At best, it's a contingent conclusion. Which isn't how you stated it at all.
Sure, it is.
There are any number of explanations, and the notion that it can't be genetic is as ad-hoc as anything else. Nothing but evidence can really settle the dispute, personal inclinations aside.
The notion that genetics is not a factor is only if evolution is assumed as true. I think there is probably very likely genetic conditions that make homosexuality more likely. But evolution, if true, should have weeded those out.
Recessive traits that occur as Xx or xX are not expressed. As such, they are not expressed and natural selection does not operate on them. Basic genetics.
They do get expressed. Then selection works against them. In order to establish the trait, you require selection to work for it.
Understanding that genetics plays a part in determining whether or not you will get diabetes or cancer or any number of other conditions does not mean you have to agree with evolution. Genetic disorders a separate branch and deals with how genes and genetic traits are passed on.
So you're just running down rabbit trails for no reason?
My apologizes. I had meant to type heterosexual but I miss-typed it and did not proof read. I apologize for implying you were homosexual. None the less, the question remains valid. What date to you decide that you are a heterosexual?
You're a fag. :flamer:
Attempting to avoid the question does not make it go away. Why do you deny genetics?
:blabla:
Why do you deny evolution?
True. What happens to recessive genes that express no phenotype when paired with a dominate gene? What happens to those recessive genes? Hint - natural selection cannot act on them so they are passed on to the next generation.
And whenever they poke their heads above water, they are cut off. In order to establish a trait with evolution, you must have it selected for. That's what the "natural selection" part of "random mutations and natural selection" is all about.
The list of genetic disorders puts the lie to your assertion here. Recessive trait to get established in populations and are propagated.
Begging the question.
I already know it. That is why I understand that there is a *possibility* that a genetic component plays a part in determining sexual orientation. Genetics does allow for it.
Not under evolution.
Evolution can only operate on expressed traits. When there is no expression of a particular trait, evolutionary process cannot act on that trait. Thus, when recessive trait is masked by a dominate expression of that trait, the recessive trait is passed on. That is why parents with brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes. Both parents carried the recessive gene for blue eyes and one child inherited a recessive form of the gene from each parent.
People with blue eyes aren't obviously disadvantaged when it comes to propagating their line.
There is no question being begged.
Sure, there is. You're asking me to look up recessive traits that are bad for people as if examples of them are evidence for evolution. All you've done is taken the evolutionary explanation for the existence of these things and pretend its the only game in town.
In order to provide evidence, you have to do it without the evolutionary baggage attached.
It is a simple case of genetics. Detrimental can and do enter a population.
That's nice.
What evidence do you have that it must be evolution that did so?
Expression of the negative trait are selected against by natural selection. But where no trait is expressed, recessive genes for the negative trait are passed to subsequent generations. This has been understood since a particular monk started working with peas in his garden.
Before the trait has arisen, random mutations are required to produce it. Once produced, there is no reason why selection for the trait will outdo the mutations that will destroy the trait.
Evolutionary theory denies the idea that there is a genetic component to homosexuality.
Learn the theory you hold so dear.
