posted May 01, 2012 01:00 PM            

EDIT: link to the article. Not sure why it won't hyperlink: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/its-not-your-imagination-republicans-really-dont-science?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+motherjones /TheBlueMarble+%28Mother+Jones+%7c+The+Blue+Marble%29

Discuss.

posted May 01, 2012 02:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
Article on why liberals don't like babies: http://childfreefeminist.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/why-liberals-prefer-dogs-over-child ren/

---

posted May 01, 2012 02:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
Share the article and I will try

---

Clearly I had a blond moment, haha. I was in a rush out the door at that point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Conservatives don't trust junk science. Big difference!

---

What defines junk science? Do you feel the topics the articles mention are junk? Why do you feel that way?

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
That's about as absurd as me saying liberals don't like babies.

---

The study speaks for itself. Of course it's not ALL science, but in general some areas of science.

posted May 01, 2012 02:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
Conservatives don't like all that pesky scientific proof about the genetic origins of homosexuality, for instance.

It makes them distrust science as a discipline overall.

---

I don't think there is quite genetic proof for this yet. From what I have read, it's been surmised that there are notable trends on what causes homosexuality and what does not, but no definitive cause. If anything, there are multiple ways in which it can manifest. It's a complex system and it's going to take quite a while to sort out exactly what "causes" it.

Nevertheless, it's been pretty solidly proven that there are biological origins and that the individuals have no control over what sex they are aroused by.

posted May 01, 2012 02:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tautomer4314:
I don't think there is quite genetic proof for this yet. From what I have read, it's been surmised that there are notable trends on what causes homosexuality and what does not, but no definitive cause. If anything, there are multiple ways in which it can manifest. It's a complex system and it's going to take quite a while to sort out exactly what "causes" it.

Nevertheless, it's been pretty solidly proven that there are biological origins and that the individuals have no control over what sex they are aroused by.

---

There is scientific proof of HERITABILITY, the twin studies showed us that. It's roughly as likely to be passed down genetically as blue eyes from parents with dominant-coloured eyes that are carriers of the recessive genes for blue eyes.

posted May 01, 2012 02:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by NativelyJoan:
LMAO! Yes! We've got a couple threads in Sweet Peas about deciding nay toward having children and I made one about sterilization, progressivism and the environment. Thank you for sharing this.

---

posted May 01, 2012 02:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Conservatives don't trust junk science. Big difference!

---

Yep, yep, yep and did I say yep

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 01, 2012 02:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:

There is scientific proof of HERITABILITY, the twin studies showed us that. It's roughly as likely to be passed down genetically as blue eyes from parents with dominant-coloured eyes that are carriers of the recessive genes for blue eyes.

There is also this: http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2010/07/researchers_create_lesbian_mice.php and this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707173319.htm
as well as this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/outed-at-last-the-gay-hypothalamus-1483925.html

---

Oh I know about this, I don't think it is quite enough to prove though that this is the only way that someone becomes gay. It also doesn't explain the exact genetics of this. No genome for this has been decoded yet. I would LOVE to see that, but I haven't yet.

Yes there is a genetic component to that, trust me I know. I just don't think it has been solidly proven yet, just highly likely. There are other reasons why twins could show this trend, and hormonal levels by the mother in the womb have been speculated (which is not genetics). Not until you isolate the gene(s), which has been done for eye color, will I be totally convinced.

posted May 01, 2012 02:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:

Yep, yep, yep and did I say yep

---

I will ask you the same, what topics strike you as junk science, and why?

posted May 01, 2012 02:47 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 01, 2012 02:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
Tautomer
If you get ME started with junk science, you are gonna get yourself a migraine

---

Don't care. I want to hear it, and the reasons behind it. It's the only way I am going to understand.

posted May 01, 2012 02:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tautomer4314:
Oh I know about this, I don't think it is quite enough to prove though that this is the only way that someone becomes gay. It also doesn't explain the exact genetics of this. No genome for this has been decoded yet. I would LOVE to see that, but I haven't yet.

Yes there is a genetic component to that, trust me I know. I just don't think it has been solidly proven yet, just highly likely. There are other reasons why twins could show this trend, and hormonal levels by the mother in the womb have been speculated (which is not genetics). Not until you isolate the gene(s), which has been done for eye color, will I be totally convinced.

---

Hormonal levels by mothers in the womb is but ONE of the correlations. There are many. Yes, it's been shown that a person's chance of being gay increases with each successive son: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2120218&page=1. Perhaps hormone levels in-vitro influence hypothalamic size, which as we know is a factor in homosexuality.

quote:

---

Studies show that homosexual men have higher numbers of older male siblings.[17] This finding led to the development of the fraternal birth order effect theory of homosexuality, stating that a mother becomes progressively immunized to successive male children, leading to increased chances of homosexuality in later male children.

---

posted May 01, 2012 03:00 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 01, 2012 04:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:
Tautomer

The field I know the most is natural medicine as I worked in it for most of my life. Alopathic medicine as practiced in the West is 80% BS. It is hurting people and making them sicker. This would go for ALL fields of medicine except Emergency Medicine when you are run over by a truck.

---

I agree with you on this. It isn't science because it does not stand up to the scientific method a lot of the time. It can and does make people sicker. The reason being is they fall into it without doing research and don't realize what's going on. With that being said, I have actually seen it work well for some people. Not in the way of curing major disease, but at the very least, helping minor ailments. This was also done in conjunction with "normal" medicine. So because of that, you can't separate the variables to know which did the work. My mother is a shining example of this. Her health has done a complete 180 in the past decade for the better, and she did it mostly (not all) with "natropathic" medicine and strict dieting/clensing. I doubt it at times, but then again the results speak for themselves. Her example though, does not make it a science. So ultimately I do agree with you.

I don't think this would be disputed as psudeosceicne though, and likely was not what the studies were referring to when referring to the trend conservative rejection of science. I believe it mostly has to do with the major topics of; environmental science, evolution science, science related to homosexulaity, and science relating to abortion and embryos. As they are politically charged.

posted May 01, 2012 04:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aquacheeka:
Tautomer, I believe that if we were to conduct similar experiments on humans that have been conducted on rats, they would yield the same results (lab-created gays and lesbians). Such studies will never see the light of day for obvious reasons - ethical concerns. One can't just go around breeding babies whilst simultaneously deleting genes to see what happens when they reach adulthood.

In any case, the research is still in its infancy. Give it time. There is mountains of evidence already. The lab-created lesbian mice findings are only about 3 years old. Perhaps there is more to come

---

I understand.

That being said, I am a scientist by trade (organic chemist). I never jump to any scientific conclusion until it has been proven and reproduced .

posted May 06, 2012 11:03 AM            

what? makes no sense.

posted May 06, 2012 11:06 AM            

quote:

---

When a mother gives birth to her first son, she may create antibodies in response to the foreign male proteins of her baby. These antibodies can increase in the mother with each successive male baby, which may affect her son's brain, hormones, and sexual orientation.

---

posted May 06, 2012 11:14 AM            

but what do you mean by the quoted statement? do you know what it means?

how can in vitro hormone levels influence any thing? hahaha

posted May 06, 2012 11:17 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal