- Jul 6, 2002
- 13,036
- 1,674
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I take that to mean you're not attempting to refute the newer studies on identical twins which Veritas posted about ... showing very low correlation of homosexuality in identical twins.
NHE - I was the only person in the discussion who posted a study. The Orwellian-named Veritas posted a website that talked about other studies. The website she posted named two studies (ironically both of then were published in the same time period as the study I linked to). The first study I cannot locate (Bearman and Bruecker - although I believe they meant Bearman and Brucker) and the second study (Bailey et al) reports much higher correlations
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/Publications/Bailey et al. twins,2000.pdf
If you look at table 3, it reports the heritiablity estimates for sexual orientation for males and females separately. For males, 45% of the variation seen in sexual orientation is due to genetics. 0% is due to common environmental efffects, and 55% were due to specific environmental effects . It should be noted that specific environmental effects also inclue the error due to measurment.
In no way would one conclude that genes don't have an influence in this population.
Edited to add.
I just noticed the difference between the male MZ correlation (.51) and the DZ correlation (-.11). Two things come to mind. First, when the MZ correlation is more than twice the DZ correlation, it implies that some kind of genetic dominance is occurring. The models they are using to estimate heritability don't handle genetic dominance.
Secondly, the DZ correlation for males is abnormally low. Way lower than I would expect for sexual orientation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0