally mate with he-fruitflies, so there is certainly such a thing in fruitflies.
I think the point is probably just that the sexual “rituals,” such as they are, of fruit flies are genetically programmed. Did any of the deformed female fruit flies actually try to mate with another female?
Yes. Long story short, they inserted a male gene into female fruitflies, then observed the transgenic fruitflies trying to mate with other females. Males given the ‘female version of the gene’ became passive and started becoming more interested in other males.
Here’s a synopsis from the NY times (I know, lefty crap)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html
here’s a link to the article (you can read the abstract). FWIW, Cell is a highly regarded journal.
http://www.cell.com/
Furthermore, I HOPE there is a sexual orientation gene in humans! Would be kind of a disadvantage to leave that up to chance, no? That is, if you believe in evolution. The homosexuality version of that gene would have had to be one of the first ones to go, I’d think.
Move to the front of the class slowguy;)
.
“Read at least the abstract”
I don’t need to read the abstract to know what the trend is on this forum in this type of discussion.
“FWIW, it does suggest that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation – in fruitflies who probably aren’t too concerned about their standing in society in general”
It could suggest that. Or it could suggest that the gene in question just screwed up the fruit flies perception such that the females thought they were going after males, but weren’t. Either way, a fruit fly isn’t a human, and genetic or not doesn’t make it right or ok. On this forum, people tend to confuse the two issues and present some sort of evidence that homosexuality isn’t a choice, and is therefor perfectly ok.
I don’t need to read the abstract to know what the trend is on this forum in this type of discussion.
you mean, one of healthy disagreements? I don’t spend much time here, but I’d say that the ‘conservative’ (whatever the hell that means) views are just as well represented than the ‘liberal’ ones.
===
Either way, a fruit fly isn’t a human, and genetic or not doesn’t make it right or ok.
but it would have to change your attitude towards ‘sexual preference’ if you know it was at least partly genetically predetermined, right? I mean, other than those wildly fornicating San Francisco hippies?
===
On this forum, people tend to confuse the two issues and present some sort of evidence that homosexuality isn’t a choice, and is therefor perfectly ok.
Not sure what you mean by “two issues”. ‘Genetic’ vs. ‘voluntary’ homosexuality? Biology vs. morality?
On this forum, people also tend to present reports from peer-reviewed studies that say absolutely nothing about whether being gay is ok or not, and some people turn it into such a discussion. In all fairness, you have to say that Ken mentioned nothing about gay marriage. you did that.
FWIW, the comment to read ‘at least the abstract’ wasn’t meant as a slight, but to say that reading the abstract takes 5 min of your time, and gives you the results of the study unfiltered. For all you know, they even discuss about whether the gene had an effect of the animals perception (which is not very likely imo - they would have probably gone after males and females 50-50. Note that this does NOT bisexuality ok ;-).
Josef
Come on Vitus you know what Ken is trolling for;)
Well, yeah, but Ken doesn’t like to be thought of as disengenuous, so I thought it best to ask it to spell it out for us neanderthals.
FWIW, Cell is a highly regarded journal.
http://www.cell.com/
But is it on medline? Did he author of the study *want *the sexual behavior of fruit flies to be genetically determined? And who’s on the review board? Any of them ever advocate for gay rights?
Seriously, thanks for the link to journal. I wonder why Ken didn’t post it himself.
As to the moral implications, there aren’t any, really. Much as the homosexual lobby would like to believe otherwise.
Now there’s an interesting point of view. However I think comparing homsexuality to small pox is a bit of a stretch. The real question is, if homosexuality is genetic then is it a dangerous gentic abnormality like cancer, or is it simply a genetic variation like brown hair or blond hair?
Some would argue on the side of it being a damaging and dangerous abnormality, others simply a genetic variation.
Typically we accept and even enjoy/embrace genetic variation. We usually try to fix genetic abnormalities. Personally I lean toward the genetic variation, but wodul be for an individual’s choice to “change” the gene to being “straight”…kinda like changing your hair from brown to blond.
~Matt