That’s fine.
Well, supernatural things do not exist in reality. Genetics and morality do.
genes play a role in male sexual orientation. Do you read the shit you are citing? Genes play a role in everything. Whether or not certain genes activate is another story.
Conclusion:"
We detected several promising regions of multiple That is the same thing as saying “Inconclusive, more research needed, someone look over here.” The time to believe a claim, is when it has been demonstrated. You’ve got NOTHING!
Gene families, such as the SLITRK family that are important for neurodevelopment and are implicated as candidate genes for various neuropsychiatric phenotypes34, are also of potential relevance* to behavioral phenotypes such as sexual orientation.
Get back to me when you know something.
The authors49 speculate on the possibility that a genetic (or other prenatal) factor* might tie together this increased risk for a type of hyperthyroidism (Graves’ disease) with separate observations of lower body weight for homosexual versus heterosexual men (independent of diet or exercise) speculate really
*** the current study’s top two association peaks (p < 10−5; Fig. 1) provide interesting and perhaps trait-relevant examples of their closest genes on chromosomes 13 (SLITRK6 ) and 14 (TSHR ), though these potential connections are best characterized as speculative.***
WOW are you a goof ball or what?
My point is that just like a theist, you come in with unproven theories and attempt to assemble a half-baked conclusion and then state it as a hard fact.
Theories? Unevidenced guesswork and assertions. Nothing more. Not even close to a theory. He has a gene of the gaps assertion and absolutely nothing beyond that.
Look at the genes, They created morality. The Christian equivalent is "Look at the trees, Therefore a god controls everything. Total and complete bullshit.
2 Likes
From an Anthropology point of view, humans did create the concept of morality and we did insert it into religion. That’s not claiming it’s “genetic”. There is an article discussing how Homo Erectus was the first archaic human theorized to be able to demonstrate morality as a survival method and then it developed more in Neanderthals and obviously Homo Sapiens later on have adapted it to the morals we’re held accountable by today.
Christopher Boehm, an evolutionary anthropologist, is the director of the Jane Goodall Research Center at the University of Southern California. For 40 years, he has observed primates and studied different human cultures to understand social and moral behavior. In his new book, Moral Origins , Boehm speculates that human morality emerged along with big game hunting. When hunter-gatherers formed groups, he explains, survival essentially boiled down to one key tenet—cooperate, or die.
2 Likes
Yes, however, on this site, if it doesn’t have direct correlation, it is useless. Attached is a good read:
I can’t accept that morals are gene based. Genes are either you have that gene or you don’t. So how could one do both moral and immoral things if you only have one gene? Serial killers have extreme separation of morals. Some living two separate lives, one as a moral average citizen and one as an immoral rapist murderer. We don’t even fully understand how genes work, or even how or when certain genes turn on and off. Some genes activate at age 1 and some at age who knows. Last I read up on it there are genes that scientists still have never actually documented when or how they turn on. I don’t see how genes could possibly account for morals. Genes don’t actively think, genes just throw up a physical form that they are pre instructed to do. Then it’s all down to how do the outside odds favor these physical formations? Much like a plant seed doesn’t choose where it is deposited, neither do genes. So how do genes react to outside forces, heat, cold, nutrition, activity, etc? We know they are activated by multiple stimuli, some activated by certain levels of chemicals or molecules in the body from specific organs.
The brain is certainly formed based on genes, but not directed by genes. The brain is affected by many chemicals, some induced by the body and some induced by outside influence. Drinking, nutrition, radiation, even radio frequencies, etc. Hell even artificial fragrances affect hormones, and hormones are part of how the brain senses the world. There is no way to pin morality to genes alone. Sure they may have some influence, but that influence isn’t a direction left or right, it’s a spectrum of influence.
2 Likes
I disagree. If one utters a powerful proposition, to the extent it is stated as fact, they better be ready to offer HARD proof it is a fact. Not that one day it may be confirmed.
FYI my wife has a PhD in Abnormal Psychology and 2 masters in associated fields. I discussed this topic with her and she is adamant that behavior (morals) are determined by environment.
A search of these buzzwords did not yield anything. But an associated paper that did study twins and other siblings …
concludes …
“Your genes are not totally deterministic of who you are,” Ramos said. “Genes simply give you a potential. People still make their own choices and have agency in shaping who they become.”
I agree…I am not sure anything attributed to specific genes is in whole determinant of what it is associated with. For example emotions show origination in the amygdala, but pass through the prefrontal cortex prior to action or reaction…two different locus of neurons for one emotional signal.
I understand…my hypothesis/belief may or may not come to fruition with hard empirical or objective evidence…but that does not preclude myself, or others, who are doing research, from pursuing these thoughts. It makes sense that moral precepts/genetic predisposition are housed in the same decision making area of the anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex…I fail to see what is so outlandish of positing that neurochemical precepts may be housed in said area, especially considering the main foundations of morality appear in infancy and early childhood. I appreciate you responses, you seem a rational person…I am not trying to convince you of anything. Like I previously stated to you, I am perfectly fine that you do not agree with me…or think I am irrational…that is your stance, I understand.
@Scruffy It seems to me that researchers have decided to pursue an area of research with a goal in mind, to link morality with genetics. Is that truly good science?
1 Like
Discovery starts with an idea. Again, in this case, the idea, is not outlandish, unethical or have malicious intent…it is solely for discovery of objective truth. If there were not precursors suggesting genetic association, there would likely be no, or very little research interest…but there is.
Unfortunately it’s bad science when you fervently try to stretch the findings. Then find caveats in the “research”. There is no caveat in a scientific analysis of some hard measurable data that can be retested again and again with the same results. Skewing the optics on data with pre-qualifiers to make your outlook more favorable is not scientific. It is manipulative and presumptive. Science is open to be dead wrong with zero bias. PROOF before statement of fact.
2 Likes
Hard measurable data has been retested again and again with the same results, and those results show, as I have mentioned previously, correlations are stronger between twins than between siblings, and serves as objective evidence for genetic moral influence, since twins share all their genes and siblings only 50%. Is this a stretch, to consider further research?
I am sorry, it was not my intent to high-jack your thread.
The only confirmation on this finding is that twins are more identical than others. You are injecting morals into this. We deal with this same effect from theists. For example, there is a Mount Sinai, therefore god.
One must provide a link between similar behavior and morals.
Moral behavior exists in thousands of species on this planet. Elephants, monkeys, dolphins, dogs, THOUSANDS! Are you really that frigging .
One of my favorites is the study on bats that cheat. Bats go out and suck the blood of cows. Not every bat gets lucky on every night. So, they will regurgitate food to roost-mates that fail to feed. Occasionally, a bat will get sly and cheat. It will puff its cheeks up with air and only pretend to feed its roost mates. When the bat is discovered, it is attacked. Altruism in bats. (That translates into MORAL BEHAVIOR) The idea that humans created it is inane.
Humans created the ‘Concept.’ Weasley language! The concept being an abstract idea; a general notion. Yea, we coded the behavior by calling it something, ‘mortal.’ That in no way suggests we invented the behavior or are the only species on the planet to exhibit the behavior. ALL SOCIAL SPECIES EXHIBIT TRAITS OF MORALITY. We just happen to language our traits.
David, This guy can not be for real. No one is this obtuse, I smell a troll.
2 Likes
There is also interest in “Surveillance Cats” The CIA dumped millions of dollars into the study of implanting cats with surveillance equipment in the hopes they could walk past security and into top secret Russian meetings.
During the Cold War, Cold War. The Air Force even tried to test for extrasensory perception. Billions have been spent on ESP research by the government and nothing to show for it.
Here are some other great studies. If you don’t see the sarcasm you are dumber than I think you are:
Study shows beneficial effect of electric fans in extreme heat and humidity:
Study shows benefit of higher quality screening colonoscopies:
** Holding on to the blues: Depressed individuals may fail to decrease sadness: This one apparently came as news to the folks at the Association for Psychological Science and they’ve got the body of work to stand behind their findings. They’re surely the same scientists who discovered that short people often fail to increase inches, grouchy people don’t have enough niceness and folks who wear dentures have done a terrible job of hanging onto their teeth. The depression findings in particular are good news, pointing to exciting new treatments based on the venerable “Turn that frown upside down” method. **
Quitting smoking after heart attack reduces chest pain, improves quality of life:
Older workers bring valuable knowledge to the job:
Being homeless is bad for your health:
Statistical analysis reveals Mexican drug war increased homicide rates:
And the stupidity rages on… The fact that someone did a study on something does not mean that thing that was studied had any value at all.
3 Likes
No wonder Bruce Wayne picked bats for his symbol.
1 Like