zidane1strife
Banned
Not objects, just human mates, if said test is reliable... It indicates that some characteristics that are indicative of this possible mate could be transmitted in some of the secretions that are on the t-shirt. That's one of the most plausible explanations to why females would tend to choose the t-shirt from an unknown man, yet more symmetrical, as that which belongs to the most attractive one.
The summary is quite clear. I'll elaborate a little more, ok. Take females, give them t-shirts from several men, make them rate the t-shirts in terms of which belongs to the most attractive, and look for patterns afterwards. Is a pattern found? Yes, it seems it was found the t-shirts of those most symmetrical tended to be chosen as that of the most attractive
Where? I mean, that is an impossibility, they differ in the number of bases by more than an order of magnitude. Heck, that number seems higher than those I recall even for some PRIMATES!!! There is no way, that could be right. If it's from a small segment of a human genome compared to the fruitfly it could be, but entire genome comparison could never be that high. It's even impossible to compare in its entirety or most of it as you already get a difference of more than an order of magnitude based on size alone, aka number of bases.
Well, it's not even a comparison from a significant portion of the genome. I don't recall the exact number, but I think humans have around 30-40k genes, the chimp comparison I showed had what? 34k, seems about there.
I dunno of anywhere where they teach you to find out the most attractive man, by smelling his t-shirt.
It seems it involved the full genomes or close to it, I mean 34k hovers around the totality of genes humans have.
That's exactly what several of the researchers said in my last link. That even genes can be significantly influenced by the enviroment.
Yeah, but even many of them get the you know whats when looking at females... and that is why many engage in activities that will prevent them from getting an 3r3ction in public... Many I've heard, find that a little embarrasing.
The shame might be social construct, but are you implying the nature of their sexual elation towards females is mostly also a social construct?
Well, if you say so. Creativity can be qualified as part of intelligence. Still, the fact that one can develop the ability to create tools, without been able to personalize them is quite suggestive...
IIRC it was within what is called a relatively short period of time in evolutive terms... thus few mutations, thus I'd say minor.
Yup, and I've read similar while looking for stuff over the net. Again, I'd say that from what I know, the evidence against these conclusions is greater than the evidence in favor.
No, I'm not saying there's just a genetic component, which you make it sound as if quite distant, what I'm saying is there is one that influences orientation.
Yes, I've shown an example a societal one. One you seem to call impossible, that which occurs when sex is a taboo, with it not being taught to the individual either at home or at school, yet no apparent change in tendency.
That is with very minor enviromental influence, inclinations/tendencies arising in sexual orientation.
Not accurate? what? you think I mean it's only based on genes?!? Clearly that is not what I meant to convey. It's just that the brain is indeed constructed based on this info, through brain development is influenced by outside factors, but that does not contradict the fact that its machinery is based on what's in the genes.
That is I've not said this is not so, I mean I could expose a rock to the enviroment, or a piece of clay, or a dog. Why does the dog or rock or clay not develop into a man, but the child does? Is it not because there is a blueprint in the genes, what defines a cell as a neuron and not something else? Is it not its machinery, and is the code for this machinery not coded in the genes?
Nutrition, enviroment can indeed affect the development of the brain, I've not denied this, but it has its limits. You won't get human capability out of a mouse nor will you get super human ability out of a man.
Subject to change to a limited degree. NOTHING, I've read, contradicts the fact that the entire machine that is known as a neuron and/or its accompanying cells are based on genes, their receptors, their method of obtaining energy, their structure, they are the product of genes. Sure it could be influenced, you change the acidity, the salinity, the temperature, the chemicals around these things, the radioactivity, exposure to sound, stimulation, etc... And surely this will influence what occurs, but it does not deny the fact that there is information coded in these molecules, and that it is based on this information that the machines that compose the cell are made.
Can a child learn to speak without enviromental influence? NO. But, can a cat learn this even with enviromental influence? NO.
These are the latest findings, they've been seen in many species, in many experiments, they more complex abilities of rna are giving hints even at the origins of life, for some rna have behavior similar to that of some proteins. Significant resources are now being allocated to further study this previously ignored regions. I think, even many of the modern biology books are now beginning to includes hints to this if not outright say so.
The significance of which, is that genes aren't the simple protein coding things you seem to think they are. They code for far more than that, allowing for very complex mechanisms to arise. Some of these mechanism, IIRC, do not go by what you'd expect based on mendelian hereditary rules.
NO, I called the change that occured from one of our ancestors to another, a change that seems to involve creativity, a minor change. For from what I recall, it occured in a minor period of time.
That is, tool creating capable ancestors, and the later change that allowed personalization of said tools. Not the evolution of humans!!!
No, Let's not continue making uneccesary connections. I've said the behavior of most ANIMALS WITH LESS MENTAL CAPACITY, native americans are not animals with less mental capacity then humans, they ARE HUMANS. Then I said behavior akin to this of animals is primitive, not indicative of less mental capacity, no argument there I presume?
That statement is most likely corrupted.
Again, let's not continue making unnecessary connections here. Genetic influence does not mean what I'm trying to convey for it is the same as the definition you've provided for instinct.
The only thing I called insticts, where the swimming abilities and sucking abilities of a new born... and that was for it was called as such by several doc.s I've heard, but they could've slipped up on the terminology a little.
Still, remains reflex like behaviors, that are there.
That evidence gives a theory against it. But I'd say what has happened to millions in real life, along with the results of dozens of cases of child sexual change surgery, is sufficient to more than contradict it.
There are even PHYSICAL appearance traits in which twins differ(example iris.). Now, you've heard how enviroment affects even genetic behavior, even if we were to say there is a genetic inclination, there's no telling what factors could influence the development of this or its strength.
Heck, I'd say with the nearly trauma inducing enviroment that has existed in most countries regarding things like sexual orientation, it'd be hard to know, not only if someone's answered a survey correct... but even if their behavior and orientation have not been severly altered by it.
Clearly, even when I showed those tests, I referred to them as from "somewhere", and said "it sounds reasonable"... For I've not been very trusting of them.
Basically most genetic research, seeing as this knowledge doubles, every few years. It's mounting rather quickly, and it's showing massive reuse of machinery, throughout the natural world.
Eventually even you will be able to see the genetic activity of most human genes and compare them to those of other primates with not to much investment, heheh.
I mean, beyond sexual desire, something that influences inclination towards the sex of a particular mate.
I think not, you've probably understood what I've said a little to the extreme.
Neither have those I've presented for the most part, nor I've denied enviromental influence.
History of US, genetics, the results of cases of early childhood sex change surgeries, the beliefs of many experts, and basically the message that's been given in most science or news based channels by most experts. Can I deny the experiences of millions of US citizens? NO. The results of dozens of sex change surgeries based on these notions you say are up to date? No. The mounting body of genetic evidence that show lots of things are reused throughout nature, and that humans are not excluded from this? NO.
Well, it seems to be mostly true, a bacterium is less complex than a multi-cellular human.
Not to ALL primates, those where for chimps I think, IIRC. The % goes down for other more distant primate relatives, and keeps going down as you keep going further and further from humans.
Do you deny the sexual revolution? Do you deny that playboy was a magazine that showcased the changing of the times? Do you deny that clothing became more and more risque? That sex was more taboo back in the day? That sex has slowly throughout the decades become a more and more acceptable public topic?
Us history shows the lack of sexual education both at school and at home, millions were exposed to this. Do you think a few conservative, non risque radio shows or a few comics are sufficient for what you suggest?
With no mayor enviromental influence towards sexual orientation for small children, their tendency remained.
You asked, IIRC, how did they know what was causing their sexual impulses...
My answer is simply the fact that when they look at little Jenny Doe they got a gut feeling and that was often accompanied by an 3r3ct!on... That when they were around girls, they got new feelings that they're not used to feeling before... and that these feelings revolved around those of the opposite sex, for they were feeling them towards and around the members of this opposite sex.
Why is that? ( assuming that occurs). That should BE IMPOSSIBLE if we were to assume enviromental influence completely overwhelms genetic influence towards orientation.
PS
The spanish cases occured, IIRC, in "Santo Domingo" aka Dominican republic, I think.
