I tried to quote him on a separate box, but my browser would die anytime I hit Done >_<

I'm willing to bet that very few heterosexual men feel revulsion when they happen to see another guy's private parts. Indifference would be a more fitting term. To me, revulsion seems like an unusually strong reaction. Of course there could be reasons for those kinds of reaction like the guy suffering some trauma (ie. rape, sexual assualt) or repressing homosexual tendencies.

You started it with your insulting opening post in this thread. (the bottom post I quote above)

And there's nothing special about you getting a grant. Most doctorate studies are in need of a grant at some point to achieve their PhD, globally speaking. It's not very hard. Why don't you provide a link to one of your published papers if you claim to be so competent?

Oh, good lord. Stop trying to destroy his credibility. He knows what the hell he's talking about and that his occupation deals with it.

And you're going around shouting "PIX OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!"

----- 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).

ok...i havent been paying attention to this thread because it got boring...but can someone sum up for me why we should just be accepting lestatdarks word as divine? 

i mean...im a whale biologist...should you just accept that im always right just because i talk semi-coherently for a bit about whales. 

He doesn't have divine word.

I just think he has more credibility to talk about this stuff than Slimebeast.

---- 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.

----- I just corrected you since you said proteins don't control behaviour. And I showed for the readers how it works. Especially since you attributed me of confusing protein functions with hormones (lol).

** Actually you haven't corrected me at all. You're just given standardized examples of major relations between living beings and try to pass them off as "behaviour". We may have a very different explanation for what behaviour is, because complex behaviour traits are far from pre-programmed pathways. And you're still confusing protein functions with hormones, given that most hormonal regulation is done at the DNA level, not protein.

-------------------------------

I explained the chain between inheritance  - environmental influence that results in behaviour, by giving some examples of mechanisms that are involved, partly to give an idea how complex it is beyond the basic DNA level (which I repeat, is irrelevant to this particular discussion). Not many people have any understanding of even the basics of this interaction. That reply/post wasn't solely meant for you.

Your bolded sentence is plain wrong. I didn't try to pass them off as behaviour (the mechanisms between genes and environmental influence). I only explained in simple terms the principal link between nature vs nurture.

I do not confuse proteins with hormones. Once again you read in your own level of knowledge into my posts. Hormonal regulation is one thing, an ongoing process in human homeostasis, but the basis for hormone production (for example the actual organs that produce hormones) in the organism is indeed proteins.

And again, pre-programmed pathways is part of this link that results in behaviour. It's not the full description or program of the behaviour itself.

Slimebeast, here's the focal point of your argument.

Your reactions to sociological behaviors (such as homosexuality) are already pre-determined according to your DNA.

You haven't provided a lick of solid evidence (not questionnaires that don't even delve into the genetics aspects), I want proof, solid, concrete PROOF that this is even REMOTELY true.