As usual, you are just wrong on all points.
First I mentioned your choice to follow the religion of a modern convicted fraudster because it demonstrates you inability to evaluate the quality of evidence. If you can't see through the story of the hat and gold plates, how could it be expected that you could evaluate the quality of sources and complexities of Human Genetics.
I really like how you quote Jeffery Goldberg, a conservative Jewish journalist. Heck, why not just use Glen Beck for your scientific authority.
As for the quality of your argument, you begin with a complete lack of understanding of genetics. In your example, you use eye-color, but even eyecolor is affected by as many as 16 genes,. Although eye color is usually modeled as a simple, Mendelian trait, further research and observation has indicated that eye color does not follow the classical paths of inheritance(1)
However, if you look at height, height is a non-Medelian trait that's determined by the interaction of several thousand genes. In a new study published in Nature Genetics, researchers have proven that no less than 697 small variations in our genomes influence our height. (2)
In addition to use your loaded language, genetics is not "deterministic" for height. With women in western nations, genetic factors may account for as little as 68% of what determines a woman's height.
According to your previous argument, since genetics is not 100% deterministic of height, that means a persons height is a matter of personal choice. We know that's not the case, which demonstrates the absurd nature of your argument.
As for your assertion that evolution has not explanation for the occurrence of variance is sexual preferences, again you continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge. As previously mentioned, sexual preference is affected by over 1000 different genes. It's not uncommon for genes to affect more than one trait, so although homosexuality is a negative trait for the continuance of that individuals linage, it does not preclude that gene from having a positive effect on a different trait. The gene for sickle cell anemia provided some protection against Malaria, a positive trait, but when joint in combination with the wrong combination of other genetic factors, it leads to a devastating disease.
As for the choices you provided above, the correct answer is (4)
(4) Rob Jordon doesn't know enough about genetics to provide an all include list of possibilities.
1.http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v56/n1/full/jhg2010126a.html
2.
http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-discover-which-genes-determine-your-height So, lets disentangle this. Let's start first with our continuing education of you on simple logical constructs and fallacies.
http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/Ad Hominem Definition
Ad hominem (Latin) means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.
There are cases where consciously or unconsciously people start to question the opponent or his personal association rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults but they are somehow different in nature and the distinction is very subtle.
Arguers who are not familiar with the principles of making logical arguments commonly end up saying something that would draw the audience’s attention to the distasteful characteristics of the individual. Such people use this fallacy as a tool to deceive their audience. Making such a blatant personal comment against somebody makes it hard for people to believe it isn’t true. Typically, even the arguer himself believes that such personal traits or circumstances are not enough to dispose of an individual’s opinion or argument. However, if looked at rationally, such arguments even if true never provide a valid reason to disregard someone’s criticism.
Ad Hominem Examples
1. Just look at this common example.
“How can you argue your case for vegetarianism when you are enjoying your steak?”
This clearly shows how a person is attacked instead of being addressed for or against his argument.
2. A classic example of ad hominem fallacy is given below:
A: “All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn’t a murderer, and so can’t be a criminal.”
B: “Well, you’re a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument.”
3. Another example of ad hominem fallacy is taken from Velonews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling. After an article about the retirement of Lance Armstrong, its webpage shared a post with its readers. A commenter posted a comment saying how great an athlete Armstrong was and that the people should be proud of his achievements.
Another commenter wrote in response to the first commenter:
He’s not a great athlete; he’s a fraud, a cheat and a liar. That’s why not everybody is “happy for Lance.”
The reasons given by the arguer may very well be true but he does not support his argument with reason and logic. He rather takes the disregarding approach. He does not say anything to prove that the premises it proposes are problematic, instead he goes on attacking the person who proposed them.
Functions of Ad Hominem
A writer’s background is considered to be a very important factor when it comes to judging his work. A book written on a particular subject in history will be perceived differently keeping in view the background of the author. Therefore, it is important to understand that a writer’s traits and circumstances have a pivotal role to play in his feelings, thinking and the construction of his arguments.
To put it simply, the considerations regarding the use of ad hominem can explain certain arguments and the motives behind them better. Nevertheless, such considerations are not enough on their own to evaluate an individual’s opinion and are certainly not sufficient to disregard them as false or invalid. The fact is that ad hominem is a kind of fallacy that leaves a great impression on the audience’s mind. It is an argumentative flaw that is hard to spot in our daily life. Although, the personal attack that has been made on the opponent might not even have a speck of truth in it, it somehow makes the audience biased. Ironically, despite being flawed, ad hominem has an amazing power of persuasion.
The worst thing about using ad hominem purposely is that an opponent insults you publicly. Whenever this happens to you, you must recover from the humiliation and then point out the false connection in the argument, which was used a trap for the audience. Moreover, the dilemma with ad hominem is that once it has been used against you it smears your reputation. Once somebody makes such a judgmental argument about you, the audience instead of evaluating it on logical grounds take it to be true.
_________________________
In short, arguing my religion is as relevant to this discussion as Steve Young's religion is relevant to his ability to read defenses, or the obnoxious Danny Ainge's ability to manage the Boston Celtics. There is a reason that in academic journals discussing the work of scientists, critics don't invoke the religion (or lack thereof) of the their dialectical opponent.
It's irrelevant. I suspect you know all of this, but since you have to create the appearance of winning even when you're badly losing, regardless of the cost---including the cost to your reputation, which is already well established on this site as that of the master of the anti-religion cheap shot, you forge ahead. But intelligent readers will have no difficulty identifying your arguments as fraudulent.
Oh, and by the way, Steven Goldberg was a sociology professor at CCNY and the Chair of the Sociology Department. He has a Phd.---from Yale if I recall correctly. He is the originator of the theory of the inevitability of patriarchy. He's a well respected academic with numerous highly regarded works to his credit. He has been published and favorably peer reviewed in numerous journals. William Briggs, a highly regarded mathematic statistician PHD., in his own right, calls "Goldberg is one of the most brilliant statisticians of the first kind that I have ever come across." I notice that your penchant for religious bigotry could not prevent you from mentioning Goldberg's religion either. I am 100% certain that no critic of his academic, peer reviewed articles has ever been so intellectually bankrupt as to attempt to rebut him by invoking his religion. Few people are that stupid---though that level of stupidity is prevalent on this forum. You would be exhibit A.
(BTW, the reason academics to not employ the mode of argument (the invocation of logical fallacies) which is your stock-in-trade. They would be embarrassed to admit their incapacity to discuss issues on the merits that such a mode of argument necessarily entails.)
Now, let's discuss your wholly irrelevant invocation of and discussion of height. Height, as a phenotypic outcome, is an expression of the interrelationship between genes and environment. For example, a person might have the genes to be 6'6" tall, but if he is malnourished before and during puberty he may very well not reach his full genetic height. Therefore, height as a phenotypic outcome can never tell us with certainty how much of the outcome was caused by environment and how much by genes. Height, which is dependent on environment and not on genes alone, is therefore a useless example when one is attempting to prove the theory that a particular trait is influenced exclusively (100%) by genes (i.e., is determined genetically).
The argument of proponents of the political agenda of the homosexual rights lobby is that it is unfair and inhumane to discriminate in any way against homosexuals
because their behavior (homosexuality) is genetically determined in the same way that eye color is genetically determined. (Implicit in this argument however is the notion that it is not necessarily unfair to discriminate against people who do have a choice in their behavior.) The salient point however is that height, which is an outcome of the interplay between genes and environment is useless and irrelevant as an example of model of causation where the theory of causation which the research seeks to test is the theory that homosexuality is 100% dependent on genes.
In short, it is irrelevant and analytically silly to use height as an example of genetic determinism when height is heavily influenced by environment. The very last thing proponents of the homosexual rights lobby want to do is leave open any room in their causal model for environmental influences. Unfortunately for them, the identical twin studies prove that homosexuality is akin to height, not eye color. Twin studies show that genes are necessary, but not sufficient to explain the expression of homosexual behavior in a conspecific.
Jordan
