Skip to comments.'God gene' discovered by scientist behind gay DNA theory (reader beware)
Posted on 11/13/2004 7:47:12 PM PST by Former Military Chick
click here to read article
Being 'out' is so 'in' right now...
By the rationale used by the "Gay Gene" proponents it would also logically follow that there is a beastiality gene, a foot fetish gene, and....oh, I don't think I need to go on.
I have discovered a gene that controls a predisposition to bratwurst, beer, and ice fishing. All my test subjects live in Wisconsin so the data may be a little skewed.
...yup, that's SCIENCE alright. (/sarcasm off)
"Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene," he said. "This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic make-up. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation - it's like intelligence."
There are so many problems with this statement that I don't even know where to begin. If my brain had not spontaneously exploded halfway through this passage I'd give it a try.
And don't forget dem Packers!
Oh man, I was just reading through the evolution thread a little while ago. I'm not touching that one!! lol
Why do pedophiles do it? Is there a pedophilia gene? How about foot fetishists? Murderers? Is there a murder gene? An adultery gene? Wife beater gene? A Democrat gene? Perversions are what they are... the result of a bizarre lifestyle choice.
I have the "Beer gene."
And I am forever thankful.
I was just getting ready to say that the "Cubs-Fan-Gene" (CFG) is a particularly cruel genetic endowment that occurs in a percentage of the population. These poor creatures will be the first to tell you that it is definetely NOT A CHOICE! I, myself, was born with this gene so I'm an expert.
I have a gene that makes me believe Jim Robinson and Free Republic are magnificent !!!
Ok, nice pedigree. It's a shame that all that education has gone to waste, just to promote a personal agenda.
"You believe homosexuality is a choice? Why would someone choose a lifestyle that makes their lives markedly more difficult?"
Are you saying they lead very unhappy and empty lives? If so, why then do they call themselves "gay" and not homos?
"This would be like me telling you that I saw Osama bin Laden plummet from the pinnacle of the Eiffel Tower if and only if the moon was waning, crude oil prices were low, and American pop stars could sing."
lol--I'm not familiar with Dawkin's Theory of memes but if it includes hypotheses that would lead one to naturally think about things in terms of the quote above....I think I may have to look into it.
translation: homosexuals scientists want to set up a test for "homophobia" and stupidity for those who believe in God.
Homo-propaganda at work since they flubed up all the mythical homosexuality gene studies.
Junk science at its finest.
The bodies capacity to produce various chemicals is often influenced by state of mind/peace of mind. The problem I have with the genetics claim is spiritual birth. How can someone find God later in life if it's genetic?
Having a PhD doesn't mean you are a good scientist. If you set out to prove a pre-determined idea, and structure your results in a certain direction, does your PhD make you immune to mistaken theories? Use your common sense, and don't bow down to someone just because they have a sheepskin. Do you really think that this kook is able to prove that there is such a thing as a God gene? Use your God-given ability to discriminate between what is real, and what is hype. This is total nonsense. We don't have any such ability to determine this any more than we can read each other's minds.
I say bull-pucky!
So those who have this gene, and believe God is no respecter of persons, must somehow also believe that He didn't give this gene to all humans equally?
Oh, now I get it...
It may indeed be possible that some genetic characteristic increases the likelihood a person would be 'religious'. So what? It's irrelevant whether a characteristic is genetically influenced or not. What matters is whether that characteristic is desirable in itself.
I am familiar with the idea of memes "jumping from one person to the next" so to speak, perpetuating some belief or idea. Is that the basic idea (coming from a layman, remember).
Is there a wife-swaper gene?
Is there a sex-slave gene?
Is there a rubber fetish gene?
Is there a cross-dresser gene?
Is there a polygamist mormon gene?
Is there a spanking gene?
Is there a animal sex gene?
Skinner would laugh at these nutjobs.
Thank you for your post!
Does my heart good to hear the truth spoken.
You have nailed it, and quite succinctly, at that. Good job.
Here we go again...
Listen, no one forces you to be gay. Everyone has a choice to act out as a sodomite or not to.
NO one is forced!
"Skinner would laugh at these nutjobs."
Personally, at the risk of getting seriously flamed, I think it is a combination of respondent conditioning and operant conditioning. And, I believe that there is also a genetic component----not a specific gene, but characteristics that interact with a person's environment (yes, being ugly is genetic).
I'm saying the vast majority of them lead lives in the same manner as everyone else -- trying to make the most of the hand dealt to them.
I don't know why people act the way they do. There is a book out there called Why They Kill (Richard Rhodes) that discusses one theory in regards to violent criminals. The brain is such a delicate instrument, who can tell what screws up the wiring or the chemistry? But it's a field well worth exploring.
"It is a fetish which yeilds an orgasm. Nothing more nothing less. The weird becoming erotic and a fixation."
See respondent conditioning.
"trying to make the most of the hand dealt to them."
they chose. No one forced them to be homosexuals.
I think the gene we all share to some extent is the gene that makes us ethically lazy and compels us to avoid responsability for our own actions. It's only the creativity and courage with which we strive to overcome our earthbound nature that makes us true humans. Stuff like the god gene and the gay gene and the obesity gene are just ways for setting ourselves up with an excuse to fail.
Why do people choose to rob banks when they know that will make their lives "...markedly more difficult"?
Why do some people choose to cheat on school tests when they know if they get caught it will make their lives "...markedly more difficult."?
Why do people choose to do all sorts of things that they know will eventually make their lives more difficult?
Because "A gene made me do it"? No, because they are weak and made a bad choice.
So, by that logic -- anyone can decide they want to be gay? Some guy comes home from a bad date and says, "This whole woman thing isn't working out, I think I'll turn gay." And the next day he's gay. I don't buy that.
This guy's gay gene theory is not being taken as seriously as it had been so he has to come up with something new and shocking to get his name back in the news.
Letters after one's name no longer has the credibility associated with it as it once had, and that's probably a good thing.
"Why do people choose to rob banks when they know that will make their lives "...markedly more difficult"?"
Robbing banks does NOT make the lives of the robbers more dificult, on the contray, it makes their lives much easier with the money they robbed.
This is scientific research, it's not written in stone. The guy publishes a paper about god genes or gay genes and some other guy reads the paper and does his own research. He finds it's a gene combined with specific neural pathways and he writes a paper. Some other guy reads the paper and finds, yeah, its a gene with specific neural pathways and certain kinds of conditioning, and he writes a paper...that's the way science progresses.
"So, by that logic -- anyone can decide they want to be gay?"
No. You don't choose happiness. If you look for happiness you won't find it; if you look for God you will find happiness.
OTOH, homosexuals do choose to be homos.
"Yes, that's the gist of it. Over 20 years after Dawkins proposed the idea of memes (curiously "me-me"s) they are treated as concrete entities, instead of what they really are--the leftover crumbles of behaviorism."
I am familiar with it. This theory is not the stuff of behaviorism, however. Someone who posits this theory may say that there is evidence in Skinner's theory on verbal behavior----not exactly a hallmark of contemporary behavior analysis (although you will see some behavior analysts go for the throat while debating Skinner's Verbal Behavior, which can be quite entertaining, by the way), but I wouldn't attribute it to either operant theory or classical conditioning as any behavior analyst/operant theorists would run like hell from any theory on memes.