To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (342768 ) 1/14/2003 10:59:50 AM From: DuckTapeSunroof Respond to of 769670 yes dummy, that is also why I called you dummy. everything you said was dummy speak. >>> <LOL!> Pretty aggressive there, Tommie, for someone fronting a mathematically disproven argument, one that fails the simplest logical proofs. >>> Are you capable of anything other than mindless, pointless insults? >>> Why don't you surprise us all... and attempt to engage in real on-point arguments? ----------------------------------------------------- >>> I merely pointed out that you argument 'if it was genetic in origin it would have died out by now' (I'm paraphrasing of course) was not only mathematically wrong... but also belied by the evidence: the fact that homosexuality still exists in the species, and the fact that it still exists in other animal species. >>> I also pointed out a potential that has been raised: genetic expression influenced by environmental factors (not 'nurture', nor classic 'Mendellian genetic'... but an environmental influence upon genetic expression). >>> It would seem that you are not much up on the scientific literature here... which assigns most of the causation to genetic or genetic expression factors... and relatively little to 'nurture'. ------------------------------------------------------ An interesting - though facile - argument, that unfortunately falls on it's face mathematically. Else homosexuality would have disappeared from the species millions of years ago... and from the numerous other species in which stable rates of homosexuality have been documented as well. It is possible though, that the *expression* of certain genetic sequences is influenced *in utero* by nutritional or hormonal, or other, factors... and this could account for the continued expression of homosexuality in a given species... despite presumed lower rates of reproduction.