> When the scientists say that they have found that genes are responsible
> for being overweight, all they are saying, in effect, is that for the
> number 100, the numbers responsible for being more than 95 are 96, 97, 98,
> 99, and 100.
>
> From which they can make the claim that this breakthrough shows that fat
> people and 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 cannot help being what they are.
>
> Anyone can put on weight if they eat enough. This "gene for- " business is
> really more about drawing arbitrary lines between 0 and 100. It all smacks
> of scientific marketeering, career enhancement and of testing the waters
> for future eugenics. Are we fooled? Of course.

>
> "John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fofj9g$tfv$1@aioe.org...

>> When the scientists say that they have found that genes are
>> responsible for being overweight, all they are saying, in effect, is
>> that for the number 100, the numbers responsible for being more than
>> 95 are 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100.
>>
>> From which they can make the claim that this breakthrough shows that
>> fat people and 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 cannot help being what they are.
>>
>> Anyone can put on weight if they eat enough. This "gene for- "
>> business is really more about drawing arbitrary lines between 0 and
>> 100. It all smacks of scientific marketeering, career enhancement and
>> of testing the waters for future eugenics. Are we fooled? Of course.

>
> You're suckered by reporters saying what scientists say about genes.
> Genes for obesity can make one more predisposed to being obese, but
> doesn't guarantee it. Genes are not destiny. ...

> When the scientists say that they have found that genes are responsible
> for being overweight, all they are saying, in effect, is that for the
> number 100, the numbers responsible for being more than 95 are 96, 97,
> 98, 99, and 100.
>
>  From which they can make the claim that this breakthrough shows that
> fat people and 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 cannot help being what they are.
>
> Anyone can put on weight if they eat enough. This "gene for- " business
> is really more about drawing arbitrary lines between 0 and 100. It all
> smacks of scientific marketeering, career enhancement and of testing the
> waters for future eugenics. Are we fooled? Of course.

> On Feb 7, 12:39 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>> When the scientists say that they have found that genes are responsible
>> for being overweight, all they are saying, in effect, is that for the
>> number 100, the numbers responsible for being more than 95 are 96, 97,
>> 98, 99, and 100.
>>
>> From which they can make the claim that this breakthrough shows that
>> fat people and 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 cannot help being what they are.
>>
>> Anyone can put on weight if they eat enough. This "gene for- " business
>> is really more about drawing arbitrary lines between 0 and 100. It all
>> smacks of scientific marketeering, career enhancement and of testing the
>> waters for future eugenics. Are we fooled? Of course.

>
> Do you deny that some individuals are more genetically disposed to
> obesity than others? That some individual's mitochondria are more
> efficent in generating energy from nutrients? Over-eating is probably
> a major factor in the incidence of obesity but to deny a genetic
> effect is to be blatently anti-science. ...

> thinker wrote:

>>
>> "John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:fofj9g$tfv$1@aioe.org...

>>> When the scientists say that they have found that genes are responsible
>>> for being overweight, all they are saying, in effect, is that for the
>>> number 100, the numbers responsible for being more than 95 are 96, 97,
>>> 98, 99, and 100.
>>>
>>> From which they can make the claim that this breakthrough shows that fat
>>> people and 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 cannot help being what they are.
>>>
>>> Anyone can put on weight if they eat enough. This "gene for- " business
>>> is really more about drawing arbitrary lines between 0 and 100. It all
>>> smacks of scientific marketeering, career enhancement and of testing the
>>> waters for future eugenics. Are we fooled? Of course.

>>
>> You're suckered by reporters saying what scientists say about genes. ...

> zinnic wrote:

>> On Feb 7, 12:39 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>>> When the scientists say that they have found that genes are responsible
>>> for being overweight, all they are saying, in effect, is that for the
>>> number 100, the numbers responsible for being more than 95 are 96, 97,
>>> 98, 99, and 100.
>>>
>>> From which they can make the claim that this breakthrough shows that
>>> fat people and 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 cannot help being what they are.
>>>
>>> Anyone can put on weight if they eat enough. This "gene for- " business
>>> is really more about drawing arbitrary lines between 0 and 100. It all
>>> smacks of scientific marketeering, career enhancement and of testing the
>>> waters for future eugenics. Are we fooled? Of course.

>>
>> Do you deny that some individuals are more genetically disposed to
>> obesity than others? That some individual's mitochondria are more
>> efficent in generating energy from nutrients? Over-eating is probably ...

> When the scientists say that they have found that genes are responsible for
> being overweight, all they are saying, in effect, is that for the number
> 100, the numbers responsible for being more than 95 are 96, 97, 98, 99, and
> 100.
>
> From which they can make the claim that this breakthrough shows that fat
> people and 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 cannot help being what they are.
>
> Anyone can put on weight if they eat enough. This "gene for- " business is
> really more about drawing arbitrary lines between 0 and 100. It all smacks
> of scientific marketeering, career enhancement and of testing the waters
> for future eugenics. Are we fooled? Of course.

>
> "John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fofqjn$nli$1@aioe.org...

>> thinker wrote:

>>>
>>> "John Jones" aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fofj9g$tfv$1@aioe.org...

>>>> When the scientists say that they have found that genes are
>>>> responsible for being overweight, all they are saying, in effect, is
>>>> that for the number 100, the numbers responsible for being more than
>>>> 95 are 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100.
>>>>
>>>> From which they can make the claim that this breakthrough shows that
>>>> fat people and 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 cannot help being what they are.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone can put on weight if they eat enough. This "gene for- "
>>>> business is really more about drawing arbitrary lines between 0 and
>>>> 100. It all smacks of scientific marketeering, career enhancement
>>>> and of testing the waters for future eugenics. Are we fooled? Of ...

> zinnic wrote:

>> On Feb 7, 12:39 pm, John Jones aol.com> wrote:

>>> When the scientists say that they have found that genes are responsible
>>> for being overweight, all they are saying, in effect, is that for the
>>> number 100, the numbers responsible for being more than 95 are 96, 97,
>>> 98, 99, and 100.

>

>>>  From which they can make the claim that this breakthrough shows that
>>> fat people and 96, 97, 98, 99, and 100 cannot help being what they are.

>

>>> Anyone can put on weight if they eat enough. This "gene for- " business
>>> is really more about drawing arbitrary lines between 0 and 100. It all
>>> smacks of scientific marketeering, career enhancement and of testing the
>>> waters for future eugenics. Are we fooled? Of course.

>

>> Do you deny that some individuals are more genetically disposed to
>> obesity than others? That some individual's mitochondria are more
>> efficent in generating energy from nutrients? Over-eating is probably
>> a major factor in the incidence of obesity but to deny a genetic ...