Like I said in your wall, smaller personality traits are easily coded by DNA. That's because of DNA fingerprinting, that happens during the fusion of both haploid zygotes in the first days of fertilization. 

This DNA fingerprinting randomly methylates certain genomic areas, while keeping other areas unmethylated. When a DNA area is methylated, it cannot be coded by DNA polymerase, thus that trait never appears in protein expression, while if the area is unmethylated, it can be expressed. 

Given that also during this process of DNA fingerprinting, homologous recombination of the zygote aleli happens, there's always an extremely high probability of new traits being formed during this recombination (the recombination rate is 2^38, for non-methylated DNA).

That's why some traits of "personality" are coded by DNA, but it doesn't code for complex traits like if a person is wise or pre-disposed to idiocy. That's due to personal experience and environmental effects.

I'm amazed at your unwillingness of showing how much you actually know about genetics without quoting random links that any 15-year old could get out of the internet. 

Then again, i'm not expecting much.

My 9th grade biology only goes so far!

Hmmm. So would a pre-disposition to say happiness or anger be able to be expressed? How simplistic are these traits?

Oh, I see. Finding any would be almost impossible wit the search function broken.

Why don't you go reply to lestatdark and strut your stuff, then. I'd love to hear how you think homophobia is a minor trait of one's personality and not societal. You said you wer eager to prove you knew more about this than him - hop to it!

Those are viable traits to be coded by DNA, to some extent. Some hormones like Serotonine and Dopamine have a direct correlation to the degree of "happiness" or "Sadness" that a person feels.
If both their expression are naturally high, the person would be more predisposed to be happy and to feel well in the world. In the loop-side, if both their expression is naturally low, the person has more disposition to feel depressed. 

Both the synthesis and the expression of those hormones is controlled by the major hormone-control region of the human body, the hypophysis, which is connected to the hyphotalamus as well. Both these centers work in tandem in response to metabolical rhythms and sensorial inputs from the environment. 

So while those traits can be somewhat regarded to DNA expression, the environment plays the larger role in controlling the levels of those hormones. Thus a person will be more or less "happy" in regards to their personal experience.

Good stuff.

Must be nice to be a biologist. You can say that you have a good reason to be angry, bombard everyone with big words, and they'll just leave you alone.

Attacks? You started the attacks.

Of course I know the basics of the organization of DNA and the mechanisms of translation into proteins. But it's practically irrelevant to this discussion, but you fail to see that. 

Have you ever heard of polygenic traits? Most of our instincts and behaviour is polygenically determined. There's seldom a unique, complete link between just one gene (protein) and a specific behaviour. But there's a often a clear correlation.

I'm gonna quote you. "there's no possible way that behaviour is determined by proteins (you're mixing hormone and signal input with behaviour)." That sentence is just plain wrong. I it's like I don't know what to say. There's actually geneticists who believe this?

Proteins are just a means, messengers in a long chain of events which ultimately determines a behaviour. All behaviour is multifactoral. All behaviour is at it's basis grounded in inheritance (genetics), to different degrees. But no behaviour is solely "social" or "sociological".

Some genes code for the construction of the basic framework for our mind, our neural neutwork (CSN) with it's wires, which in turn process signals (input).

Some proteins regulate the level of hormones, and hormones in turn are messengers that can affect and thus determine behaviour.

Stimuli from our senses (signal input) is another example of messengers, which through the neuronal network can trigger pre-programmed pathways, including instincts.

Obivously it's hard to pinpoint exactly which DNA sequence is linked to a certain behaviour, since it's all multifactoral, often polygenic and quite complicated with these levels of regulation. We just sequenced the human DNA, and that was peanuts compared to actually determining the functions of all our DNA. This is a huge work for years ahead. We're still in a primitive age.

But there are methods to prove raw correlations between genetics and behaviour, such as the one with the twin study of homophobia I linked to.

There are hundreds if not thousands of behaviours we know are strongly genetically determined. Such as fear of the dark, fear of snakes, fear of heights, getting sexually aroused, the knowledge of how to copulate, kids prefering dolls over cars and vice versa.

I never ever even implied that homophobia is only genetically determined.

It's multifactural, a combo between several genes together with environmental stimuli.

"If they gather people with every type of personality, wiped their memories clear, and told them homosexuality was normal, they would not have any homophobia."
You don't know this. But the term homohobia includes the repulsion I've been talking about (for anyone reading, homophobia is not just evil hate-speech and persecution). The natural aversion a typical heterosexual man (not all, but most!) feels towards the thought of licking another man's nuts. You don't take that away by erasing their memory.

Hold up. You can't equate heterosexuality with homophobia, that undermiens the meaning of the latter word. Attraction to the opposite sex is not the same thing as revulsion felt toward homosexuals.