I guess Einstein was a simpleton who also believed in God. Or perhaps Bach was a simpleton too. He who wrote all of his brilliant music for the glory of God. Or perhaps all of the great architects who built the cathedrals in Europe for the glory of God were all simpletons too. So were all the great writers, painters, musicians, poets, and other brilliant men and women who built the culture of the West on Christianity. You my friend are a simpleton who knows nothing about from where our Western civilization came. If I had the time to wast with a half with such as yourself anymore than I already have I would also show why, from an aesthetic sense, your poem or whatever it is, sucks. Read Paul Fussell's classic text on Poetry or any decent book on song writing and you'll quickly see why it sucks.

Since you seem genuinely intellectually curious unlike some of the other propagandists who when their view points are effectively challenged go away, thedavidwilson for example, here is a link to a non technical article that explains how genes interact;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/bio... to increase the longevity of humans.

Even though there is a genetic component to complex human behavior such as spirituality and sexuality, there will not be one gene that makes a person gay or spiritual. There will be a complex interaction of many genes and environment that do that. Environment is complex as well. In the case of people with genes that allow for longevity for example, putting a gun to the head or otherwise extremely abusing their bodies would be an environmental factor that would override their genetic predisposition to longevity.

It's not even really a theory. Its more a method to begin isolating where on the genome to look for genes that may impact the sexual preference of human males. The increased likelihood of a second born male with a gay maternal uncle who is gay being gay lead geneticists to believe that male homosexuality has a genetic influence. Remember that genes only code for the production of proteins. Traits are usually determined by a complex interaction of many genes and environment. Most people have little understanding of genetics and believe, because of the way the media simplistically reports science matters, that genes always definitely cause things. Its far more complicated than that.

Woman have two X chromosomes. The sex chromosomes X Y in males and XX in females clearly make it easy to see that in males the X can only come from the mother.

Traits that survive imply a conferred evolutionary advantage. I never contended that prevalence or occurrence in nature related to morality in humans. Nor, however, do I think homosexuality to be immoral. I don't know that cannibalism has ever been understood to have a genetic component and if it did, its survival in the genome would imply that there is an evolutionary advantage to cannibalism. Cannibalism probably does have an evolutionary advantage in that it reduces competitors for scarce resources such as food, provides fewer off spring to care and provide for, etc.

One last thing. Homosexuality is prevalent in many, many animals including dolphins, and primates. Humans are primates and, like it or not, have evolved from silly little, highly successful monkeys. The current theory is that in social animals, the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality, which allows it to remain in the genome, is that it increases social cooperation.

In reply to your questions my answers are:

1. Probably, although I am not sure. The environmental factors that would be looked at are things like the environment in the womb during pregnancy, which might include things like hormone levels, particularly sex hormones, and other biological factors.

2. Not that I am aware of. The strongest evidence of a genetic component is the substantially increased likelihood of the second born male born to a woman with a gay brother being gay. Again, this is why researchers began looking at the genes on the x chromosome. Males are XY and females are XX. Men always inherit there X chromosome from their mother and their Y from their father. Woman obviously inherit an X from their mother and an X from their father. Female homosexuality appears to be more complex and there has been no evidence, that I am aware of, to point research in a specific direction genetically for female homosexuality. Furthermore, woman are more fluid in their sexual preference with many straight woman willing to experiment with lesbianism in ways that most straight men never would with male homosexuality.

3. The genes that may play a role in male homosexuality have not been determined yet. Cause is often too strong a word to use in genetic science. Predispose is often a better word. Genetic expression is sometimes quite straightforward as is the case for eye color for example. When it comes to complex human behavior such as spirituality and sexuality, genes definitely play a role but they do not "cause" that behavior. Genes code for the production of proteins.

Holder will probably not be AG for too much longer because he is a liability to this most unpopular moron of a President.

Yes and the successors to Peter who are the Popes as flawed as many have been. Peter was perhaps the perfect model of a Pope in many ways. It is quite clear in Scripture that there would be successors to Peter.

An honest assessment is what I gave. I did not imply that, you inferred it. There is a different between implication and inference. You might want to learn what it is.

Genes do nothing more than code for production of proteins. Many genes have been discovered. Many genes remain to be discovered. Many conditions are caused by the interactions between multiple genes. Some traits such as eye color are very straightforward genetically. Other traits, particularly those involving complex human behavior, such as sexuality and spirituality, are not determined by one gene and are complex interactions between the interactions of genes and environment.

As I stated, the research for the genetic component of male homosexuality is focused on those genes on the X chromosome because that is inherited from the mother in males, the other being of course the Y. The reason for the focus on the X chromosome is because it was noticed that the second born male in a family born to a woman with a homosexual mother has a high likelihood of being homosexual. This is not the case if the first born child of that mother is a daughter.

Go look up simpleton. You still have not addressed my point of your limited understanding of analogy. But for your benefit I will make mince meat of you intellectually yet again.

Your limited understanding of genetics is quite clear. Nobody determines their genetic makeup so of course someone cannot choose whether or not they have MS, a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, blue eyes, brown eyes or a limited intellect, like for example you do, or a genetic predisposition to be homosexual. Intelligence by the way has a strong genetic component. I am sorry about that.

Now, behavior of course is a choice. Many conditions with strong genetic components, such as MS, Gaucher's Disease, and many others, do not impact behavior. They are manifested more physically; in the case of MS for example, the myelin sheath covering nerves is destroyed by the immune response.

Other genetic conditions, alcoholism, sexuality, and religion, which by the way has a genetic component, discovered by a homosexual, Harvard researcher, Dean Hammer, for example manifest behaviorally. So yes, while I am predisposed to spirituality and drinking because both run in my family very strongly, I can choose not to attend Church and often do so and I can choose to drink and often do so. What's you're point?

When you have something interesting and substantial to opine on let me know.

You are a simpleton who has a limited understanding of analogy so let me clear this up for you. Alcoholism is a disease as is multiple sclerosis and many other conditions, many of which have strong genetic components. Blue eyes is a condition which is genetically determined but does no harm to the body as far as we know. Homosexuality does no harm to the body. JPII was a genius and I have begun reading his actual translated text published with an excellent introduction which puts the text into its proper historical perspective. Thanks for the reference though. You might also want to check out O'Sullivan's book on Thatcher, Reagan and JPII. It's brilliant.