----- Yes it's irreveleant because we haven't pinpointed any of the exact genes or DNA-sequences yet that correlate with complex human behaviour, so my argument isn't even based on that level of proof (the DNA level), because we simply lack proof on that level.
** We don't lack total proof, we just lack studies to completely correlate them. We can take elations from the studies of previous genomes (Bacterial, Yeast, Drosophila, Mice, etc) and apply them to human genome with ease, given the relative ease of study of the human genome
--------------------
Bolded: I already said that. Thus it's irrelevant to discuss the basic DNA level because you can't add anything of substance to this particular topic by doing it, especially not by bringing up your bacterial genomes.
I repeat: You need to understand that a discussion about genetical traits doesn't necessarily include a discussion based on specifics of DNA. It seldom does. But you have to resort to smoke and mirror tactics by diving into intricate (but irreleveant) details to fool the reader into believing you're knowledgable on the subject, thereby trying to divert the attention from your initial blunder and from your lack of understanding the essence of this subject (which is nature vs nurture regarding homophobia).
