Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution?

Pages: (43) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,14:24    Quote The truth is, the social conservatives make a lot of sense, and you ignore their warnings at society's peril. Yeah, like teaching evolution leads to school shootings, there's no such thing as global warming, homosexuality is just a matter of sin, rape and incest victims should be required to carry the baby to term... Those social conservatives are just a fountain of wisdom! -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,14:42    If society had a little more of this... and a little less of this... ...school shootings would be a thing of the past. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,14:50    Ghost of Paley, care to back up your assertions? -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,14:50    talk about basing your conclusions on no data! LOL. besides, what's the problem with pictures of objects and people? *snark* hey paley, I'm laughing at you.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,14:58    Ghost: I'm with you there. My understanding is that there have been long-term stable societies where same-sex sexual relationships have not been met with hostility. My guess would be that the societies are stable because these relationships themselves can be stable. I agree that promiscuity has both medical and emotional side-effects, none of them desirable. But this is one of those things that confuses me about the conservative opposition to same-sex marriage. I should think the implied long-term commitment would be exactly what the conservatives want to promote. As you'd probably expect, I agree with Russell that you should not lump all social conservative policies into the same bag. Homosexuality is NOT a choice; here the social conservatives are wrong. Many homosexuals DO want a committed relationship with the same duties and privileges you enjoy, and the social conservatives are wrong to oppose this. The social benefits of easily available abortion have been beneficial without exception or ambiguity, a win-win-win situation for the woman with an undesired pregnancy, for society in the form of the crimes not committed by those not born to commit them, and even for those aborted rather than born into an unwelcoming environment unwilling and unable to raise them properly. Add another win for getting Big Brother out of peoples' personal lives and for people not finding that an intensely personal matter is either mandatory or forbidden by parties elsewhere. I'll admit right now I can't understand the opposition to abortion; it strikes me as perversity for its own sake; the effort to make *everyone* suffer just for the satisfiaction of knowing you're causing suffering! And you call this 'a lot of sense'? You seem to be missing something important here. Nobody is cheerleading for misery, disease, jealousy, contempt, or homicide. It's true that free-love communes solved none of these problems, and made many of them worse. But bad policies don't become good just because some 'solutions' were steps in the wrong direction.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:02    Wow. I find it difficult to believe that in order to act morally and not shoot up kids in schools, I have to believe in one of the most bizarre sets of fantasies ever invented. And this despite that fact that atheists are WAY underrepresented in prisons. Ghost pretends to address issues and think, but when cornered, up goes the irrationality and you can feel the floor shake from the force of his mind slamming shut. Sheesh.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:08    Flint, perhaps what we're witnessing is projection. Perhaps he's feeling a bit guilty after that poll which found that christians were more likely to support torture than secular people.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:09    Quote I agree that promiscuity has both medical and emotional side-effects, none of them desirable. that is ENTIRELY dependent on the specific society you wish to use in your analysis. there are many societies that have/had regarded polygamy as the norm, and have no problems with that.  Others that use promiscuity like the bonobos do, as a social binding force. it's this specific society that has problems with the types of behaviors being discussed. Paley, and now Flint(?) appear to be ethnocentralizing their thinking here. why not investigate how other societies that are different from that in the US deal with these issues? As we all struggle to figure out what works best for american society, we shouldn't ignore how others have dealt with similar things, even if the circumstances and environment are different. perhaps sociology as a science isn't as worthless as some would contend.

Seven Popes Posts: 190 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:18    Fools! The more time you tie up GOP in this thread, the less time he as to devote to his masterstroke thread, Paley's Ghost can back up his assertions.  If not for you,  we would have an outline by now. -------------- Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:26    oh, yeah, sorry. doesn't he have some amphibious fish work to do too? busy, busy boy. Quote poll which found that christians were more likely to support torture than secular people. I'm sure Salvador was a datapoint in that poll.  speaking of which, I missed that one.  got a link?

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:30    Rats. I just realized there was a typo in my last attempt to get T-diddy to focus. That should have read: Quote What is being taught in school that you think should not be? What is not being taught that you think should be? What should science and scientists say about it that they don't? What should science and scientists not say about it that they do? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:34    Flint: Quote Homosexuality is NOT a choice; here the social conservatives are wrong. You're probably correct here. I wish that good people wouldn't use such bad arguments. Quote But this is one of those things that confuses me about the conservative opposition to same-sex marriage. I should think the implied long-term commitment would be exactly what the conservatives want to promote. Well, I suspect that conservatives are afraid of the camel nosing his way into the tent. They respect the Law of Unintended Consequences. Quote Many homosexuals DO want a committed relationship with the same duties and privileges you enjoy, and the social conservatives are wrong to oppose this. Given that openly gay people are becoming more visible year by year, all I can say is I hope you're right. This society could use more responsible behavior. Quote The social benefits of easily available abortion have been beneficial without exception or ambiguity, a win-win-win situation for the woman with an undesired pregnancy, for society in the form of the crimes not committed by those not born to commit them, and even for those aborted rather than born into an unwelcoming environment unwilling and unable to raise them properly. I'm trying to avoid an abortion debate at all costs, so let me just say that most social conservatives would not find this line of reasoning very fetching. Quote Nobody is cheerleading for misery, disease, jealousy, contempt, or homicide. It's true that free-love communes solved none of these problems, and made many of them worse. But bad policies don't become good just because some 'solutions' were steps in the wrong direction. But progressives are competing against 1000's of years of social selection. Their track record doesn't inspire much confidence in the future. Did you ever see the "The Harrad Experiment"? It all looked so groovy at the time. Who could argue against such logic? Reality, that's who. Quote Wow. I find it difficult to believe that in order to act morally and not shoot up kids in schools, I have to believe in one of the most bizarre sets of fantasies ever invented. And this despite that fact that atheists are WAY underrepresented in prisons. Not you, perhaps, but what about the people who need some guidance? Putting the issue of truth aside, many people need religion. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:39    Quote Putting the issue of truth aside, many people need religion. do you? why? oh, sorry, there i go distracting you from all the other important theses you are supposed to be developing. my apologies seven.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:42    Ghost of Paley said: Quote But you're trying to build a rule from the exceptions. Most people are pretty clearly male or female. Maybe in their physical equipment, but most certainly NOT in their sexual orientation.  Multiple studies show that between 2-4% (not the often misquoted 10%) of people in the world identify themselves as gay or bi.  Even erring on the low end, that’s over 100 million clearly non-hetero folks.  A not insignificant number, wouldn’t you agree? http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=88 Ghost of Paley said: Quote We can't design social norms around the exceptional cases - that would be like architects designing doorways with the NBA center in mind. But we must design social norms to accommodate the exceptional cases.  Should we regress to a hundred years ago, when physically handicapped people were considered second class, denied civil rights, and placed in circus sideshows?  It’s not like those ‘tards such as Stephen Hawkings ever contribute to society, right? Ghost of Paley said: Quote Perhaps.....but maybe there's a good reason for the taboo. Most social rules have developed for a reason. Even libertine societies were not equally tolerant of all types of homosexual behavior. I'm not a big fan of wiping out a suite of sexual mores without giving some thought to the possible consequences: Free love brings free diseases, and medicine's defenses can be circumvented through microevolution. Open relationships often lead to jealousy, contempt, and homicide. Get rid of marriage, and you often reap a crop of fatherless kids just looking for trouble. All of our little countercultural experiments have had unintended consequences, often disastrous. You just defined homosexual behavior as “sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know.”  Now you are equating accepting homosexual behavior to “wiping out sexual mores” and “free love” and “open relationships” and “end of marriage”?  How in the world can you make that logical connection? Here’s a though experiment for you You walk through the park and see a man and a woman making out like high school kids.  Someone tells you “They’re on their honeymoon”, so you can bet they’ll be doing that “well,,,you know” stuff at night.  You walk away smiling A week later you find out that the woman was actually a guy in drag, and that they pretended to be a hetero couple because they weren’t allowed to marry as a same-sex couple. Now tell me - how was society harmed by their relationship? What sexual mores got wiped out?  How did their actions condone “free love”, or “open relationships”?  Or signal an “end to marriage”? That is not a far-fetched scenario, BTW.  Many same-sex couples are desperate to show their commitment in a legal marriage.  Last year when the mayor of SF briefly instructed City Hall to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, over 4000 couples from all over the U.S. showed up the first week alone, totally swamping the office. Those with non-hetero orientations have never asked for special rights.  They just want the same rights guaranteed every other person under the Constitution. The right to marry the person they love.  The right to not be fired or beaten because of those they go home to at night. The right to not live in fear.   Ghost of Paley said: Quote Every action you take affects another human being. And it's easier to destroy a village than rebuild it. That’s right.  Every time ANY person of ANY orientation is unfairly discriminated against, or ostracized, or threatened, or tied to a fence post and beaten to death, we ALL are adversely affected. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:47    Quote there are many societies that have/had regarded polygamy as the norm, and have no problems with that.  Others that use promiscuity like the bonobos do, as a social binding force. it's this specific society that has problems with the types of behaviors being discussed. Paley, and now Flint(?) appear to be ethnocentralizing their thinking here. why not investigate how other societies that are different from that in the US deal with these issues? We would, 'cept they keep spinning us like turnstiles as they enter the U.S. I think that tells us a lot right there. "ZOOM-ZOOM-ZOOM!" #### hippie. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:52    was that supposed to be a joke or something? not even worth a hyena laugh. oh, and btw, I'm a church-burnin' Ebola boy.  not a hippie.  get with the times. I think OA stated my position on this issue better than i could have. I can't think of anything else worthwhile to add. cheers

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,16:26    sir_toejam: Quote there are many societies that have/had regarded polygamy as the norm, and have no problems with that.  Others that use promiscuity like the bonobos do, as a social binding force. This is somewhat outside my knowledge. Can you provide a few links? If this is the case, then we have an actual working model of what we might wish to shoot for in some ways. Ghost: Quote I'm trying to avoid an abortion debate at all costs, so let me just say that most social conservatives would not find this line of reasoning very fetching. I understand. I don't wish to get into that debate either. I simply wanted to point out that we're not dealing here with any situation that "1000's of years of social selection" has addressed in the past. This is much more a question of what modern technology permits, fighting against a clearly irrational rejection despite the fact that the evidence accumulated in even a relatively short time has overwhelmingly discredited the conservative resistance. Look, I understand that fools rush in, and that history, especially long history, is an excellent crucible testing what works and what does not. But different=wrong, all by itself, isn't sufficient. So I was raising one case where the conservative position has NO merits. None. Just to show that conservativism isn't necessarily based on analysis of merits. It's much more instinctive, I think. Quote Their track record doesn't inspire much confidence in the future. Did you ever see the "The Harrad Experiment"? It all looked so groovy at the time. Who could argue against such logic? Reality, that's who. Yet earlier, I had thought we agreed that social realities can be distinctly flexible. That's why I asked toejam for more information. Your conservative position seems to be that new-and-different, plunked down in a conservative fundamentalist milieu, is going to fail badly. But that's not the issue; the issue is whether the social fabric is flexible enough to accommodate what might even work better, given enough time. Occam: As I said, I think sexuality is bimodal enough for social laws and customs to treat it as having no exceptions. This is something different from accommodating those exceptions that exist, though. Quote Now tell me - how was society harmed by their relationship? What sexual mores got wiped out?  How did their actions condone “free love”, or “open relationships”?  Or signal an “end to marriage”? Here is where I wonder if Ghost is genuinely one of those hysterics who see a same-sex couple and start bellowing about how this is the end of the world. On other forums, I've run into these yahoos, and I've repeatedly asked how MY marriage is threatened, in any way they can imagine however far-fetched. The closest anyone has come is to say that if we permit such behaviors, society will abandon any sense of right and wrong and we will ALL start shooting kids in schools. Kind of sad to see Ghost parroting that same party line.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,16:33    Quote This is somewhat outside my knowledge. Can you provide a few links? cool. hmm, it's been 20 years since i studied anthropology and sociology, but it's worth a shot.  I think i still have many of the texts even.  I remember generally that there were African and South American societies that fit what I was describing, but I have to lookup the specifics that described the relevant environmental circumstances. Also, i recall a more recent documentary that covered how different societies deal with homosexualtiy and transgender issues.  IIRC, that was on Nat Geo not too long ago.  that shouldn't be too hard to dig up. I'll post the links in a new thread Wednesday or Thursday, as I have a bit of work to do tommorrow. acceptable? and no, i won't pull a ghost on you and forget cheers

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:26    Flint: Quote This [abortion] is much more a question of what modern technology permits, fighting against a clearly irrational rejection despite the fact that the evidence accumulated in even a relatively short time has overwhelmingly discredited the conservative resistance. Once again, I want to avoid debating the merits of abortion, but I couldn't let this slide without comment. Quote 1.4% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later. This works out to approximately 18,000 per year.[1] This statistic courtesy of the the Guttmacher Institute, an organization dedicated Quote to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation. Are these statistics reliable? Some insiders doubt them. Even if the statistics are valid, should we worry about late-term abortions? Yes, and here's why: Quote The seventh month of gestation witnesses the appearance of many new osseous (bone) formations. The developing foetus is now 305 millimetres long. Sulci and gyri (the convolutions) of the brain are much more in evidence, membranes over the pupils disappears and the eyes open. The insula (An oval region of the cerebral cortex overlying the extreme capsule, lateral to the lenticular nucleus, buried in the depth of the fissura lateralis cerebri (sylvian fissure), separated from the adjacent opercula by the circular sulcus of insula.) and the tubercula quadrigemina develop. The seventh month is essentially characterised by rapid growth, development and organisational refinement. By the eighth month, the foetus will be 405+ millimetres (16+ inches), from crown to heel. During this month of development the foetus will strengthen its body and the nervous system will increase its connections and receive more sensory input, and gain more motor control. During the ninth month the foetus will reach 510 millimetres (20 inches) or more. All ossification points are in place, and further refinement of motor and other neuronal connections takes place for the ninth month foetus is usually very active. Here's another source that gives a week-by-week development with 3D ultrasound pictures.  Medical experts agree that a fetus may experience pain by the third trimester. This is significant because: Quote At 32 weeks of gestation - two months before a baby is considered fully prepared for the world, or "at term" - a fetus is behaving almost exactly as a newborn. And it continues to do so for the next 12 weeks. As if overturning the common conception of infancy weren't enough, scientists are creating a startling new picture of intelligent life in the womb. Among the revelations: By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By the end of the second trimester it can hear. Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams. The fetus savors its mother's meals, first picking up the food tastes of a culture in the womb. Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it. Even a premature baby is aware, feels, responds, and adapts to its environment. Just because the fetus is responsive to certain stimuli doesn't mean that it should be the target of efforts to enhance development. Sensory stimulation of the fetus can in fact lead to bizarre patterns of adaptation later on. In my opinion, there's not much to distinguish a third-trimester fetus from a newborn. Any differences are quantitative rather than qualitative. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:55    Just one more thing. Everyone who advocates that gay marriage should be legalized is assuming that this will end the matter. But what if gays decide that marriage isn't enough (there's still all this institutionalized homophobia floating around, don't you know), so a good dose of affirmative action, set-asides, and hate-crime legislation are in order? Current promises don't mean much; after all, liberals once said that the 1964 Civil Rights Act wouldn't lead to quotas. And it didn't for a couple of years or so. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,15:13    Hey Ghost, You forgot to explain how allowing a same-sex couple to make the legal committment of marriage will lead to sexual mores getting wiped out.  Or lead to a massive wave of “free love” and “open relationships”.  Or signal an “end to marriage”. Please provide some details, not just your idle speculation.  Inquiring minds want to know. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,15:55    Occam's Aftershave wrote: Quote Hey Ghost, You forgot to explain how allowing a same-sex couple to make the legal committment of marriage will lead to sexual mores getting wiped out.  Or lead to a massive wave of “free love” and “open relationships”.  Or signal an “end to marriage”. Please reread the original post. I actually said: Quote I'm not a big fan of wiping out a suite of sexual mores without giving some thought to the possible consequences: Free love brings free diseases, and medicine's defenses can be circumvented through microevolution. Open relationships often lead to jealousy, contempt, and homicide. Get rid of marriage, and you often reap a crop of fatherless kids just looking for trouble. All of our little countercultural experiments have had unintended consequences, often disastrous. The "suite" refers to the cluster of sexual prohibitions against homosexual relations. As you can see in the passage, I never stated, or even implied, that allowing homosexual marriage by itself would unravel the social fabric. In fact, I actually implied that: 1) much of the social fabric has already been unraveled by "progressive" philosophy; and 2) heterosexuals have largely caused this.  But homosexuals held up their end by refusing to shut down gay baths in the wake of AIDS. Consequently, the disease spread so rapidly throughout the gay population that most AIDs victims were doomed before the scientists could get a handle on the situation. Furthermore, many gays have embraced a decadent lifestyle, alienating potential allies to the cause. Look at the typical gay parade. Do these people realise how they damage their movement? -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,15:59    Quote Look at the typical gay parade spend much time watching gay pride parades, do you? I thought you had important issues to address, like your theory of life, the universe, and everything, as well as telling us what the recent amphibious fish find "isn't"? how is it that you have time to attend all these gay pride parades? hmm. oh, and I'm still laughing at you.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:16    Ghost: Quote In my opinion, there's not much to distinguish a third-trimester fetus from a newborn. Any differences are quantitative rather than qualitative. OK, two brief (for me, anyway) comments on this: 1) When we decide a developing human should be granted legal personhood is essentially arbitrary, just like when we declare adulthood or seniorhood. These are fairly important distinctions without any qualitative differences. 2) However, the degree to which it is not arbitrary have to do with practical considerations: unambiguous milestones, enforceability, political concerns and forces. Personally, I'd be willing to vote for some point during pregnancy after which (1) the fetus bears enough resemblance to a newborn to have enough emotional appeal for enough people; and (2) after which the pregnant woman has had easily sufficient opportunity to change her mind and have an abortion if she wishes. BOTH these should be true, I think - to change her mind AND to have the opportunity to act accordingly. But I can recognize that birth is a clear, obvious milestone, easy to define and enforce, which also dovetails with other legal rights (and is where we start counting toward all those subsequent magic times). Quote Everyone who advocates that gay marriage should be legalized is assuming that this will end the matter. But what if gays decide that marriage isn't enough (there's still all this institutionalized homophobia floating around, don't you know), so a good dose of affirmative action, set-asides, and hate-crime legislation are in order? I genuinely don't understand what you are worried about here. Are you suggesting that these programs would be demanded EVEN IF there is no clear inequality in de facto effect? I shouldn't need to point out that the 1954 Brown decision, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, failed to provide much effective equality. Blacks STILL could not get jobs, get into colleges, get a decent public school education, and in a thousand ways weren't on a level playing field. You seem to be saying, hey, if we let them marry, they will act uppity and demand the same opportunities you have. Terrible thing. Quote Furthermore, many gays have embraced a decadent lifestyle...much of the social fabric has already been unraveled What bothers me is, you might not be kidding, you might actually *believe* this. You've already laid claim to beliefs even more peculiar. But "different from how I wish to live" is a bit more neutral than "decadent" or "unraveled". You are applying pejoratives to anything you find unfamiliar or different. Granted, I'm only 60, not yet old enough to have the perspective to see how the world is going to he11 in a handbasket like you and other old people have bemoaned for millennia. Too bad you feel the need to maintain the status quo at *someone else's* expense. But entirely typical.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:28    Ghost of Paley said: Quote Furthermore, many gays have embraced a decadent lifestyle, alienating potential allies to the cause. Look at the typical gay parade. Do these people realise how they damage their movement? How many gays embrace a decadent lifestyle?  100%?  50%? 10%?  How many is "many", and how did you determine that number? And what is a "decadent" lifestyle?  PDAs in front of some 80 year old WASP prig?  Wanting to have a committed same-sex relationship with someone you love? You are arguing the same group stereotyping that is a hallmark of every hater who tries to justify his prejudices. many blacks are lazy and shiftless many hispanics are thieves many asians can't drive many gays live a decadent lifestyle I just took Thordaddy to task for exactly the same thing.  He's a hopeless flaming homophobe - you at least seem a bit more sane and rational.  Do you see how your stereotyping drags you down to his level? And did it ever occur to you that the folks celebrating their sexuality in a parade do so because it is a highly visible but non-violent means of protesting and bringing attention to the discrimination they suffer? Good thing Rosa Parks and ML King didn't realize how they were damaging their movement by being such uppity nigg*rs, eh? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:32    OK. Here you go, T-diddy. Here is a handful of articles in what I deem respectable journals. I've excerpted some of the more relevant bits of the abstracts, just to give you an idea what each is about. But, by all means, look up the abstracts (given as links), or - if you have library access - the full articles. This reflects the pretty much unanimous - so far as I can tell - sense of science that sexual orientation is largely biologically determined before birth, including a significant genetic component. Do you disagree? Do you think these studies reflect ideology rather than science? Can you cite reputable scientific studies that reach a different conclusion? [Please note: those are three (3) specific questions - not an invitation to go off on a  nonresponsive diversionary rant] Arch Sex Behav. 1995 Apr;24(2):109-34. Quote a thesis is presented that a major type of Kinsey grades 5 and 6 male homosexuality is determined by a gene in the Xq28 region Am J Psychiatry. 2000 Nov;157(11):1843-6. Quote RESULTS: All analyses demonstrated familial resemblance for sexual orientation. Resemblance was greater in the monozygotic twins than in the dizygotic twins or in the dizygotic twins plus nontwin siblings. Biometrical twin modeling suggested that sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors, but family environment may also play a role. Hum Genet. 2005 Mar;116(4):272-8. Epub 2005 Jan 12. Quote Given that previously reported evidence of maternal loading of transmission of sexual orientation could indicate epigenetic factors acting on autosomal genes, maximum likelihood estimations (mlod) scores were calculated separated for maternal, paternal, and combined transmission. The highest mlod score was 3.45 at a position near D7S798 in 7q36 with approximately equivalent maternal and paternal contributions. The second highest mlod score of 1.96 was located near D8S505 in 8p12, again with equal maternal and paternal contributions. A maternal origin effect was found near marker D10S217 in 10q26, with a mlod score of 1.81 for maternal meioses and no paternal contribution. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Jun;989:105-17; discussion 144-53. Quote People discover rather than choose their sexual interests. The process of discovery typically begins before the onset of puberty and is associated with an increase in the secretion of sex hormones from the adrenal glands. However, the determinants of the direction of sexual interest, in the sense of preferences for the same or opposite sex, are earlier. These preferences, although not manifest until much later in development, appear to be caused by the neural organizational effects of intrauterine hormonal events. Variations in these hormonal events likely have several causes and two of these appear to have been identified for males. One cause is genetic and the other involves the sensitization of the maternal immune system to some aspect of the male fetus. It is presently unclear how these two causes relate to each other... Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005;29(7):1057-66. Epub 2005 Apr 25. Quote Here, evidence is reviewed which supports the proposal that sexual orientation in humans may be laid down in neural circuitry during early foetal development. Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation… [C]urrent theories have left little room for learning models of sexual orientation. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:36    Gees, Russel! talk about pearls before swine. Your asking someone who can't comprehend conditional logic to actually read and cogently comment on an actual published scientific article? blood from a stone, man.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:51    Quote talk about pearls before swine... blood from a stone, man. You're right, of course. But - aside from the fun of watching T-diddy try to justify his Quote Homosexuality, given all the current evidence, is a product of free-will and a lifestyle choice in light of, well, current evidence - I thought other, more sentient, folks might appreciate those references, too. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,17:24    Russell, Again, all these articles start with the assumption that evolution provides for a "sexual orientation" and so the scientists simply look for the evidence whether it be a genetic factor or due to hormonal changes. What evidence do we have that evolution provides for "sexual orientations" outside the fact that an orientiation exists?  You sound like an IDer making an argument for design.  The design exists and therefore so does the IDer.  Likewise, "homosexuality" exists and therefore it's a product of evolution. What's the evidence, man?

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,17:31    Quote in light of, well, current evidence - I thought other, more sentient, folks might appreciate those references, too. so start a new thread where we can discuss the specifics of these papers, epigenetics, and the future of sociobiology. wouldn't that be more interesting than what Mr. Black Hole has to say? how many times can you pass a pickup with a ferrari and still have fun with it? (er, don't answer that, Seven ;) )

Pages: (43) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard