BS: Genetic Determinism

Subject: BS: Genetic Determinism
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 05:49 PM

Scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE announced the
discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically
determined. This caused uproar among Democrats who believe it is a chosen lifestyle. Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism,discovered after a decades long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, financial, and golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural disregard for the poor and frequent unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian, domineering fathers and emotionally distant or ultra-busy mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited.

"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican." The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and un-indicted co-conspirators. One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!"

When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, greed, and self-serving -- you know." Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.

The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics. At least one scientist though the sad phenomenon might also be related to birth order, citing second girls and final boys, due both to their intense competition for the girl, and the lack of it for the final boy.

A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that 3 out of 5 adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, perhaps while playing "politics," as children, although most outgrow such puerile experimentation with Republicanism, as they mature. Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia.

They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" true eye color, they shouldn't be denied civil rights, which other minorities enjoy. If conservatism is not the result of stinginess, absolutism, or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed toRepublicans), but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs.

For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicans altogether.

But should they be allowed to marry...? Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment?

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic Determinism
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 05:13 AM

Every boy, and every girl,
That's born into this world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little conservative.

Gilbert & Sullivan

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic Determinism
From: freda underhill
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 05:25 AM

This differing opinion suggests that if you have a family member who is conservative, don't give up. Its not too late to try various forms of therapy or medical treatment to correct the problem:

When the highly anticipated sequencing of the human genome was completed, a headline in the San Francisco Chronicle announced: "Genome Discovery Shocks Scientists." The discovery was that many fewer genes were found (30,000) for the human genome than had been expected (100,000), and discussion focused on the wonder of it all: that a fertile human egg could create such a different organism than a mouse egg, where the human egg had only 300 unique genes not found in the mouse.

News articles also made much of the fact that many genes interacting with one another seemed to be as important in determining human diseases as a few "major" genes. Another bit of news was that there are more proteins and genes and this was a surprise because of the accepted idea that each gene encodes a single protein.

But on all of these matters, except for the 300 unique human genes, the "discoveries" were not new, nor were they shocking. We have seen suggestions of 30,000 to 40,000 genes for at least a year; we have known for some time that different species have highly similar genomes--humans and chimps for example; and genetic interaction has been part of freshman genetics for at least 30 years. Finally, we have known for years that DNA sequences within one gene may be used in coding many proteins.

In short, many biologists, world wide, have known for decades that genetics alone is not sufficient to explain life's complex outcomes, and that another kind of information management system must be present (see below). For them, none of this news was a surprise and we must ask why our HGP scientists appeared to be so shocked.

But after almost a century of life sciences dominated by this theory, and after ten years of the HGP dedicated to finding the genes for human diseases, their diagnosis and cure, and with the human genome finally sequenced, and biotechnologists and drug companies standing by around the world to implement these diagnoses and cures-after all that, to announce that the entire project was based on an incomplete and flawed theory would have been much more than "shocking." It would have been a scandal.

So, instead of being appraised of deeper problems with the HGP, we have been distracted by press reports of lesser failures having to do with mistakes concerning gene numbers and comparisons of human beings with other species (neither of which is new). Nevertheless, these disclosures are damning enough and led Craig Venter, the president of Celera, the U.S. corporate group, partnered with the U.S. government and other national DNA sequencing teams, to conclude: "This [the surprising findings] tells me genes can't possibly explain all of what makes us what we are."

So, at a minimum, we may conclude that the theory behind the technology to be applied to living cells is flawed. While it does tell us much about our genome, it tells us little about who we are and how we got that way.

If Gould and Venter are correct in saying that genes alone cannot tell us who we are, then what will tell us? If the program for life is not in our genes, then where is it, and what is it? Many of us have been saying for years that there is no program in the sense of an inherited, pre-existing script ready to be read. Rather, inside each cell there are regulatory networks of proteins that function to sense or measure changes in the cellular environment and interpret those signals so that the cell makes an appropriate response.

from Toward a new paradigm for life; Beyond genetic determinism
By Richard Strohman)

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic Determinism
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 09:39 AM

If the program for life is not in our genes, then where is it, and what is it?


It is a convenient but incorrect assumption that we are "drawn" by our genes and helpless in their definition.

The far more powerful piece of the puzzle of individual makeup is the long, long trail of individual decisions made and abandoned through the lifetimes of the individual. Especially those made in the grip of confusion, pain, loss, or other overwhelm.

Thereby hangs the tale...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic Determinism
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 03:27 PM

Thanks, Greg, for the fine comedy! I just laughed and laughed... It is just thick with fringy truths and debunking winks... Great fun!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Genetic Determinism
From: GUEST,Shlio
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 04:49 PM

ROTFLOL!