Reflections, Reflections

I don't have time to blast this article (and the respective research) from a scientific perspective, but it's one more example of "people will only see what they want to see" and "people will not ask questions that will undermine their dogmas, even when their dogmas are extremely faulty."

Scrappleface did a take on this NYTimes article,

Experiments on fruit flies have revealed conclusive evidence that homosexuality is caused by scientists, according a report in the journal Cell.

And here were the comments I posted on Scrappleface. I have a lot of other questions about how this research was done, but I'm sure other researchers will address them in the near future.

from the Times article:
"What it tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs, just like the morphologic development of an organ or a nose."

Since when didn't scientists know that instinctive behavior was:

a) programmed (that's exactly the definition of instinctive vs. cultural)

b) transmitted by genes - how else did these fruit fly pseudo-scientists think flies transmit their genetic programming? Before this research did they think the flies wrote a little manual on the forest tree bark that they showed to members of newer generations?

Also, the NYTimes article didn't mention if there exists flies that are naturally born defectively homosexual? Or does this so-called fly homosexuality only occur when the scientists tamper with the genes of the flies? And if there aren't any homo flies, what does this show us?

Or does fruit fly homosexuality just happen in a Frankenstein type scientific experiment?

Above were my immediate questions after reading the article. But then another very important hypothesis came to mind - actually the way the scientists framed this as homosexuality could be totally wrong.

It seems to me that this experience doesn't prove homosexuality, it's more like a brain transplant experiment.

If fruit flies are so simple in their brains and you take a part of it and put it in another fly, I wouldn't be surprised if the female fly that got the male fly gene thinks it's a male fly (and not some lesbiun turd of a fly). That's why this altered fly goes after a female fly. It's not homosexuality, but the loss of knowing that it is physically a female fly, since the brain is telling the fly it is male and processing the programming for male flies to go after females.

Anyways, this is one more example of how selective and desperate the cognition of pro-homos are. Any thing that they can remotely use to represent a genetical foundation to homosexuality will be concocted and publicized.

The sad part is that this type of disingenuous propaganda does influence little educated masses of people. The equating of "fruit flies to humans" is easily accepted by ignorant people or fanatical pro-homos.

.