Best Fist Bump Content

Gay at birth?

Factfinder

April 18

@just_sayin

So my point is valid - that sexual orientation is not immutable,...

So you believe it's a choice.

@ZeusAres42

I think you're right. That and the fact it's not really that important in the end. I've met people throughout my life who professed to be gay. Generally they say they'd rather not be attracted to the same sex so I just can't see it as a choice. At the same time there are those who like one friend told back in my army days, he was so desperate he just imagined it was a girl touching him and it got easier after that. So in his case it was a choice on some level. Can't say totally because 'desperate measures' doesn't really demonstrate choices as much an opportunistic minute sotra speak.

Also on a side note isn't it amazing how tiny, miniscule something can be, magnify it and we find something smaller. That's where my fascination lies with all the genetic research behind the whole sexual orientation research.

"His scientific grandiosity speaks volumes." Could not have said it better myself!

Gay at birth?

Factfinder

April 17

@ZeusAres42

https://typeset.io/questions/what-is-the-current-understanding-of-the-genetic-basis-of-jbg5pd22pt

The current understanding of the genetic basis of homosexuality suggests that same-sex sexual behavior has a genetic component, with evidence pointing towards a polygenic influence[1][2][3]. While early claims of a "homosexuality gene" lacked power and yielded contradictory results, recent genome-wide association studies on large datasets have confirmed modest heritability but no major locus, indicating an extremely polygenic genetic influence on homosexuality[4]. Studies have shown that genetic loci linked with same-sex sexual behavior cannot predict individual orientation, highlighting the complexity of human sexuality and the small fraction of same-sex behavior explained by genetic variation[5]. The biology of male homosexuality, rooted in the brain's hypothalamus, has evolutionary origins, but our understanding of its genetic underpinnings is still evolving. Genetic studies, including family, twin, and molecular genetic research, support the notion of a strong genetic basis for same-sex attraction, although specific genes predisposing to such attractions are not definitively established.

"Unfair universe" paradox

maxx

April 16

actually mr bogan, lay off the bottle on here. You and I completely failed to get anywhere on race. I agreed that certain cultures were not equal and people are not equal; but there is no way biologically nor scientifically have you proven there is more than one race. I have shown that biologists and proven than there are not enough genetic differences. Aside from that, this topic of mays is not even about race. @Bogan

I ask again, is it legal to flip the cops off?

Putin

April 16

Not in fascist America, where the bully boy cops can beat up black people and you'll be arrested if you complain.

Gay at birth?

Factfinder

April 15

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

I just glanced at these studies and others. I will look through more later. However, I don't know what your argument is based on them. Other than that some things are not 'purely' biologically determined.

The OP asked if someone is born gay. My observation is that the scientific data suggests that sexual orientation is not biologically determinate at birth. Sexual orientation appears to be fluid at least through the teen years. That's the only point I have made.

So by saying sexual orientation is not biologically determined at birth and it appears to you to be fluid 'at least through the teen years', do you mean it's a choice?

The Big Bang - Where's the Evidence?

ZeusAres42

April 15

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

When you say that you "don't believe" in Big Bang, what exactly do you refer to? The specific claim that the Universe used to be much denser than it is now? The claim that it is expanding? The claim that it is not infinite? Or, perhaps, you believe that the entire physics framework used to arrive at the Big Bang Theory is wrong somehow?

As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.

@MayCaesar ;

Maybe they even meant this:

I mean the sitcom. They may not believe in Sheldon Cooper lmao.

Zeus,

Let me do a Zeus and quote an AI on the subject:

The Big Bang theory is a widely accepted scientific model explaining the origin and evolution of the universe. However, like any scientific theory, it is not without its limitations and areas of ongoing research and debate. Some of the key challenges and open questions associated with the Big Bang theory include:
Singularity Problem: The Big Bang theory describes the universe as originating from a singularity—a point of infinite density and temperature. However, the concept of a singularity is problematic because it suggests that our current laws of physics break down under such extreme conditions. Resolving this issue requires a theory of quantum gravity, which would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Initial Conditions: The Big Bang theory does not explain what caused the initial singularity or what conditions prevailed before it. Understanding the initial conditions of the universe remains a major challenge in cosmology.
Horizon Problem: The universe appears to be uniform on large scales, with the same basic properties in all directions. However, regions of the universe that are now very distant from each other were never in causal contact (they couldn't have interacted or exchanged information due to the finite speed of light). This raises the question of how such uniformity arose without communication between these distant regions.
Flatness Problem: Observations indicate that the universe is very close to flat, meaning that parallel lines will never meet and the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe's curvature should evolve over time, but it remains remarkably close to flat. This fine-tuning of the universe's geometry requires explanation.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Big Bang theory relies on the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain various observations, such as the rotation curves of galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the nature of dark matter and dark energy remains mysterious, and their existence has not been directly confirmed through laboratory experiments.
Inflation: To address some of the issues mentioned above, cosmologists have proposed the theory of cosmic inflation, which suggests that the universe underwent a rapid exponential expansion in the early moments after the Big Bang. While inflation has been successful in explaining several cosmological observations, the details of how inflation occurred and what drove it are still not fully understood.
These challenges and unanswered questions drive ongoing research in cosmology and theoretical physics, with scientists continually seeking to refine and extend our understanding of the universe's origins and evolution.
It appears your AI is indeed more informed than you and @MayCaesar. Good to know.

What we have here, folks, is a poisoning of the well. This is a preemptive ad hominem with the sole intention of discrediting the other party before they even say anything in return. With me, for example, just-sayin makes the false implicit claim that I always use AI to do my posts for me, thus implying that I cannot think for myself and/or am not genuine. Now that we have that red flag painted let's get to truth, facts, and reality.

I have only posted a satirical comment about the Big Bang Theory sitcom in this thread.
What MayCaesar did was post genuine scientific inquiry—he nor I made any arguments about the Big Bang theory.
I haven't used AI here for a while, and when I have, I have admitted it. I also do not use the format that just-saying has suggested. Juleskorngold does use that format quite often, though (perhaps he thinks we are twins). As for me, in most cases, it has taken some human effort to get the AI to do what I want it to do, as opposed to just asking a question and then posting the output.
Just_saying also uses AI, by the way, but he will not admit it. He rewords some passages to evade detection and assumes no one will notice (perhaps he also believes he is the only one around here with this level of computer literacy). Moreover, after playing around with free and premium AI detectors (with deep scanning), I noticed that this can be detected at least among a few. But there is also, of course, a manual way to do this. It wouldn't be prudent to rely solely on automatic tools (AKA automation bias).
Later, I will create a thread about how to detect AI content manually and a post in which everything I do will be my sole wording but designed deliberately to be detected as AI content by AI detectors. Hence, manual detection is probably also a good idea. PS: Humanizers are sh!t and a waste of money!
Lastly, I mostly use AI for grammar and spelling checking, factual accuracy, logical validity, etc. But I don't just stop at AI; I also cross-reference with other sources depending on whether I want a formally casual or purely formal debate. If it's just casual, though, who cares?!

Note: If anyone feels the need to verify the above for AI content (it appears that just_saying now thinks I use AI in almost all of my posts) using AI detection, check out one or more of the following tools (it's usually a good idea to use more than one in case the others miss something):

I have left it to these four because while there are loads more, these are the three I have found to be the most robust in my recent personal experimentation with them. The premium versions, of course, will offer the most in-depth scanning. But you get what you pay for!

Finally, even if someone has posted AI content, that is irrelevant to the validity of the content. Generally, dismissing or discrediting the validity of content predicated on its mere source is foolish.

"Unfair universe" paradox

Factfinder

April 15

@Bogan

So your answer is 'no' you never tried debating legitimately.

Gay at birth?

ZeusAres42

April 15

Joeseph said:

@just_sayin

ARGUMENT TOPIC : JUST SAYIN IS ARGUING AGAINST POINTS I NEVER MADE .

Search on 'No Gay Gene' and you'll find a lot of articles referencing the study.

I never mentioned a " gay gene" or made a case for one

I asked you ......You say being gay is " not natural" , living in a tree house is " not natural " so what makes something " natural"?

Being gay you're claiming is a life style choice? Seriously?

You also need to read the article you're citing ........

Moreover, the researchers found that sexuality is polygenic — meaning hundreds or even thousands of genes make tiny contributions to the trait. That pattern is similar to other heritable (but complex) characteristics like height or a proclivity toward trying new things. (Things like red/green colorblindness, freckles and dimples can be traced back to single genes). But polygenic traits can be strongly influenced by the environment, But polygenic traits can be strongly influenced by the environment, meaning there’s no clear winner in this “nature versus nurture” debate.