Aren't there genes that code for the RNA functionality? I figure there could be some kind of lock on epigenetic markers that prevent them from having any effect. In other words, you pass on a trait that prevents your offspring's lifestyle habits (e.g. drinking green tea) to have any effect on the child's DNA.  
Similarly, you could have genes that restrict RNAs to either be inhibitors OR activators. And if they're inhibitors only, then they'd have to inhibit other inhibitors to bring back the production of activator RNA. Ultimately meaning that no set of genes is permanently stuck that way, unless somewhere in the lineage, you lose the ability to inhibit an inhibitor, if that's possible.

The whole issue has been overblown. I thought we live in a do-what-you-feel-like, you're-okay-I'm-okay society. Who cares what messages the veil sends, if some woman wants to wear it, then fine. It isn't a necessary component of Islam and it is not nearly as much a social barrier as some have claimed it is. Women being harassed doesn't really depend on how you dress, but I think dressing on either extreme is only going to garner more unwanted attention. I doubt there is any general rule that can be applied to more than a given neighbourhood.

It always seems to annoy biology folk. Aside from the evolution excuses being totally wrong though, I'm bothered by the fact that it seems like a superhero can't exist in this age without his DNA being altered. Lameness.

That makes sense, perhaps at an early age our brains are unable to precisely control the impulses released by the neurons, overdoing it could probably damage critical neurons at their most sensitive phase of development.

This was a good read. Does this mean if we could find some kind of dendritic spine growth inhibitor (and implement it) FraX would go away? And what is it that the excess spines do to the person exactly? Firing some conflicting impulses?

Need help? I'm doing my undergraduate, taking chemistry, and I know my high school French!  
 
Devez tuer biochem.

When you typed in the comment box, did you really know if your comment was intelligent and sincere? If you think your insight was intelligent, you're lying to yourself. But if it was sincere, however ludicrous, maybe Razib won't delete it after all. 
 
Nevertheless, it is wrong to say faith is nothing more than an act of attempted self-deception. It is wrong because that is saying there can be no truth to it whatsoever. To staunchly hold a conviction is very different from attempting to deceive oneself. With a conviction, one may allow himself to question, investigate, hypothesize and--forgive the pun--play devil's advocate. Certainly, there is no room for that when you're trying to pass a polygraph. 
 
As for self-deception being a protective shield against external human pressures, there is no denying (forgive, forgive) that this is a factor in the reason for it. However, I think in most cases, people are quite content holding onto their own beliefs and not deceiving themselves. Many are prepared to put on a facade that agrees with the majority while secretly deviating from their viewpoint.  
 
But in all truth-telling inquries, we must separate The Truth from Telling The Truth. Telling The Truth is founded entirely in the intention. But in this case, we are telling ourselves the truth or falsehood. We are informing ourselves of our own intention. So, if some mechanism in our brain makes us believe that we believe what we are saying, we are still accountable. In which case, it's impossible to convict (forgive-3) ourselves for what we are Telling or Not Telling, but the crime is only determined by what is in fact The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But.