Evidence for God from Science

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/68/gay_or_straight

One wonders why this gene hasn't died off yet? Since gays don't usually reproduce, you would think that the number of homosexuals would decrease from generation to generation, not increase.

Up next, they need to find a gene for bisexuality, beastiality, and pedophilia.

You also have to feel sorry for these poor, deceived kids.

puritan lad wrote:http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/68/gay_or_straight

One wonders why this gene hasn't died off yet? Since gays don't usually reproduce, you would think that the number of homosexuals would decrease from generation to generation, not increase.

Up next, they need to find a gene for bisexuality, beastiality, and pedophilia.

You also have to feel sorry for these poor, deceived kids.

One would think as well since the human genome has been fully recorded that one could research on that basis instead of the behavior of rodents.

NOt that I agree with the gay gene but many recessive genes are still in the populations. As long as recessive genes may be carried in an individual along with the dominantly expressed phenotype, then it is entirely possible for the recessive phenotype to be expressed in other generations.

Also, the human genome is ridiculously complex; while they have have translated all of the letters....they have no idea what it all means. We still don't understand what all the genes mean or how they interact. Cannot study genes directly this way.


It is a mighty shame though, that with all of the lack of understanding of genetics still present, that the gay gene is presented as a fact instead of simply a possibility.

Also, any sexual practices studied in animals have no validity from a Christian worldview in justifying our sexual mores. Plenty of weird practices in the animal kingdom that have no bearing whatsoever in what God has gifted us.

And even if there is some validity to genetic responses to the same gender, this does not validate the behavior. Some evidence for genes encoding anger issues in our personality, a propensity for alcoholism, lust, you name it, but no one would (hopefully!) excuse alcoholism becuase of their genes (or claim that it was proper behavior), or justify rape because of overwhelming anger and lust.

Not to mention that we are corrupted from sin...who knows what this means in terms of our genetic makeup.

Good points zoe

An extremely close friend of mine had an abusive childhood and he has grown into the most powerful christian i know. His favorite saying:

"It's not how you're brought up, it's how you come up"

Even if there is a "gay gene", it doesn't mean it is okay. We are all responsible for our behavior, even if some of us have a harder life/situation/gene-makeup than others.

I am curious about one thing.
If there were a 'gay gene'. Would God have been justified in executing the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Forum Monk wrote:I am curious about one thing.
If there were a 'gay gene'. Would God have been justified in executing the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah?

That gets into a discussion of the interation between our sinul nature and our genes. If the entire creation is affected by sin, then that would include our genetic nature as well. WE are still held responsible for our sinful nature despite what our genes are programmed to do. Doesn't this separate us for the animal world? Our free will? Our ability to decide to not do something despite our desires?

For instance, our desires are governed by the chemistry inside us, neurotransmittesr, hormones, and neurological interactions. Think of the attraction between a man and a woman. Governed by hormones, brain chemistry, our senses perceiving the man/woman. We have all heard the arguements that "sex is just a biological urge". Unfortunately, much of the secular world has bought into this with regards to rpomiscuity. Doesn't stop us from establishing what is right and wrong. Biological urges do not make sexual promiscuity morally right.

Or take our desire for food. Clearlyt a natural desire. also clear from some research that some struggle with body chemistry, hormones going haywire.

Rage...anger....clearly a biological response, governed by the production and regulation of hormones and neurotransmitters (genes would produce some of these chemicals, or the enzymes responsible for regulating these chemicals).

However, we are more than the sum of our parts. The "our genes caused us to act this way" leads to a dangerous road. Already we see this with regards to sexual activity.

Whether or not we ultimately find a gene responsible for homosexual attraction, genes do not decide our morality, any more than a propensity towards alcoholism or addictive personalities decide the morality of these activities.

God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for their choices, behaviors, and rebellion.

Many people claim that we cannot be held accountable for our sin because God knew what we would have done, He made us this way, genetic arguements look awfully similar. Neither clear us from our guilt.

I believe you're correct z/g and in agreement with Enigma also. Many children, for example grow up in the worst of conditions, poverty, abuse, etc. but not all will make the choices which lead to crime, prison, or the so-called cycle of abuse.

The same with our natural, biological urges. Not everyone acts out their urges and thank God for that. Still we all know that if homosexuality ultimately is found to have a biological cause, many will say, "its not my fault. God made me that way." Something to ponder I guess.

Forum Monk wrote:I am curious about one thing.
If there were a 'gay gene'. Would God have been justified in executing the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Why not? According to our Calvinist friends he predestines some to damnation and them judges them for it.

Forum Monk wrote:I believe you're correct z/g and in agreement with Enigma also. Many children, for example grow up in the worst of conditions, poverty, abuse, etc. but not all will make the choices which lead to crime, prison, or the so-called cycle of abuse.

The same with our natural, biological urges. Not everyone acts out their urges and thank God for that. Still we all know that if homosexuality ultimately is found to have a biological cause, many will say, "its not my fault. God made me that way." Something to ponder I guess.

It is already creeping in the secular culture in many avenues, not jut homosexuality.

FFC wrote:

Forum Monk wrote:I am curious about one thing.
If there were a 'gay gene'. Would God have been justified in executing the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Why not? According to our Calvinist friends he predestines some to damnation and them judges them for it.

So FFC. Are you saying that the discovery of a "gay gene" refutes libertarian free will and supports the Calvinist view of Proverbs 16:4? Interesting...

puritan lad wrote:

FFC wrote:

Forum Monk wrote:I am curious about one thing.
If there were a 'gay gene'. Would God have been justified in executing the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Why not? According to our Calvinist friends he predestines some to damnation and them judges them for it.

So FFC. Are you saying that the discovery of a "gay gene" refutes libertarian free will and supports the Calvinist view of Proverbs 16:4? Interesting...

No, because we'd still have the choice to act on it or not. Don't we all have the seeds of sin in us since the fall?

puritan lad wrote:http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/68/gay_or_straight

One wonders why this gene hasn't died off yet? Since gays don't usually reproduce, you would think that the number of homosexuals would decrease from generation to generation, not increase.

Why does one wonder why a gene would die off? I think a better understanding of heredity is required here.

Let us use sickle cell anemia as an example. Now in this case a single copy of the gene confers advantages to the individual which possesses it. Two copies leads to a sickly individual.

As we can see here sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder.
It is caused by a single nucleotide polymorphism.
It persists even though it does not confer an advantage.

Now homosexuality is not caused by a single mutation. This is clear from the studies done with twins. However it is also clear that it is not entirely environmental. Also a finding from the same study. More complex interactions leads to the probability that the genes required for this trait are not likely to be removed from the gene pool.

Especially in this case where the trait is only marginally shown to be dependent on genetic makeup.

Thanks BGood,

I'm aware of recessive genes and how they work. The biggest difference here is that those with sickle cell anemia can reproduce, whereas those who are purely homosexual cannot. Therefore, we should see a decrease in homosexuality from generation to generation. We should also be able to look at the family tree of a homosexual as see it full of homosexuals, since both parents would have to be carriers of the gene.

As far as homosexuality being caused by genetics in even a marginal way, that is still very debatable (I would add doubtful.) Furthermore, labeling the one sissy kid a homosexual at such an early age is nothing less then tragic.

puritan lad wrote:Thanks BGood,

I'm aware of recessive genes and how they work. The biggest difference here is that those with sickle cell anemia can reproduce, whereas those who are purely homosexual cannot. Therefore, we should see a decrease in homosexuality from generation to generation. We should also be able to look at the family tree of a homosexual as see it full of homosexuals, since both parents would have to be carriers of the gene.

Your welcome PL.

Whether or not homosexuality has a genetic component or not was not my point.

My point was that the more recessive or complex the the genetic connection the less likely it is to be removed from a population completely.

Therefore IF homosexuality were a case such as above we should not not expect to see a decrease of homosexuality from generation to generation. Nor should we see a family tree full of homosexuals. This can be only expected when a trait is the result of a dominant gene. As we are hypothesising that this trait is not caused by a single gene like sickle cell anemia, how can these conclusions be reached?

If a phenotype is a result of multiple alleles it will be very difficult to determine expected distribution and persistence of a trait.

Here is an example below.
A leads to trait 1.
B leads to trait 2.
C leads to trait 3.
D leads to trait 4.

A combination of A,B,C and D leads to trait 5.

What scenario is required to prevent the combination of these four genes?
Well obviously the removal of either A B C or D will remove this trait.
Lets for simplicity sake hypothesize that each of these genes are one of a pair of alleles.
So each gene responsible for trait 5 also has a corresponding allele sub prime.
A1 for A
B1 for B
C1 for C
D1 for D

Although the combination of A,B,C and D is selected against, the individual genes are not selected against.

Here we see the posibilities below.
A1,B1,C1,D1 normal.
A1,B1,C1,D normal.
A1,B1,C,D1 normal.
A1,B1,C,D normal.

A1,B,C1,D1 normal.
A1,B,C1,D normal.
A1,B,C1,D normal.
A1,B,C,D normal.

A,B1,C1,D1 normal.
A,B1,C1,D normal.
A,B1,C,D1 normal.
A,B1,C,D normal.

A,B,C1,D1 normal.
A,B,C1,D normal.
A,B,C,D1 normal.
A,B,C,D ABNORMAL.

As one can see the required genes in this simplified example pass onto the next generation 7 out of 8 times.

note.
This example of course ignores the fitness of the other 15 combinatons.
Also this example assumes that the abnormal combination will always lead to reproductive failure.

puritan lad wrote:http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/68/gay_or_straight

One wonders why this gene hasn't died off yet? Since gays don't usually reproduce, you would think that the number of homosexuals would decrease from generation to generation, not increase.

Up next, they need to find a gene for bisexuality, beastiality, and pedophilia.

You also have to feel sorry for these poor, deceived kids.

What makes you think gays don't reproduce? Until recently it was highly frowned upon to be gay, and most gays had wives and kids like everybody else. Furthermore, this "gay gene" could be the result of random mutation. Most people with ALS get it from random mutation, not from inheritence (not that I believe being gay is a disease), thus it will likely never "evolve away". Futhermore it has been shown recently that you can cause male fruit flies to court other males by deleting and odor-sensing gene, further proof of the amazing power of neuroscience. But oh, wait, you guys don't think that fruit flies have anything to do with humans. My bad.