New Genetic Study Repeats Old Unproven Theory
We want to jump on this new junk science article right away because we’ve been down the Xq28 road before and this unreleased study managed to suspiciously get a Valentine’s Day news release without peer review. We’ve excerpted and highlighted the laughable holes for you. The attempt to pass this off as anything new or valid in a Valentine’s Day news release is insipid politics. According to The Guardian:
“A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men’s sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome. Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.”
Researchers have “speculated” in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men “may” have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This “may” be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.
“The work has yet to be published…”
…the authors found that [only] 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers…
The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey’s study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.
The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother’s DNA, is more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.
However, the authors do not know where these genetic factors are located in the genome, nor do they address homosexuality in women:
“We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved.”
I guess, women must simply be of some other species or don’t have genes.
John Ozanich is a Advisory Board member of Voice of the Voiceless and a former United States Marine Corps Anti-Terrorism Strike Team member with a seminary doctorate in Biblical Egyptology. John authors articles on religious history, constitutional issues, science, and religion.He has been awarded the IBM Authorship Award. He is a licensed and ordained minister with the United New Testament Church and an award winning professional computer network design architect and I/T project manager who has worked for a variety of Fortune 500 companies.