Your way of saying "You are talking utter rubbish" is so much more amusing, though I would suggest a touch less concise!
The tolerant Catholic Church
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Your way of saying "You are talking utter rubbish" is so much more amusing, though I would suggest a touch less concise!
and when have I ever been concise ... that is one post you can't find with any search engine
In reply to the above - for me it matters not the gender. I believe Pinker touches on it in that there is a familiarity concept to something. For example, working in health care you get that used to so many things there is simply no choice but getting used to all kinds of behaviour. There is a hardwired genetic response to "perceived difference" to be acting on it consciously would be one thing to subconsciously obey some instinctive behaviour is another. However, once that "perceived difference" has been potentially negated by personal experience then the you are moving more into conscious choice again.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
All religion belongs in the past. It was a tool to control the stupid masses and served that purpose well but now it is acutally causing more harm than good.
So you didn't understand what I said, yet run off on a tangent accusing me of lying when you have not the slightest clue what I was talking about? That's funny, how about you go to aluni eraity instead and study Genetics rather than asking me to recite stuff that I studied 6 years ago and can barely remember now?
In a nutshell of simplicity -
The human genome has been mapped.
We can compare healthy genomes to unhealthy ones and try to find the cause for a genetic disease
The most obvious genetic diseases to spot are ones with fulll chromosome ommision or duplication
Easy ones to spot after comparing multiple genomes are diseases caused by single gene variation, and this has already been done for most genetic diseases caused by single gene variation.
Both of the above are easy to fix by replacing the unhealthy gene / chromosome with a healthy one in either the male or female gamete, and creating an in vitro fertilization and then placing the zygote back into the womb.
Unfortunately, only about a third of these modified zygotes survive up to gestation, and most will 'die' either in the laboratory process or miscarry.
Well that's lovely why not qualify that be telling people how that works in practice ... you've stated something was simple. Yes it is quite simple in theory - placing it into practice is something else. I just find it illuminating you can state something is simple to do from knowledge gained 6 years ago and yet ICH/Pasteur/J.Hopkins struggle to get this implemented in the real world - so who should we believe?
and by the way Dolly the Sheep doesn't say hi she died a rather nasty and early death from cancer. Which again goes back to the ADA/XSCID thing does it not the mutagenic properties caused by the interference.
I could take several forum members here and surgically suture them together (infact I reckon most of us could do a bit of a botch job on this) however their life span would also be considerably shortened. That's the part you seem to neglect that makes the whole issue rather complicated.
I really wish we still did have a tool to control the stupid masses, this thread would have been two thirds shorter for one.
Did you even read the OP or did you just notice the word Religion and begin to drool ? Thanks for your input though, I'll consider it's nuances and get back to you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2004
- Posts
- 7,018
- Location
- England
Yes re-read OP and I still think the same. what is your point?
Dolly was a clone made from adult sheep DNA. Her lifespan would have been significantly shortened due to significant telomere stretching that would have already taken place after years upon years of DNA replication in an adult sheep.
Creating clones from adult DNA is very inhumane and would be too unethical to carry out in the human species, but replacing a faulty gene with a healthy one in a gamete to eradicate a serious genetic defect and prolong the lifespan of that child would be morally correct and acceptable.
The second part of your post shows me that you have no understanding of morality and ethics in genetics, which again fully proves to me that you definitely have not studied genetics at a university level.
Last edited:
That if the one billion Catholics came in here and said the exact opposite then that would still be pointless.
In terms of relevance, you've added a +1 to the thread and you've informed the forum of this fact. Marvelous. I'm assuming that when voting in elections you also announce to the hall your support for a candidate so that they may all cheer and wave their little flags or something.
I noticed in another thread that someone couldn't even be bothered to add +1, instead they just announced that they liked someone with whom they agreed, possibly a whole new level of passive engagement and thus avoiding even being challenged on their non-existent opinion.
Remembering about my genetics now reminds me that I also learned everything that was known at the time about sexual differentiation, hermaphroditism, and sexuality.
Although sexuality has never, and likely will never be identified as a purely genetic condition, the latest research shows that sexuality and mental gender variation most likely occurs due to hormonal imbalances during gestation, mostly commonly either due to an increased or decreased pressance of male androgens.
The stage of gestation during which the hormonal imbalance occurs is critical in determining whether the variation would affect any of:
- the physical gender
- the mental gender
- sexuality.
Gender development during the first trimester of gestation is not controlled directly by the pressance of either the XX or XY chromosome, but rather by the increased level of androgen production (specifically dihydrotestosterone at this stage) as stimulated by certain genes found on the Y chromosome (sex determining region of the Y chromosome). A complete absence, variation, or deletion of this section of the Y chromatid can lead to XY hermaphrodites or full females with female gonads being born with an XY chromosome. Additon of the sex determinining region of the Y chromosome to an X chromosome can similarly lead to XX males.
Although sexuality has never, and likely will never be identified as a purely genetic condition, the latest research shows that sexuality and mental gender variation most likely occurs due to hormonal imbalances during gestation, mostly commonly either due to an increased or decreased pressance of male androgens.
The stage of gestation during which the hormonal imbalance occurs is critical in determining whether the variation would affect any of:
- the physical gender
- the mental gender
- sexuality.
Gender development during the first trimester of gestation is not controlled directly by the pressance of either the XX or XY chromosome, but rather by the increased level of androgen production (specifically dihydrotestosterone at this stage) as stimulated by certain genes found on the Y chromosome (sex determining region of the Y chromosome). A complete absence, variation, or deletion of this section of the Y chromatid can lead to XY hermaphrodites or full females with female gonads being born with an XY chromosome. Additon of the sex determinining region of the Y chromosome to an X chromosome can similarly lead to XX males.
Last edited:
And yet the same result was found in ADA/XSCID - which you conveniently have ignored every time I have mentioned it.
Except germ line gene therapy is prohibited by law for reasons revolving around the W-barrier amongst others.
Well I'll leave that for everyone else to judge our respective arguments. I think most people here can do a quick wiki on gene therapy and see how your theories stand up to my assertion we have only just had success with one real condition after earlier failures an we have no longtitudinal data on this group yet.
Hermaphroditism is due to fusions of ova what you are on about it most loosely termed as pseudohermaphroditism which covers a broad range of conditions and its theory has to be taken with a pinch of salt due to the prevalence of thought guided by Money.
Right read what you wrote there. So you say it isn't controlled by XX or XY but by the androgen produced on ... wait for it ... the Y chromosome - so it people are made masculine by the ... wait for it ... Y chromosome. So it is dependent on the XY - more specifically, in the main, SPY on the Y.
The keyword that you seemed to miss was direct. The action of gonadal masculinisation is determined by the presence of androgens which inhibit female development and promote male development. The Y chromosome itself does not contain any code for the direct development of male genitalia. In the presence of a Y chromosome but the lack of male androgens, a female child will be born.
Masculinisation of the zygote during the first trimester is an indirect action of the Y chromosome via androgens.
It is theorized, and very well supported by scientific understanding that mental sexuality and in some cases even gender develops entirely separately to the development of the genitalia and occurs at a later stage of gestation.
Last edited:
You said:
And yet it is .. specifically the Y which directly controls it through the action from mostly the SRY region.
wiki said:
Its still an indirect control via hormomes that the SRY section codes for, not a direct physical control.
I dont think you understand the keywords of direct and indirect in my statements, that is not my issue.
If I put food in a microwave, the microwaves directly heat the food up, I indirectly heated the food up by placing it in the microwave.
The Y chromosome releases androgens which inhibit female development and cause male development. The androgens directly lead to male development, the Y chromosome indirectly leads to male development. The mere presence of the Y chromosome is not the direct cause for masculinasation, this comment is very important to describe how simply having XY does not always = Male.
I dont think you understand the keywords of direct and indirect in my statements, that is not my issue.
If I put food in a microwave, the microwaves directly heat the food up, I indirectly heated the food up by placing it in the microwave.
The Y chromosome releases androgens which inhibit female development and cause male development. The androgens directly lead to male development, the Y chromosome indirectly leads to male development. The mere presence of the Y chromosome is not the direct cause for masculinasation, this comment is very important to describe how simply having XY does not always = Male.
Last edited:
Well unfortunately this is direct as it gets in such things - if you mean direct as in does the Y chromosome actually make the structure and start a "spec me a gonad" thread then of course the answer is no.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,634
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Crikey this has really gone well off course now.
What was this thread about?
What was this thread about?
Racism I think.
Genetics? National debt? Rugby? Whenever I get the chance to check back on this thread it seems to have evolved by at least two subjects
Permabanned
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 290
Evil tbh.
Surely the obligation is on those that want to make the change to prove no harm ?
I think it has been covered already, it's making changes to the historical and social concept of family, the ability to produce children is difficult so such partnerships will not be as stable.
Really if I'm objecting as a Christian then it's unfair to expect me to justify it from an Atheists position. I can just say it is wrong according to my beliefs and leave it at that.
That's why I was asking for an actual quote so I could say something, I have no reason to abuse homosexuals and neither does spudbynight
What you will have found were quotes aimed at homosexuality, which is entirely different from saying something about the people themselves, by mixing the two up you are portraying a different picture which is why I asked for proof.
Neither is it a reason to ignore it, Cameron is pretty much the only one who can fix this. Even if he provided asylum to the Iraqi LGBT leader it would help raise awareness, or in fact stop deporting Iraqi gays back to certain torture.
I don't expect politicians to faff about tweaking social laws for the sake of a few thousand people, I expect them to do big things like stop people being killed on a global scale.
Because unlike you they see it as extremely important ? Don't worry, I'm sure they can multi-task.
That works both ways, this being a debate.
I even heard a gay man on the radio commenting that this wasn't a good idea, I guess he must be wrong too ?