Will keep my son hetero.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech....t=faces
My reverse osmosis water filtration system...
Interesting, but the causal chain is unclear. It could be a direct link that can change an existing bird's preference, but that seems unlikely. More likely but just as possible are changes caused during development of the embryo. Or it's also possible based on the way that is written that there's no preference change here at all: that males are pairing up with males only because the females don't want them once they've taken in too much mercury and with no females available to them they pair up with the other available males.
I'd like to see them do further study on individual birds rather than on populations.
Edited By TPRJones on 1291318766
I'd like to see them do further study on individual birds rather than on populations.
Edited By TPRJones on 1291318766
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Well, they already found a gay gene.
And some chemicals can flip bits in DNA.
But I don't actually care much about this subject.... I just liked the idea that people in dirty, pollution filled cities are less likely to reproduce. So it isn't like I am trying to argue. Or even discuss.
Why don't I just shut the hell up, then?
I need a nap.
And some chemicals can flip bits in DNA.
But I don't actually care much about this subject.... I just liked the idea that people in dirty, pollution filled cities are less likely to reproduce. So it isn't like I am trying to argue. Or even discuss.
Why don't I just shut the hell up, then?
I need a nap.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Whoa. Cranky much?
I'm not so sure about the so-called "gay gene". The evidence is not strong and it doesn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint. The best explanation I've heard so far has to do with hormone levels in the mother, and the fact that younger sons in larger families are much more likely to be gay than older sons or only sons. It is presumable that what causes it is either 1) the mother's body gets worn down over time and is less able to provide the proper hormone balance to give a male embryo the right environment to develop "correctly", or 2) there's a genetic mechanism that encourages the mother's system to - in the case of a multitude of offspring - start producing sons less likely to add to the population pressures. The first one is more likely because the second on is not evolutionarily stable, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. Evolution does allow for some pretty unlikely things to happen when looking at short periods of time.
It's still all speculation, of course. But based on the distribution throughout the population it's unlikely to be a simple one-gene "switch" sort of thing. If that were true it would cluster more, and because it leads to drastically reduced numbers of offspring for those with the theoretical gene it would eventually fade out from the population as a whole. It certainly wouldn't be as widespread as it is without a much more complex mechanism as the cause.
This all only applies to men, of course. The nature of homosexuality in women is very different. Which is about all we can say about that based on the information available so far. Which isn't much.
Edited By TPRJones on 1291336308
I'm not so sure about the so-called "gay gene". The evidence is not strong and it doesn't make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint. The best explanation I've heard so far has to do with hormone levels in the mother, and the fact that younger sons in larger families are much more likely to be gay than older sons or only sons. It is presumable that what causes it is either 1) the mother's body gets worn down over time and is less able to provide the proper hormone balance to give a male embryo the right environment to develop "correctly", or 2) there's a genetic mechanism that encourages the mother's system to - in the case of a multitude of offspring - start producing sons less likely to add to the population pressures. The first one is more likely because the second on is not evolutionarily stable, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. Evolution does allow for some pretty unlikely things to happen when looking at short periods of time.
It's still all speculation, of course. But based on the distribution throughout the population it's unlikely to be a simple one-gene "switch" sort of thing. If that were true it would cluster more, and because it leads to drastically reduced numbers of offspring for those with the theoretical gene it would eventually fade out from the population as a whole. It certainly wouldn't be as widespread as it is without a much more complex mechanism as the cause.
This all only applies to men, of course. The nature of homosexuality in women is very different. Which is about all we can say about that based on the information available so far. Which isn't much.
Edited By TPRJones on 1291336308
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Had to study this subject a bit in college bio class.TPRJones wrote:I'm not so sure about the so-called "gay gene".
The funniest thing about the issue is that the gay community is split on the subject. Half of them love the idea of the gay gene because "See, this means we really can't help it." The other half hates the concept because, "Now the republicans think homosexuality is something that needs to be cured."
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Birth rates in first world countries are down, and adoptions of kids from 3rd world countries are up.TPRJones wrote:If that were true it would cluster more, and because it leads to drastically reduced numbers of offspring for those with the theoretical gene it would eventually fade out from the population as a whole.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."