09-02-2015, 11:42 AM
(08-31-2015, 08:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Of the 3 links that I posted, not a single one of them mentioned CF.
No need to add lying to your unimpressive resume on the boards here.
I didn't present anything out of context, I stated MF diseases only and that's what my links referred to.
You're the first that actually posted a link containing references to CF within this thread.
Look it up and take your smugness down a notch or two.
First of all, you didn't provide any link until after I called you out for plagiarism.
(08-25-2015, 07:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: However, that is not why they ended up obese or an alcoholic. Environmental factors/social factors played a much bigger role is them getting it.
This is what many of you keep ignoring about this whole genetic argument.
Genetic predisposition can contribute to the development of a disease, but it will not directly cause it. Some with a certain predisposing genetic variation will never get it, while others can, even inside of the same family/genetic line.
The test is a false one from the start. You will be able to find certain markers/mutations that could contribute to it and increase the probability of someone getting a disease but:
Genetic predisposition can contribute to the development of a disease, but it will not directly cause it.
Let's not go to far off topic, but just an interesting tidbit about eye color:
A person's eye colors can change. For example, during pregnancy the pigmentation in the eyes gets darker. 15% of people report that it changes after puberty. Other things such as the food you eat, or stress can also alter your eye color. Age can also change the color of your eyes.
Genetics is nothing more than a recipe book. It gives you the recipe to create the proteins that make up the pigmentation in the eyes, and like a cook who uses the same recipe over and over again, sometimes the results might not always the same. IE Flame on oven hotter/colder, ingredients not as pure as previous time(s) etc.
But again, all of those instances are environmental factors, and not due to some hereditary genetic gene(s).
I think you get the picture, so I won't go further.
See? No link. Just plagiarism.
Then you provided the link you plagiarized . . .
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/predisposition
The link I provided . . .
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders?show=all
Both links come from the Genetics Home Reference page of the US National Library of Medicine. Do you see the hyperlinks at the top of my link? Do you see the link, "What does it mean to have a genetic predisposition to a disease?" That's your link. You did exactly what I claimed you did; you presented only the information which supported your preconceived notion out of context while omitting all the other information.
Multifactorial disorders are only one of many types of genetic disorders. You have zero evidence homosexuality is a multifactorial disorder instead of any of the other genetics disorders. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. It is ironic and hilarious to watch you claim homosexuality isn't genetic by claiming it is a genetic disorder. That tells you everything anyone needs to know about how little you understand this topic.
Let me explain how you rule out other possibilities. Let's say you come see me for chest pain. A heart attack is one of the possibilities. In order for me to rule out a heart attack I need specific evidence proving your chest pain isn't a heart attack. So I order cardiac enzymes which if normal rules out the possibility of a heart attack. But, you don't even understand that simple concept.
I'm not taking any smugness down any notches because you don't have a clue what you're talking about and I will continue to correct you because stupidity shouldn't go unchecked.
