HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT HEREDITARY
Two recently published "scientific" reports claimed that homosexuality is hereditary. The press has taken this conclusion as proof that
the homosexual person has no control over his or her sexual preference. This is then touted as a reason homosexuality should be a protected civil
right. But a detailed analysis of what was actually done to make these reports shows that this conclusion is not only unwarranted, but is in fact
proven false by their own data.
The studies, showing the mistakes made by the researchers
STUDY 1
Note: A link to the website of this study used to be here, but the site no longer exists.
According to the first published report, the scientists tested 15 subjects known to be homosexual for the presence of a certain gene. 4 of the
15 individuals tested possessed the gene. They reported that a test using Student's t distribution showed that 26 percent is a statistically
significant value, and concluded that homosexuality is hereditary.
Now, let's look at their methods and mistakes:
- No control subjects were included in the experiments. All of the subjects studied had the wanted trait (homosexuality). No control group was
present. Therefore, there was no independent variable in the experiment -- nothing to compare the result to. You can't even prove a correlation,
let alone a causal relationship, without a control group to compare findings with.
- The experiment was designed wrong. The gene should have been the independent variable, and homosexuality should have been the dependent
variable. Both values should have been collected over a large number of randomly selected subjects.
- The sample size was too small. A good study needs at least 30 subjects, either randomly picked, or 15 in the experimental group and 15 in the
control group. A larger number of subjects increases the significance of the findings. And a larger sample size is needed if the value tested for
is relatively rare.
- They got the math wrong. 4/15 is .2666 ... which rounds to 27 percent, not 26 percent.
- They used Student's t distribution, which is used to compare two experimental values, or to compare a value to a norm. But they had neither
two experimental values, nor did they disclose a norm to compare their one experimental value to. The correct method would have been to use
analysis of variance (ANOVA) on both presence of the gene and presence of homosexuality. But they didn't collect the data for that.
- They did not reveal whether they tested for the presence of the DNA itself, or for a protein that is produced only if the gene is active.
- They released the results as though they had shown a causal relationship, without any proof of a causal connection, or even a correlation.
STUDY 2
Note: A link to the website of this study used to be here, but the site no longer exists.
According to the second published report, the scientists tested 40 subjects known to be homosexual for the presence of a certain gene. 33 of
the 40 individuals tested possessed the gene. They reported that a test for correlation (to what???) showed that 64 percent is a statistically
significant value, and concluded that homosexuality is hereditary.
Now, let's look at the methods and mistakes in this second study:
- The method used to obtain subjects is highly suspect. They advertised for volunteers in homosexual-interest magazines.
- No control subjects were included in the experiments again. They don't learn! All of the subjects studied had the wanted trait (homosexuality).
No control group was present. Therefore, there was no independent variable in the experiment -- again, nothing to compare the result to. You can't
even prove a correlation, let alone a causal relationship, without a control group to compare findings with.
- The experiment was again designed wrong. Again, the gene should have been the independent variable, and homosexuality should have been the
dependent variable. Both values should have been collected randomly from the general population.
- The sample size was still too small for any great level of significance.
- They also got the math wrong. Where in the world did they get 64 percent? 33/40 is .825, which rounds to 83 percent, not 64 percent. If they
took the distance of .825 from .5, they would have gotten 65 percent, not 64 percent. Another quandary!
- They used a correlation test, but who knows WHAT they correlated the data to? Again, they had neither two experimental values, nor did they
disclose a norm to compare their one experimental value to. The correct method would have been to use analysis of variance (ANOVA) on both
presence of the gene and presence of homosexuality. But again, they didn't collect the data for that.
- They did reveal that they tested for the presence of the DNA itself. This means that the distribution is the same as that for a dominant
gene. But their statistical test didn't seem to take this into account.
- They released the results as though they had shown a causal relationship, without any proof of a causal connection, or even a correlation.
- An attempt to duplicate the second study was unable to reproduce the results.
Analysis of the genetics behind the studies:
Let us see if we can figure out what norms could have been used in either of these studies:
- If the expected norm was the actual prevalence of this DNA in the population, its value was not disclosed.
- If the gene is randomly distributed in the population, it should appear in roughly half of the DNA passed to offspring. But we have to
remember that, with the exception of sex-linked traits, two sets of DNA appear in each individual, so Mendel's laws apply.
- We must assume that the gene is randomly distributed in the population. Otherwise, there would be evidence of homosexuality in certain
bloodlines, as hemophilia and sickle-cell anemia have evidence of. But homosexuality seems to appear randomly within various bloodlines, so the
gene must be randomly distributed too. (Note that some "bloodlines" have a higher prevalence due to a higher prevalence of a belief
in liberalism in the family, so family histories are suspect).
- We can't assume that the prevalence of the gene is equal to the prevalence of homosexuality, or the study reduces to a case of
begging the question (using a statement to prove itself). That is, of course, an invalid argument method.
- We can't assume 0 for the prevalence of the DNA in heterosexuals, or there is no source to supply the inherited gene.
- We can't assume 0 for the prevalence of the trait expression in heterosexuals, or again it is begging the question.
- We can't assume 50 percent for the prevalence of the gene in the population, because genes don't work that way. Remember that there are
TWO versions of each chromosome in each person (excepting the X and Y chromosomes found in a male). If they used 50 percent, they tried to use
social science norms for a genetics problem.
- Possible null hypothesis values for the prevalence of randomly distributed uncorrelated genes are normally 25 percent and 75 percent, depending
on the type of gene and the method of assay used. Randomly distributed sex chromosome genes have a prevalence of 50 percent in a male, and either
0 percent, 25 percent, or 75 percent in a female (depending on the location and type of gene). A randomly distributed gene location with more than
two possible traits will have different percentages.
- If a gene is NOT randomly distributed in the population for some reason, then the only possible valid method of assay is to compare the
population with the gene to the population without the gene, looking for percentages with the trait within each population. The null hypothesis in
this case is that both populations have the same prevalence of the trait. Such a comparison was not done in either study.
- If the activity of the gene is tested for, then the laws of sexual genetics apply. A randomly distributed dominant gene has a prevalence of
75 percent, and a randomly distributed recessive gene has a prevalence of 25 percent. A sex-linked trait will have a prevalence of 50 percent in
a male subject, and will be either dominant, recessive, or totally absent in a female. This generally fits the reported methods in the first
study.
- If a genetic probe is used, the laws of sexual genetics apply as for a dominant gene, whether the gene itself is dominant or recessive. This
fits the method of the second study.
- One last item is particularly interesting. Proving that Homosexuality is hereditary also disproves Evolution and Natural Selection. This, in
turn, will cause different factions of liberals to oppose each other.
The laws of sexual genetics as applied to expression of a gene:
Percentages are portions of each group having the gene.
Experimental group
(has trait) % | Control group
(no trait) % |
Correlation
trait to gene | Type of relationship |
|---|
| 100 | 100 | 0 | Ubiquitous uncorrelated gene |
| 100 | 69 | .5 | Randomly distributed dominant gene with another random recessive gene |
| 100 | 60 | .5 | Randomly distributed dominant gene with another random sex-linked gene |
| 100 | 43 | .5 | Randomly distributed dominant gene with another random dominant gene |
| 100 | 20 | .5 | Randomly distributed recessive gene with another random recessive gene |
| 100 | 14 | .5 | Randomly distributed recessive gene with another random sex-linked gene |
| 100 | 08 | .5 | Randomly distributed recessive gene with another random dominant gene |
| 100 | 0 | 1 | Correlated gene |
| 75 | 75 | 0 | Dominant uncorrelated randomly distributed gene |
| 75 | 75 | 0 | DNA probed uncorrelated randomly distributed gene |
| 50 | 50 | 0 | Sex-linked uncorrelated randomly distributed gene |
| 50 | 50 | 0 | Environmental factor |
| 25 | 25 | 0 | Recessive uncorrelated randomly distributed gene |
| 0 | 100 | -1 | Correlated preventative gene |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | Gene not in population |
| x | x | 0 | Environmental factor |
| x | 100-x | 0 | Nonrandom distribution of uncorrelated gene |
| x | 100-x | 0 | Nonrandom sample collection |
But let's turn it around the way it is supposed to be, and see what happens when the independent variable is the gene, and the dependent
variable is the trait:
Percentages are portions of each group having the trait.
Experimental
group (has gene) % | Control
group (no gene) % |
Correlation
gene to trait | Type of relationship |
|---|
| 100 | 100 | 0 | Ubiquitous uncorrelated trait |
| 100 | 0 | 1 | Correlated trait |
| 75 | 75 | 0 | Uncorrelated trait |
| 75 | 75 | 0 | Wrong gene (dominant) |
| 75 | 0 | .5 | Gene requires another dominant gene to work |
| 50 | 50 | 0 | Uncorrelated trait |
| 50 | 50 | 0 | Random environmental factor |
| 50 | 50 | 0 | Wrong gene (sex linked) |
| 50 | 0 | .5 | Gene requires another sex-linked gene to work |
| 25 | 0 | .5 | Gene requires another recessive gene to work |
| 25 | 25 | 0 | Uncorrelated trait |
| 25 | 25 | 0 | Wrong gene (recessive) |
| 0 | 100 | -1 | Negatively correlated trait |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | Trait not in population |
| x | x | 0 | Environmental factor |
| x | 100-x | 0 | Nonrandom sample collection or gene partially correlated |
A randomly distributed dominant gene should appear in 75 percent of the population.
A randomly distributed recessive gene should appear in 25 percent of the population.
A randomly distributed gene should appear in 75 percent of a DNA probe assay of the population.
Any other numbers observed indicate that either the gene is NOT randomly distributed in the population, or that the sampling method is
flawed.
Note that a control group is needed to be able to tell several of the cases apart.
Applying genetics to the published conclusions:
STUDY 1
Now let's see which norms make sense from the conclusion the first study group obtained:
- If they used the actual prevalence of this DNA in the population, they would have provided that figure.
- If they had assumed the gene was randomly distributed, their conclusion would have been that the gene does not cause homosexuality.
- They might have assumed that the prevalence of the gene equals the prevalence of homosexuality. If so, the study is invalid (begging the question).
- They might have assumed 0 for the prevalence of the gene in heterosexuals.
- They might have assumed 0 for the prevalence of the trait expression in heterosexuals.
- If they had assumed a randomly distributed dominant gene, their conclusion would have been that the gene does not cause homosexuality.
- They might have assumed a randomly distributed recessive gene.
Now let's ask: Is the 26 percent a significant difference?
- If the norm assumed was zero (the trait is not expressed in heterosexuals), then 26 percent is a value that tends to disprove the
assertion, because well over half of the subjects expressed the trait without the gene.
- If the norm assumed was the 25 percent recessive expression, then the value obtained was the possible value from a group of 15 that was
closest to 25 percent. That means the gene is most likely a recessive gene that is randomly distributed among the homosexual population, and
thus has no correlation to homosexuality.
- If they did their t test on the difference between .26666... and .25, they were measuring the effects of the small sample size they used,
not an actual hereditary effect. No value closer to .25 could possibly be obtained from their small sample.
In fact, using either scenario, the result disproves the assertion that the gene causes homosexuality, because the value
obtained is either closest to random chance, or shows that the gene is more correlated with heterosexuality.
STUDY 2
Now let's see which norms make sense from the conclusion the second study group obtained:
- If they used the actual prevalence of this DNA in the population, they would have provided that figure.
- If they had assumed the gene probed was randomly distributed, their conclusion would have been that there was not enough evidence that the
gene causes homosexuality.
- They might have assumed that the prevalence of the gene equals the prevalence of homosexuality. If so, the study is invalid (begging the question).
- They might have assumed 0 for the prevalence of the gene in heterosexuals. If so, the conclusion was invalid because they did not test for
this case.
- They might have assumed 0 for the prevalence of the trait expression in heterosexuals. The conclusion is invalid for the same reason.
- If they had assumed a randomly distributed sex-linked gene, their conclusion would have been that the gene causes homosexuality. But they
offered no control evidence that the gene was not just as prevalent in heterosexuals.
- A randomly distributed recessive gene makes no sense with a DNA probe.
Now let's ask: Is the 82.5 percent a significant difference?
- If the norm assumed was zero (the trait is not expressed in heterosexuals), then 82.5 percent is a value that tends to prove the
assertion, but ONLY if they had collected a control group that produced a value near zero. Without the control group, the gene could be just
an uncorrelated gene.
- If the norm assumed was the 75 percent expected probed expression, then the value obtained was the possible value from a group of 40 was
close enough to 75 percent to be observational error. The observed value turns out to be a difference of 3 samples, well below one standard
deviation (.144) away from the expected value (.75) of a randomly correlated gene. Thus, the result is not significantly different from the
norm. This is attributable to the way the sample was collected and the low number of subjects. That means the gene is most likely a gene that
is randomly distributed among the homosexual population, and thus has no correlation (or a very weak correlation) to homosexuality. A control
group would tell whether the gene was acting with another gene, or was uncorrelated. But they did not collect one.
In fact, using any scenario here with the second study, the result can not prove the assertion that the gene causes
homosexuality without a control group to compare it to.
Notice also that you can NOT select on the dependent variable (sexual preference) and expect to see the independent variable (the gene) vary
in the exact manner of a causal effect. Such an experiment is designed backwards, and cannot possibly be used to prove causality. The independent
variable must be actively varied and the dependent variable observed, in order to show a cause-and-effect relationship.
MISTAKES
Horrendous mistakes were made in these studies.
- EVERY such study published so far has selected subjects for the dependent variable (homosexuality). This means that EVERY study so far is
based on a logically invalid sample collection method. The samples taken should be a random sample of the population, not a set of carefully
selected subjects.
- Every study published so far has no control group. This means that there is nothing to form a correlation to.
- Many of the studies, including these two, used the methods of social science, rather than the methods of genetics, to establish the
numerical values of the null hypotheses. Thus, they are correlating their observations to the wrong values. Genetics has special rules that
must always be followed in scientific testing. Heredity does not follow the rules of behavioral science.
- A big soduk (definition here) to ANY "scientist" who is ignorant enough to try to
apply the rules of social and behavioral sciences to any genetic study.
- Because of the small sample sizes, most of the "observed variations" were caused by the limitations of obtainable values due
to the discrete nature of the observations. It would take a huge variation in the variables to make a statistically significant result from
such small sample sizes.
- Of those who have tried to duplicate the studies, not one has succeeded in getting the same results. The wide variations are due to the
small sample sizes used.
- The fact that both websites detailing these research projects were taken down shortly after I posted this page, (which originally contained
links to them) may be significant.
- If Homosexuality is proved to be hereditary, it would disprove Natural Selection, and thus, it would disprove Evolution.
Final conclusions:
Both of these studies were obviously designed to reach a predetermined conclusion, regardless of the actual facts. The "scientists"
involved set out to prove their political beliefs, rather than to find out the truth. Otherwise, they would have used the proper scientific
methods and collected a truly random sample.
As they stand, these studies have absolutely no scientific value. Instead, the people who did these studies must fit at least one of these
three cases:
- They were horribly ignorant of the laws of genetics and proper scientific procedure.
- They were trying to save money on the studies by cutting corners.
- They were trying to pull a fast one and fool the unscientific press.
"Studies" of this kind are meant to promote a political dogma, not to scientifically prove anything.
Beware of ANY study done by a group that would benefit from one outcome of the study.
Links
Epilog: The Civil Rights Entanglement of Religion and Homosexuality
Those who perpetrated these instances of bad science have as their goal a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuality. But such a
law will never exist for very long, because any such law is a discrimination against religion. Discrimination against religious belief is
unconstitutional in the United States of America.
Consider the following facts:
- There is a civil right of religious belief.
- It is unconstitutional for government to pass any law having to do with any religion.
- It is unconstitutional for government to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
- Most religions prohibit homosexuality as a sinful act.
- For example, according to the Christian Bible, homosexual desires are caused by worshiping created things, instead of the Creator
(Romans 1:25-27). This belief is protected by the Constitution. (If we assume that this is true, one might wonder if worship of the
environment has caused the sudden increase in the number of homosexuals.)
- Also in this example, the Christian Bible tells believers to not associate with willful sinners (I Corinthians 5:11). This belief is also
protected by the Constitution.
- Most religions prohibit changing the religious texts.
- Many homosexuals try to argue that there is nothing to religion. But all believers know that those arguments are hollow lies.
- Discrimination against homosexuality is against the doctrines of Political Correctness. But Political Correctness is itself a religion.
Democrats plagiarized it from the tenets of the Baha'i Faith. Because Political Correctness is itself a religion, government can not use the
force of law to enforce it.
- Any attempt to make homosexuality a civil right takes away the civil rights of other people with religious beliefs.
- Any law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuality is unconstitutional, because such a law discriminates against at least one religion
(the example above), not to mention every other religion that prohibits homosexuality.
- Any Constitutional amendment attempting to prohibit discrimination against homosexuality makes the Constitution inconsistent with itself,
because it would prohibit part of itself.
- Demands that religion be abolished are also unconstitutional.
There is only one solution to this dilemma: Since religions can discriminate against each other, the only way for homosexuality to be protected
is for it to become a religious belief. The Political Correctness religion would do for this purpose.