Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
Nope, but they have one small difference, they allow the person carrying the gene to procreate at nearly the same rate as people who don't carry the gene.
|
Really?
So when the disease kills off the child in infancy, that is "the same rate" for procreation?
Other Genetic Diseases - Signs and Symptoms
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
I'm coming to the table with basic common sense ideas. I make no claims to scientific studies, just good old fashioned horse sense. If you don't pass on your genes, your genes don't get passed on. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
|
And it doesn't get much more simplistically flawed than that.
You should really look up "recessive genes", and then get back to this discussion.
If we assume the "gay gene" is present in me, it was passed to me by my parents.
My parents who had six other kids. Each of which who may have some form of the gene in their own genetic being.
Most of whom have had kids of their own, passing on the gene...
The complaint you raise is easily explained. In fact, some of the studies that show the younger children in larger families are more likely to be gay help substantiate such a claim, easily refuting the "passing on the gene" problem.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
Sorry, but the studies that I've seen do not follow the scientific method, they start with a theory and build facts around it to support it. BAD science. Good science is just as willing to prove the theory wrong as it is to prove it right.
|
I'm not talking about quoting the religious right studies, which aren't typically capable of passing the scientific standard to get them published in a reliable journal.
Moreover, I am amused at how you talk about "good old fashioned horse sense" on one hand, but on the other you pretend to have intimate knowledge about the fundamental workings of these "studies"...
I'm sorry, but no. You're just throwing crap out there hoping it sticks to the walls.
And I could prove that by putting up a variety of studies, and challenging you to show how they did what you accuse them of doing...
But I think we both know you couldn't follow through with actual PROOF of your claim...
So, if you want to proceed further, then let me know. I'll happily post several studies, and you can show me how supposedly they are all "bad science".
If all you want to do is throw out quick meaningless accusations which you obviously cannot substantiate on the grander scale of scientific evaluation, then I guess you've done that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
I already gave my explanation for homosexuality - hormonal influences in the womb and environmental influences. Both explain the results of twin studies. Twin studies are aslo flawed at thier core, because they don't remove the influence of natal hormones.
|
I already threw up the road-block that addressed your concern, but you ignored it.
Twin studies DO address the issue of "natal hormones". Fraternal vs Genetic twins.
BOTH fraternal and genetic twins are present in the same "natal" environment, exposed to the same "natal hormones", right?
So shouldn't the incidence for the homosexuality be identical between "fraternal" and "genetic" twins?
But it is NOT, is it...
Such an approach helps demonstrate that the genetically identical nature of the "genetic" twins adds something that is NOT PRESENT amongst the fraternal twins.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
A truly scientific study would be to have two different women carry the twins to term and then study the differences. The problem with that is that it would require an almost insurmountable logistical obstacle. Twin studies are flawed in this way and there's no way realistically to overcome that flaw. Therefore, the results of twin studies are questionable at best.
|
It's funny how you talk, but you don't actually say anything.
The REAL problem here is that you cannot "study the differences" right out of the womb. The "results" won't be seen for several years.
And this isn't a fundamental flaw which eliminates the conclusions of the twin studies either. The same variables that should separate fraternal twins are also present for genetic twins.
So the conclusions should be identical.
But again, they ARE NOT.
Your comments on a "flaw" do not erase the conclusions of the twin studies.
By that mentality, I could point out the bible passages that show inaccurate scientific claims, and erase the entire book, right?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
Any scientist would know this fact and the fact that these stusies are presented as good science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the scientists involved are not objectively evaluating a theory, but rather trying to prove thier theory is right.
|
Scientists make use of any data available.
It may not be the most ideal data, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless.
You are making the mistake (and assumption) that data not being perfect suddenly means it should be ignored.
THAT is your flawed thinking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
Why is it that homosexuals get all wound up about this whole genetic disposition to homosexuality? If you have a predisposition to homosexuality, then it's there and undeniable. So why try to create a false impression that it's about genes, when the facts show differently?
|
ROFLMAO!
Actually, you have presented NO "facts" that it is "different".
What you have done is raise a question, and pretend that the question only has one conclusion.
You haven't presented any "facts" at all. Furthermore, you have made sweepingly dubious claims regarding the legitimacy of the scientific work.
Tell you what FS. Can you present me ANY ACTUAL research which determines, to the degree of conclusivity that you demand from the pro-genetic studies, that it cannot be "genetic"?
Don't try to tout "facts" when you don't really have any...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by faithful_servant
Why not accept that it's because of natal hormones and environment? What is the big deal about wanting to prove that homosexuals have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality?
|
Actually, I believe the natal hormone environment DO have a definitive impact.
But it is not the ONLY impact.
A better question should by why you fight so hard with just "horse sense" to insist that it cannot be genetic?
Why make up claims about the genetic studies being "conclusion driven" ignoring the fact that many of them ARE CLEARLY beyond that attempt of reproach?