---- Yes, I've read about the those but it was many years ago. But it's completely irrelevant to this discussion, and you're resorting to smoke and mirrors tactics.
** Smoke and mirrors? Funny, given that you're the one who started the polygenic trait discussion.
-----------------------
Polygenic trait discussion is smoke and mirrors? I introduced the term polygenic in response to this false statement of yours: "there's no possible way that behaviour is determined by proteins (you're mixing hormone and signal input with behaviour)."
You assumed something (that we were talking single gene traits, which we so obviously are not) based on your own lack of experience or understanding on nature vs nurture when it comes to human behaviour. I entered the discussion with a default stance that polygenic traits are fundamental in discussions about inheritance, at least when it concerns complex behaviour. You brought single genes and proteins into it and fell on it.
---- So now you retract what you said. I quote: "there's no possible way that behaviour is determined by proteins (you're mixing hormone and signal input with behaviour
** I won't retract my statement, because I've talked about it to other people and have explained exactly what I meant. I'll add a mostly there though, if that makes you happy.
----------------------
Are you retracting your original sentence or not? And how does the sentence read after you've added the word "mostly"? If it reads "there's no possible way that behaviour is mostly determined by proteins" then your initial rebuttal of me was completely meaningless because I never claimed such a thing about homophobia.
