In several posts you've touted a study that supposedly shows a 0% correlation of sexual orientation among twins. On the face, that is a silly assertion, since by mere random probability, both twins might be gay in the same proportion as homosexuality appears in the general population, which credible estimates ranging from 2 to 5 percent.
On the contrary, although I earlier cited the ASU study, you've inferred that as an indication that my entire understanding of the subject lies with that one study when I've clearly stated that's not the case.
I presume that you're intelligent enough to realize that, but you're merely being captious in order to keep up your illogical insults toward me.
Yes I did but not over “your” study as you hypocritically accused me of. BTW it was TWO studies. One of which had over 1400 subjects in a totally blind random sample.
On the face, that is a silly assertion, since by mere random probability, both twins might be gay in the same proportion as homosexuality appears in the general population, which credible estimates ranging from 2 to 5 percent.
Good point but DATA does not always have to follow population to be accurate and compelling.
On the contrary, although I earlier cited the ASU study, you've inferred that as an indication that my entire understanding of the subject lies with that one study when I've clearly stated that's not the case.
It’s the only one you cited period given your assertion of “Most studies, espeically recent studies” that you’re supposedly relying on when you can’t even cite who wrote the ASU study. Much less who or where your ” Most studies, espeically recent studies” studies come from. Do you have any credibility at all?