Darwin Day leftovers: Dawkins on whether homosexuality is nature’s population control

velikovskys, you are the one who falsely jumped all over Dr. Whitehead, before reading the paper in full, for trying to help gays who wanted help. You implied he was overly biased and could not be trusted. Now you backtrack and try to say "Bearman expressly does not support that conclusion". So what? They said that he was pro-gay and was biased in such a way in the paper! That was the whole point! Ever hear of the hostile witness being your best witness? Of course he is going to try to read the findings favorable to the 'can't change being gay' position. But that is not what the findings themselves say regardless of how Bearman tries to spin them. The results themselves say there is much "fluidity" in teenagers.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

And Bearman agrees that he cannot explicitly contradict that claim:

"This does not mean that our results support heritability estimates of zero, though our results do not exclude them either."

Being 'pro gay', he, of course, then tries to soften the blow by suggesting that his findings are also consistent with gayness being heritable. He also suggested the need for large scale studies to resolve the issue. But all that is clearly downplaying the impact of the results. Which is exactly what a hostile witness would be expected to do in such circumstances! That is why it is important to focus on the facts! The facts are that they found much "fluidity" in teenagers and that "almost all had switched one year later"! Those facts are clearly not consistent with the materialistic belief that a person is forever trapped into being gay for their whole life! To drive the point home that a person, if they choose to, can find escape from the gay lifestyle, and are not forever trapped in it, I submit testimonies from 29 former homosexuals, who found escape through Jesus Christ.

Such Were Some of You - video Trailer (29 former homosexuals tell their story) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUXhKbHMGJg videos - Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who at one time felt they were 'trapped' in their homosexuality http://suchweresomeofyou.org/

This particular testimony I found to be moving and powerful:

Daniel Delgado Pt 1 - Transgender Transformation - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv1ZK6a3ITk

Verses and Music

John 8:34-36 Jesus answered them, “Verily, verily I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever, but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Brandon Heath - No Turning Back (Official Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_TGh9-iabM

bornagain77

BA: a little closer look and we find that Dr. Whitehead was not even the one who was being referenced: Apologies, so we agree Dr Whitehead is not pro gay Hmmm,,,, Why so quick to dismiss the study by attributing biasing motives to the wrong person who did not even do the study? Hmmmm, then why did you feel the need provide the info about the authors being " pro gay " if that was irrelevant? Perhaps you should have provided the info that in the study of identical twins, From Bearman Consistent with several studies of siblings (Bailey & Bell, 1993; Bailey & Benishay, 1993; Pillard, 1990; Pillard & Weinrich, 1986), we found that sexual orientation is familial. In contrast to most prior twin studies of sexual orientation, however, ours did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for that trait. This does not mean that our results support heritability estimates of zero, though our results do not exclude them either.Our findings are also consistent with moderate to large heritabilities for both male and female sexual orientation, and the confidence intervals of our estimates include estimates from earlier studies (Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Bailey, Pillard, et al., 1993; Buhrich, Bailey, & Martin, 1991). Our findings demonstrate the necessity of very large sample sizes to resolve familial variance into its genetic and shared environmental components, when one is studying traits with unfavorable distributions, such as sexual orientation. You provided Dr Whitehead ,Phd as an expert witness in support of the headline "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. . Yet Bearman expressly does not support that conclusion, therefore the bias of Dr Whitehead is relevant , so no, his opinion is questionable because he has demonstrated bias velikovskys

a little closer look and we find that Dr. Whitehead was not even the one who was being referenced:

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.” “The authors(plural) were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.” Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.” http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647

Hmmm,,,, Why so quick to dismiss the study by attributing biasing motives to the wrong person who did not even do the study? Moreover, the evidence that ‘agent causation’ in the body is real, (i.e. that we have free will), is, in rather dramatic fashion, now established by Schwartz’s work in brain plasticity:

The Case for the Soul – InspiringPhilosophy – (4:03 minute mark, Brain Plasticity including Schwartz’s work) – Oct. 2014 – video The Mind is able to modify the brain (brain plasticity). Moreover, Idealism explains all anomalous evidence of personality changes due to brain injury, whereas physicalism cannot explain mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70

In fact not only is the mind now shown to be able to have a pronounced effect on the physical structure of the brain, but the mind is now also shown to have pronounced effects all the way down to the genetic level of the body:

Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, – December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/

The preceding finding is simply completely inexplicable, and unexpected, for atheists/materialists! i.e. We are not such helpless victims of our genes that materialists such as Richards Dawkins (selfish gene) would have us believe! As to evidence for free will in general, free will is found to be axiomatic in quantum mechanics:

What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? – By Antoine Suarez – July 22, 2013 Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices. To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,, https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will Henry Stapp on the Conscious Choice and the Non-Local Quantum Entangled Effects - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJN01s1gOqA Henry Stapp on Quantum Mechanics and Human Consciousness (Free Will) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYPjXz1MVv0 How Free Will Works (In Quantum Mechanics) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE

As well "Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information."

Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf

Thus, there is plenty of evidence in biology, in the foundational 'quantum' structure of reality itself, and even in our unique 'image of God' ability to create information, that we do indeed have a free will and that we are not such completely 'helpless victims of our genes' as materialism would have us falsely believe. of note: compulsions can seemingly be overwhelming for us in our own strength. Verses and Music:

John 8:31-36 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?” Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Plumb - Lord I'm Ready Now (Official Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBUQqLp6N24

bornagain77

Let's see about the author Dr Whitehead being pro gay Employment History Member and Author of My Genes National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality Scientific Researcher New Zealand government Board Memberships and Affiliations Scientific Advisory Committee Member National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality Advisor National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is an organization that offers conversion therapy and other regimens that purport to change the sexual orientation of individuals who experience unwanted same-sex attraction. NARTH's leaders describe their organization as "dedicated to the service of persons who experience unwanted homosexual (same-sex) attractions (SSA)."[1] NARTH was founded in 1992 by Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, and Charles Socarides. Its headquarters are in Encino, California, at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic. Julie Hamilton is the current president of NARTH.[2] NARTH's leaders disagree with the holding of the world's major mental health organizations that homosexuality is not a disorder.[ velikovskys

Perhaps not genetic but this study supports a biological causation Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development William R. Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 87, No. 4 (December 2012), pp. 343-368 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Article DOI: 10.1086/668167 Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167 velikovskys

Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic - June 24, 2013 Excerpt: Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD.,,, Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.” Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays. The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.” “The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.” Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.” http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/06/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/ bornagain77

The lemming story is complex. The lemming is a far northern rodent that breeds furiously in the short Arctic summer. Lemmings, whether they are few or many, migrate as necessary in search of food. But they have no path. And when they encounter a body of water, they wander in and swim. They do not know how far the other side is. A horde of them can look like a mass suicide, if they are heading into a stretch of Arctic ocean. Hence the assumption that suicide is their intent. It is unclear that their behaviour means much for Darwinian theory because we know of no reason to believe that "somehow naturally selected" lemmings refrain from this mass pilgrimage to disaster. After thousands of years, they are all still just lemmings. Which rather supports the view that a few of them overslept, and survived to hibernate for eight months. Business as usual. Note: If the pilgrims were few, rather than many, no one would even notice, except the fish who probably gobble most of them up - wow, a hot meal for once! News

bFast: How does Dawkins explain this: http://youtu.be/USfCieXuQrs for example. Maybe hippos don't like crocodiles, especially fat crocodiles. In any case, a behavior that is evolutionarily advantageous in some situations may express itself in different ways, not all of them evolutionarily advantageous. bFast: Lemmings are famous for charging over cliffs as a population control system. http://mentalfloss.com/article/50957/do-lemmings-really-run-cliffs-their-death Zachriel

'Nice to see that Dawkins isn't a "yes man". He does seem to apply the hypothesis of natural selection correctly. However, he also reveals a very interesting way of challenging the hypothesis. Familial altruism has been justified because it theoretically may help out other members of the same gene pool. Altruism that has the potential of a "pay it forward" return may be justifiable in the theory. But what of true altruism, no chance of repayment altruism. How does Dawkins explain this: http://youtu.be/USfCieXuQrs for example. And one of the ID theorists, I forget which one, points out that life has all avoided a natural energy source in plants because if it were used it would eventually devastate the plant kingdom. (While one might argue that the devastation of the plant kingdom would be cause enough to avoid it, but two things we know: No life has ever tried it or the devastation would have happened and the devastation would take so long that NS would have an impossible time forecasting it.) Oh, and what about lemmings. Lemmings are famous for charging over cliffs as a population control system. How would Dawkins explain that? bFast