Cjunk, I think you may have uncovered an up and coming new media scam. Way to go!

BTW, there's still the f-ing "national IQ" meme to be killed. Some stupidities are being embraced by our side too. A scam's a scam, no matter who its supporters are.

The essay mentions Chrichton's novel, "Next". It was an interesting read, like most all of his works.

Limbaugh once noted, wryly, that the only way to get the left to abandon their secular abortion crusade for abortion was the discovery of the "gay gene". It could open a whole new growth industry for gene therapy treatment.

This branch of science has the opportunity for extreme abuse, as "scientific ethics" takes forever to catch up. And, too, we've seen how objective and reliable scientists and their "ethics" are in the entire AGW debate.

mhb23re at gmail d0t calm

If the learned prof doesnt think that there is a gene for alcoholism,then that prof is sadly mistaken.There is also a gay gene and a gene to like or dislike animals.

"So far," he said, "we've identified ninety-six genes involved in diabetes. We'll undoubtedly find more."
-(from the link)

I'm not ready to dismiss the gene theory completely.

Don't get me wrong;

I'm not saying EVERYthing will someday be explained by genes, but the fact we have not discovered them yet does not mean they do not exist.

Before we had microscope, we could not see microbes.

That did not mean they did not exist.

We do not know everything yet ( and never will in my opinion... even if I'm an Atheist )

If they found 96 genes for diabetes and they are sure they will find more, obviously they will find some other genes about some other things.

so let's not jump to conclusions too fast.

Hate to use such a simple example but why do MOST house cats - despite having been domesticated for thousands of year - still have the predator instinct in them?

It can not be nurture, only possible answer is

nature

in other words : GENES.

So wait before saying the science is settled.

Friend of USA, "a single gene causes a single human behaviorial trait." I think behaviorial might be the key word there.

Some good old mid twentieth century and prior discipline would take care of all this behavioral gene trait bullshit. Surprising how effective a good kick in the ass can be.

"Some good old mid twentieth century and prior discipline would take care of all this behavioral gene trait bullshit. "

So your suggestion is that we go back in time and progress in order to defeat the latest science? OF COURSE genes affect behavior, that is not saying that all behavior is entirely dependent on genes, only that they play a role. This also does not imply that genes are responsible for differences in behavior between individuals, as we share the vast, vast, vast majority of genes...but rather that human behavior in general can be attributed to genes.

I'll probably get yelled at by someone but I don't believe genes control every aspect of our destiny.
There is no gay gene. I can't stress that enough.
I also can't stress enough that if behaviour is solely genetic then there really is no point in schools, laws, ect. We're all going to behave a certain way because our blood compels us to.
That, of course, is nonsense.

They used to call it Sin.

All the guy is saying is that there may never be a single gene found for each behavioural trait, and even that there may never be any single-gene-to-trait pairs. Since everyone seems to want to talk about the "gay" gene, lets look at a simple 3 gene complex. Each gene might code for either assh*le or nice guy and each of us gets a mix of the three. If someone gets 3 a-hole alleles then the guy is a totally unlikable jerk and will never breed. If he gets 3 nice-guy alleles he is very feminine, probably gay, and will never breed. But! If he gets a mix of a-hole and nice-guy he is a decent fellow capable of acting in an aggressive, manly way when necessary. Therefore each gene, both alleles of the genes, may provide some genetic fitness depending on it's relationship to other genes and wouldn't just be bred out as it probably would be if it were simple a single gene.

Marc,

I know we are talking behavior here.

That is why I used the cat behavior example.

If it takes at least 96 genes to cause diabetes, maybe it takes a couple thousands to cause certain behaviors?

Or more precisely make someone more prone to behave some ways than another.

Have any of you ever watched a dog or cat have a litter?

There is always one bigger than the others, and one smaller than the others, there is always one more agressive than the others and one more submissive than the others, and so on and so forth.

Same with humans, your brothers and sister are not like you in every way.

Yet you are raised the same way, in the same environment by the same parents.

Obviously we are born a bit different from each other, and then nurture comes into play to either reinforce this difference or suppress it.

Why must it be either nature OR nurture?

why can't it be a bit of both?

Humans are very complex.

We have a lot to learn and I seriously doubt anyone can say the science is settled either way.

No matter if it is disease genes or behaviorial genes, we still have a lot to learn.

Nature or nurture?

We have been teaching folks to read a phonetic language successfully for millenia....using phonics.....then the BJTs decided and implemented "sight reading" and promptly produced a generation (maybe more) of illiterate obstreperous ignoramous.....(ignorami??)

Same with spare the rod....spoil the child....Doctor Seuse admitted his ideas were a failure.

Yeah a good kick in the butt works well.

This were better when we removed the BJTs by banishment, ostracism, or the gallows. Their removal acted as an example to others.....

Spike said: "If the learned prof doesnt think that there is a gene for alcoholism,then that prof is sadly mistaken.There is also a gay gene and a gene to like or dislike animals."

No spike, there's really, really, really not.

There are however a whole class of people who would very much like to pretend there are such genes. That would be The Ruling Class.

You know how global warming is a snow job? And how gun control is a snow job? This "gene for alcoholism" crap is a snow job. Brought to you by the same cretins who think polar bears are going extinct because of your truck.

You can -really- tell its a snow job when the trolls speak in favor of it. "...human behavior in general can be attributed to genes." Now that's some hard core Lefty propaganda, that is.

"then the BJTs decided and implemented "sight reading" and promptly produced a generation (maybe more) of illiterate obstreperous ignoramous.....(ignorami??)"

Keep my name out your mouth. Your post was utterly worthless and didn't even approach the subject.

"No spike, there's really, really, really not. "

Great argument. Don't work too hard now.

"Brought to you by the same cretins who think polar bears are going extinct because of your truck."

Climate researchers and genetic researchers are the same people? Wow, they must be awfully smart and have an awful lot of time...have they somehow figured out the 36hr day?

""...human behavior in general can be attributed to genes." Now that's some hard core Lefty propaganda, that is."

Ok, what is it then that is responsible for all the behaviors that are common amongst virtually all human beings? Please, explain away genius.

Spike is almost right about an alcoholism gene, but "almost" only sends his logic off the rails. Some population groups, notably Amerind, many east Asian, and perhaps Celtic, are particularly sensitive to alcohol. Cheap dates! But this does not make them alcoholics. That's strictly a life-style choice.

Most lefties are genetics freaks, followed closely with a passion for eugenics. That's why they have a penchant to round groups of people up and murder them in mass. Like the Nazi's practiced, first gas, then Burn The Jews.

"Climate researchers and genetic researchers are the same people?"

Well, of course they are, that describes Dr. Fruitfly Suzuki to a (BJ) T!!!!
His study of fruit flies and his pronouncements on us all being like maggots made him an expert on climate.

I suppose then Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome must be some sort of bizarre urban myth of self mutilation as we now know genes don't influence behavior.

Genes do influence behavior, just not in the highly oversimplified manner that publicity seeking reductionist geneticists imply. If I see a depressed patient whose family history includes alcoholism, numerous suicides, depression and "schizophrenia", there's a good chance that the patient I'm seeing might have bipolar disorder; high enough that I make sure I rule that out before starting an anti-depressant. ADHD is highly heritable and when I see a kid with ADHD (the real thing, not normal masculine behavior that the female teacher can't comprehend), there's a good chance I'll end up diagnosing one of the parents also.

These diseases are genetic and, biological systems being as messy and complex as they are, the effects of a certain gene in a given individual can't be predicted. That's because we're just starting to get a handle on what exactly DNA and RNA are doing and it's likely going to turn out to be nothing like the simple little diagrams in molecular biology textbooks. Statistically, if you were looking for high functioning military recruits you'd likely have a better chance of finding successful soldiers in families who had generations of service in the military rather than in families whose specialty was in the design and hand sewing of dressing gowns.

We've been breeding animals for hundreds of years to get specific desired behavioral traits; no-one seems to talk about a sheep-herding gene though and I doubt we'll find one; we might find some form of molecular processor build out of "junk DNA" that happens to be connected to certain exons that is associated with the trait or even some molecular machinery we haven't discovered yet.

The longer I practice medicine, the more inherited behavioral traits I see. Family environment plays a role also but usually minor. I don't chase after genes though since the heterogeneity in our genetic material is so large that 99% of the times that some researcher publishes a small study connecting a gene to a particular trait you can assume that it's likely BS or a chance finding.

loki
[....Statistically, if you were looking for high functioning military recruits you'd likely have a better chance of finding successful soldiers in families who had generations of service in the military rather than in families whose specialty was in the design and hand sewing of dressing gowns....]

Again a difficult task of identifying nature and nurture.....the sheep-dog thing has considerable merit....Dobermans do make better war dogs than cocker spaniels....

"Well, of course they are, that describes Dr. Fruitfly Suzuki "

Ah, so a single person, Suzuki, is responsible for all of the climate and genetic research in the world? WOW...you are delusional.

loki:

Well discussed. A post to read.

Noel,

Are you disparaging Dr. Suzuki because his experimental work involved fruit flies?

You do realise, that fruit flies, are simply a convenient (and dominant) experimental model (short life cycle, cheap, easily bred/manipulated) to experimental test hypotheses?

Would you have similarly derided Gregor Mendel's (father of genetics) work because his studies of inheritance involved pea plants?

"We've been breeding animals for hundreds of years to get specific desired behavioral traits; no-one seems to talk about a sheep-herding gene though and I doubt we'll find one; we might find some form of molecular processor build out of "junk DNA" that happens to be connected to certain exons that is associated with the trait or even some molecular machinery we haven't discovered yet."

Seems to me that most breed specific dog traits are traits inherent in wolves that have been intensified through selective breeding. This suggests that they are genetic traits, however, since these traits are quite broad, there is likely a large number of genes interacting/responsible for brain development, as such it is unlikely that one could trace these behaviors to any simple genetic mechanism.

For example, scent hounds are the result of selecting individuals with the greatest sense of smell (high scent organ development, high capacity for the brain to decipher each smell), as well as those with a high prey drive (highly developed area in the brain which influences that behavior)...99% + of this is dependent on genetics.

Everything starts at the genetic level, so that a trait may be directly linked to a molecular process or the development of some organ...but it is genetics that determines the molecular process and the development of organs.

Sorry to make this comment in mixed-case black letters, but it seems there's no gene for blue caps...