Quote:
Originally posted by Skyceman@Jan 1 2005, 04:38 PM
Fact 1: It was a word of mouth advertising study - not a registry study. Bailey has even now retracted the number you're using as he admits the numbers are biased on the high side because of the volunteer effect. Even with those flawed numbers he altered the very presentation of them:
...
Fact 3: For the twin gene theory to be made fact, there should never be a case where one identical twin is heterosexual and one is homosexual. It's genetically impossible since both identical twins share 100 percent of the same genes. If sexual orientation is genetic, then both identical twins will always be either heterosexual or homosexual. Bailey and Pillard's findings of only 52 percent discredits their own hypothesis. In fact, their findings show that nongenetic factors play a significant part in shaping sexual preference.
|
[B]Very interesting retort, I was not aware of this study nor am I surprised by it. Of course using scientific research in these matters is not always useful, because there is no conclusive or empirical scientific evidence for either side as of yet. All Jones' and Yarhouse's study seems to do is refute Baileys, as is probably the case in most study's of this nature. I admit I didn't know much about Bailey's study nor of the many other study's I could have listed by other researchers that I know little to nothing about.
And in regards to 'fact 3', I acknowledge that homosexuality is most likely not strictly genetic. Like I said before it looks to be a mixture of nature and nurture. Just how much is relient on either is not yet clear nor may ever be. But even the end of your 'fact 3' seems to acknowledge environmental factors serving an important role, since I highly doubt nongenetic factors refers to a free choice.