Friday, June 03, 2005

Fruity fruit flies?

This morning I was listening to the Imus in the morning show, and they presented a news story that made me blow a gasket. Since I have learned long ago not to believe everything I read, I decided to check this story out myself. I couldn't find anything about it on the internet, until I remembered that Imus gets most of his news stories from the New York Times or the Washington Post. So, I went to New York Times online and there it was. Here are some excerpts:..............When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

One gene, apparently by itself, creates patterns of sexual behavior in fruit flies.
The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.

That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants. "We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.....
The article goes on to explain that this research will go a long way towards establishing that homosexuality is genetic, not a choice. However, something jumped put of me that Imus didn't report. Read for yourself:............
Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."

He added: "I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened."........
This is nothing more than another blatant attempt to convince the public that homosexuality is normal. Many tests and much research has been offered by the scientific community in the past that purportedly supports this theory. But it has one flaw. In every case, the results were later proven to be wrong. Also, in every case, it turned out that the "scientist" making the results public were homosexual themselves. As in this case. Another point I would make here: Why would a scientist even think to perform this experiment? To me, it is obvious. He is trying to prove to the world that he, as well as all other homosexuals were born that way. And, in addition to that, I think he is trying to convince himself. I will go out on a limb here (although a very sturdy limb).I will make 2 predictions right here. Mark my words. Prediction number 1.....More scientist will research this finding and, ultimately conclude that the findings are (1) flawed (2) manipulated,(3)false and/or (4) all of the above.....Prediction number 2...The New York Times will not print the results of the second finding. Look, if you want to be homosexual, fine. Be homosexual. Just don't try to convince normal people that it is genetic. Be honest and admit that you chose your lifestyle, and you weren't born that way. That way, the only person you will have to answer to is your Creator.

14 comments:

Parker Gerkin said...

Freakin awesome. I might not agree with you on some of your opinions, but at least you've thought out your opinions and can back them up with reasons.

the agitator said...

Who the hell are you to question hese people's feelings abou their sexuality? Why would they lie abou not choosing it? You have no basis at all for your assertion that they "chose" their lifestyle.

the agitator said...

1. Sure, one may choose a certain lifestyle, but why do you doubt a person when they said they didn't choose it?

2. Assume that there is a God. How do you know what he/she/it wanted to create?

3. How do you know what you read to be in the Bible is the inerrant word of God? I mean, everyone has seen the email with the shit from Leviticus...am I going to hell for wearing a cotton-poly blend?

4. Even if there is a god, who is perfect, and doesn't like homosexuals, and homosexuals are lying to you and really did chose it, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO JUDGE THEM?

You talk a lot about religious belief, which is clearly motivating this discriminatory animus. Try to understand that it is a belief that that is a pretty loose basis for such discriminatory rhetoric.

Looking at you list of favorite books, its funny to be how you could have such views and still be such a Vonnegut fan.

Mark said...

you ask why would they lie about not choosing it? simple answer to that question: it absolves them of the guilt they feel for having abnormal feelings. It is so much easier to blame their Creator. As the famous athiest, Bertram Russell once said, " I suppose tthe idea of the existence of God interferes with our sexual mores." Basically another way of escaping resposibility for their own actions. As i said in the post. they only have to answer to their Creator.

Mark said...

What basis do you have to believe that the Bible isn't true? There is a lot more scientific proof that it is true than scientific proof that it isn't. In fact, there is no proof that it isn't. And if you assert that only parts of it are true, which parts are true and which parts aren't? Who is the one to decide that? No, if any part of the Bible is inaccurate we can just throw the whole kit and kaboodle out the window and live as we see fit, meaning there is no standard of right and wrong, and thusly nothing to stop me, for instance, from murdering you in cold blood, without fear of retribution. And, I didn't say God doesn't like homosexuals, on the contrary He loves them. They are his creations, but He didn't create them GAY! That goes against His own laws. No, tou will not go to Hell for wearing anything, or not wearing anything. The only thing that sends a person to Hell is the unbelief in God. Gad doesn't send anyone to Hell. We each choose which path we will take after death. All of this boils down to our own choices. God gave us the right to choose what we want to do with our lives. I choose life, What do you choose?

the agitator said...

I guess I just want proof of something before I believe it. You seem to accept lack of proof against it. Even if science did prove some parts of the Bible true, that doesn't logically mean that the whole thing is true.

I all comes back to my first point: religion is pretty metaphysically shaky to base such discrimination.

the agitator said...

and its Bertrand Russell. And you should read his stuff before you make assumptions about the devine. It might be enlightening.

Mark said...

I have not read any Bertrand Russell and i apologize for getting his name wrong. The quote I attrubuted to him came from an interview he once did on a national television program. But i have read the entire Bible through more than once, and even if you are not particuarly religious it is a great read. And you cannot find any errors in it.

the agitator said...

Well, its calculation of the age of the earth is wrong by a factor about 100,000, you've got the dinosaur problem, a guy couldn't live in the belly of a whale, Jesus's message of love and kindness contradicts hundreds of hard-line edicts in the old testament.

And what about this? How many gospels are there? Wrong. Over forty. Only a select few made the Bible. Doesn't that same something?

And still, lack of proof against something doesn't prove it true any more than vague support of some sections proves the entire text inerrant.

Have you fully understood the effect that translation had on the book? Have you done thousands of exigesises to determine the cultural meaning that the Bible's authors would have ascribed to the words? Do you understand the culture of the day at all? Do you recognize that different versions of the modern Bible (which has been amended thousands of times from the original) vary wildly in many important respects?

Can you see that all of these problems make it impossible to trust the veracity of a text?

the agitator said...

Its fine to have faith, but understand that rational argument will never support Biblical literalism. Just admit it and realize that your bias agaist homosexuals is based on a flimsy metaphysical presupposition that the greatest thinkers of the past 2000 years failed to support.

Mark said...

Agitator, Thanks for your comments. I think you will make a fine litigator some day. And, as it has been said, I may not agree with what you say, but i would fight to the death for your right to say it. you have every right to your own beliefs just as i do. you also have the right to be wrong. you certainly have learned your rhetoric well, even if it is predicated on other people's unproven theories. I think it's intersting you brought up the dinosaurs. the Bible mentions them, too. Oh, and as i stated earlier, there is much scientific proof that the Bible is true, and absolutely none that it isn't. That should give you pause for honest reflection. You are a very intelligent person. I've always said you don't have to be smart to be a doctor but you do to be an attorney.

Erudite Redneck said...

Agitastor will NOT make a "fine litigator." Count the "yous" and implied "yous" in his jabs and retorts. He can't seem to stay on subject. All he has done is attack you, without raising much vaunted "evidence" to support himself. I think his fallacy is called "argumentum bullstuffum."

Mark said...

ER: I was trying to be gracious, which is something most libs don't seem to have the capacity to do, especially the ones that think being gay is normal.

Mark said...

I think the key word in this story can be found in the following excerpt:
That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants.
read it carefully...the key word here is "normally". In my opinion, the only way a human or an animal could get the gene that changes them from heterosexual to homosexual is to have them injected into them by scientist. In other words, it DOESN"T OCCURR NATURALLY! homosexuality is not normal if it has to be artificially induced.