Please let’s end this where Warren asked us to? What criteria is used for science, research, evaluation, statistical models, etc… are defined differently by different people. As we can see that flurries of arguments surround all kinds of research (notice you did not mention Stanton to criticise)

I never argued that I was right based on research, I never provided research, I did criticise the research you provided (you did not counter that criticism except to say you don’t get math and stas or something like that), etc….

I said offer me the same consideration to opine differently and that no final conclusion on the matter was offered. That is a polite way of saying your “proof” did not persuade me. I am sorry you did not understand my criticism of his work.

Having said that, does not mean that I am wrong or right.

I gave an opinion, backed up why my opinion is still valid and you have rejected it. Fair enough?

“Funny though, how you question so many things and then use one research snippet as a foundation point (disregarding all of your doubts about other scientifc research on various subjects) and stand on one idea of one man.”

Geez, I thought I made it very clear that I have sought to read more than one person on the subject of evolution (as well as on the subject of SSA). The “snippet” was for the purpose of an answer to a post. I can hardly quote entire articles and books.

Oh, and for their sake, please don’t accuse them of being a Nicolosi–they are scientists.

Carole, just because Stanton, Nicolosis, or anyone else has studied something and provided research (as in your case with Cochran) does not mean that because my research is limited, that I have to accept it. That’s why people continuw to doubt and question those who put up some research and studies – and eventually we do learn more. Take for example, the virus’ role in gestation and placentas. We used to think that all viruses were bad for us. Oooops – turns out the specialist and those who have devoted their life to such reproductive knowledge were wrong.

You may insult me all you want for not bending to one person’s authority. Just like others, an instinct can make us ask questions and help us grow and develop. I believe that homosexuality has provided mankind with an evolutionary benefit/advantage. Time will tell. Funny though, how you question so many things and then use one research snippet as a foundation point (disregarding all of your doubts about other scientifc research on various subjects) and stand on one idea of one man. Can’t you afford me the same – that is to look somewhere else for answers and not be satisfied with the status quo?

You have to admit – the conclusions aren’t entirely there, yet.

The evolutionary question is an interesting one which has provoked some research with mixed results. Some research shows mothers with gay relatives bear more children. Other research hoping to find that gays invest more in their families have not found that.

Unless, someone has additional data, research or links to a theoretical argument not mentioned, then I would like the thread to return to the topic of whether puberty delaying drugs are a good course for trans kids or should they experience adolescence first to see if GID persists.

As far as his credentials are concerned, you can look him up on PubMed Home, PNAS, biomedexperts, and you can google him all day and read his articles, or you can look up his books and order them. Along with him, I’d suggest the articles and books written by Paul Ewald, Richard Hamilton, Jason Hardy, William Trivers, etc. I have heard a NPR spot on-line with both Ewald and Cochran, and there is a YouTube with part of a lecture on the virulence of pathogens by Ewald–kind of fun, although no, it doesn’t deal with homosexuality. However, it is interesting because the study of how viruses and bacteria evolve show us how we evolve.

My math virtually stopped at high school trig, except for one college math class, and I’ll be the first to admit that the language center of my brain far exceeds the capabilities of the math section of said brain. I did minor in cultural anthropology, but that was ages ago. I had to take a lot of courses in physical anthropology to complete that minor. I do have a healthy scepticism, I think (anthropology, especially in those days will do that to you), but it is true that no person is w/out bias.

IIRC, Einstein came to understand that his equation might not answer everything, and yes, with quarks, there are problems as the observing of them changes their behavior. That doesn’t mean we throw out his work, does it?

I have a hard time understanding how you can dismiss the work of people who have made studying this their ife’s work and offer your own theories as if they were of equal weight, especially if you’ve not read their work nor the work of those who have reviewed them.

Sometimes I think it’s the word “theory” that results in this kind of thing, the high school biology teacher’s nightmare. Evolution is precise, and while we don’t know all we wish to know about it, for heaven’s sake, we don’t know all we wish to know about the universe or our solar system either, yet we do know that the formulas we use and the calculations the computers make must be precise in order to get our astronauts from that shuttle to the space station and then back down to earth safely, and we do know that someone w/out expert knowledge can’t be trusted to offer a decent theory of how to get them there and back safely.

That’s cool. Do you have any math expereince or statistical exprience. I would not expect you to argue something you do not understand. However, it is easy enough for me to see some assumptions here.

Yes, I have studied SOME SocioBiology.

I’m not saying you must agree with me except on one thing – there is no evidence that I am wrong. There is one person who has different assumptions and he has made his calculations based on occurences as being the only activity given the highest value? That’s my critique of his work.

After awhile, other physicists did come and agrue against Einstein. And still many others have argued years over string theory. And still more on whether there are 10 or 11 dimensions etc… Not arguing against someone does not mean they are correct. Not having a degree in this field does not mean that my “theory” is invalid – not studied – but neither invalid. Nor does it mean that those who hold the view that homosexuality has little to do with human evolution are correct either.

Remember how long it has taken for people to begin looking at a germ association with mental wellness? A long time. And still there is resistance.

Not having the knowledge today does not mean it does not exist. Having a bias does not mean that one is correct either – you nor I.

Unfortunately, I did not pursue my education in this field. But I am certain someone will.

It’s cool. I just thought it much better that I give you the words of an expert rather than my words, for I am no expert. I tend not to accept the everyman’s understanding of evolution any more than I accept the everyman’s understanding of the x’s and o’s of football. I’ll take the ideas and opinions of Bill Walsh or Vince Lombardi or Peyton Manning any day over that of a fan.

Now, if you told me you had studied evolutionary theory and physical and cultural anthropology and population genetics and Mendelian genetics and epigenetics and higher mathematics, then I’d be more than willing to give more credence to your opinion over his.

It doesn’t appear it’s my bias you disagree with as much as you are distrusting of those who are considered experts in the field. A healthy scepticism, even of experts, is never a bad thing. However, I will add that a summary dismissal of the ideas of an expert is never a good thing either. The best we can do is read extensively.