Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
But homosexuality still reduces the chances of a homosexual gene being passed to the next generation. You can go on and on about recessives, but the bottom line is that homosexuality is not a trait that enhances the possibility of the gene being passed to the next generation. You would see a slow, steady decline and eventually the complete loss of the gene.
|
Would you?
Would you really?
We've got genetically passed diseases, unrefutably passed via genetics, which are directly linked to death or other circumstances which limit them.
Are THEY gone?
While you mock other people's ideas, I think you need to realize that YOU are also coming to the table with some unproven ideas.
Actually, DISPROVEN claims.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
I do believe that there are hormonal influences in the womb that effect the possibility of a person being homosexual and environmental factors play huge role in it. But a genetic predisposition simply makes no sense.
|
And yet, the evidence of the genetic predisposition is there.
Proven in a variety of ways.
Differences between fraternal and genetic twins in rates of homosexuality helps demonstrate a more solid genetic link.
So maybe it's us that should scoff at your idea, as you are presenting some ideas that are obviously disproven....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
All HIGHLY theoretical and goal based research (instead of proposing a theory and then testing it to seeif it's correct, propose a theory and then prove that it's right)
|
These are real theories.
The fact that we can't readily test them is NOT a discrepancy in the theory.
It doesn't help *disprove* the theory, nor does it make it any less feasible.
The only "goal" here is to explain the phenomenon.
Something I don't see you even trying to do at all...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
Basic common sense says that homosexuals reproduce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. Ergo, homosexuals would be bred out of the gene pool over time. It's not rocket science, just very simple math.
|
When I was in high school, I came across a "math problem" that appeared to prove that 1+1=1.
It didn't. There was a flaw in one of the steps it used to reach its conclusion.
Likewise, your "homosexuals would be bred out of the gene pool over time" is like that "1+1=1".
Obviously, gays aren't going anywhere.
In fact, gays are ABUNDANT in the animal kingdom as well, showing there is a lot more going on than your simple analysis.
So, on one hand we have people actually ANSWERING your question.
And on the other hand, we have you not liking the answer cause it doesn't match the conclusion you WANT (goal-based decision making), and instead you stick to an analysis which incorporates an assumption which is obviously disproven.
If you think you have a better answer, than give it.
Otherwise, your demurrals are kind of pointless.