[quote="Seraphim";p="364217"]Really? Last I heard viruses and cancer were a false positive (with possible exeptions to some very rare cases). Do you have a source?[/quote]
(sorry for late response, I dont check this forum often)
Unfortuantly not in web form, most of my information is from my bio classes that I took in College.
Basicaly since Viruses inject their RNA, its possible that it can cause a DNA strand to break wrong and begin to cause cancer.
Of course, cancer can happen by age (older cells that try to split and DNA breaks causing them to become cancerous)
Its one of those medicine mysteries which makes it so hard to find out why it happens I guess.
Gay
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
-
Seraphim
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 5:36 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, Michigan
Right that was at least several years ago. From what I heard that theory while looking promising and having much evidence ended up going no where.most of my information is from my bio classes that I took in College.
As for old age... it has to do with the way our cells divide, something happens everytime a cell divides, when that something happens too much (it doesn't happen the same amount in every cell every division) the DNA starts messing up, and cancer insues... I can't get specific, the best I remember right now is something happens...
. a woman can understand an woman alot more than what a man can. in more ways than one.-
*BBB* ZERO
- Redshirt
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:58 pm
- Contact:
I don't believe it's genetic or hormonal. There is no concrete evidence to make anyone believe any differently. To this day, no evidence or proof has been provided where any expert can stand by a claim and say, "I believe homosexuality is genetic and here is why..." or, "I have proof that homosexuality is genetic(hormonal), and here is why..."
That evidence simply does not exist. I think the only reason homosexuals like to argue this fact is that they don't want anyone to know that they made the choice. I think they want everyone to feel sorry for them and accept them for the choice they made.
Now I am done posting on this thread.
That evidence simply does not exist. I think the only reason homosexuals like to argue this fact is that they don't want anyone to know that they made the choice. I think they want everyone to feel sorry for them and accept them for the choice they made.
Now I am done posting on this thread.
"Schlotzsky is BIG BIG BIG!!!"
-
Seraphim
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 5:36 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, Michigan
You're obviously just trying to antagonize me... into breaking my: Not going to talk with you in this thread rule.
Whether you believe him or not, Ridley is an expert. He didn't say it in those words, then again his wods/writing isn't so crude. He did however explain, I have substantial evidence that homosexuality is genetic/hormonal, and here is why.
Shut up you troll, and go back to whatever depths you pulled yourself out of. If you start that old arguement... then I WILL ignore it.
provided where any expert can stand by a claim and say, "I believe homosexuality is genetic and here is why..." or, "I have proof that homosexuality is genetic(hormonal), and here is why..."
Whether you believe him or not, Ridley is an expert. He didn't say it in those words, then again his wods/writing isn't so crude. He did however explain, I have substantial evidence that homosexuality is genetic/hormonal, and here is why.
Shut up you troll, and go back to whatever depths you pulled yourself out of. If you start that old arguement... then I WILL ignore it.
-
*BBB* ZERO
- Redshirt
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:58 pm
- Contact:
Of course he didn't. No one has. That was one of my points in my post.He didn't say it in those words
Substantial evidence means, "hey guys, look what I tripped over. Do you think it means something? Well, we're low on money and we need a grant so I'm gonna make a big deal about it with the public to get some money." Maybe it's just me, but doesn't any scientific discovery need to be tested and retested by numerous other scientists for that discovery to even have a chance of being believed??? When 100 experts step forward and say that this is substantial evidence, that might mean something.He did however explain, I have substantial evidence that homosexuality is genetic/hormonal, and here is why.
What is substantial evidence anyway? Back a few pages, one guy was arguing that hormonal imbalance was substantial evidence, but the imbalance is different in every person, it didn't have a set pattern, and it is not the cause of homosexuality. So much for substantial.
Enough with this troll bullshit, it makes your arguement sound weak, and it's pretty pathetic when that is your best point in the arguement.
"Schlotzsky is BIG BIG BIG!!!"
-
Princess_Lorien
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:57 am
- Location: Under your bed with a knife
- Contact:
-
Seraphim
- Redshirt
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 5:36 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Detroit, Michigan
shh... He also ignored the fact, that I said he conveyed the same idea, as "this is why it's genetic/hormonal, here's why." Just not... so stupidly, and he completely glossed it over, because he didn't spell it out. He seems to think higher thinking writers spell things out for their audience like their morons, and if they don't their writing is in invaldid. His stupidity makes me want to hurt things.
-
*BBB* ZERO
- Redshirt
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:58 pm
- Contact:
Hurt yourself.
Lorien, my evidence is that no one has a cause for homosexuality. No one knows what the cause is. To me, simply by elimination, choice is the only thing left. Ignoring a bad childhood like a father raping his son or something. That's all the evidence I need. There is no proof homosexuality is genetic. What more do you want? How can there be an arguement against that?
Posted Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:18 pm:
Quote:
"Replication in science is everything, the primary quality-control mechanism on science's intellectual assembly line" (Burr 42). Holding to this, a number of studies have been falsely hailed due to the inability of other researches to obtain the same results using the same methods. The most obvious of these is the Hamer study. In addition to criticisms on his methodology, the results of Dr. Hamer's study can mysteriously not be reproduced by other scientists. In February 1995, George Ebers and his colleagues at the University of Western Ontario followed Dr. Hamer's methodology and "found no evidence of linkage of sexual orientation to Xq28." In June 1998, Alan Sanders of the University of Chicago announced at an American Psychiatric Association meeting that he also failed to come up with the same data as Dr. Hamer did in 1993 (Sardar). In 1995, Dr. Hamer himself conducted a second study, "repeating the same format of [his] widely debated 1993 study," to confirm the results of the first study (Suplee). "This [1995] report was greeted as though it were independent confirmation of Hamer's earlier work, when in reality it was his own reiteration of his earlier claims" (Ordover 128). Moreover, Dr. Hamer originally claimed that he noticed a maternal pattern that motivated him to use markers on the X-chromosome. However, statistical interpretation of Hamer's data shows no significant difference (thus accepting the null hypothesis that there is no maternal effect) (McGuire 133).
The link for this is http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/hc92.html
Just in case anyone didn't know, Dr. Hamer has been the only scientist to claim he has found the infamous "gay gene." As you can read, the so called Xq28 gene could not be found, the Xq28 gene study could not be duplicated(even by Dr. Hamer himself), the Xq28 gene is only a last. desperate hope for the gay community.
I'm reading a lot of what is accepted as obvious human behavior when it comes to "trying to prove a gay gene." When a father is a cowboy his whole life, owns a ranch, drives a big truck, and even chews tobacco, his son or sons will usually wear wranglers, cowboy hats, and even pearl snap shirts. When a man has a male family member who is gay, the chances that that man will be gay of course increase. To this day, no gene has been located to prove that homosexuality is infact genetic.
Quote:
So this gay gene comes in two alleles, straight and gay. The H version of the gene makes you gay, and h, the second allele with a slightly different order of ACG and T, makes you straight. Remember, we don't know where this gay gene is among thousands of other genes, we have no idea what protein it makes-- we can't possibly find it. But we do know one thing: theoretically, both of our gay brothers had to have gotten the same gay version of this gene from Mom's same X. So we can look, quite simply, not for this unknown gene but to see which of the markers that sit along the X the gay brothers got. If they consistently got their markers from Mom's same X at a rate higher than random chance, the gay gene should be nearby." -Dr. Hamer (Burr 189-90)
To me, this is not evidence. To me, this sounds like people are fishing for an answer.
Quote:
If they consistently got their markers from Mom's same X at a rate higher than random chance, the gay gene should be nearby."
Especially this. All I read are a lot of 'ifs,' a lot of 'random chances,' and a lot of 'shoulds.' None of this is evidence.
_________________
"Schlotzsky is BIG BIG BIG!!!"
Lorien, my evidence is that no one has a cause for homosexuality. No one knows what the cause is. To me, simply by elimination, choice is the only thing left. Ignoring a bad childhood like a father raping his son or something. That's all the evidence I need. There is no proof homosexuality is genetic. What more do you want? How can there be an arguement against that?
Posted Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:18 pm:
Quote:
"Replication in science is everything, the primary quality-control mechanism on science's intellectual assembly line" (Burr 42). Holding to this, a number of studies have been falsely hailed due to the inability of other researches to obtain the same results using the same methods. The most obvious of these is the Hamer study. In addition to criticisms on his methodology, the results of Dr. Hamer's study can mysteriously not be reproduced by other scientists. In February 1995, George Ebers and his colleagues at the University of Western Ontario followed Dr. Hamer's methodology and "found no evidence of linkage of sexual orientation to Xq28." In June 1998, Alan Sanders of the University of Chicago announced at an American Psychiatric Association meeting that he also failed to come up with the same data as Dr. Hamer did in 1993 (Sardar). In 1995, Dr. Hamer himself conducted a second study, "repeating the same format of [his] widely debated 1993 study," to confirm the results of the first study (Suplee). "This [1995] report was greeted as though it were independent confirmation of Hamer's earlier work, when in reality it was his own reiteration of his earlier claims" (Ordover 128). Moreover, Dr. Hamer originally claimed that he noticed a maternal pattern that motivated him to use markers on the X-chromosome. However, statistical interpretation of Hamer's data shows no significant difference (thus accepting the null hypothesis that there is no maternal effect) (McGuire 133).
The link for this is http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/hc92.html
Just in case anyone didn't know, Dr. Hamer has been the only scientist to claim he has found the infamous "gay gene." As you can read, the so called Xq28 gene could not be found, the Xq28 gene study could not be duplicated(even by Dr. Hamer himself), the Xq28 gene is only a last. desperate hope for the gay community.
I'm reading a lot of what is accepted as obvious human behavior when it comes to "trying to prove a gay gene." When a father is a cowboy his whole life, owns a ranch, drives a big truck, and even chews tobacco, his son or sons will usually wear wranglers, cowboy hats, and even pearl snap shirts. When a man has a male family member who is gay, the chances that that man will be gay of course increase. To this day, no gene has been located to prove that homosexuality is infact genetic.
Quote:
So this gay gene comes in two alleles, straight and gay. The H version of the gene makes you gay, and h, the second allele with a slightly different order of ACG and T, makes you straight. Remember, we don't know where this gay gene is among thousands of other genes, we have no idea what protein it makes-- we can't possibly find it. But we do know one thing: theoretically, both of our gay brothers had to have gotten the same gay version of this gene from Mom's same X. So we can look, quite simply, not for this unknown gene but to see which of the markers that sit along the X the gay brothers got. If they consistently got their markers from Mom's same X at a rate higher than random chance, the gay gene should be nearby." -Dr. Hamer (Burr 189-90)
To me, this is not evidence. To me, this sounds like people are fishing for an answer.
Quote:
If they consistently got their markers from Mom's same X at a rate higher than random chance, the gay gene should be nearby."
Especially this. All I read are a lot of 'ifs,' a lot of 'random chances,' and a lot of 'shoulds.' None of this is evidence.
_________________
"Schlotzsky is BIG BIG BIG!!!"
"Schlotzsky is BIG BIG BIG!!!"
-
Princess_Lorien
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:57 am
- Location: Under your bed with a knife
- Contact:
-
*BBB* ZERO
- Redshirt
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:58 pm
- Contact:
-
Princess_Lorien
- Redshirt
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:57 am
- Location: Under your bed with a knife
- Contact:
[quote="Seraphim";p="370475"]
did someone hear the wind?
Lorien, pounds of evidence are pages back. Some of which is my qouting verbatim Matt Ridley. If you want to know what we've said don't try and post... at least with BBQ, just go back and read some. If you want to talk with me, I'd be more then happy too though.[/quote]
I read them actually.. i was contemplating quoting them.. But Schlong monkey up there, wont actually read any of it... he will infact find a slightly wrong worded comment, take it out of context, throw in some profanity and call it an argument.
When i wake up later this afternoon, i might post some more. I think until then your argument is doing fine.
did someone hear the wind?Lorien, pounds of evidence are pages back. Some of which is my qouting verbatim Matt Ridley. If you want to know what we've said don't try and post... at least with BBQ, just go back and read some. If you want to talk with me, I'd be more then happy too though.[/quote]
I read them actually.. i was contemplating quoting them.. But Schlong monkey up there, wont actually read any of it... he will infact find a slightly wrong worded comment, take it out of context, throw in some profanity and call it an argument.
When i wake up later this afternoon, i might post some more. I think until then your argument is doing fine.
-
TDINTBL
- Redshirt
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:18 am
- Location: In search... of the lost chord...
- Contact:
Good God you people! I have just gotten out of a very good and logical debate in the politics thread along the same lines. They were very polite, most didn't agree with me but they gave good respectful explanations as to why. In here it seems all anyone does is get very pissed and angry, even those of you with digital watches! Calm people, chant thy montra... hommmm....
Back on subject. I do think homosexuality is a choice, I know plenty of people who have made the choice to be. Some homosexuals don't want to admit they made a choice, and so they try to cover it up saying, it's genetic or whatnot. Don't fear, just admit, if people know you're gay, just admit, "hey I chose to be gay." I'm not going to laugh at you in scorn, I'm not going to beat you to a bloody little pulp. I may not like your choice, but I can respect you had the decency to not pretend or make excuses, and just admit it. I may never invite to my house, I may not like the fact that you're gay, but I wont complain about it either.
Back on subject. I do think homosexuality is a choice, I know plenty of people who have made the choice to be. Some homosexuals don't want to admit they made a choice, and so they try to cover it up saying, it's genetic or whatnot. Don't fear, just admit, if people know you're gay, just admit, "hey I chose to be gay." I'm not going to laugh at you in scorn, I'm not going to beat you to a bloody little pulp. I may not like your choice, but I can respect you had the decency to not pretend or make excuses, and just admit it. I may never invite to my house, I may not like the fact that you're gay, but I wont complain about it either.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest