quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Something like athleticism can be measured and quantified. (Number of androgen receptors, serum testosterone levels, VO2 max, etc) Unmolested athleticism can be directly correlated to genetics. (Of course, you have to work hard and take care of yourself..but in a controlled environment, a scientist can clearly see that not all humans are equal when it comes to athleticism.) Athleticism is a physical attribute and not a behavior.

That is a faulty comparison. (Don't take that the wrong way, bro...I don't mean it like "You are wrong poopy head!!"...I mean it more like "FYI, we do know about that part so it doesn't fit.)



Behavior, in the sense I was discussing, is a combination of psychology and medical science. If behaviors are a direct function of biology, then "doing" the psychology part gets a lot easier. Since, as far as we know right now, its not that simple, I think my assessment is right.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Devil King
if only life was as easy as posting a smilie.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am with you on this.

I refuse to believe that I am forced to accept what a set of genes say about my behaviors. Surely this big ol' brain of mine (lest someone misinterpret that as arrogance...its not, I am referring to how intelligent the human species is.) would allow me to make decisions that are contrary to what my genes programmed me to do.

Now, having said that...

If someone chooses to live a heterosexual life despite the fact that they were genetically homosexual, does that mean that they are no longer homosexual? I don't know...that's a toughy.

But it does work quite well in the opposite direction. If someone is genetically heterosexual and they chose a homosexual life, are they still heterosexual? Probably not. Some would argue that they were homosexual to begin with...that may be true it SOME cases but not all. Sometimes a person DOES chose what they want in their sexual orientation DESPITE what they were genetically programmed to do. I have NO evidence for this but just going by statistics on these types of things...there are probably plenty of people out there whose genetics would prove me right. Again, it's just statistically sound that I am right.

I will be proven right in maybe 20 years.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Schecter
MOMMY DADDY STOP FIGHTING!!!!

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Schecter
STOP TOUCHING ME WERE I GO POOP!!!!

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I refuse to believe that I am forced to accept what a set of genes say about my behaviors. Surely this big ol' brain of mine (lest someone misinterpret that as arrogance...its not, I am referring to how intelligent the human species is.) would allow me to make decisions that are contrary to what my genes programmed me to do.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
If someone chooses to live a heterosexual life despite the fact that they were genetically homosexual, does that mean that they are no longer homosexual? I don't know...that's a toughy.

But it does work quite well in the opposite direction. If someone is genetically heterosexual and they chose a homosexual life, are they still heterosexual? Probably not.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some would argue that they were homosexual to begin with...that may be true it SOME cases but not all. Sometimes a person DOES chose what they want in their sexual orientation DESPITE what they were genetically programmed to do. I have NO evidence for this

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
but just going by statistics on these types of things...there are probably plenty of people out there whose genetics would prove me right. Again, it's just statistically sound that I am right.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I will be proven right in maybe 20 years.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Something like athleticism can be measured and quantified. (Number of androgen receptors, serum testosterone levels, VO2 max, etc) Unmolested athleticism can be directly correlated to genetics. (Of course, you have to work hard and take care of yourself..but in a controlled environment, a scientist can clearly see that not all humans are equal when it comes to athleticism.) Athleticism is a physical attribute and not a behavior.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
That is a faulty comparison. (Don't take that the wrong way, bro...I don't mean it like "You are wrong poopy head!!"...I mean it more like "FYI, we do know about that part so it doesn't fit.)

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Behavior, in the sense I was discussing, is a combination of psychology and medical science. If behaviors are a direct function of biology, then "doing" the psychology part gets a lot easier. Since, as far as we know right now, its not that simple, I think my assessment is right.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
So tell me, if your genes are programmed for you to be 5'2", yet your "brain" really wants you to be 6'9", so you can be a better basketball player, what decision is your "big ol' brain" of yours going to do to remedy the situation?

Edit: I know you'll say one is a physical trait while the other is bahavioral, point is, how do you know it's so easy to go against ones genetically predisposed behavior? It could be just as hard to change.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by inimalist
What would you be basing this on? Very few specific behaviours are genetic. Reflexes certainly are, eye movements to some degree. But homosexuality isn't behaviour. There are behaviours that are classified as homosexual, but those stem from a root cause, which is sexual attraction. What behaviours someone takes with regard to that attraction, yes, you are right, would not be genetic, or would be much less genetic than developmental. Sexual attraction, however, does not share this tendency. Whether it is genetic, or intro-utero hormones, or some other biological cause, it really doesn't matter.

There is one really solid proof for this. It is twin studies (and many other studies, but imo the twin studies are the most solid). The correlation between twin sexual orientation is far too high to be developmental alone.

Before going on, I want to highlight something very important to you, developmental does not mean choice. It just means that it is based more on the environmental influences that a child has no choice over the same as they have no choice over genetic influences. And because development is an interaction of outside stimuli and genetic activations, there is really no solid line between developmental and genetic.



this is a language problem. Science defines sexuality as attraction, you want to define it as action. We could use a Kinsey scale if you want....




Why should anyone believe something you have no evidence for...



how could you statistically prove that there is a large portion of the gay community that chooses to be gay in spite of genetic attraction to the opposite sex?



wow man... I think every famous intellect in the past mentioned something like that....



athleticism is very much behavioural. Nobody becomes an athlete without working for it. There may be genetic variation and advantages, but those only lay the groundwork. Without behaviours, no athleticism will develop. There is potential, but then, if potential = something happens, then all the atoms of the Earth just spontaneously ceased to exist.

Presume I am not genetically "athletic". But suppose I worked out nonstop for 2 months, 6 hours a day, and trained another 6 hours a day at basketball. Now, say you are genetically predisposed to be good at basketball, but you spend 2 months eating tacobell every day. Who is going to win a match?



Actually, the comparison was completely apt. You were saying that homosexual behaviour wasn't genetic and athleticism is not genetic.

Sexual attraction and physical characteristics are highly biological, however, like sexual attraction, physical characteristics and biological causes do not have a correlation of 1 (raise someone with genes for athletic physical characteristics in an malnourished environment). The potential and basic determining characteristics are set by genetics, the actions an individual takes based on that groundwork is the not so genetic part.



What other functions cause behaviour?

I think you may have missed the cognitive revolution....

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon


TLDR.

Whatever you said, you are right.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
He said you were wrong, he also painted you as an idiot. Just an FYI.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh well.

Looks like I'm and idiot.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
For once, we are in agreement.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you want me to stop posting here? I will if that's what you want.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you want me to stop posting here? I will if that's what you want.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This thread needs more fagsplosions.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
I have to say no, since Bardock42 said yes. You know, the whole ying-yang thing.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would like that. Please. Would you do that for me?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Can't be having me "called" and idiot without proving that I'm and idiot, right?