Scientific Morality

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/Forum46/HTML/000109-3.html
(Originally posted by GoodHeartedChic)
{{“I work (transcribe) for 5 pathologists here in the US and they all say the X Y chromosomes are the factors of being born a male or female. It’s true, that homosexuals are really born that way. They can’t help it. It’s no one’s fault. No one should hate them for being born that way. When my kids grow up, I would hope they wouldn’t turn out to be gay, but if they do, I wouldn’t love them any less, because I know it would be because they couldn’t help it; thats the way their were born. We all start off with X chromosome (XX which is female) and (XY which is male). The SRY gene plays the key step in switching that X to a Y. Some switch totally (men who or not gay) and some still carry the X trait (which might be bi-sexual) and works the same for homosexual woman as well. Besides the male/female traites, rare cases, about 1 in 2,000, are born with both male and female genitals. I’ve seen two babies this year born with both genitals and the Pathologist has to go and get samples to study if they have more female or male traits to determine for the surgeon as to which one to fix.
Their study below is what happens to the X and Y chromosomes during birth.
The complete set of chromosomes in the cells of an organism is its karyotype.
The karyotype of the human female contains 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes:
22 pairs of autosomes
-1 pair of X chromosomes
The karyotype of the human male contains:
the same 22 pairs of autosomes
-one X chromosome
-one Y chromosome
(A gene on the Y chromosome designated SRY is the master switch for making a male.)
What is the evidence?
On very rare occasions aneuploid humans are born with such karyotypes as XXY, XXXY, and even XXXXY. Despite their extra X chromosomes, all these cases are male.
(and thus, they should be female), however, they have a male phenotype. This is because they are transgenic for SRY. Fertilized XX eggs were injected with DNA carrying the SRY gene.
Another rarity: XX humans with testicular tissue because a translocation has placed the SRY gene on one of the X chromosomes
Still another rarity that demonstrates the case: women with an XY karyotype who, despite their Y chromosome, are female because of a destructive mutation in SRY.
The X chromosome carries hundreds of genes but few, if any, of these have anything to do directly with sex. However, the inheritance of these genes follows special rules. These arise because males have only a single X chromosome almost all the genes on the X have no counterpart on the Y; thus any gene on the X, even if recessive in females, will be expressed in males.
Genes inherited in this fashion are described as sex-linked or, more precisely, X-linked.
X-Inactivation
Human females inherit two copies of every gene on the X chromosome, whereas males inherit only one (with 18 exceptions: the 9 pseudoautosomal genes and the 9 “housekeeping” genes found on the Y).
During interphase, chromosomes are too tenuous to be stained and seen by light microscopy. However, a dense, stainable structure, called a Barr body is seen in the interphase nuclei of female mammals. The Barr body is one of the X chromosomes. Its compact appearance reflects its inactivity. So, the cells of females have only one functioning copy of each X-linked gene - the same as males.

X-inactivation occurs early in embryonic development. In a given cell, which of a female’s X chromosomes becomes inactivated and converted into a Barr body is a matter of chance. After inactivation has occurred, all the descendants of that cell will have the same chromosome inactivated. The X-inactivation creates clones with differing effective gene content. An organism whose cells vary in effective gene content and hence in the expression of a trait, is called a genetic mosaic.
Mechanism of X-inactivation
Inactivation of an X chromosome requires a gene on that chromosome called XIST.
XIST encodes a large molecule of RNA. XIST RNA accumulates along the X chromosome containing the active XIST gene and proceeds to inactivate all, or almost all of the other hundreds of genes on that chromosome.
XIST RNA does not travel over to any other X chromosome in the nucleus.
Barr bodies are inactive X chromosomes “painted” with XIST RNA.
During the first steps of embryonic development of the female, the XIST locus on each of her two X chromosomes is expressed but the XIST RNA is quickly broken down. Then something happens to tip the balance in favor of one or the other of the X chromosomes. Transcription continues on one of the X chromosomes, leading to an accumulation of XIST RNA and converting that chromosome into an inactive Barr body.
Transcription of XIST ceases on the other X chromosome allowing all of its hundreds of other genes to be expressed. The shut-down of the XIST locus on the active X chromosome is done by methylating XIST regulatory sequences. DNA methylation usually results in gene repression so methylation permanently blocks XIST expression and permits the continued expression of all the other X-linked genes.
X-inactivation in the female embryo appears to be entirely random. There is no predicting whether it will be the maternal X or the paternal X that is inactivated in a given cell. But that is not the case for her extraembryonic membranes (that go on to form the amnion, placenta, and umbilical cord). In all the cells of the extraembryonic membranes, it is father’s X chromosome that is inactivated.
Some genes on the X chromosome escape inactivation.

X-Chromosome Abnormalities:
People are sometimes found with abnormal numbers of X chromosomes. Unlike most cases of aneuploidy, which are lethal, the phenotypic effects of aneuploidy of the X chromosome are usually not severe. Examples:
Turner’s syndrome: females with but a single X chromosome. The phenotypic effect is mild because their cells have a single functioning X chromosome like those of XX females. Number of Barr bodies = zero.
XXX, XXXX, XXXXX karyotypes: all females with mild phenotypic effects because in each cell all the extra X chromosomes are inactivated. Number of Barr bodies = number of X chromosomes minus one.
Klinefelter’s syndrome: people with XXY or XXXY karyotypes are males (because of their Y chromosome). But again, the phenotypic effects of the extra X chromosomes are mild because, just as in females, the extra Xs are inactivated and converted into Barr bodies.
I hope this helps you guys understand. I transcribe daily and it makes sense to me working in Pathology. Really, these people, I’m sure didn’t ask to be born that way, but by chance, their chromosome makeup didn’t switch over. It’s not their fault; nor anyone elses; it’s the way they were born.”}}

I find the above claims of GHC to be highly irresponsible and very dangerous.

She claims to give “scientific” data to justify and conclude the supposedly pre – destined sexuality of individuals. I would like to remind her and other liberals that it was exactly this kind of mentality of the late 19th and early 20th century scientists who came up with “ scientific research” (biological, psychological etc data) to “prove” the superiority of the Pure White Race (if there is such a thing!), above all other races, that gave credence to Hitler’s policy of “Survival of the Fittest” (his primary aim was to produce a “pure” society, so went all the disabled, non – whites and Jews etc.).

So – called research has also proven that people who murder and commit crimes in general have “defective” genes and since more males than females commit criminal acts, I suppose we can blame the Y – chromosome and hence conclude (according to GHC’s logic) that due to it being a genetic cause, which is supposed to be inherent, that all males are pre – programmed criminals!!

On the flip side, it may be proven that genes are able to mutate or change DUE to our thoughts and actions (just like the lines of the hand change subtly to reflect changes in emotions, etc,) (action – reaction theory). Nothing is conclusive to the exclusion of any other principle.

It is interesting to note that religion / religious logic is questioned so very rigorously (as it should be, for blind faith does no justice to religion), by the very people who accept liberal and secular values, backed up by so – called scientific reasoning, which has yet to prove itself, without any hesitation…I have to say that the secular, liberal people are the most Fundamentally Religious people I have ever known!!


~@~Kul de Khair Mangdi~@~

Freedom Without Responsibility is Disastrous

[This message has been edited by Khairun Nisa (edited November 28, 2001).]

Homosexuals are in the Bible. They go way back. Can you explain why someone is born like that. Why do you think some men are on the feminine side and women masculine side? People are born defected whether it be their Genes, extra fingers, toes, etc. What would be the case of twins attached at the brain-head, chest-heart. They share organs, was that meant to be or mere defection? It works the same as Genes and chromosomes. What would be your theory on homosexuals? Can they help it or not? Were they born that way or chose that way? Babies have been born with both genitals, now is that a normal process; should we leave them be or was it a defection?

**Note

No need to quote the whole post just to reply.**

[This message has been edited by X 1 (edited November 28, 2001).]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by GoodHeartedChic:
**
Homosexuals are in the Bible. They go way back. **

Please Note: They go way back than biblical times too – Lot was a contemporary of Abraham who was an Ancient Babylonian, WAYY b4 biblical times (probably a millenia or so)!! But what point are you making with this statement? Murderers also go wayy back, remember Cain & Abel Story?!

*Can you explain why someone is born like that. *

Please Note again, Nobody is born "like that", u haven’t provided Evidence to state that they are born like that…what you have actually proven is that there is NO link between homosexuality and genes. I will accept your theory that "people with homosexual tendancies are born like that" if you can explain to me why murderers are "born like that" (if u can say that homos r genetically like that, why can't i say criminals r genetically that?), why paedophiles r born "like that", why any other not normal person is "born like that"…and if you PROVE that, then why do we discriminate against murderers, paedophiles and prostitutes…they should be given the FREEDOM to do as they like, coz’ they’re only born like that…they can’t help it!!! Gosh!

Why do you think some men are on the feminine side and women masculine side?

This has Nothing to do with homosexuality…these are arbitrary characteristics determined by the society one lives in…in some cultures it is acceptable for man to cry and show emotion (generally thought to be feminine characteristics) whereas in other societies it is not acceptable, but THAT character in itself does NOT make this person a female and similarly NOR does it make him a homosexual. The appearance of these characters in homosexual "couples", again proves the IMBALANCED and IMPROPER nature of this act, for one (in the relationship) will always exhibit "masculine" and characteristics and the other exhibits "feminine" characteristics!

** Was that meant to be? **

This is the root difference between my way of thinking and yours. And I suppose you have your answers (although i will publish a detailed analysis later)!


~@~Kul de Khair Mangdi~@~

Freedom Without Responsibility is Disasterous

**
It's true, that homosexuals are really born that way. They can't help it. It's no one's fault. No one should hate them for being born that way. **

What EXACTLY is the genetic difference between Homosexuals (H/m) and Heterosexuals (H/t) to prove that H/m is caused by genetics; Male h/t and h/m BOTH have XY chromosomes and likewise female H/m and H/t BOTH have XX chromosomes...where is the FUNDAMENTAL genetic difference?!

You have shown that there are vast differences where people, have xxy, xxx etc chromosomes. Why aren't these GENETIC differences found in Homosexuals...?

Y chromosome carries male traits, and X carries female traits – that is limited to physical aspect, i.e reproductive organs etc. …According to you…..logically speaking, homosexual men should have at least breasts (to say the least), and female genitals and conversely same should apply to female (homo's) too. But that DOESN’T happen. Why?? Its because there is NO GENETIC difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

** Besides the male/female traites, rare cases, about 1 in 2,000, are born with both male and female genitals. I've seen two babies this year born with both genitals and the Pathologist has to go and get samples to study if they have more female or male traits to determine for the surgeon as to which one to fix. **

Note Keyword = RARE cases…which AGAIN do not prove Homosexuality, only that abnormalities do occur, however, these r called mutants / mutations!!

** However, the inheritance of these genes follows special rules. These arise because males have only a single X chromosome almost all the genes on the X have no counterpart on the Y; thus any gene on the X, even if recessive in females, will be expressed in males.**

The above Doesn’t have anything to with h/m, as you yourself have said (below) that ppl with xxy are MALES and I very much doubt it can be proven these ppl have H/m tendencies:

** (On very rare occasions aneuploid humans are born with such karyotypes as XXY, XXXY, and even XXXXY. Despite their extra X chromosomes, all these cases are male.
(and thus, they should be female), however, they have a male phenotype **

There is excellent general info. for the budding geneticist, but no Evidence to support your claim.

Also very interesting to know, where we are not sure of methods or processes, the key words become: matter not understood, process due to CHANCE, "something" happens, action which appears to be RANDOM.

{BTW, people who suffer from Down's, Turner's or Kleinfelter's syndrome have REMARKABLE change in appearence, physical and sexual due to change in just a single gene, (again whereas Homo's don't...my point being that if there were genetical differences between homo's and hetero's, the differences would have show physically too!)}

But the reason I posted this as a new post was to highlight the fact the you cannot be so irresponsible to post something and without backing it up with any EVIDENCE, you cannot so finally and conclusively say this is the way it is…its called misleading ppl.
What knowledge we do have is hardly substantial and we cannot be certain, what is certain though is how much we DON’T know…
All that Science and research can give us is an understanding of the methods for already existing processes, many of which are debatable…what it cannot do is tell us "why"? That is explained thro' rhetoric, reasoning and theory.

For me, once I have logically and rhetorically, without a doubt “proved” to myself that yes indeed there is a Creator, I have no need to doubt what He says, because I have Proved all the Why’s.


~@~Kul de Khair Mangdi~@~

Freedom Without Responsibility is Disasterous

Here is an article to support claims of “morality vs science”
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Beckwith-genetics.html

Harvard biochemist Jonathan Beckwith says genes, social policy a dangerous mix
April 7, 1995
By Mike Wooldridge, [email protected]
There is no place for nature-versus-nurture research in decisions about social policy, Harvard biochemist Jonathan Beckwith told a capacity crowd in the Bldg. 50 Auditorium last week. The scientific evidence linking our genes to our behavior is too weak, and the potential for serious social consequences too great.

Yet that is exactly what is happening with books such as the recent bestseller “The Bell Curve,” he said, which argues that, because intelligence is inherited, programs such as welfare are doomed to failure.

Such accounts misrepresent the connection science has found between genes and behavior, he said. They lead to inaccurate stories about biological determinism in the media, and provide dangerous ammunition for those using genes-as-destiny arguments to curb social programs.

Beckwith, a member of the DOE/National Institutes of Health Human Genome Project’s Working Group on Ethical, Legal and Social Issues, was invited by LBL’s Human Genome Program to give the talk on March 28.

The biotechnology revolution, he said, puts human behavioral genetics in a vulnerable position. “The tremendous advances in genetics, and the existence of things such as the Human Genome Project, creates an environment where extreme claims about genetics and behavior might be accepted,” he said.

The media’s fascination with genetic explanations for how we act means researchers have to be on their guard, he said. “Geneticists must take care in publishing and talking about their work, and word their conclusions carefully. A single sentence in a paper can have a tremendous impact.”

Beckwith emphasized that he isn’t arguing for science to stop examining the role genes play in behavior. He said there are instances where good science has yielded important facts about genetic links, for example with mental illnesses such as manic depression and Tourette’s syndrome. But it has been with studies of traits such as intelligence, aggression, and criminality–where evidence has been much less convincing–that genetics has had a tremendous social impact.

Beckwith cited studies in the late 1960s that linked the I.Q. test score gap to race, and studies in the 1980s that linked math ability to gender. The flurry of articles in the popular press that often follow the publication of such research often exaggerates the gene-behavior connection, he said. Displaying a Newsweek article entitled “Born Dumb” about genes, intelligence, and education, he asked, “What kind of effect do you think that has on a student who reads it?”

He also cited as a recent example “The Bell Curve,” in which, he said, the authors misuse the same types of studies to make sweeping claims about social policy. The book’s authors begin with the premise that intelligence is mostly inherited, and go on to conclude that the I.Q. score gap they see between upper and lower classes in society is practically unchangeable. They recommend that social programs be re-evaluated in this light.

“The Bell Curve” authors rely on evidence from genetic studies of families, Beckwith said, such as those charting the development of twins as compared to normal siblings. Because of the complexity of our environment, he said, family studies are no sure measure of the extent to which genes determine our behavioral fates. Such complex, long-term studies are also of limited use, since other researchers cannot accurately repeat them.

Beckwith said he is optimistic that with geneticists now focusing on recombinant DNA techniques to match genes with traits, studies of genes and behavior will be more sound. Unlike generation-long studies of families, scientific peers can easily repeat genetic comparisons in test tubes.

He warned, however, that there will always to be the issue of personal bias in a science as politically charged as human behavioral genetics. He cited several recent high-profile studies that linked genes to homosexuality. Some authors of the studies, he said, have admitted to having a strong political agenda–linking sexual preference to biology, the authors hoped, might provide evidence for fighting discrimination.

Scientists can never completely separate personal bias–noble as it may be–from research like this, he said. “The best we can do is be aware of our biases and be open about them.”


~@~Kul de Khair Mangdi~@~

Freedom Without Responsibility is Disasterous

Kitna mukhtasir likhti hai aap KHairun Nisa.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif


The world is not enuf!

Khanzada, anything to remove misunderstandings, and yes mukhtasir is the best way, i just got a bit carried away.

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

We often forget that science is not neutral and is politically biased in favour of or against a particular politial, religious or cultural mindset.
Witnesss the latest furore on genetically modified embryos where the claims far outstrip the reality. But money is there to be made by anyone who knows how to manipulate the media... and people who don't read the fine print.
So I have great doubts about the scientific validity of a genetic basis for homosexuality.

I agree with Khairun Nisa & Shirin

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/ok.gif

First not all gay lesbians dont have abnormality of xy chromosome.Just finding a disease model & put all of them into that without individual genetic test is tantamount to NONSENSE (or better still NONSCIENCE)

Many times these kind of argument is for “layman” in home journal or Play boy or Harpers Bazar ,& people dont read them analytically ,logically or even have the knowledge to do that

Recently there is unnecessary MEDICALIZATION of many social disease or weakneses

thief =Kleptominiac

arsonist =pyrominiac

rapist =sex obsessed

now sexual deviants are homo gay ,beastiality ,sex is oral rectal ******l & much much more

BASIC FACT IN ALL RELIGION IS SEX IS MEANS OF REPRODUCTION & SOME PLEASURE ASSOCIATED WITH IT IS NOT TABOO.BUT TO RELEGATE THE REPRODUCTIVE ANATOMY AS REDUNDANT TO SEX ,IS LIKE FEEDING THROUGH I.V. Or Gastrostomy tube OR N.G. Tube INSTEAD OF NORMAL INTENDED MOUTH.All possible & wont kill you ,but not nATURAL!

There should be provision for diseased or defective developmentally individuals or invalid .I dont think any religion punish handicapped for his handicaps but to invent handicap by saying i dont like roza so im not going to do it ,or namaz or koran then soon we wont have any discipline.