I don't. Nowhere in that post did I refer to heterosexuality per se. Nothing about attraction whatsoever. Re-read the aversion part which is (partly) the root of homophobia.

The thimg about Slimebeast is that he equates "heterosxuality" with "repulsion towards homosexual acts" (for example he thinks that seeing two men kissing should automatically cause a heterosexual man to throw up).

For him the ideea of heterosexuals simply being indifferent towards homosexaul acts is inconcievable, because he equates "indifference towards homosexual acts" to "bisexuality". For him if you have to be repulsed by gays to be staright.

Oh Slimebeast, there you go with your attacks when your knowledge gets put out in the open

What you're saying is biologically impossible. For this conversation to go further, I would pretty much like for you to demonstrate what you know about DNA, RNA, mRNA, tRNA and how genetic information is processed, deconstructed and then put into biological shape (that is, proteins).

These are the basics of genetics, if you understand them, you'll see that there's no possible way that behaviour is determined by proteins (you're mixing hormone and signal input with behaviour).

Attacks? You started the attacks.

If you consider my inital phrase an attack, then your entire opening statement stoop down to a whole new level of ignobility

----- I don't even know what you're talking about.

** You don't really? Here, let me help you: "You're again showing how incompetent you are in genetics and biology." That's funny, given that my research has been given a grant in partnership with both my college, MIT and Hovione. Next time you're going to call someone incompetent, better rethink your words twice. 

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. 

I love on how you always use that phrase, because it's like a shielding mechanism that you like to employ to protect yourself from being uncertain. 
Unfortunately, the entire basis on how DNA expresses itself and the effects of sensorial inputs in that expression is also the basis for this entire discussion and the heavy debate between genomical inheritance and enviromental stimuli in sociological studies nowadays.
So no, it isn't irrelevant, as much as you want it to be. 

----- Yes it's irreveleant because we haven't pinpointed any of the exact genes or DNA-sequences yet that correlate with complex human behaviour, so my argument isn't even based on that level of proof (the DNA level), because we simply lack proof on that level.

** We don't lack total proof, we just lack studies to completely correlate them. We can take elations from the studies of previous genomes (Bacterial, Yeast, Drosophila, Mice, etc) and apply them to human genome with ease, given the relative ease of study of the human genome

Do you deny that Schizofrenia has a strong genetical component? No, you probably don't, and yet a discussion about the link between genes and Schizofrenia would be meaningless to hold on the DNA level because so few genetic markers are found (at least on a forum like this). Meanwhile, thanks to twin studies we are absolutely certain that there is a genetical component, and environmental factors.

You need to understand that a discussion about genetical traits doesn't necessarily include a discussion based on specifics of DNA. It seldom does. (just like the bacteria discussion in the Evo thread).

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.

You give a very shallow explanation of polygenic traits and you try to pass it out as a lecture? Ever heard of transposonic elements and movable genomical shifts from multi-chromossomal traits? There are even traits that are dependent on simultaneous loci that are located on different alleles from various chromosomes. 

---- Yes, I've read about the those but it was many years ago. But it's completely irrelevant to this discussion, and you're resorting to smoke and mirrors tactics.

** Smoke and mirrors? Funny, given that you're the one who started the polygenic trait discussion. 

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?

As I've seen that you've paid attention to my conversation with Dtewi, you have also seen that I never said that enviromental SOLELY plays a role in determining a person's personality and behaviour, but indeed it's the largest role. Proteins and their various functions have a minor role in that.

---- So now you retract what you said. I quote: "there's no possible way that behaviour is determined by proteins (you're mixing hormone and signal input with behaviour)."

** I won't retract my statement, because I've talked about it to other people and have explained exactly what I meant. I'll add a mostly there though, if that makes you happy. 

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.

These pre-programmed pathways exist on every biological construct. We have the same instincts as every other eukaryotic being, we have the same preservation instinct as a bacteria does and we have the same need of passing our genes to the next generation as every living being does. That's a far stretch from any kind of DNA behavioural correlation that involves  far more complex traits

----- I just corrected you since you said proteins don't control behaviour. And I showed for the readers how it works. Especially since you attributed me of confusing protein functions with hormones (lol).

** Actually you haven't corrected me at all. You're just given standardized examples of major relations between living beings and try to pass them off as "behaviour". We may have a very different explanation for what behaviour is, because complex behaviour traits are far from pre-programmed pathways. And you're still confusing protein functions with hormones, given that most hormonal regulation is done at the DNA level, not protein.

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.

I never said that DNA studies are a definitive, but human DNA doesn't differ that much from bacterial DNA. Bacterial DNA studies gives us a very large insight of how our genome functions, especially since human DNA isn't even the most complex genome in existance. We only have 40.000 genes, there are species that have double and even triple that amount, relating for a far more difficult level of regulation between those genes. 

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.

I'm sorry, but you can't possibly hope that a trivial study that relates entirely on a questionnaire as being scientifically viable on genomic scientist circles. Where's the factual evidence? Where's the control group? Where are the variables? I would love to see the entire study, not just the abstract, but what the abstract contained was very unscientific. 

----- At least it's better than the other side of the discussion: "there is no biological basis". A twin study is very powerful, it's not something you dismiss as easily as you make it sound. But it's expected, this reply. I do the same. If you show me a reconstruction of old monkey skulls I will likely say it was a bad study.

 ** These kind of studies are only relevant on scientific circles where few empirical data is obtained and analyzed. Give that study to any geneticist and you'll get laughed at. Heck, i'm going to give it to my thesis professor (pHD in molecular genetics, organic chemistry and genetic engineering) and see his reaction. I'll be back with is reply tomorrow. 

Unless you show me some solid empirical study on how that kind of behaviour really is presented on the genomic level (and such a study can be done on Mice), it still frivolous, in the scientific level.  

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.

Phobias are not inherited. That I can speak for personal experience. All of my phobias arose from personal trauma and not because I was genetically predisposed to them. My phobia of bees arose from when I got bitten in the tongue when I was 4 years old, before that I had no problem with them. My fear of heights arose when I fell down a 3 meters high ladder when I was 8 years old. Before that, I could climb as high as I'd like and have no effect on me. 

Most phobias rise from these same factors, primary trauma in personal experience, not because of genomical disposition. 

Sexual arousing is also heavily influenced from environmental and sensory input. A highly sexual person can suddendly find itself without any sexual interest at all, especially if he/she has a lack of hormones due to physical or psychological trauma. 

And your last two examples, are we mixing trivialities in a scientific discussion? Knowledge on how to copulate? Even sexual bacteria know how to effectively transmit their genes, due to hormonal signals sent between one another that allow for coding of sexual pili proteins. A similar thing happens in eukaryotic constructs and more complex beings, the process is just different.

Kids preferring dolls over cars is as trivial as it comes. What about the kids that prefer both? Or prefer none? Or the kids that just don't like how cars or dolls look like? That's personal experience as it comes. 

---------- Simply put, many phobias are inherited but need an environmental stimuli to trigger the actual behaviour. This is nothing you can dispute.

As for your comment on kids and toys, it suggests you have a poor understanding of population studies and variation.

 ** You say many phobia are inherited, but I believe that you're mixing genetic predisposition (having certain neurotransmitters unregulated by disease or by lack of function, low hormonal levels for some kind of responses or a combination of both), with what's actually inherited (genetical traits from mother and father, in which case, it would be an extremely rare case, due to homologous recombination at the zygote level and DNA fingerprinting). In most studies i've read recently in the matter (Masci, MD Cyro. Hall, Lynne L.) most agree that it's a mixture of predisposition (not inheritance) with environmental impulses. 

Also, take in account that these kind of studies and conclusions are done by psychologists. Seldom are they done with actual geneticists. 

And as for your last comment, are you serious? I may not know entirely how those kind of studies are processed at the psychological level, but at least I know enough that you just pulled a particular group only to correlate to your theory, while shunning the other populations group that didn't fit it. That's why I added other population groups. Even in those kind of studies you have control groups that would annul your theory completely. 

I may be wrong on the last point, and I'll admit it if I am. I'm not an expert in that field, nor I try to pass as one, nor try to downplay those who are.