Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes’

Straight men and women carry genes associated with homosexuality and pass them to their children, finds study

Around half of all people, including straight men and women, could carry “gay genes”, meaning that they continue to be passed down the generations despite the tendency of homosexuals not to have children, new research suggests.

The sisters of gay men tend to have more children, helping explain the persistence of homosexuality in larger populations, while straight men may also carry genes predisposing them to being gay, the study found. 

[snip] 

Based on Chaladze’s calculations, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, male homosexuality is maintained in a population at “low and stable frequencies” if half of the men and roughly more than half of the women carry genes that predispose men to homosexuality.

(No link with given to the study.)

The problem that I see is that no “gay gene” has ever been found:

The trumpets were left at home and the parades were canceled.  The press releases and campaign signs were quietly forgotten.  The news was big, but it did not contain what some had hoped for.  On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule.  

The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report…,” 2003, emp. added).  Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used.  The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”

It is a hope based upon a “the Devil made me do it” defense, only substitute gene for devil. Or from their point of view, God made me this way.

What has been discovered?

It is easier to say what has not been discovered: the researchers in the United States whose findings were announced last week have not found a gene that causes homosexuality and they have not proved that homosexuality is hereditary.

They believe they have evidence linking a region of the X chromosome – which men inherit from their mothers – with the sexual orientation of some gay men. If they are right, they have uncovered hard evidence of a genetic basis of homosexuality.

The gene has still to be found. The specified region of the X chromosome may carry several hundred genes in all, and the researchers are still some way from identifying which one it is.

But the Human Genome Project, mapping all human genes, was completed in 2003, see above.

From The Problematic Hunt for a ‘Gay Gene’

As the discipline of genetics changed, so too did the scientific approach to homosexuality. In 2012, scientists examined the possibility that variations in hormone levels in the womb could influence the expression of genes that affect sexual orientation, a line of inquiry that falls under the emerging sub-discipline of epigenetics. The popular media, once so easily convinced by LeVay that homosexuality resulted from brain size and by Hamer that homosexuality was genetic, promptly changed its tune to declare that homosexuality was now epigenetic. Hooray? If it’s hard to get excited about these studies, it’s because, at this point, biological explanations for homosexuality are like iPhones—a new one comes out every year.

The statement ” Based on Chaladze’s calculations,…” from the “Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes” story make me think that the study is nought but a statistical analyse, and offers no direct proof that a gay gene exists.  Rather give a statistical modal to support the supposition that a gay gene does exist, but that it is so evenly distributed in the population that the Human Genome Project could not find it.  

I wish that I could have found the study to see the sample size, and the type of analyze none on the group. 

Here I underline the weasel words:

Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes’

Around half of all people, including straight men and women, could carry “gay genes

while straight men may also carry genes predisposing them to being gay

if half of the men and roughly more than half of the women carry genes that predispose men to homosexuality.

Weasel words are “what iffing”,and offers no proof of anything.

Bed bugs developing ‘thicker skin’ to beat insecticides; Not an example of Evolution

Headline from USA Today

Bed bugs developing ‘thicker skin’ to beat insecticides

This headline demonstrates a basic misunderstand of how the theory of evolution is said to work.  It implies that the developing of the ‘thick skin’ was a purposeful action to overcome an adversary.  When in fact is is another good example of selective breading not of evolution.   The insecticides kill off all the bugs with the thin skins leaving only the ones with the thicker skins to breed more bugs.  Only their thick skin offspring will survive the insecticides to make more bugs.

Here is the headline of the paper that the USA Today’s headline is referring to:

Cuticle Thickening in a Pyrethroid-Resistant Strain of the Common Bed Bug, Cimex lectularius L. (Hemiptera: Cimicidae)

Abstract

Thickening of the integument as a mechanism of resistance to insecticides is a well recognised phenomenon in the insect world and, in recent times, has been found in insects exhibiting pyrethroid-resistance. Resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in the common bed bug, Cimex lectularius L., is widespread and has been frequently inferred as a reason for the pest’s resurgence. Overexpression of cuticle depositing proteins has been demonstrated in pyrethroid-resistant bed bugs although, to date, no morphological analysis of the cuticle has been undertaken in order to confirm a phenotypic link. This paper describes examination of the cuticle thickness of a highly pyrethroid-resistant field strain collected in Sydney, Australia, in response to time-to-knockdown upon forced exposure to a pyrethroid insecticide. Mean cuticle thickness was positively correlated to time-to-knockdown, with significant differences observed between bugs knocked-down at 2 hours, 4 hours, and those still unaffected at 24 hours. Further analysis also demonstrated that the 24 hours survivors possessed a statistically significantly thicker cuticle when compared to a pyrethroid-susceptible strain of C. lectularius. This study demonstrates that cuticle thickening is present within a pyrethroid-resistant strain of C.lectularius and that, even within a stable resistant strain, cuticle thickness will vary according to time-to-knockdown upon exposure to an insecticide. This response should thus be considered in future studies on the cuticle of insecticide-resistant bed bugs and, potentially, other insects.

The results of the developing a ‘thicker skin’ bug is no different than when a breeder want to develop a new breed of dog.  He, the breeder, selects the dogs with the characteristic he wishes to develop in his new breed, be it largeness, smallness, strength, aggression,  or docility.  He then culls the dogs with the unwanted characteristic and breed only the ones he believes will go on to produce the type of dog he wants for his new breed.  Selective breeding will never produce anything but a dog.

Instead of a breeder selecting which bug will live to breed a new bug, the insecticide does the selecting, and this selection will never anything but another bug.

Genesis 1:25-26

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”…

When they show an example of a dog becoming something other than a dog, or a bed bug becoming something other that a bed bug I will concede that evolution is the driving force of creation, but un thin then I will take that old time religion for my explanation.

Donald Trump And Waterboarding: Does The Geneva Conventions Apply?

If you have not been living under a rock of indifference you will know the heat that the Progressives and MSM have been giving Trump over his advocating a return to the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique for captured terrorists.   They loudly scream that it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions if we were to do so.

Does it?  No!The Geneva Conventions applies only to signatories countries of the Conventions For a complete list of them click here, you will note that ISIS is not on the list.

When one speaks of the Geneva Conventions, they are usually referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which was ratified in the aftermath of World War II.

There were actually four Geneva Conventions. The First Geneva Convention was agreed to in 1864. The agreement provided for the protection of all medical facilities, their personnel and any civilians aiding the wounded. It also gives the Red Cross international recognition as a neutral medical group.

The First convention was originally signed by 12 nations (The United States was not one of these). The United States signed the Second Convention, which occurred in 1882. The second convention extended the protection of the first convention to wounded combatants at sea and shipwrecked sailors.

The Third Geneva Convention was convened in 1929 and resulted in specific protections for prisoners of war. The Fourth Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. This convention reaffirmed the requirements of the first three conventions and provided protections for civilians during wartime.

LINK:

In 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed theUnited Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, or Punishment of 1984.  It was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994.  To this treaty the U.S. put the following exceptions:

Upon signature :

Declaration:       “The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary.”

Upon ratification :

Reservations:       “I. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:       (1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.       (2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.
II. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender’s custody or physical control.
(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions’ includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.
(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence’ requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.
(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does notper se constitute torture.
(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,’ as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.’
(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.
(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.
(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.
III. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:
(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

I draw you attention to the fist exception, “(a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;”  The US Armed Forces subject their own troops to waterboarding in training so they cannot believe that it would do any of the above. Thus an appeal to this treaty to stop Trump from reintroducing waterboarding as an interrogation technique falls short,

The United States Central Intelligence Agency defines waterboarding as a procedure where the individual is bound to an inclined bench. Then a cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes and water is applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. During this process the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth and the air flow is slightly restricted and water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C – TORTURE

As used in this chapter—

(1)

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A)

the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B)

the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C)

the threat of imminent death; or

(D)

the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3)

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

(a)Offense.—

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—

(1)

the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2)

the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c)Conspiracy.—

A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Torture is defined by US Law, and any law the government can make it can unmake and can be rewritten to exclude waterboarding.

Trump is our Zeitgeist

The world is changing, it is history (His Story) that creates the man, not the man making the times in which he is raised to greatness. You can see this all through history, Julius Caesar could have been Julius Caesar only at that time in history. George Washington came to power because of the necessity of history, he did not create the Revolution. Wellington was raised to defeat Napoleon, as was Winston Churchill for Hitler, none of which could have ever raised to power at any other time in history, the events of those days made them, they did not make the events. Trump is our Zeitgeist, he is being raised by the events of our day, for the good or for the evil, and there is no stopping him. I believe that he is a force for the good raised by God for these days.

Trump Retweeted Mussolini Quote

Trump, Mussolini And Obama

Every since Trump retweeted that Mussolini quote which as it turned out as an Italian source Secolo d’Italia who provide us further context for the quote. The source asserts that had adopted the phrase “Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep” (E’ meglio vivere un giorno da leone che cent’anni da pecora), but its origin goes back at least as far as 1883 with the Italian sculptor Ignazio Pisciotta. Mussolini had repeated the phrase at least one known time, on September 24, 1928. The quote Trump retweeted was indeed one of Mussolini’s and was satirically attributed to “ilduce2016”; however, the quote was not originally coined by Il Duce himself. It is in some ways, a “retweet” of a “retweet.”

Well, the comparison of Trump to Mussolini meme have flooded the Internet by selecting a picture of his that can reminds people of Mussolini, above I show that you can do the same thing with Obama if you pick the right picture of him.

Control the Language, Control the Debate

When issues come up that divide people upon what course of action should be decided upon each side attempts to pick the word(s) that define the issue. Both, as to how they wish to present their side, and how they wish to portray the other(s) side’s position(s). The first side to lay claim to the words use to tag the issues gain a huge advantage in presenting their arguments. Picking a slogan is an exercise in propaganda, the goal is to get people to accept your argument without thinking. Examples abound…

The Abortion Issue:

Those favoring unlimited abortions quickly tagged their goal as “The Right to Choose”, and when those who believe that it’s wrong to kill a baby countered with “The Right to Life” tag they switched their tag to “A woman’s Right to Control Their Her Body” where it stands today. The battle still rages with more and more states limiting the unlimited right to get an abortion, but gains on the ‘The Right to Choose’ side with federal law (ObamaCare) requiring the payment for birth control by the insurance companies, as well as abortions for those who cannot afford to pay for them.

By picking “The Right to Choose” and “A woman’s Right to Control Their Her Body” it is an effort to cast those who oppose unlimited abortions as being against the rights of women in everything that they may choose to do instead of being for the rights of the unborn babies which they clarified with the tag “The Right to Life”.

The Environmental Issue:

Those favoring controlling what people can do with their land tagged their goal as “Sustainable Growth”, while those who oppose the government’s control over a person’s property, as far as I can appertain, are tagged “Stop Big Government”. The Sustainable Growth movement has its genesis in the UN’s Agenda 21, and for the most part has Slid under the most people’s awareness.

Another tag used by this group is “Endangered Species”, and use it to control what people can and cannot do with their own land and water. The Environmentalist use this to stop as many developments as they possibly can, suing for damage assessment studies where they can bring the law to bear.

By choosing Sustainable Growth as the tag it implies that anyone opposed is opposed to sustainability.

The Global Warming Issue:

The tag has gone from global warming, to climate change, to climate disruption, and now carbon pollution as it fail to get the respect those who wish to blame men for the warming of the earth during the last 60 years believed it deserved. They tagged those who did not agree with them as “Denialist” who re-tagged themselves as “Skeptics” and the other side as “Alarmists”.

By picking the word denialist there was a deliberate hope that the word would be associated with the “Holocaust Deniers”, in an attempt to get the people who paid slight attention to discount anything a “denier” might say. The other’s side tagging them as “alarmist” was an attempt to bring “Chicken Little” to mind.

And I will close with this…

The Black Grievance Industry’s  “Hands Up; Don't Shoot” and “I Can’t Breath” are perfect examples of using  language to control the debate.  What are those who believe that due process were afforded to respond with?  These tags as short, crisp, and make their point in a manner that requires no thinking, no further information, leaving the true believer with only a clear course of action, blame the cops that the white man uses to suppress the black man.

I do not think that “Law and Order” or “The Cops Are Our Protectors” will sway the debate at this juncture, but the point of this essay is that you should not be swayed by tags nor slogans, but look into the merits of issues before you pick sides.

Donald Trump Reads The Snake Lyric, A Retelling Of The Scorpion and the Frog

The other night Donald Trump Reads The Snake Lyric, of course I got it, and of course it reminded me of  The Scorpion and the Frog:

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”

“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.

“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”

“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”

“Alright then…how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.

“Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back.

“I could not help myself. It is my nature.”

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Self destruction – “Its my Nature”, said the Scorpion…