|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:31 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I'm refering to the every-day usage of the word "proof".
You want to have a scientific discussion, you use the scientific meaning of the word. And I'm waiting for your proposed experiment. If you can't tell me what evidence would change your mind, then you aren't interested in a scientific appraisal. That's OK, but then you shouldn't frame your argument as thought it were the result of a critical deductive analysis. You haven't made any conclusions. You just believe something and that's the end of it.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:31 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:36, 21 May 2014.
|
Let me clarify then. Untill there's a broadly supported theory on the origins of sexuality, I will stick to my own theory of sexuality being constructed. Of course, I will add other findings and insights into it (like how Artu convinced me arousal is a natural instinct related to reproduction), but as a politician, I know you can't make good policy based on occassional findings.
Well, Meroe, what do you suspect is my "agenda" anyway?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:33 PM |
|
|
meroe said:
BTW it would have taken some time or Cor's part to research that for you.
It took a little time, but I've been doing this long enough to take a landscape portrait of a scientific topic pretty quickly and make big-picture conclusions. I do notice he didn't respond to a word of it, probably because he isn't interested in what real scientists have to say about the topic.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 10:40 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Fred, nobody seems to think homosexuality is genetic in this thread.
i do, to a degree. i think it has a lot to do with genes, and the rest of the influences in the upbringing of the child. there have been people who "all-of-a-sudden" realized that they were gay, and i'm sure that's true, based on supression of gay impulses due to environment/social mores in that individual's life, etc. of course, those individuals could be said to have been genetically homosexual, as they had to find what would be their "true calling", as far as sexuality.
it's a mix of genes and external influence. you cannot rule out genetics, life doesn't work that way. it never has.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:24 PM |
|
|
Well, I'm with xerox on this one, unless there is substantial and absolute proof of homosexuality being genetic I'm more keen to believe it's a matter of enviroment.
First, how do you explain sudden revelations of being gay, self-discoveries and returning to be straight? There are gays that become straight, were they in denial of their nature? Or simply they saw that being gay didn't suit them? In all these studies this factor wasn't even taken into account. Another factor is that attraction was followed by acts? Becase actually some straight males can feel something for the same sex but won't go on in fulfilling the act. Another factor is the moment they made this discovery, was it always like this? Or did something happen that turned them gay, some cases have been diagnosticated as a result of a childhood trauma, making them incapable of seeing the other sex as possible to mate.
Corribus said:
A number of studies in the late 1990s independently identified strong correlations between male (but not female) homosexuality and a specific region of the X-chromosome called Xq28. A short meta-analysis of this work can be found in the journal Science, published 1999, vol 285, page 803. It is well known that the X-chromosomes accumulates genes that influence sex, reproduction, and cognition.
That was the study of Dean H. Hamer, who was then criticized for this work by the scientific community for alleged manipulation and was then disproven by another team of scientists:
«Science» 23, 1999, pp. 665-667. said:
Several lines of evidence have implicated genetic factors in homosexuality. The most compelling observation has been the report of genetic linkage of male homosexuality to microsatellite markers on the X chromosome. This observation warranted further study and confirmation. Sharing of alleles at position Xq28 was studied in 52 gay male sibling pairs from Canadian families. Four markers at Xq28 were analyzed (DXS1113, BGN, Factor 8, and DXS1108). Allele and haplotype sharing for these markers was not increased over expectation. These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.
There was another famous experiment made by Simon Lavay involving the diameter of the ipotalamus's nucleus 3 and it was discovered that homosexuals had a similar diameter to the one of a woman... But then they discovered a similar diameter also in straight males, or straight females that had similar diameters as straight men, making this a giant mess that was subsequently disproven as it was too situational.
While there are many studies which prove that Homosexuality is genetic there is a large number that prove the contrary, without counting the fact that some of the most famous studies were then debunked.
In conclusion, it's still not certain, science can't prove everything, it failed with evolution, it may fail with this. I already proposed the best course of action, we take omozygote twins and we separate them at birth making them live completely different lives and then we see if they are both homosexual or not.
Also on the fact that you are shocked that xerox doesn't want a genetic explanation it's the same reaction a large part of the gay community had when those studies were posted, some gays don't want their sexuality being decided on their birth while others want that as a justification for their behaviour.
Corribus said:
I get this isn't explicitly related to sexuality, BUT if physical/chemical human gender differences can bring about differences in behavioral responses cross-species, do you honestly think there is no evidence to suggest that such differences in gender chemistry/anatomy can not elicit unique responses in human behavior as well? Furthermore, if human sex pheromones ARE responsible for gender-specific sexual response in humans (which they must be, why else would humans have sex pheromones?), then any genetic abnormality in the receptors for these pheromones would lead to genetic-linked abnormal sexual behavior. In other words: females give off sex pheromones that stimulate a behavioral response in "normal" human males but not "normal" human females. If there is any genetic variation in the physiology of a male (either in signaling hormones, or hormone acceptors, which can be linked to a whole bunch of different genes), then they would have altered response to female sex pheromones. Since hormones often share chemical similarities, it is not so much of a stretch to believe that a male could be born with a genetic predisposition to respond to male pheromones by mistake. That's a plausible, if very simplistic, hypothesis to explain homosexuality.
Again, that's speculation, but it's speculation based on scientific fact. We KNOW humans have pheromones that can affect the behavior of nearby animals, and we KNOW many species, humans included, have pheromones specifically link to sexual behavior. Failure to acknowledge this just shows you have more interest in your agenda than what the facts are telling you.
Sorry but, then how can the one with this malfunction react to particular images? As far as I know being homosexual means that he will get aroused by pictures of men and not of women. That said, if he can't smell the pheromones he would be straight as a column!
I dropped this just to say that I think searching the biological reason for Homosexuality in pheromones seems quite illogical
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:38 PM |
|
|
Neraus said:
As far as I know being homosexual means that he will get aroused by pictures of men and not of women. That said, if he can't smell the pheromones he would be straight as a column!
And if he doesn't see the picture of women, will he be queer as Harvey Milk? 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 21, 2014 11:58 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:00, 22 May 2014.
|
Neraus said:
science can't prove everything, it failed with evolution,
You just discredited anything else you had in your entire post, but I'll continue since it's entertaining.
You mention a lot of studies that provide evidence against genetic links, but I failed to see any specific studies mentioned. Example: "There are many studies which prove that Homosexuality is genetic there is a large number that prove the contrary, without counting the fact that some of the most famous studies were then debunked." First of all, there are NO studies that "prove that homosexuality is genetic". You clearly didn't bother to really read anything I wrote, because I made it clear that the answer is not this simplistic, and I never used the word "prove" anyway. Beyond that, please tell me specific peer-reviewed studies that "prove the contrary" (well, studies that provide evidence against genetic and/or biological links). There probably are some - in fact I mentioned one in my post. It doesn't really mean anything - just that the biological basis of homosexuality is complex. No, what I'd really like you to show me are examples of studies that have been "debunked". Debunked by whom? And for what reason? Studies that are determined by the scientific community to be fraudulent are always retracted, which is a matter of public record and should be easy to find. Studies that are shown professionally to have erroneous conclusions or experimental shortcomings also become a matter of record in the literature, and you should be able to point to follow up studies that do this "debunking". Where are they?
If you mean debunking by amateurs like yourself, then I'm not really impressed. Here's why:
You mention the report by Dean Hamer, published in Science in August 1999, and go on about how it's been discredited. This was a meta-analysis, which is a statistical synthesis of a body of pre-existing work, not a study in and of itself. You say his work was "criticized by the scientific community" - where? His article continues to be cited in the literature to this day. Then you say his article was "disproven by another team of scientists". First, it's a meta-analysis (again, do you even know what that is?). There's nothing to disprove, unless you mean every study he analyzed was shown to be erroneous, including those that showed no genetic link. Even more amusing, the study you quoted that "disproves" Hamer's meta-analysis (Rice et al, Science, 1999), was published BEFORE Hamer's study...on April 23 1999. And in fact the conclusions of Rice et al were included as part of Hamer's meta-analysis. It was one of five studies investigating the link between Xq28 and homosexuality phenotypes, and the only one that found no correlation. Hamer discuses the conclusions of this article in a lot of detail and suggests some reasons for the incongruity. Which you'd know if you actually read my post.
Looks like you did some top notch research, Neraus. LOL.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:13 AM |
|
|
Neraus, there's a thread about evolution here.
Also, you may want to read this.
Especially, the part where it says:
Within the scientific community and in academia, evolution is an undisputed fact and the level of support for it is essentially universal.The support for Abrahamic accounts or other creationist alternatives is very low among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among scientists in the relevant fields.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:33 AM |
|
|
Also Neraus you'd like to read this link.
Especially the part where it says:
Many CreationWiki authors have expressed frustration with Wikipedia and its apparent double standards. Wikipedia claims to take a neutral point of view (NPOV) and in most cases it seems to follow it quite well for most topics. However, when it comes to creation science and intelligent design, it has a consistently negative point of view toward them. This bias results from contributors who do not like or in some cases show a clear disdain and annoyance for all things biblical. Sadly, this sentiment extends to the administrators as well. An example is the classification of creation science and Intelligent design as pseudosciences. This is a rather standard anti-creationist tactic which has been implemented by Wikipedia.
Wikipedia smartasses.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:43 AM |
|
|
This is not the evolution thread so I'll keep this short:
1- There is no such thing as "creation science."
2- A proper encyclopedia can not be supporting a certain religious view because it would be cultural bias. It would be like the Hindus making Krishnapedia or the Chinese making Nirvanapedia. The name CreationWiki is enough to display what a joke they are.
3- What I quoted is not an opinion, it is a statistical fact.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:45 AM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 00:45, 22 May 2014.
|
way to make a potentially interesting discussion topic not fun, people :-/
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:48 AM |
|
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:56 AM |
|
|
it wasn't directed at you btw :-)
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 01:05 AM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 10:20 AM |
|
|
|
Btw, a late addition: I think it's clear when talking about the difference between animals and humans regarding to sexuality, like anything else that evolved through time, the change is gradual. To simplify, bacteria have no sex at all, fish only mate, higher mammals definitely get pleasure from sex and humans can be aroused even by things that are abstract (like an illustration on a magazine).
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 10:33 AM |
|
|
All this thread but specially the talk about creationism are absolutly desapointing.
I live in Portugal a small country in the southwest of Europe. Is not a specially developed or alphabetized country, at least for Europe standarts, yet I would bet if you make inquiry, not even old people that never went to highschool would put any doubts about evolution being a fact or human race being older then 6000 years.
During my life I've heard a lot of talk about how ignorants americans are and I had some problems believing it. Now I don't!!! It is not that you are all stupid (I bet I can drive you to a very smart discussion about gameplay) or iliterate but some of you simply CHOOSE to defende their own prejudice against any kind of evidence and pretend they don't see the difference. This proved to be true to Xerox too, when I often felt him intelligent and well informed guy.
I don't KNOW if God exists, it is beyond scientific prove at the moment and I believe religious staffs will keep it like that for ever. I even think religion can help to fullfill some human needs.
BUT I'm sure I don't descend from an Adam made of clay and an Eva made from his rib and that life on Earth is more then a few thousands of years old.
To pretend being that iliterate just to make a point when YOU KNOW you have to be WRONG is simply baffling. It reminds me of another stupid joke about internet: "The Era of Internet is when you can be extremely well informed about a subject, yet completly wrong".
It would be funny, if it wasn't so SAD.
P. S.: Corribus, feel free to delete my comment at any moment and thank you for trying, once again, stablish the difference betwen science and make believe studies.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 10:38 AM |
|
|
|
Except, in this thread none of them who denied it were Americans. In general, America is exceptionally puritan for a developed country though.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 10:47 AM |
|
|
@ bloodsucker and artu: color me confused. i thought we were talking about sexuality, and then bloodsucker goes on about creationism and how stupid americans believe in it? and artu carries on the idea that americans are stupid somehow? i thought that graph/poll of yours was discredited, artu.
if you two could kindly explain yourselves, it'd be much appreciated.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 11:05 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:10, 22 May 2014.
|
The graph was showing the ratios of scientific publication, in which US is number one by far. I linked it to show the CONTRAST, the two sides of the coin in America. The ratios in Corribus' reply link are not very bright either. You can also check the wiki link right above about creationism in US.
Puritan doesn't mean stupid. In US, the number of people that believe in things like Young Earth creationism, the story of Noah and the flood, etc etc are very high compared to rest of the first world countries. For example, this wouldn't happen in France or Japan:
State Fossil drive derailed by creationists who want credit for God
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 11:27 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 12:08, 22 May 2014.
|
artu said:
State Fossil drive derailed by creationists who want credit for God
if this is valid information, then... wtf. all of my wtf.
-----
ok, i read about it in other articles. it was 2 senators who opposed the bill, both republicans(not that it matters). only one of the them spoke from a religious standpoint. the other was only trying to stop "state-whatever's" from becoming too abundant(both asinine AND somewhat sensible in it's own right).
the way the system is set up, ideas have to pass by certain key people. if the ideas don't pass by those key people, then the idea never comes to fruition. this is just another day at the office, for politics. it more shows the stupidity of politics and who is involved, rather than any religious standpoint. but i can see what you're getting at.
this said, people who argue over politics are no better than people who argue over religion.
here is a more heartening article on the bill
"Legislative ****muffin of the Year Award". lol. 
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
