Your mother really did make you a homosexual

Smiles, sorry to disappoint you, but apparently Pissyboy only understands items presented in bite-sized chunks.

There are several citations which point to a genetic link to homosexuality. You ignore those other citation ...

"point" is a long way from "show", as any statistician or researcher worth anything (not that there appear to be many in this field) will tell you.

... it appears that there is a genetic link to homosexuality. I find it strange that you argue against such a link.

I did not "argue against" there appearing to be "such a link"; I pointed out that none had yet been found, which is totally different.

I find it amazing that someone with no advanced training in math, statistics, research methods, mathematical modeling, genetics, or the research on gays and lesbians in general feels they are qualified to make such grand judgments on the work of others. Damn sir, you are either a very smart and I mean a very smart man or you are delusional.

I find it amazing that you know what advanced training, etc, I have in any field. You are either very smart, which you rather arrogantly infer you are, or you are clairvoyant.

The paper would have been reviewed by other mathematical modelers not people who whose work was citied by the paper тАУ unless they were mathematical modelers.

Read the list of references. They were.

... the analogy of cigarette company studies being published is again just false.

It was not an analogy. I said it was "about as impartial".

you are just wrong again, when you imply that somehow these models are bad models if the rely on previous data as a starting point to model processes.

I did not "imply " anything of the sort. My point was that "the data appears to have been selected to match the conclusions made, as do the formulae used, rather than the other way around."

As I have stated, research shows that people in general are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice.

If by "people in general" you are excluding "the core opposition to homosexuals ... mainstream Christians and Muslims" you may well be right. Why not give some references showing how these two groups have "become more tolerant of gays and lesbians" as a result of this research?

Well I can imply a number of things about you but lets stick to the facts shall we?

Lets.

Well I guess I am gland that you feel my career is sad and pointless.

I did not say that either. What I actually said was that the second of the two problems appeared to make it pointless.

And to return the favor, what are you sir? A shopkeeper? Well good for you! If you find your calling keeping the books and toiling over the register then I salute you! ...If you have advanced training in math, modeling, statistics, genetics, research methods, etcтАж I might give you more credibility. But from what I can tell you are a merchant with no special training.

You can tell very little. I am not, nor have I ever been, "a shopkeeper", "a merchant" or in trade of any description, nor, statistically (!) am I "old" (unless you call nearly two decades off conventional retiring age old). As I said in Anonymity, Posting Guidelines, I give "credibility" to posts based on their content, not what the poster claims to be.

Rather than give Smiles another fit, how about limiting your reply to two points which, for someone with your "advanced training", etc, should be relatively simple and may demonstrate just how "smart" you really are:

Specific references showing how mainstream Christians and Muslims (the identifiable majority of "people in general" opposed to homosexuality) "are more tolerant of gays and lesbians if they believe that it is a genetic predisposition and not a life style choice".

The solution to the "Darwinian paradox" of the "gay gene", which the particular paper you are supporting has left unanswered and which negates its findings.