Homosexuality has no genetic cause? (Page 6): You said this about Neil Whitehead, implying that he is highly credentialed in biochemistry. A search of the National Library of Medicine...

OldDoc Loc: New York

Racmanaz wrote:

He does not lack credential, you do....he does not have an agenda...maybe you have an agenda because you seem to always oppose anything coming from Christians....you don't care about truth...you only care about what supports your idea.

You said this about Neil
Whitehead, implying that he is highly credentialed in biochemistry. A search of the National Library of Medicine shows that Whitehead has no, that is zero, articles published in respected, peer reviewed journals. He lacks credentials, and credibility too.

OldDoc Loc: New York

James Shaw wrote:

There are identical twins, one of which is quite normal, the other so psychotic that it had to be institutionalized for it own and others safety. There are identical twins, one with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, the other quite normal. Explain those situations. You can't because it is not, at this time understood, as is the scenario with gay twins that you describe. There are not answers for everything, at this time. Be patient, and quit believing you have answers when you do not, cannot.

There are answers, if you understand both developmental biology and genetics. While identical twins begin at conception with identical DNA, even during development they begin to demonstrate subtle differences in genetic expression. It is unlikely, IMHO, that homosexuality is the consequence of a single dominant mutation, but probably reflects a range of genes interacting with environmental factors.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

OldDoc wrote:

You said this about Neil
Whitehead, implying that he is highly credentialed in biochemistry. A search of the National Library of Medicine shows that Whitehead has no, that is zero, articles published in respected, peer reviewed journals. He lacks credentials, and credibility too.

I don't think I have implied Whitehead was HIGHLY credentialed in biochemistry, I did say he is "very qualified to do this and understands biology well.. His lack of credibility is your opinion and you are entitled to have that opinion. I understand the necessity of having Peer Review but to bury ones head in the peer review is not wise. I really don't care if someone has peer review publications, I only care if what they produce is true, Truth is not subject to peer review. Do you believe everything that has gone through peer review is true and nothing is false?

James Shaw

Quote:

James Shaw wrote: br There are identical twins, on... (show quote)

hondo812 wrote:

Wow! What an insulting non-answer. I'm an impatient dolt because I don't know the answer and you are the epitome of a "wise sage" because you don't know the answer. Get over yourself!

You could have simply said that you don't know, especially since it's clear that you don't.

OK, I do not know, and neither do you. I am now "over myself."

James Shaw

Racmanaz wrote:

I don't think I have implied Whitehead was HIGHLY ... (show quote)

Rac, you haven't a clue about what is involved in peer review, and why it is done the way it is, and I am tired of explaining such to you. Your desire is to remain ignorant, and ignorant is, then, exactly where you will remain. Thus, you are an ignorant fool for choosing to remain ignorant.

OldDoc Loc: New York

Racmanaz wrote:

I don't think I have implied Whitehead was HIGHLY ... (show quote)

But, what are his "qualifications"? If you are talking about scientific qualifications, the gold standard is scientific productivity, as measured by peer-reviewed publications. That doesn't mean that what gets published is always true, but it does mean that the work has been exposed to skeptics who have not been able to find fault with the proposed publication. Sometimes something does get published that is incorrect, misinterpreted, or just plain fraudulent. That's where the system shines, because others, reading of the work, will try to replicate the reported findings. If the findings are not reproducible, that fact gets published. If a person does not publish in this forum, it becomes the convinced convincing the convinced, known on this thread as "whiteheading". I'm not saying that Dr. Whitehead is necessarily wrong (although that is, obviously what I do believe), but that he has not demonstrated that his ideas can withstand close scrutiny and experimental verification. In other words, take his word for it, why would he lie?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

OldDoc wrote:

But, what are his "qualifications"? If y... (show quote)

Well in my opinion the gold standard is truth not peer review, although peer review can help expose the truth but is not fail safe. Peer review is subject to error due to being operated by fallible human beings. I'm not downing peer review because I do understand there needs to be some standard of regulation, but I view the peer review as high as I do the Supreme Court, they are human and make some good decisions as well as some detrimental decisions that effect many lives. What is it that you disagree with on what Mr Whitehead has said about this issue? I would have to agree with him on this but I do understand he could well be wrong on this but could also be dead on correct, I'm just not sure....I don't even know if anyone knows for certain.

James Shaw

Quote:

James Shaw wrote: br There are identical twins, on... (show quote)

OldDoc wrote:

There are answers, if you understand both developmental biology and genetics. While identical twins begin at conception with identical DNA, even during development they begin to demonstrate subtle differences in genetic expression. It is unlikely, IMHO, that homosexuality is the consequence of a single dominant mutation, but probably reflects a range of genes interacting with environmental factors.

Yes, to your last statement, that multiple genes and environment are likely involved if there is a genetic cause of homosexuality, but there are still no answers, at this time, whether you think "you understand both developmental biology and genetics." The fact remains that there are no answers at this time. Period.

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

Racmanaz wrote:

Well in my opinion the gold standard is truth not peer review, although peer review can help expose the truth but is not fail safe. Peer review is subject to error due to being operated by fallible human beings.

If one has not published, then peer review obviously can not occur.....and ones credibility is unknown.....thus one has no meaningful credentials..........

Rac wrote:

I'm not downing peer review because I do understand there needs to be some standard of regulation, but I view the peer review as high as I do the Supreme Court, they are human and make some good decisions as well as some detrimental decisions that effect many lives.

Peer review does not "regulate"..........it serves to confirm accuracy, credibility, and repeatability..........or the lack thereof..........

Rac wrote:

What is it that you disagree with on what Mr Whitehead has said about this issue? I would have to agree with him on this but I do understand he could well be wrong on this but could also be dead on correct, I'm just not sure....I don't even know if anyone knows for certain.

I have no position on the matter..........I simply question Whitehead's credibility..........

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

slocumeddie wrote:

I have no position on the matter..........I simply question Whitehead's credibility..........

Full Definition of REGULATE

transitive verb
1
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2
: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

slocumeddie wrote:

I have no position on the matter..........I simply question Whitehead's credibility..........

Why not question the issue instead of throwing out the issue because you don't like the mans credentials?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

slocumeddie wrote:

I have no position on the matter..........I simply question Whitehead's credibility..........

..and yes peer review does regulate.

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

Racmanaz wrote:

Full Definition of REGULATE

transitive verb
1
a : to govern or direct according to rule
b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2
: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>
3
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire>

Nice definition, but it's not peer review..........Wiki calls it self-regulation..........I disagree..........

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

Racmanaz wrote:

Why not question the issue instead of throwing out the issue because you don't like the mans credentials?

I repeat(again and again).....I have no position on the issue.....I just don't care...........but I despise junk science and junk scientists............

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

slocumeddie wrote:

I repeat(again and again).....I have no position on the issue.....I just don't care...........but I despise junk science and junk scientists............

Where do you see junk science and junk scientists mentioned on this thread?