SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Then it's you who doesn't recognize evidence when you see it. Sorry, I tried to walk you through it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
North Carolina Magistrate refuses to marry interracial couple.
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You're not showing this "superb understanding of the difference between claims and evidence" anywhere on this thread. I just placed some evidence right under your nose and you dismissed it.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence would you actually accept if you won't accept genetic studies? Please provide a definition.
Last edited:
Town Heretic
Temporarily out of order
No. This is jackassery of the highest magnitude. Do your job or find another.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I do not require a walk through anything. But feel free to provide evidence instead of empty claims.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Why are you presenting quotes with my name, when I never said what you are claiming I said. Please proofread your comments.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You apparently do, because you do not recognize evidence when it's directly shown to you.
I'll wait for you to answer my question though.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
The evidence you are referring to does not exist. There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. So there is nothing for you to show me.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It would make me feel better if you realized the double-standard you are applying.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
And now you present another empty claim. Now show evidence that I have applied a double-standard.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
A genetic analysis of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers has uncovered a region on the X chromosome that appears to contain a gene or genes for homosexuality.
No, that is evidence. The claim is that homosexuality is at least partially genetic. If they find a region on the X chromosome that demonstrates that claim, then it is evidence for that claim.
When analyzing the pedigrees of homosexual males, the researcheres found evidence that the trait has a higher likelihood of being passed through maternal genes
Again, this is evidence that homosexuality is at least partially genetic.
This led them to search the X chromosome for genes predisposing to homosexuality.
Neither a claim, nor evidence. It's a description of where the evidence was leading.
The researchers examined the X chromosomes of pairs of homosexual brothers for regions of DNA that most or all had in common.
Neither a claim nor evidence. It is a description of something the authors in the study did.
Of the 40 sets of brothers, 33 shared a set of five markers in the q28 region of the long arm of the X chromosome.
No that is evidence that backs up the claim that homosexuality is at least partially genetic.
The linkage has a LOD score of 4.0, which translates into a 99.5% certainty that there is a gene or genes in this area that predispose males to homosexuality.
No, that is evidence for the claim that homosexuality is at least partially genetic.
I'm wondering what conclusion you would draw from this piece of evidence then.
The chief researcher warns, however, that this one site cannot explain all instances of homosexuality, since there were some cases where the trait seemed to be passed paternally.
Neither evidence nor a claim. It is a statement pointing out that homosexuality may not be entirely genetic. Which does not dispute the claim that homosexuality is at least partially genetic.
We identified two regions of linkage: the pericentromeric region on chromosome 8 (maximum two-point LOD = 4.08, maximum multipoint LOD = 2.59), which overlaps with the second strongest region from a previous separate linkage scan of 155 brother pairs; and Xq28 (maximum two-point LOD = 2.99, maximum multipoint LOD = 2.76), which was also implicated in prior research.
No, this is evidence that supports that claim that homosexuality is at least partially genetic. AND it refers to previous studies that revealed the same evidence supporting the same claim.
I think at this point, you've lost your right to claim that you know the difference between evidence and claims.
Exactly what sort of evidence are you expecting? Do you think somebody is going to deliver DNA samples to your house so you can sequence them yourself? By necessity, anything that somebody provides on an internet forum is going to be a description of evidence.
cambridge79
Active Member
Im sorry but Im missing the point of this whole discussion between the two of you considering that even the absence of a genetic origin of homosexuality wouldn't give you the right to discriminate or hate homosexuals, and most of all wouldn't give you the right to ignore a state law, going back to the original opening post. So what's exactly the point are you trying to make there?