Science seems to be narrowing in on the cause(s) of homosexuality, and I'm curious what others think of this research study.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/...igin=JSTOR-pdf

A decent article summarizing it here:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...people-are-gay

From the article:
Can somebody explain what is meant by the bolded? They lost me there. How is the father protected from underexposure to testosterone?

Their model is that males express genes in a way that makes them more sensitive to testosterone and females express genes in a way that make them less sensitive, and when this gets backwards- the father of a girl occasionally passing his male version to a girl- that development is affected and the girl is somewhat masculinized. But it was good for the father to be sensitive to testosterone so he didn't get feminized if testosterone were randomly lower than normal.

Basically if guys can effectively double T, and girls can effectively halve it, then there can be a wider range of prenatal T, with some girls even being exposed to more than some boys (which seems to be true), without creating a bunch of guys with snatches or chicks with dicks.

Epigenetics and epi-marks refer to chemicals that affect gene expression by binding do DNA without changing the DNA sequence, and these changes can be inherited. This is remarkable because it means that Lamarck wasn't so far off. He was the guy that thought giraffes have long necks because they stretch for leaves, and then they pass that on to their offspring. While that particular example may or may not pan out, examples of Lamarckism do occur. The cited article suggests that chemical changes controlling sensitivity to testosterone can benefit either parent, but create homosexuality when they bind to DNA in sperm and egg cells which are then passed to offspring of the opposite sex. But here's a much more shocking example:

"One study indicates that traumatic experiences can produce fearful memories which are passed to future generations via epigenetics. A study carried out on mice in 2013 found that mice could produce offspring which had an aversion to certain items which had been the source of negative experiences for their ancestors.[92][93] Reports stated that:

For the study, author Brian Dias and co-author Kerry Ressler trained mice, using foot shocks, to fear an odour that resembles cherry blossoms. Later, they tested the extent to which the animals' offspring startled when exposed to the same smell. The younger generation had not even been conceived when their fathers underwent the training, and had never smelt the odour before the experiment.

The offspring of trained mice were "able to detect and respond to far less amounts of odour... suggesting they are more sensitive" to it, Ressler told AFP of the findings published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.They did not react the same way to other odours, and compared to the offspring of non-trained mice, their reaction to the cherry blossom whiff was about 200 percent stronger, he said.

The scientists then looked at a gene, M71, that governs the functioning of an odour receptor in the nose that responds specifically to the cherry blossom smell. The gene, inherited through the sperm of trained mice, had undergone no change to its DNA encoding, the team found. But the gene did carry epigenetic marks that could alter its behaviour and cause it to be "expressed more" in descendants, said Dias.This in turn caused a physical change in the brains of the trained mice, their sons and grandsons, who all had a larger glomerulus—a section in the olfactory (smell) unit of the brain."

-Epigenetics

This is some real wow stuff imo. How new is this theory/research that I've never heard of it? Epigenics as a whole, not just the OP study. Has the scientific community absorbed and accepted this, or are there still lots of skeptics?

This paper from 1989 says:

"Although it is usually assumed that epigenetic inheritance does not occur between generations, both old and new experimental evidence suggest, and in some cases show explicitly, that epigenetic variations can be transmitted from parents to progeny."

This 2007 paper says:

"Geneticists study the gene; however, for epigeneticists, there is no obvious 'epigene'. Nevertheless, during the past year, more than 2,500 articles, numerous scientific meetings and a new journal were devoted to the subject of epigenetics. It encompasses some of the most exciting contemporary biology and is portrayed by the popular press as a revolutionary new science — an antidote to the idea that we are hard-wired by our genes."


I think it's generally accepted that epigenetic inheritance occurs, and mechanisms which are inheritable and not inheritable have been identified. Of course it's been known even longer that genes can be turned on and off by chemicals that bind to them (proteins, methylazation, etc.), and this has long been cited as a primary mechanism for controlling cellular differentiation or the development of different types of cells despite each cell having the same DNA. Epigenetics sometimes just refers to this differential gene expression rather than epigenetic inheritance from parents to progeny.

Oh boy another homosexuality thread, maybe I can avoid causing discomfort this time. mostly old/common sense or total bull****,

"One study indicates that traumatic experiences can produce fearful memories which are passed to future generations via epigenetics. A study carried out on mice in 2013 found that mice could produce offspring which had an aversion to certain items which had been the source of negative experiences for their ancestors.[92][93] Reports stated that:

Come on now. This only relates to instinctual avoidance of self harm, our palms sweat at great heights for a reason. This does not relate to **** sexuality, except in my own twisted but accurate version of it's cause. Environment is way heavier than upbringing as sexual tastes are largely taught, you won't get people with cigarette fetishes had cigarettes not been socialized. Is it agreed that causes for male **** sexuality is the same as female **** sexuality? I disagree and they should be treated as separate items, the only crossover would be in gender roles. A more feminine self identifying male may have attraction to the male self identifying female...

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the rest of what I quoted? The mice experiment didn't relate to an instinctual avoidance of self harm. The mice developed an aversion to the smell of cherry blossoms after their ancestors (not them) were trained to associate this smell with foot shocks, and their progeny developed a 200% increased sensitivity to this smell and only this smell, not similar smells, and they found epigenetic marks (but not genome changes) that would explain this effect on the olfactory part of the brain. The relation to homosexuality is that the paper the OP cited suggests an epigenetic model for that based on inherited sensitivity (females), or lack of sensitivity (males), to testosterone.

I'll accept a bet on this.

The mice developed an aversion to the smell of cherry blossoms

Sorry but once the most obvious flaws are seen the corruption:validity increases so that other parts do not need addressed within an interpersonal transaction, yes I did read everything. They use the term (and general tone of) suggests and their vulnerability to suggestion is unavoidable- effort wants reward. I need correct data sets to be sure there is a trend, the supply of which would be more 'wow' than the results due to the volume of effort required.

This is only possible if dna in the sexual organs changes due to the footshocks, and so other variables are more of a factor. If this logic is false then we are experiencing a higher order of chaotic magic land than previously thought. The fact it does not work with similar smells, even to a lessor extent, increases the magical aspect. If there is a slight trend it only means that people need to waste some more time waiting for it.

Of course growth in the associated nervous platform will occur in the parent as it is stimulated/galvansied but this going to gametes is where it does not compute. To me this is a dispute between logic and 'bio memory' aspects taught in Hinduism. I believe both in principle.

The scientists then looked at a gene, M71, that governs the functioning of an odour receptor in the nose that responds specifically to the cherry blossom smell. The gene, inherited through the sperm of trained mice, had undergone no change to its DNA encoding, the team found. But the gene did carry epigenetic marks that could alter its behaviour and cause it to be "expressed more" in descendants,

So there needs to be a a microcosmic galvanization somewhere which interacts with gametes. Which brings up more Hinduism with regards to chakras.

I'm interested now I've thought about, just incase it isn't totally stupid, I obviously anticipated things like radiation to be associated with epigenetics from things like cancer but not from galvanisation. Need a 100 studies with various types of 'unpleasant experience'.

Is there a theory on how this process would be possible because it just seems like, ooo an anomaly with many logical flaws. I'll stop there anyway, before someone goes on tilt.

I don't know if I understand a word of what you're saying.

Are you trying to say epigenetics doesn't exist? It's a pretty well established phenomenon. It's not mystical or anything. You can find a lot of information about this online if you were actually interested in being educated.

The mouse experiment findings could just be a result of bad statistics. Here is a comment about them from the Nature News webpage which seems to be borne out by the paper itself:

"The statistical tests in the paper, both for the behavioral measurements as well as for the size of the M71 glomeruli , use as n, number of samples, the number of F1 and F2 individuals. This would be fine if the individuals were actually independent samples. However, they arise from a presumably small number of FO males. The numbers of FO males are not given in the paper. This is a major concern given that there is a lot of variability in the levels of expression of olfactory receptors in these mice that might be inheritable. As an example, for Figure 1a, the authors compared 16 F1-Ace-C57 mice with 13 F1-Home-C57 mice and find a p value of 0.043, with 27 degrees of freedom . But these 29 mice could have been originated from a very small number of FO mice. The actual n that should be used for the statistics in the whole paper are not the individual number of F1 or F2, but it should be the number of founding F0, for both groups. So the actual p values are larger than reported. Without the information about the size of the F0 populations used in each figure panel, it is hard to interpret the results."


On the plus side, they seem to have done this with a couple different groups of mice, and with 2 different odor sources.


"David Sweatt, a neurobiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who was not involved in the work, calls it “the most rigorous and convincing set of studies published to date demonstrating acquired transgenerational epigenetic effects in a laboratory model".

However, Timothy Bestor, a molecular biologist at Columbia University in New York who studies epigenetic modifications, is incredulous. DNA methylation is unlikely to influence the production of the protein that detects acetophenone, he says. Most genes known to be controlled by methylation have these modifications in a region called the promoter, which precedes the gene in the DNA sequence. But the acetophenone-detecting gene does not contain nucleotides in this region that can be methylated, Bestor says. "The claims they make are so extreme they kind of violate the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” he adds."

...

"But how the association of smell with pain influences sperm remains a mystery. Ressler notes that sperm cells themselves express odorant receptor proteins, and that some odorants find their way into the bloodstream, offering a potential mechanism, as do small, blood-borne fragments of RNA known as microRNAs, that control gene expression."

...

"Humans inherit epigenetic alterations that influence behaviour, too, Ressler suspects. A parent’s anxiety, he speculates, could influence later generations through epigenetic modifications to receptors for stress hormones."

-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fearful-memories-passed-down/

epiginetics as a whole is not new, at least not very new. i learned about it in my biology classes i took 11 years ago. all i remember from it was the idea that you can phosphorylate dna and have that phosphorylation be passed on was mentioned.

Madlibs.

I don't think that we need epigenetics to eliminate "zomg, gays aren't possible from a Darwinian perspective."

It is a fairly well-documented phenomenon that not all offspring reproducing isn't a problem unless the competitors can out edge them in reproductive numbers.

It is also fairly well-documented that siblings of gays tend to be more fecund than siblings of non-gays and also single children.

IIRC, you and I agree that there wasn't a choice involved in sexual preference, and lots of people disagreed in a previous thread.

A simple (and humorous) theory arises: What if those of us who don't have a "choice" outcompete at the familial level those that "chose" just because we don't chose? You (as a male gay) take out some of the "yeah, whatever, I chose you" competition who is a bit confused on whether they like pussy or dick, and I am left with less competition.

They're overcompensating.

I just lost a post which countered the tediaty I found within 1 second of reading, Gangsta man just break it down and no I'm not saying that which should be clear if you comprehended each sentence.

Moving on as someone as someone has actually met my line of question somewhere:

"But how the association of smell with pain influences sperm remains a mystery. Ressler notes that sperm cells themselves express odorant receptor proteins, and that some odorants find their way into the bloodstream, offering a potential mechanism, as do small, blood-borne fragments of RNA known as microRNAs, that control gene expression.''

...

Bloodstream bits of debris seems way too crazy, of course epigentics occurs by chance anyway (like this and in other ways) but not on this fine of a level (refer to my prev post). Galvanization patterns in microcosmic chakras is the most obvious reason to me but still somewhat of a total mind****. I would next probably replace the electric shocks with something else and at least expect a reduction in correlation for added merit to this hypothesis.

zzzz offering two sides of an object that does not overtify the covert 'remains a mystery' is pointless... I just want to see and understand the data sets.

I'm not dismissing the idea, as it seems common in other sources and there are for now plausible lines of enquiry into the idea. The study has not much substance though.

Yeah, because non-localized effects of chemicals in the body are unheard of.


Huh? You must not have bought and read the paper or you would know that the expert was referring specifically to the hypomethylation found after training AND in the sperm AND in the next generation (figure 6).


Oh cry me a river you big baby. I hope you or your loved one has to go through the later stages of Huntington's or cancer, or some other horrible disease that could benefit from advances in epigenetic research. Then let's here you whine about these advances requiring some rodents to experience mild discomfort. Animals exist at our pleasure to serve mankind.

Yeah but why can't the experiments be done on cats instead of innocent rodents?

Please follow my clearly explained thread of thought to the end. Again... I said

of course epigentics occurs by chance anyway (like this and in other ways) but not on this fine of a level

for example, similar smells not having any effect is too fine, and this is after it was already established that (doesn't have to be conscious) perversion is certainly causing some extent of bias. That was just one point out of many. I also expect evolution to work in proxies forming differing resolutions. But effects would be slower, further away and more general



If you go back I stated that it was obviously going to occur in the parent. The AND next generation does not compute to me. Although it does a little bit now I have spent time on it. Also I do not have to buy papers, but if I did then the source is liekly some ****ing cowboy hub trying to get some $$ which makes me feel even worse for those rats.


lawl, wtf? I failed in not upsetting someone, and it wasn't even a homosexual hearing their dissonance loop being tugged at. Maybe someone in my future bloodline will benefit from being screened out in the womb and terminated in a zillion years relating to research that was not dependent on this study whatsoever. I just feel sorry for lab rats, like I do caged hens, but I still sin for egocentric ideals such as

Animals exist at our pleasure to serve mankind.

at least I appreciate my luck, you have little emphatic intelligence is all.

Don't be ridiculous.

It nearly doesn't matter what you said. You didn't read the article. You clearly didn't understand it if you did.

Although, I agree that making stuff up is a heck of a lot of fun, this isn't the fiction forum.

Hey, just doing my part to help you out.

No, your posts are not clear at all. This isn't a minor grammar and spelling nit. You combine words in convoluted, nonsensical ways without the proper punctuation so that I'm required to guess at what you're trying to say. And when I do think I know what you mean, it often seems so wrong that I wonder if I deciphered your post correctly.

Take this little piece I quoted. Is tediaty a real word, and what do you mean? Are you saying you only read my post for 1 second, or that it seems I only read your post for 1 second? Are you claiming if I comprehend each sentence, what it would seem you are clearly saying is in fact NOT what you mean? -- that would be a really odd thing to say, but it seems to be clearly what you wrote.

It is greatly appreciated.

I know that you doctoring types don't tend to sit around in parties smoking weed, so your opportunities to do so are limited, but have you ever watched two very very high people talking?

They typically carry on two unrelated conversations (one monologue each punctuated with pauses as they take turns, of course) while saying absolutely nothing and believe that they understand and are understood. It is entertaining (and highly recommended as an activity) to jump in and ask one to explain what the other is talking about as a comprehension check. Even though the comprehension checked person will say something that has nothing to do with what the original speaker said (most likely not even on the same topic), the original speaker will claim that the comprehension checked person is spot on.

Wow, pretty sure epigenetics has been cloaked with an SEP field for some time. I've now stumbled on it twice in separate scientific articles unrelated to my researching this subject.

It's not too fine because there are over 1000 glomeruli in each olfactory bulb which each have receptors for a specific smell, and these can adapt over time, that's the whole point. God man, learn some basic biology before you comment about things you know nothing about. Unless your goal is to look like a complete ignoramus, in which case continue with what you're doing.


LOL, you "established this" by referring to the word "suggesting" in a sentence that read:

"The offspring of trained mice were "able to detect and respond to far less amounts of odour... suggesting they are more sensitive" to it"

Yeah, what a stretch. That's the goddam definition of being more sensitive to it. There's no "suggesting". That's like saying, "You're an idiot, suggesting that you may not be smart."


Yes, Nature magazine is quite the cowboy hub. Of course if you want to save money, you can rent if for $5 for 48 hours from the ReadCube cowboy hub.


No YOU have little empathic intelligence. You want to let millions of humans suffer horrific deaths in order to save a few rodents some minor discomfort. Compared to you, I'm an empathic genius, and you're a goddam MONSTER!

With 8 different topics emerging and trolling to contend with I have to prioritize.

Firstly the trolling.

AS you are constantly stigmatizing my persona which ironically leads to hypocrisy and garbage (following a desire to provide yourself with covert humor), I counter troll just to show how pathetic we are... But I won't give you garbage.

What you say occurs as a constant in any interaction, high or not, but understand that being high is on a spectrum, as is intelligence, as is comprehension. I smoke weed to purposely reduce my intelligence as it lowers the volume of my observable reality, which is over rated and forceful and a source of stress. You can't conceive it may be your head in the clouds, it only takes admittance. The present moment, or rather location, is always behind so I choose to live a future frame of thought, which being high makes easier. I see a bunch of drug addicts in this forum, and delusions of grandeur for science. WW3 happening with nukes requires far less energy and is more likely to occur than some the end game ideas people want to come out of science.

Now to finding the end of the line...

Again, I am not dismissing the idea, I am claiming that galvanization is a huge variable. If it was a foot being cut off, galvanization will still occur as with any sensual nervous function and cause the brain to change, but the electric shot method is hugely significant. The bloodstream debris theory is way more messed up because of how fast the information has crossed generations to such a fine effect as:

there are over 1000 glomeruli in each olfactory bulb which each have receptors for a specific smell, and these can adapt over time, that's the whole point.

Now to look at this

Originally Posted by Mt.FishNoob View Post
for example, similar smells not having any effect is too finep

I am expanding further now, and this reinforces why I need to see the data sets: I do not assume 'cherry blossom smell' to be only made of one code of molecule. But if it is then ok I assumed wrong.

Before I try to get to the point of how galvanism or electrolysis effects material state, and where Hindu language is an interesting reference point, the logic of why it makes more sense won't be extended.

suggesting they are more sensitive" to it"

Yeah, what a stretch. That's the goddam definition of being more sensitive to it. There's no "suggesting". That's like saying, "You're an idiot, suggesting that you may not be smart."


No I believe they meant sensitive across the board, I agree they did not need to write this sentence but it had a purpose in perversion. I need to see the data sets to how they have made this leaps through semantics

able to detect and respond to far less amounts of odour, suggesting more sensitive to it

Warning: This next paragraph makes no sense and is wrong.

Or some parts are less altered by galvanism in all the bodies material. Assuming increased functionality from negative functionality in other areas (potential amounts of gaseous concentration that was not tested or what? data sets) was the purpose of adding the 'suggesting as positive'. Honestly I rarely confused when reading but these writers are just distorted. It is barbaric because in order to progress this line you have to start dipping feet in acid and cutting off tails. There is no selection involved in the process, where are the data sets so that ideas can spread to solve the whole language? I'm not paying for commercial journalism more so than the university pays.

Also you have slipped up greatly, how can you have emphatic intelligence for people in the future who don't exist? That is another kind of intelligence, which I probably do lack in. That intelligence I do not want as it is associated with delusions of grandeur. It's on the same scale as severely torturing a human from birth to death for the sake of saving x amount of lives. Its all about too jesus for me, especially believing the future extent is as great as you claim, so much bias.

I admitted that I eat KFC for egocentric ideals, I am totally barbaric, no big deal admitting it. I'm not a hindu - but hinduism provides alot of definition. Much more than the stoic bandwagon in the things that matter.