Pfft. A theory in search of facts.
Here's a link to a more detailed explanation. I didn't post it because it is from (puke) Time Magazine.
“Sexual orientation”. There’s the point of the article.
Great article. I’ve also sensed that there was something to this, could never pretend to explain it though.
darwin 100% right? more like 1% right 99% wrong.
lamarck at least is proving to be far more right than wrong. i wonder now, after having been indoctrinated early and often about his being darwin’s favorite whipping boy and fool, about his faith. since his insight was so much deeper, i wonder if he was also another devoutly Christian philosopher. i’ll have to look into it sometime.
finally who is really being proved right by all of this?
that would be our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Typical misrepresentation of Lamarck. He said that acquired characteristics came in response to necessary adaptation, not in response to random mutilation. Cutting off the tails of baby mice - how creepy, like pulling the wings off flies or poking out a person’s eyes does not disprove Lamarck’s theory of why giraffes have long necks.
Typical misrepresentation of Lamarck. He said that acquired characteristics came in response to necessary adaptation, not in response to random mutilation. Cutting off the tails of baby mice - how creepy, like pulling the wings off flies or poking out a person’s eyes does not disprove Lamarck’s theory of why giraffes have long necks.
Typical misrepresentation of Lamarck. He said that acquired characteristics came in response to necessary adaptation, not in response to random mutilation. Cutting off the tails of baby mice - how creepy, like pulling the wings off flies or poking out a person’s eyes does not disprove Lamarck’s theory of why giraffes have long necks.
Typical misrepresentation of Lamarck. He said that acquired characteristics came in response to necessary adaptation, not in response to random mutilation. Cutting off the tails of baby mice - how creepy, like pulling the wings off flies or poking out a person’s eyes does not disprove Lamarck’s theory of why giraffes have long necks.
Typical misrepresentation of Lamarck. He said that acquired characteristics came in response to necessary adaptation, not in response to random mutilation. Cutting off the tails of baby mice - how creepy, like pulling the wings off flies or poking out a person’s eyes does not disprove Lamarck’s theory of why giraffes have long necks.
Typical misrepresentation of Lamarck. He said that acquired characteristics came in response to necessary adaptation, not in response to random mutilation. Cutting off the tails of baby mice - how creepy, like pulling the wings off flies or poking out a person’s eyes does not disprove Lamarck’s theory of why giraffes have long necks.
Typical misrepresentation of Lamarck. He said that acquired characteristics came in response to necessary adaptation, not in response to random mutilation. Cutting off the tails of baby mice - how creepy, like pulling the wings off flies or poking out a person’s eyes does not disprove Lamarck’s theory of why giraffes have long necks.
Typical misrepresentation of Lamarck. He said that acquired characteristics came in response to necessary adaptation, not in response to random mutilation. Cutting off the tails of baby mice - how creepy, like pulling the wings off flies or poking out a person’s eyes does not disprove Lamarck’s theory of why giraffes have long necks.
In both cases, each person was distinctly different. The differences in their lives were consequences of choices, not what their parents ate or did.
Too bad they did not marry identical twin sisters. That would have been a hoot to track, eh?
People are not mice. Humans have a spiritual dimension, and that is the usual defining factor in life outcomes. IMHO.
Epigenetics: An evaluation of the effects of epigenetics on homosexuality.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/epigenetics.htm