Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (63518)	3/30/2018 2:49:17 PM
From: Qone0	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 354538

ROTF, If being gay is genetic, how was this gene passed down, as the same sex can't reproduce? This should be good.

To: i-node who wrote (63518)	3/30/2018 3:08:07 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Respond to of 354538

genetic links: oh you are so far behind the science. Genetics is way more complicated than people are trying to portray it; and that is why now there are hundreds of genes responsible for you getting a particular cancer for instance. Remember the old days when they tested for one gene mutation - that is all changing. Also complicating the picture are epigenetic influences that control how a particular gene acts; that is a gene can be turned on or off, dialed up or down, in the production of a particular protein! That environmental influences (nurture)as manifested in an epigenetic trigger can directly influence your DNA (nature). Sooo, the nature and nurture issue has been completely fuzzed. But the biggest question of all is why anyone could possible care? If someone is gay or not - what difference does it make to you? Libertarians don't care. Although it is so sad to see some ostracized by those with little minds.

To: i-node who wrote (63518)	3/30/2018 3:17:05 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354538

nature.com Was what I posted to Bentway. Read the actual science. It's pretty intriguing. Well, if you can understand it it is. "We detected several promising regions of multiple SNPs in the 10-5–10-7p-value range, as seen in the Manhattan plot (Fig. 1), though no SNP reached genome-wide significance (5?×?10-8). The most prominent of these regions were on chromosomes 13 (minimum p?=?7.5?×?10-7, rs9547443) and 14 (p?=?4.7?×?10-7, rs1035144), where some SNPs had 10-7?<?p?<?10-6 (each region with 9 to 10 SNPs with p?<?10-5, Table S1). There are a number of genes of relevance to the trait in and around these regions, which we describe below. We further note that the most significant SNP (rs77013977, p?=?7.1?×?10-8) in the 23andMe male GWAS 29 was nominally associated (p?=?4.1?×?10-3) in our own GWAS. We used a meta-analytic statistic that did not need direction of effect, Fisher’s combined probability test 30, which yielded p?=?6.7?×?10-9 for this SNP, which is the first reported genome-wide significant association for the trait. As previously noted 29, rs77013977 is an intronic SNP in NKAIN3, which is one of a family of four proteins (NKAIN1–4) suggested to be critical for neuronal function 31." With this being key "We used a meta-analytic statistic that did not need direction of effect, Fisher’s combined probability test 30, which yielded p?=?6.7?×?10-9 for this SNP, which is the first reported genome-wide significant association for the trait. As previously noted 29, rs77013977 is an intronic SNP in NKAIN3, which is one of a family of four proteins (NKAIN1–4) suggested to be critical for neuronal function 31." There was also the fascinating bit about the Danish study, which you probably missed- and Graves' disease and lower body weight- suggesting a linkage there too. It's a fascinating study. It's too bad you didn't read it. Or understand it. Or care. But hey, you're playing your little game- which has zero to do with science. I understand.

To: i-node who wrote (63518)	3/30/2018 3:57:41 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 354538

If gay is okay, even good, why can't it be a choice? Aren't liberals, by insisting it isn't ever a choice .... can't be a choice, acknowledging it's a bad thing to be gay and acceptable only if it's a biological imperative? Yes, they are. I don't think anyone knows what causes homosexuality ... and there may not be one cause. If it has a biological cause, it could be genetic. It could be a hormonal imbalance at a crucial period of development, It could be imprinting, again, at a crucial period of development. On the last point, I remember seeing a 16 yo girl (PE, who was 5 yrs older than me) and who lived down the hill. One day she drove their truck up the hill and stopped to see my grandmother about something. She had healthy tanned farm girl legs and very tight light blue shorts on. They were so tight I will always remember the zipper at the back gapped open and you could see a little glimpse of white panties. She resembled Dawn Well from Gilligan's Island. I still remember the way she looked to me and how I felt, like my eyes were gonna pop out of my head, like I couldn't breathe. It was as if the image of her sent out some force that slapped me in the face, entered my eyes, traveled down the optic nerves to my brain to the pleasure center and grabbed it and shouted, Look at that! Don't tell me I wasn't imprinted. Maybe something like that happens to everyone that way and for some poor souls, it's not a healthy teenage farm girl.