|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: One-night stands: they're genetic! |
 |
|
Honey, it's not my fault! It's the one-night stand gene
Linda Carroll writes: You might call it the one-night stand gene.
A minor tweak of the gene that maps out a receptor for the feel-good neurotransmitter, dopamine, may be all it takes to explain the promiscuous beats of the cheating heart. Researchers have found that people born with this genetic variation are far more likely to cheat or engage in risky sexual behaviors, such as one-night stands, according to a study published this week in PloS ONE.
Earlier studies linked the genetic mutation in question to a tendency to engage in risky behaviors as well as the propensity to become addicted to illicit drugs and alcohol, so the researchers suspected it might also affect a person�s sexual behavior.
At the root of all this research is dopamine. Scientists have long known that when dopamine spurts in the brain, we feel pleasure. It's what makes us feel good when we eat, have sex or even take illicit drugs. Evolutionarily speaking, this system developed so we would find our way back to tasty morsels � and sexual partners.
full article and video at link |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
So its basically a mutation. Thus..the root cause of crime and wrongdoing is damaged DNA. Some people have a rape gene, others have a shoplifting gene.
All of creation has been cursed since the fall. Even our dna has degenerated from its former perfect state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
So its basically a mutation. Thus..the root cause of crime and wrongdoing is damaged DNA. Some people have a rape gene, others have a shoplifting gene.
All of creation has been cursed since the fall. Even our dna has degenerated from its former perfect state. |
It's obvious you've never studied genetics and have a weak foundation when it comes to biology in general. Since you don't understand it, you put it in a religious framework you can comprehend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Since you don't understand it, you put it in a religious framework you can comprehend. |
Rather than inability to comprehend, it's more a case of him shoehorning evidence to fit into the baseless assumptions of his beliefs: the exact opposite of good science.
What is "perfect DNA" anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So there's a particular spike in dopamine, which elevates pleasure, when someone cheats. The gene doesn't cause cheating anymore than pleasure causes me to have sex. Agency still exists, and the will power to overcome the pleasure stimulus also remains. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In some Chimpanzee groups there are males who seem to delight in sneaking a quickie with a female behind the back of the dominant male. Very dangerous behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
legrande
Joined: 23 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Making relationships with different people becomes "cheating" when a certain faction in society decides to fabricate rules which stigmatizes sexual freedom. Who would you rather be- George Bush or Mick Jagger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Since you don't understand it, you put it in a religious framework you can comprehend. |
Rather than inability to comprehend, it's more a case of him shoehorning evidence to fit into the baseless assumptions of his beliefs: the exact opposite of good science.
What is "perfect DNA" anyway? |
Its what existed in the first created humans. Undamaged, unaltered, unadulterated.
Science clearly shows that as time progresses, DNA degrades. It accumulates harmful mutations. It continues mistakes in replication. It gets damaged in the individual by radiation as well as by age. Its range and diversity gets thinned out as unneeded bits get selected out.
Its a bit like your car. Things break and bits fall off, it accumulates rust with age. This is the natural order of things. They break down.
Obviously then the further you go back in time, the greater the genetic variety within humans. Scientific studies clearly show this. We haven't gained: we've lost. We are shadows of our former selves. Genetic survivors. If you go back as far as Adam and Eve..then you get back to the full set.
This simple math equation is pretty obvious...so long as your mind is not clouded by atheist make-believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greatunknown
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Since you don't understand it, you put it in a religious framework you can comprehend. |
Rather than inability to comprehend, it's more a case of him shoehorning evidence to fit into the baseless assumptions of his beliefs: the exact opposite of good science.
What is "perfect DNA" anyway? |
Its what existed in the first created humans. Undamaged, unaltered, unadulterated.
Science clearly shows that as time progresses, DNA degrades. It accumulates harmful mutations. It continues mistakes in replication. It gets damaged in the individual by radiation as well as by age. Its range and diversity gets thinned out as unneeded bits get selected out.
Its a bit like your car. Things break and bits fall off, it accumulates rust with age. This is the natural order of things. They break down.
Obviously then the further you go back in time, the greater the genetic variety within humans. Scientific studies clearly show this. We haven't gained: we've lost. We are shadows of our former selves. Genetic survivors. If you go back as far as Adam and Eve..then you get back to the full set.
This simple math equation is pretty obvious...so long as your mind is not clouded by atheist make-believe. |
This is an interesting explanation. Anyone with a junior high level of understanding of genetics and evolution would find many errors in this however.. sorry, doesn't hold up.. I can point out the flaws if you'd like! although something tells me your only trying to spark a debate.
I've got a few courses in genetics under my belt. Its something i'm interested in. I find it ammusing when people make a (semi) correct statement about something science related, then BUTCHER that statement by mis-applying it to a real life scenario.
If nothing else, please tell us more about this so-called "obvious simple math equation" that proves modern humans are less geneticly diverse then previous generations. If you know it, tell me! sounds like nobel prize winning stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greatunknown wrote: |
| This is an interesting explanation. Anyone with a junior high level of understanding of genetics and evolution would find many errors in this however.. sorry, doesn't hold up.. I can point out the flaws if you'd like! |
Go ahead, feel free.
| Quote: |
| I've got a few courses in genetics under my belt. Its something i'm interested in. |
Right. I'm interested although have never studied. Other than reading online.
| Quote: |
| I find it ammusing when people make a (semi) correct statement about something science related, then BUTCHER that statement by mis-applying it to a real life scenario. |
Evolutionists do something similar, but worse: they deny real-life evidence when it does not fit their theory. In other words, the evidence can be wrong... but their theory can never be.
| Quote: |
| If nothing else, please tell us more about this so-called "obvious simple math equation" that proves modern humans are less geneticly diverse then previous generations. If you know it, tell me! sounds like nobel prize winning stuff |
its a well known fact: human genetic diversity has decreased with time. When you look at reality and real world evidence, it demonstrates that what has happened...is the opposite of evolution.
Why has this thinning out ocurred? For the reasons I mentioned above, and another I forgot- population bottlenecks. Scientists know that humans must have gone through a severe bottleneck at some point. I assume this event to be the biblical flood, of course..but of course atheists try very hard to find other explanations.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=early-human-population-size-genetic-diversity
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-humans-more-genetically-diverse-than-moderns |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greatunknown
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| greatunknown wrote: |
| This is an interesting explanation. Anyone with a junior high level of understanding of genetics and evolution would find many errors in this however.. sorry, doesn't hold up.. I can point out the flaws if you'd like! |
Go ahead, feel free.
| Quote: |
| I've got a few courses in genetics under my belt. Its something i'm interested in. |
Right. I'm interested although have never studied. Other than reading online.
| Quote: |
| I find it ammusing when people make a (semi) correct statement about something science related, then BUTCHER that statement by mis-applying it to a real life scenario. |
Evolutionists do something similar, but worse: they deny real-life evidence when it does not fit their theory. In other words, the evidence can be wrong... but their theory can never be.
| Quote: |
| If nothing else, please tell us more about this so-called "obvious simple math equation" that proves modern humans are less geneticly diverse then previous generations. If you know it, tell me! sounds like nobel prize winning stuff |
its a well known fact: human genetic diversity has decreased with time. When you look at reality and real world evidence, it demonstrates that what has happened...is the opposite of evolution.
Why has this thinning out ocurred? For the reasons I mentioned above, and another I forgot- population bottlenecks. Scientists know that humans must have gone through a severe bottleneck at some point. I assume this event to be the biblical flood, of course..but of course atheists try very hard to find other explanations.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=early-human-population-size-genetic-diversity
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-humans-more-genetically-diverse-than-moderns |
I'm still not getting your point.
The first article elludes to the fact that nature selected for the genes that conferred some sort of advantage when it came to surviving a near extinction, while those without those advantaged genes, died off. Thats a big part of how evolution works. Think "survival of the fittest".. Also this is just a single article from a science entertainment magazine. I don't think this is a completely accepted theory, certainly not "well known science". To relate this to some sort of Adam and Eve theory really takes some creative thinking does it not?
The second article is talking about mitochondrial DNA being more diverse in ancient humans. Without looking too far into this, it does make sense that mtDNA would become less diverse over time, after all, mitochondrions used to be free living bacteria like organisms, now many of the genes that code protines that mito's need to live are found on our DNA! They get synthesized in the cytoplasm and transported into the mitochondia. Its probably been close to 2 billion years since mitochondria and some other simple cell forged their endosymbiotic relationship. But mitochondria do have their own simple DNA seperate from our own.
Either way, both interesting articles. At least your not trying to argue with me that god created man 5 thousand years ago. I don't believe in Adam and Eve having "perfect DNA". If that were true, mutations caused by U.V radiation and errors in DNA replication etc would have started to accumulate immiediatly.
And for the record, I'm not an athiest. I like to think that evolution and vast amounts of time were tools that some great omnipotent being used to make us.... maybe... maybe not... i dunno.. Maybe agnostic is a better word.
If anything I said is incorrect please correct me! only way I'll ever learn  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greatunknown
Joined: 04 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
OP, sorry about going so OT.
my $0.02 on this topic is; yes there may be genes related shyness, risk taking, alcoholism, addiction susceptibility, intelligence etc. But that doesn't mean we can't control ourselves and our urges. It just means that some people may feel compelled to cheat on their wives/husbands when they know they shouldn't, but it doesn't mean they WILL cheat. Some rather dim-witted people could have the genes for brilliance, but instead they are too lazy to ever realize their potential. My father was an alcoholic and I barely drink, I might have the alcoholism genes, but since I don't really drink much, that part of my personality and genome may never be expressed.
It all comes back to cliche addage "nature versus nurture". And at the end of the day, we do have choices |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
travel zen
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Location: Good old Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Obviously then the further you go back in time, the greater the genetic variety within humans. |
True that |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The existence of a gene like this doesn't excuse cheating on a moral level, but it can help to partially explain the existence of the urge to cheat.
At a basic level, organisms want to reproduce and spread their genes and also seek pleasure (which in this case the very same pleasure is the force pushing them to spread their genes). So to find a gene that pushes people in this direction isn't all that surprising. From the standpoint of genetics, it's a reproductive strategy (even if it's not the most honorable one, but genes aren't concerned with morality; we are.)
| Junior wrote: |
Evolutionists do something similar, but worse: they deny real-life evidence when it does not fit their theory. In other words, the evidence can be wrong... but their theory can never be.
|
Nice "theory" but in general, it's the exact reverse. Unfortunately, the description applies more to the average creationist mindset. "Evolutionists" base their views on science (which changes over time, based on evidence, old and new) and not dogma (which doesn't change and is often based on faith or blind adherence to ancient texts written by ancient men).
You can try to characterize science however you like, but real science is all about evidence and testing theories, and they are often proven wrong and revised or discarded. This is part of the process. Rather than weakening science, this process makes it stronger and thus more credible than dogma.
Our understanding of evolution is not fixed or dogmatic; it has changed over time and will continue to change based on new evidence and discovery from various sources (fossil records, DNA mapping, etc.) Within the field of evolution are multiple theories, some wrong and some right and many are discarded as they become dis-proven or less likely. Keep reading Scientific American or other magazines or journals for awhile and over time you will see this is true.
I'll concede this much: One thing that sometimes happens in science is that individual scientist may try to prove their own theory about something because they have a personal interest in doing so (fame, status, pride, etc.). In this case you may see them cling to their theory and not want to let it go, even in the face of contrary evidence. This is exactly what you are and will be doing (not forever I hope) as well regarding your own ideas of how the world is. We all do it to some extent (cling), but a good scientist or rationalist will eventually change their view if there is enough contrary evidence. And they change all the time, because it's natural and respectable to do so. Can you say the same for yourself? Are you willing to modify your own views if it is shown you are wrong? Or will you be just like those you accuse?
It's nice that you are interested in evolution as it's a fascinating topic no matter what you believe about it. It's a potentially confusing subject that we learn more about all the time. Just when you think you know enough about it, you read something else and suddenly realize how much more there is to know. It's best studied in a holistic way without just cherry picking parts to suit a chosen viewpoint. (ex: "An old book says there was a flood that killed most life on earth, so I'll find articles that support a genetic bottleneck and assert the die off is from that flood" ) That's not the best way to understand a subject and I'm sure you know that.
| Junior wrote: |
its a well known fact: human genetic diversity has decreased with time. When you look at reality and real world evidence, it demonstrates that what has happened...is the opposite of evolution. |
The opposite? No. You are putting your own spin on the definition of evolution, implying that it is somehow necessarily a process of getting better or more advanced over time. This is not the case. Evolution is simply defined as change over time in inherited traits in a population of organisms. Some changes (ex: mutations) are beneficial and some are not. There's no guarantee that organisms automatically get more advanced as they evolve, they simply change over time to suit their surroundings better and to better pass on their genes to their offspring.
Your idea that humans originally had "perfect DNA" is very odd and you'll have a lot of work ahead of you to prove that one. Look at the picture of the early humans in the article you linked http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=early-human-population-size-genetic-diversity - is this an example of the more perfect DNA you are speaking of? The picture works against your argument. If you want to disregard the picture, remember that we also have all kinds of fossil remains of early humanoids, often with smaller skulls and thus smaller brains than we currently have today. How does that work in your argument?
To make matters even more problematic, you likened mutations to some kind of degradation, implying a loss of data in the molecule, but actually DNA mutations tend to increase genetic variation rather than limit it. Often, it's not so much a loss of data as it is a reshuffling of genetic information. Some mutations are beneficial for an organism and some are not, and some have no or little effect at all. Mutations are not inherently bad, as you seem to imply, but rather they cause change in an organism. Sometimes these changes help organisms adapt better to their environment.
| Junior wrote: |
| Why has this thinning out ocurred? For the reasons I mentioned above, and another I forgot- population bottlenecks. Scientists know that humans must have gone through a severe bottleneck at some point. I assume this event to be the biblical flood, of course..but of course atheists try very hard to find other explanations. |
You assume too much. You are taking a premise you already believe and are cherry picking and extrapolating to support your premise. Again, Sounds a lot like the same thing you accuse your opponents of.
Lots of things could cause a bottleneck. Even if you find evidence of a massive flood (it would take an incredibly large flood covering most of Africa to cause such a bottleneck) it still wouldn't automatically prove the cause of the bottleneck.
By the way, is the flood you are referring to the same one that, according to an old book, supposedly wiped out most of humanity because a god was angry, so he told a guy to build a boat and collect two of every animal on Earth so they could reproduce and start all over again? Or it is a different flood that you are referring to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| In some Chimpanzee groups there are males who seem to delight in sneaking a quickie with a female behind the back of the dominant male. Very dangerous behavior. |
True, but less dangerous than taking on the dominant male directly. In that way it's not the worst reproductive strategy, unless of course the chimpettes start gossiping and spreading the word about the deed... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
