Why Homosexual 'Twin Studies' are Flawed!

#21

[quote=caroljm36]Well if you read my post I wasn’t suggesting we combat studies with more studies, because that is not really the answer as you say But neither should we let these reports of studies go unchallenged and unexamined because they have so much influence, and not everyone has their spiritual house in order.
[/quote]

Can any of us say we have our spiritual house in perfect order? I can’t that’s why I’m in the desert right now. I’m letting someone else clean the house for the next 40 days.:bounce:

0 Likes

#22

[quote=goofyjim]Lisa

Help me on this one. I trust you.:thumbsup:
[/quote]

Fudged data and plagiarisms are when researchers ‘cook the books’ to make their experiments come out right, get their PhD’s based on bad research, and move on with their lives thinking no one is going to sift through all the escoteric research and find an error. Or that nobody will ever use their research for information.

There’s been academic ‘fudged data’ e.g.,1+1=3] and plagiarism [not citing other’s work and claiming as your own] scandals here in the Boston college community over the years.

0 Likes

#23

The 1992 Twin Studies of Homosexuality

Please scroll down and read: 3.Critical Anallysis of the Studies

homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/timt/papers/twin_studies/

0 Likes

#24

[quote=Kevin Walker]Critique:

  1. A major flaw in the twin studies is that there is such a big difference between Identical Twins (Monozygotic) and Fraternal Twins (Dizygotic) that the findings of twin studies cannot be generalized to the greater non-twin human population as a whole.

[/quote]

That statement is completely unsupported by any evidence and also non-sensical in general. Of course twins are a special case, we chose them because they were a special case. Twins have certain attributes which make tham ideal for studying the issue.

“Roughly two thirds of identical twins are monochorionic, they share the same chorion, hence the same blood supply, during pre-natal development, one twin receives the mothers blood supply after it has passed through the other twin. The consequences of this on the later development of the twins can include gross phenotypic differences, even before post natal influences of the family are considered. Such a process can lead to an over-estimation of the proportion of variance attributable to the specific post natal environment of the twins.” (Gottesman, 1974) emphasis my own

As with most of the other issues you’ve brought up it speaks only to how much genes control sexuality not whether they do or not. Nobody knows how much of an effect they have. We do have good evidence that they do indeed have an effect. Stop me when this finally sinks in because you keep raising this point thinking it somehow helps your case…

Dr. Gottesman (1974) stated that "it cannot be over-emphasized tht it is environmental factors through such intracellular metabolic intermediates as hormones, vitimins and toxins that determine which genes get switched on and how long they function … Since only a small portion of the genome (perhaps 5-20%) is activated at any one time, the effective genotype upon which environmental factors are active is constantly changing." Emphasis my own

Which doesn’t explain the greater incidence of homosexual concordance among monozygotic twins.

*3. *Homosexuality is not predetermined in any single gene.

Duh.

She (Dr. Gottesman) therefore suggested that **“some of the similarity in specific traits is not so much because that trait itself is strongly predetermined, but because the twins were susceptible to environmental influence when they were in similar stages of psychological and maturational organisation. Such factors would lead to an overestimate of heritability estimated from twin studies.” **emphasis my own

Uh no. If that was the case the dizygotic twins would show identical cconcordance rates to the monozygotic.

This paper further explained errors in sampling (recruiting enough and proper twins) and stated that “by their very nature (e.g. small sample sizes, bias in recruitments, etc.) they [twin studies] cannot produce results which can be generalized to a wide population.” And “The studies summarized are of inconsistent quality, with biased and limited samples.” The result is that the genetic determination of homosexuality is so far unproved.

I wish you’d stop repeating claims already dealt with. Of course it’s a biased study, you don’t study gay twins by taking a huge number of random people and hoping you get a couple. You look for gay twins. People studying African Americans are going to, prepare to be shocked, conduct a study on African Americans. However the universal nature of DNA and the clever setup (using non twin siblings, monozygotic twins, and dizygotic twins) allows the study to be pretty rigorous despite a small sampling size. The sampling size is probably too small to allow us to try and estimate how much of an effect genes have but they do clearly show a concordance.

Overall, the **1992 Twin Studies of Homosexuality **appears to offer more counter evidence that twin studies proved the genetic causes of homosexuality, than it does to prove the genetic basis of homosexuality; and actually appeared to be another generalization of Sigmund Freud’s initial thesis.

Kevin, do you realize Freud is a joke in modern psychology? It cracks me up that you still actually believe in Freud’s theories. Very 1960s of you.

0 Likes

#25

[quote=Tlaloc]That statement is completely unsupported by any evidence and also non-sensical in general. Of course twins are a special case, we chose them because they were a special case. Twins have certain attributes which make tham ideal for studying the issue.

As with most of the other issues you’ve brought up it speaks only to how much genes control sexuality not whether they do or not. Nobody knows how much of an effect they have. We do have good evidence that they do indeed have an effect. Stop me when this finally sinks in because you keep raising this point thinking it somehow helps your case…

Which doesn’t explain the greater incidence of homosexual concordance among monozygotic twins.

Duh.

Uh no. If that was the case the dizygotic twins would show identical cconcordance rates to the monozygotic.

I wish you’d stop repeating claims already dealt with. Of course it’s a biased study, you don’t study gay twins by taking a huge number of random people and hoping you get a couple. You look for gay twins. People studying African Americans are going to, prepare to be shocked, conduct a study on African Americans. However the universal nature of DNA and the clever setup (using non twin siblings, monozygotic twins, and dizygotic twins) allows the study to be pretty rigorous despite a small sampling size. The sampling size is probably too small to allow us to try and estimate how much of an effect genes have but they do clearly show a concordance.

Kevin, do you realize Freud is a joke in modern psychology? It cracks me up that you still actually believe in Freud’s theories. Very 1960s of you.
[/quote]

Hello Tlaloc,

Do you ever read the results of the studies you post? Or do you just use your preconceived notions for your pro-homosexual agenda? The twin studies for the genetic cause of homosexuality have been found to be bogus by the very scientists listed under Specific Problems with the Twin Studies of Homosexuality.

It is impossible to have a rigorous study using a small sampling size, that’s why you must use a minimum of 1,000 subjects for any experiment using a sampling population to be statistically significant (or else you run into Type 1 errors). Please review your STATS 101 course. Again, you are demonstrating an act of desperation by clinging to refuted experimental results, typically used in a self-fulfilling prophecy! So far their is no causation or correlation between genes and homosexuality, adoption studies and cloning theory bear this out.

And as far as the theories of Sigmund Freud goes, he is a joke that will not go away; Freud’s theories on childhood sexuality, the unconscious, and his studies on human sexuality have won him international acclaim and emulation. Are you aware how much of a joke Skinner is in modern psychology?

So after all this time on this Catholic forum you should have learned by now that there is no genetic causality, correlation, or influence to the development of homosexuality.

0 Likes

#26

[quote=Kevin Walker]Hello Tlaloc,
Do you ever read the results of the studies you post?

[/quote]

Nah! What would be the point when nobody listens to things like evidence or studies anyway.

Or do you just use your preconceived notions for your pro-homosexual agenda? The twin studies for the genetic cause of homosexuality have been found to be bogus by the very scientists listed under Specific Problems with the Twin Studies of Homosexuality.

First off they specifically talk about the 1992 Twin studies, not all of them. Second off these “scientists” make a number of simple errors as I point out above. If they can’t get the simple stuff right I have trouble believing they can handle harder cognitive tasks. Third these “scientists” are in the minority since Homosexuality is widely accepted as having a genetic component. But what does it matter what the rest of the scientific world thinks? You found the magic clutch of nutballs who are out of touch. Enjoy. By the way there’s this wonderful Flat Earth society you may be interested in joining, they have “scientists” too!

It is impossible to have a rigorous study using a small sampling size, that’s why you must use a minimum of 1,000 subjects for any experiment using a sampling population to be statistically significant (or else you run into Type 1 errors). Please review your STATS 101 course.

And what kind of sampling error would be introduced Kevin? I’m curious what exactly you think here could be attributable to a sampling error. If you want to argue they can’t determine precisely how much of a contribution Genes make then you’d be right but we’ve already covered that ad nauseum and it doesn’t support your position that the results of all the studies are magically skewed in one direction only. Thats not a statistical error, Kevin.

Again, you are demonstrating an act of desperation by clinging to refuted experimental results, typically used in a self-fulfilling prophecy! So far their is no causation or correlation between genes and homosexuality, adoption studies and cloning theory bear this out.

By all means post the results of these adoption and cloning studies. Otherwise I’ll stick with the research that is compelling, available, and accepted by the scientific community in general. I’m wacky like that.

Just so you know finding a small group of flat-earthers to write a poor critique of a study doesn’t really disqualify it.

And as far as the theories of Sigmund Freud goes, he is a joke that will not go away; Freud’s theories on childhood sexuality, the unconscious, and his studies on human sexuality have won him international acclaim and emulation.

Yeah he did win awards. And yeah he was emulated. Of course that was before his ideas were pretty widely repudiated or at least recognized as having no evidence to back them up. Notice that Freud is now taught in Psychology only as a history subject? Besides which Freud runs counter to your own position on reparative therapy. He didn’t believe our neurosis could ever be dealt with only recognized. Whoops!

So after all this time on this Catholic forum you should have learned by now that there is no genetic causality, correlation, or influence to the development of homosexuality.

Yes because when you say something it’s true no matter how much evidence to the contrary. Kevin, I want to make this very clear to you: you have no credibility with me on matters of science. You’ve shown that you deserve none. If you want to actually convince me of your point you’d actually have to provide some evidence which so far you haven’t. You also might want to take a stab at explaining why just you have the truth that the rest of the scinetific community doesn’t. Or you could spend a few minutes with Occam’s Razor and realize how you’ve bamboozled yourself.

Or of course you could start another stalker thread about me, the last one got you a lot of admiration and respect.

0 Likes

#27

Or of course you could start another stalker thread about me, the last one got you a lot of admiration and respect.

Hello Taloc,

Give it up: You haven’t an argument for the genetic causality or societal determinism to homosexuality!

The only causality you can claim are the two threads you caused to get locked!

You’re digging yourself a big hole with your constant use of *non-sequiturs, ad hominem *attacks, poorly reasoned arguments, unsubstantiated allegations, category mistakes, strawman arguments, and cum hoc & post hoc fallacies, to promulgate your pro-homosexual agenda at Catholic’s expense.

You’re even bad at propaganda, let alone presenting a case for your pet subject. You can’t even chose a post name without blaming someone else for the consequeces, that is very homosexual thinking! :tsktsk:

But your constant irrational tirades do serve a purpose, they are now very amusing! :bounce:

0 Likes

#28

[quote=Kevin Walker]Hello Taloc,

Give it up: You haven’t an argument for the genetic causality or societal determinism to homosexuality!
[/quote]

I never tried to argue causality, only correlation. Aren’t you in graduate school?

The only causality you can claim are the two threads you caused to get locked!

I got locked?

You’re digging yourself a big hole with your constant use of *non-sequiturs, ad hominem *attacks, poorly reasoned arguments, unsubstantiated allegations, category mistakes, strawman arguments, and cum hoc & post hoc fallacies, to promulgate your pro-homosexual agenda at Catholic’s expense.

Yeah, deep deep hole. You have fun up there. I’ll chill with the scientific community down here. Really, Kevin, just stay up outside the hole.

You’re even bad at propaganda, let alone presenting a case for your pet subject. You can’t even chose a post name without blaming someone else for the consequeces, that is very homosexual thinking! :tsktsk:

LOL. You just don’t know when to drop something do you? And you top it off with a bigoted slur. Excellent!

But your constant irrational tirades do serve a purpose, they are now very amusing! :bounce:

Well then we have something in common.

0 Likes

#29

[quote=Tlaloc]I never tried to argue causality, only correlation. Aren’t you in graduate school?

I got locked?

Yeah, deep deep hole. You have fun up there. I’ll chill with the scientific community down here. Really, Kevin, just stay up outside the hole.

LOL. You just don’t know when to drop something do you? And you top it off with a bigoted slur. Excellent!

Well then we have something in common.
[/quote]

No Tlaloc, we have NOTHING in common! I am not a homosexual nor do I rationalize like one, this post of yours is still filled with the very same examples of non-sequiturs, category mistakes, strawman arguments, projection, denial, regression, and the constant logical fallacies of an obsessive thinking homosexual!

You’re responsible for the locking of two posts which you are typically in denial, you need counseling Tlaloc. Why don’t you try Saint Luke’s Institute in Silversprings Maryland, they specialize in homosexual mental cases.

0 Likes

#30

[quote=Kevin Walker]No Tlaloc, we have NOTHING in common!

[/quote]

Yikes, hit a nerve?

I am not a homosexual nor do I rationalize like one,

Kevin, I’m not gay. That was just another in the long list of unproven assertions you’ve made that turned out false. But you are beautiful when you’re angry.

this post of yours is still filled with the very same examples of non-sequiturs, category mistakes, strawman arguments, projection, denial, regression, and the constant logical fallacies of an obsessive thinking homosexual!

Do you ever stop and realize how hateful your choice of words is?

You’re responsible for the locking of two posts which you are typically in denial, you need counseling Tlaloc.

Oh look another assertion you have no proof of. And you forgot to mention your thread that got locked, remember the one you started because you’ve been obsessing on me?

Why don’t you try Saint Luke’s Institute in Silversprings Maryland, they specialize in homosexual mental cases.

Well
A) because I’m not gay, and
B) because mental health professionals agree homosexuality isn’t a mental disorder

You really don’t have to set yourself up like that. I can do quite fine without you given me such easy pitches to swing at.

0 Likes

#31

[quote=Kevin Walker]No Tlaloc, we have NOTHING in common!

[/quote]

Yikes, hit a nerve?

I am not a homosexual nor do I rationalize like one,

Kevin, I’m not gay. That was just another in the long list of unproven assertions you’ve made that turned out false. But you are beautiful when you’re angry.

this post of yours is still filled with the very same examples of non-sequiturs, category mistakes, strawman arguments, projection, denial, regression, and the constant logical fallacies of an obsessive thinking homosexual!

Do you ever stop and realize how hateful your choice of words is?

You’re responsible for the locking of two posts which you are typically in denial, you need counseling Tlaloc.

Oh look another assertion you have no proof of. And you forgot to mention your thread that got locked, remember the one you started because you’ve been obsessing on me?

Why don’t you try Saint Luke’s Institute in Silversprings Maryland, they specialize in homosexual mental cases.

Well
A) because I’m not gay, and
B) because mental health professionals agree homosexuality isn’t a mental disorder

You really don’t have to set yourself up like that. I can do quite fine without you given me such easy pitches to swing at.

0 Likes

#32

Tlaloc you claim not to be homosexual. Why should we believe you? I do not think any normal heterosexual man would so blindly and passionately support one excuse after another for abnormal behavior if your own ox wasn’t being gored. This is a very sensitive issue for males and not one that a normal heterosexual man would take on without some rationale.

Kevin is correct in the way you respond to the issues brought up on this subject. Lots of obfuscation, manipulation, and reiteration. But nothing solid. If we can’t believe your “facts” how do we believe your claims of not being homosexual? After all you have indicated you had a wife and have children. So? As many have mentioned, homosexuality is a transient behavior pattern. I know many homosexuals who’ve married, had kids and then decided their true nature was homosexual. Are you one of those?

Lisa N

0 Likes

closed #33
0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.