Dna Replication Cornell Notes: Fill & Download for Free

These are the following fields I find particularly fascinating, which I hope will yield a lot of results in the near future :-1) Synthetic Biology - Call be biased (since I am a Synthetic Biologist myself) but I find this field simply amazing. We are just at the doorstep of discoveries that could revolutionize not just the field of medicine (cure AIDS, cancer etc.) but also lead to modification and creation of new bizarre species of plants and animals.2) Anti Aging - With google acquiring several anti aging experts, it is clear that this is one of the most realistic yet futuristic fields to look out for. On that note, some minor breakthroughs have already been made in slowing down aging in mice.3) Computational Neuroscience - People are already developing devices that enable users to control robots located nearby. In the future this could revolutionize prosthetic limbs and how we play video games :P .4) Artificial life/ Self Replicating Robots/ Evolutionary Robotics - Most ignored and yet my favorite topic in the list. I have only seen one person at a reputed university work on this (Hod Lipson at Cornell) but more people should. I guess the immediate benefits or possibility of seeing very great results are limited but in the long run, the possibilities are limitless.5) Deep Learning as someone has already mentioned.6) DNA Nanotechnology -There are people (including some in my lab) developing programming languages using DNA as a substrate. However, the more fancy results would be in the form of DNA nanorobots. Some people are already working on this.These are by no means the only exciting things to watch out for but these are the ones I find particularly fascinating due to my background and interests !

From http://icr.comThe Scientific Case Against Evolutionby Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.Evolution Is Not Happening NowFirst of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.Evolution Never Happened in the PastEvolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.the entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.A thropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.The Equivocal Evidence from GeneticsNevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.Evolution Could Never Happen at AllThe main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.Evolution Is Religion -- Not ScienceIn no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."The n he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism

Born That Way? Facts and Fiction about HomosexualityIn the world of the academy, homosexuality is an issue on which there is little genuine intellectual exchange these days. And it’s this topic that FAIR has asked me to address. I should perhaps add to the introduction so that you can appreciate my perspective. You need to know that I am not much of an activist on this issue or any other issue. I direct a research organization, teach at the medical school, and manage to provide therapy for a unique population–men who are distressed by their unwanted homosexual attraction.As I reflected on this patient population who I have treated for more than three decades, many of these men had religious backgrounds, although a substantial minority, perhaps as much as 40%, did not. For the single men who struggle with these unwanted attractions, the most frequent complaint was: “Gay relationships are not working for me. Would you help me explore my options?” For the men who were married, I frequently heard the following: “I love my family–my wife and children. I have these homosexual attractions, and I am only able to have a sexual relationship with my wife when I fantasize about having sex with a man. I have thought about becoming involved with a gay partner, but I want to honor my commitment to marriage and family. I really don’t want the attractions. These homosexual feelings never really felt like a part of me or who I really am. Can you help me diminish the homosexual attractions and increase my sexual attractions for my wife?”Many in the mental health professions would have me refuse to provide such psychological care to individuals even when such therapy is based on their request. They would have me say something like the following “a homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. I can only help you become more comfortable with your homosexual attractions.”I would like to begin with a little survey in which you can feel free to participate or not participate. How many of you agree with the following statements?Homosexuality is basically biologically determined.Homosexuality is determined by factors other than biology.I really don’t know what I believe about the cause of homosexuality.While it is unusual for me to use a video clip as the introduction to a lecture, I do have a short clip that highlights some of the issues that I want to discuss in my lecture this morning. [Video segment from ABC’s 20/20 news magazine.]Now, let me ask a rhetorical question. If we could repeat the above survey, would you change any of your answers? Is homosexuality innate and immutable? Or can a person with homosexual orientation make significant changes in the direction of becoming heterosexual? Are the official statements issued by the major national mental health associations which declare that there is no published evidence demonstrating that homosexuals can significantly alter their sexual orientation in fact accurate?There is a considerable body of ideologically inspired “scholarship” which leans toward the notion that homosexuality is so strongly compelled by biological factors that it is indelibly ingrained in a person’s core identity, and is therefore not amenable to change. Many of these articles, though well-written, do not reflect good science. In fact, the social advocacy of the articles would suggest a greater reliance on politics than on the scientific method.There are basically three studies that led activists to trumpet the notion that homosexuality is biologically determined. These studies were conducted by Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer, and the team of Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard. Perhaps a brief review of these studies would lay a good foundation for my lecture today.1At the time of his research, Simon LeVay was a biological scientist at the Salk Institute in San Diego. He conducted research on the brains of two groups of men: homosexual men and men who LeVay presumed were heterosexual. With a fairly small sample size (19 homosexual men and 16 presumed heterosexual men), LeVay conducted a post-mortem examination focusing on a particular cluster of cells in the hypothalamus known as the INAH-3. He reported that he had found “subtle but significant differences” between the brains of homosexual men and the heterosexual men. LeVay’s research had a number of important limitations. He had very little information about the sexual histories of the research participants. Some of the subjects died of AIDS. Although there were differences between experimental and control groups, some presumed heterosexual men had small brain nuclei in the critical area, and some homosexual men had nuclei large enough to be within the normal heterosexual range. Activists proclaimed that the biological roots of homosexuality had been established. Listen to LeVay’s interpretation of his research.But it is important to stress several limitations of the study. First the observations were made on adults who had already been sexually active for a number of years. To make a real compelling case, one would have to show that these neuroanatomical differences existed early in life preferably at birth. Without such data, there is always at least the theoretical possibility that the structural differences are actually the result of differences in sexual behavior perhaps the “use it or lose it” principle. Furthermore, even if the differences in the hypothalamus rise before birth, they might still come about from a variety of causes, including genetic differences, differences in stress exposure, and many others. It is possible that the development of the INAH-3 (and perhaps other brain regions) represent a ‘final common path’ in the determination of sexual orientation, a path to which innumerable factors may contribute.2Quoting LeVay,Another limitation arises because most of the gay men whose brains I studied died of complications of AIDS. Although I am confident that the small size of INAH-3 in these men was not an effect of the disease, there is always the possibility that gay men who died of AIDS are not representative of the entire population of gay men. For example, they might have a stronger preference for receptive anal intercourse, the major risk factor for acquiring HIV infection. Thus, if one wished, one could make an argument that structural differences in INAH-3 relate more to actual behavioral patterns of copulation than to sexual orientation as such. It will not be possible to settle this issue definitively until some method becomes available to measure the size of INAH-3 in living people who can be interviewed in detail about their sexuality.3Further, LeVay summarized his research results in the following way:It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain INAH-3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behavior…Since I looked at adult brains we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.4Commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a scientist as the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states, “These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case–that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. It is possible that differences is sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused by) differences in the brain.5Later, in his book Queer Science, LeVay offered additional clarification regarding biology and homosexuality:Although there are significant differences between the attitudes of lesbians and gay men it is clear that both groups are far more inclined to consider their sexual orientation a biological given than is the general population….Should we take these assertions seriously? Not entirely, of course. No one even remembers being born, let alone being born gay or straight. When a gay man, for example, says he was born gay he generally means that he felt different from other boys at the earliest age he can remember. Sometimes the difference involved sexual feelings, but more commonly it involved some kind of gender nonconformist or sex atypical traits-disliking rough and tumble play for example, that were not explicitly sexual. These differences, which have been verified in a number of ways suggest that sexual orientation is influenced by factors operating very early in life, but these factors could still consist of environmental factors such as parental treatment in the early postnatal period.6Finally, LeVay made an interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted, “…people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay rights.”7The next study was conducted by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings. In their sample, they had 56 sets of identical twins and 54 sets of non-identical twins. They found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual. For non-identical twins, the rate was about 22%, showing that about 1 in 5 twins who were homosexual had a homosexual brother also. For non-twin brothers, the concordance rate was 9.2%. Interesting enough, Bailey and Pillard found that the concordance rate in adopted brothers was 11.2%.The most fascinating question, however, is that if there is something in the genetic code that makes an individual homosexual, why did not all of the identical twins become homosexual since they have the exact same genetic endowment? Neil Whitehead provided some comparative data on twin studies. The concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%. From the Bailey and Pillard study one has to conclude that environmental influences play a strong role in the development of homosexuality.8The third study, and perhaps the most sensationalized of the three studies since it emerged at the time of the controversy surrounding gays in the military during the Clinton era, was conducted by Hamer et al. Dean Hamer was a senior scientist at the National Cancer Institute. Hamer and his group attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. In Hamer’s study, he examined 40 pairs of non-identical gay brothers and asserted that 33 pairs–a number significantly higher than the 20 pairs that chance would dictate–had inherited the same X-linked genetic markers from their mothers.9Criticism of Hamer’s research came from a surprising source: George Risch, the scientist at Yale University School of Medicine who invented the method used by Hamer. Risch commented, “Hamer et al suggest that their results are consistent with X-linkage because maternal uncles have a higher rate of homosexual orientation than paternal uncles, and cousins related through a maternal aunt have a higher rate than other types of cousins. However, neither of these results are statistically significant.”10Commenting on his own research Hamer noted,We knew genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors… (Hamer & Copeland, 1994, p. 82). Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environment plays a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.11Citing the failure of his research, Hamer further wrote, “The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hope to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants.”12What is more intriguing is that when Hamer’s study was replicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice et al concluded:“It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al’s, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28 .13When asked by Anastasia Toufexis, a Time reporter, whether his theory ruled out social and psychological influences, Hamer’s response was “Absolutely not, …from twin studies we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors.”14In summarizing the biological studies on homosexuality Byne and Parsons offer the following summary, “Recent studies postulate biologic factors as the primary basis for sexual orientation. However, there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from a dissatisfaction with the current status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieus as the individual’s sexuality emerges. Because such traits may be heritable or developmentally influenced by hormones, the model predicts an apparent non-zero heritability for homosexuality without requiring that either genes or hormones directly influence sexual orientation per se.”15Independently, Friedman and Downey noted that credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality.16They conclude that “human sexual orientation is complex and diversely experienced and that a biopsychosocial model best fits the current state of knowledge in the field.”17So what does all of this mean about biology and the genesis of homosexuality? Critical reviews of the studies attempting to link biology and homosexuality, and subsequent acknowledgments by the researchers themselves, yield only one conclusion: biology alone is insufficient to explain the development of homosexuality. Any reputable scientist, regardless of which side of the political debate he or she embraces, when asked whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, must answer “yes.” What is fascinating is that more than 50 % of the scientists who report research in this area are self-identified as gay or lesbian. This is disproportionate to the 2-3% (The Kinsey myth that 10% of the population is homosexual has been thoroughly discredited) which is the current estimate of the number of homosexual men and women in the population.The developmental biologist form Brown University, Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, a self-identified lesbian, offers some interesting insight. Referring to the “born that way” argument, she states:It provides a legal argument that is, at this moment, actually having some sway in court. For me, it’s a very shaky place. It’s bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral question.When asked about how much of her thinking about change in sexuality comes from her own life, Fausto-Sterling responded,My interest in gender issues preceded my own life changes. When I first got involved in feminism, I was married. The gender issues did to me what they did to lots of women in the 1970s: they infuriated me. My poor husband, who was a very decent guy, tried as hard as he could to be sympathetic. But he was shut out of what I was doing. The women’s movement opened up the feminine in a way that was new to me, and so my involvement made possible my becoming a lesbian. My ex and I are still friends. It is true I call myself as lesbian now because that is the life I am living, and I think it is something you should own up to. At the moment I am in a happy relationship and I don’t ever imagine changing. Still, I don’t think loving a man is unimaginable.18So if biology is insufficient to explain the development of homosexual attraction, what does the research say about the developmental or environmental factors?I should preface this part of my lecture by stating that the homosexual population is not a homogenous population. There are likely different routes that lead to a homosexual attraction, a homosexual orientation or a homosexual identity. Not only do the processes appear to be different for men and women but a homosexual attraction does not necessarily lead to a homosexual orientation. And not all homosexually-oriented people claim a homosexual identity. Gender nonconformity is the single most common observable factor associated with homosexuality.19Hamer concludes: “Most sissies grow to be homosexuals, and most gay men were sissies as children…despite the provocative and politically incorrect nature of that statement, it fits the evidence. In fact, it may be the most consistent, well-documented, and significant finding in the entire field of sexual orientation research and perhaps in all of human psychology.”20In Hamer’s own study, he asked the following questions: “Did you consider yourself less masculine than other boys your age, or were you ever regarded as a sissy as a child?” The answer was yes for 68% of the gay men compared with 5% of the straight men. Another question, “Did you enjoy sports such as baseball and football as a child? Of the gay men, 8% said very much compared to 78% of heterosexual men said very much. The gay men recalled substantially more gender atypical behaviors than the heterosexual men.”21LeVay noted that “…gays and lesbians were more nonconformist than heterosexuals in the following gender-differentiated traits:”Participation in rough and tumble play (RPT), competitive athletics, or aggressionToy and activity preferenceImagined roles and careers (significant difference for men only)Cross-dressingPreference for same or opposite sex playmatesSocial reputation as a sissy or tomboy22Friedman and Downey concluded that homosexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to report having been extreme tomboys as children.23Saghir and Robbins reported that 70% of homosexual women recalled being “boy-like” in childhood compared to 16% of heterosexual women.24The research data is extensive in correlating gender non-conformity and later self-identification as homosexual.Another area where there has been substantial research is the area of sexual abuse. Schrier and Johnson concluded that:homosexually-assaulted males identified themselves as subsequently homosexual seven times as often as the non-assaulted group.the mean age at which the molestation was reported was 18.2 with a range of 15 to 24.the age at the time of the molestation ranged from 4 to 16 with a mean age of 10.of an extension group, one half of the victims currently identified themselves as homosexual and often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.25Friedman and Downey found that gay males are more likely than heterosexual males to become sexually active at a younger age (12.7 vs. 15.7).26In clinical settings, homosexual men frequently report an early introduction to sexuality.Tomeo et al conducted research with 942 non-clinical adults (97% of the men and women were participating in a gay-pride celebration).27Gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did a comparison group of heterosexual men and women. Forty-six per cent of the gay men in comparison to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two per cent of the lesbian women in comparison to 1% of the heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. So did the molestation contribute to the identification as gay or lesbian in adulthood? The question is particularly intriguing because 68% of the men and 38 % of the women did not identify as gay or lesbian until after the molestation.Perhaps I can provide you with a more personal glimpse about the potential role of sexual abuse in the development of sexual confusion through the eyes of the Olympic Diver, Greg Louganis. At sixteen he was propositioned by an Olympic judge: “The whole thing was surreal…but did divers actually sleep with a judge to get a higher score ?”28The experience having sex with an older man was confusing to Louganis. Listen to the description of the experience.He put his arms around me and kissed me. I really liked being held, and I was thrilled that this guy found me attractive. I thought that over time I’d feel less ashamed about what I was doing, but it only got worse. The age difference bothered me more, and he couldn’t exactly be a part of my life. I felt stupid telling him what I was doing at school and I couldn’t introduce him to any of my classmates. I hate the separation and the secrecy, but I kept going back for the affection, the holding, the cuddling-more than the sex. I was starved for affection, and he was happy to give it to me. It upset me that he was so much older, not because I felt molested or anything. I had been more than a willing partner, but the difference in our ages made the experience even more shameful.29I looked forward to my furtive meetings with the older man from the beach, but he wasn’t someone I could really talk to.30At some point he told me he was concerned about seeing me because I was under eighteen. Apparently, he’d been jailed in the past for picking up minors.31Another area where there has been considerable research is peer abuse. As boys, many homosexual men report name-calling, feeling rejected, being excluded by their peers. Daryl Bem, who is an activist theorist from Cornell, offers an interesting theory of how homosexuality develops. His theory is referred to as EBE or the Exotic Becomes the Erotic. His theory is that boys feel attraction for those who were different from them. The theory basically proposes that biological variables, such as genes, prenatal hormones, and brain neuroanatomy, do not code for sexual orientation per se but for childhood temperament that influences a child’s preference for sex-typical or sex-atypical activities and peers. These preferences lead children to feel differently from same-sex peers-to perceive themselves as dissimilar, unfamiliar, and exotic. This, in turn, produces heightened nonspecific autonomic arousal that subsequently gets sexualized or eroticized in that same class of dissimilar peers: exotic becomes erotic.32In essence, temperamentally sensitive boys sexualize that with which they are not familiar. Psychiatrist Richard Fitzgibbons has done significant work in this area.33His conclusions strongly support the role of peer abuse as a factor in the development of gender confusion and later, homosexuality.A final area of developmental factors is associated with family relationships. In homosexual men there appears to be a disconnect between them and their fathers as well as an overconnect with them and their mothers. The psychoanalytic literature seems to hold true in many case where there is a perception of the father being distant, uninvolved and unapproving. Many clinicians report that fathers have a difficult time connecting with their gender atypical sons. Bell, Weinstein and Hammersmith34and Rekers35concluded that the relationship of the child to the father may be more critically predictive of outcome than any other aspects of the relationship with the mother. In Bell, Weinstein & Hammersmith’s study they found that 72% of the homosexual men recalled feeling very little or not at all like their fathers.36So what does all of this mean? Regarding homosexuality, there are simply no variables that are by themselves, totally predictive. What we know is that the probable genesis of homosexuality lies in a combination of temperament and environmental factors such as sexual abuse and peer abuse along with familial factors.Leaving aside this etiologic discussion, the next question is homosexuality immutable? Is it fixed, or is it fluid and amenable to change? There is a fairly good body of research that demonstrates that homosexuality is more fluid than fixed.37Throckmorton’s research suggests that some kind of changes occurred for many who now identify as ex-gay.38A study by Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah, concluded that sexual identity is far from fixed in women who are not exclusively heterosexual.39Kenneth Zucker, renowned Canadian researcher, acknowledging the lack of evidence for the biologic theory of homosexuality, offers an interesting observation. Referring to those on both sides of the debate, the politically and ideologically conservative and “rightest” as well as the politically and ideologically liberal and “leftist,” he noted that both sides agree that homosexual orientation is “more fluid than fixed.” “At times,” Zucker noted, “there really is something to the expression that science and politics make strange bedfellows.”40My own research published in peer reviewed journals also supports this fluidity.Perhaps the most significant study completed to date was conducted by Robert L. Spitzer. Against tremendous protest and politics of intimidation, the study was published in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. Ironically enough, Spitzer was the psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the psychiatric manual in 1973. Spitzer is a self identified secular humanist atheist Jew who has been consistent in his support of gay rights. Briefly, Spitzer conducted a study of 200 people who reported that they had changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Spitzer found that 66% of the men and 44% of the women who had participated in therapy to change their homosexual orientation had arrived at what he called “good heterosexual functioning.” Additionally, 89% of the men and 95% of the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all, by unwanted homosexual feelings. In Spitzer’s own words: “Like most psychiatrists I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that’s untrue-some people can and do change.” Spitzer concluded that the changes occurred not just in behavior but in core features of sexual orientation.41In a commentary published last year, Dr. Scott Hershberger, a scientist from the University of California at Long Beach, a long time supporter of gay rights and a self-identified essentialist (a individual who believes that homosexuality is biologically determined), reviewed the Spitzer research. Instead of just commenting on the Spitzer research, he elected to conduct a Guttman Scalability analysis. Basically, this is a mathematical test used to determine whether or not the reported changes occur in a cumulative, orderly fashion. His conclusion, “The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual behavior, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Spitzer’s study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation. Now it is up to those skeptical of reparative therapy to provide comparably strong evidence to support their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so.”42While it is beyond the scope of this lecture to talk about the theory and methods that are helpful in diminishing homosexual attractions, perhaps I can offer a very simple statement with which most therapists in this area would agree. The basic theory is that social and emotional variables affect gender identity which in turn determines sexual orientation. The work of the therapist is to help individuals understand their gender development. Subsequently such individuals are able to make choices that are consistent with their value system. The focus of treatment is to help individuals fully develop their masculine or feminine gender identity.It is interesting that there has even been questions as to whether or not an individual should have the right to seek treatment to diminish unwanted homosexual attractions. The alleged justification for disallowing therapy is that such individuals seek help because of society’s pressure or because of “internalized homophobia.” From a clinical perspective, the choice to seek treatment can be a rational, self-directed goal, as should be the case with patients from any population group.I would like to begin closing by citing the conclusions of 4 activists on the fluidity of homosexuality and therapy to diminish homosexual attraction.Camille Paglia:Homosexuality is not normal. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm…Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm…Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction…No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous…homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition-a phenomenon obvious with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction–helping gays to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether or not homosexuality may not indeed, be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children band together by gender….Current gay cant insists that homosexuality is not a choice; that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort.43Douglas Haldeman:A corollary issue for many is a sense of religious or spiritual identity that is sometimes as deeply felt as is sexual orientation. For some it is easier, and less emotionally disruptive, to contemplate changing sexual orientation, than to disengage from a religious way of life that is seen as completely central to the individual’s sense of self and purpose…However we may view this choice or the psychological underpinnings thereof, do we have the right to deny such an individual treatment that may help him adapt in the way he has decided is right for him? I would say that we do not.44Simon LeVay:First, science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves, while possibly taking scientific finding into account. Second, I believe that we should as far as possible, respect people’s personal autonomy, even if it includes what I would call misguided desires such as the desire to change one’s sexual orientation.45Dean Hamer:…biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people, guided by their values and beliefs can decide what is moral and what is not.46It’s intriguing that the researchers whose studies have been used to perpetrate the myth that homosexuality is innate and immutable are speaking out. Friedman and Downey, psychiatric researchers at Columbia University who are very supportive of gay rights, provide a strong response to the argument that homosexuality is somehow fixed and unchangeable. Listen to their strongly worded conclusion, “At clinical conferences one often hears…that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true… The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.”47Robert Perloff, former president of the American Psychological Association, became uncharacteristically angry with activist attempts to ban therapy for homosexuality. He condemned the APA’s narrow politicism. Of re-orientation therapy with homosexuals, he said, “It is considered unethical…That’s all wrong. First the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants to change, listen to the client. Third, you are barring research.48In my view, homosexuality is an issue of ethics and morality. Science–good science–can add a dimension to the discussion. However, I am in full agreement with the activists noted above–individuals who experience unwanted homosexual attractions have a right to treatment aimed at diminishing those attractions. Whether or not others agree with that choice is not as important as respecting the right to make those choices.Tolerance is a two way street. A confounding of politics, psychology and therapeutics has occurred because of anti-gay bias in some cases and gay activism in other cases. This co-mingling of facts and fiction by anti or pro homosexual political groups-both of which claim to have science on their side does little to help. Accusations of homophobia or heterophobia serve to diminish dialogue, not to encourage dialogue. Patient self-determination, the cornerstone of all the mental health professions, must rise above the political debate. Contrary to the prevailing climate, the data on homosexuality is far from complete, but there is much that we know.Ethicality would suggest that the suppression of data and discouragement of further scientific research should not be tolerated. It is well within the purview of science to study issues such as the change from homosexuality. The well-intentioned caretakers or our national organizations slide down a slippery slope when advocating what amounts to a virtual censorship of scientific investigation of politically unpopular views. Fortunately, that is changing. Within the last year, I have had nine master’s or doctoral students from prominent universities throughout the country contact me for assistance with thesis or dissertation topics. Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda.Being supportive of the basic civil rights of self-identified gays and lesbians does not require a belief in the false notion that homosexuality is invariably fixed in all people. It is not. As a final note, I personally repudiate any uncivility, religious or otherwise, toward self-identified gays or lesbians. At the same time, suppression of research and the intimidation of scientists must not be tolerated. Under no circumstances should science be pre-empted by activism. No one benefits when that occurs.Notes1Simon LeVay, “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men,” Science253 (1991), 1034-1037; Dean Hamer, et. al., “A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation,” Science 261 (July 1993), 321-326; J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991), 1089-1096.2Simon LeVay, Queer Science. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996), 143-145.3Ibid.4D. Nimmons, “Sex and the brain,” Discover (March 1994), 64-71.5M. Breedlove, “Sex on the brain,” Nature 389 (1997), 801.6LeVay, Queer Science, 6.7Ibid., 282.8Neil Whitehead and B. Whitehead, My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation(Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1999).9Dean Hamer, et. al., “A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation.”10N. Risch, E. Squires-Wheller, and B.J. Keen, “Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence,” Nature 262 (1993), 2063-2064.11N. Mitchell, “Genetics, sexuality, linked study says,” Standard Examiner (April 30, 1995).12Dean Hamer and P. Copeland, The Science of Desire (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 104.13G.A. Rice, C. Anderson, N. Risch, and G. Ebers, “Male homosexuality: Absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at XQ28,” Science 284 (1999), 665-667.14Anastasia Toufexis, “New evidence of a gay gene,” Time 146 (November 13, 1995), 43.15W. Byne and B. Parsons, “Human sexual orientation: The biologic theories reapprised,” Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993), 229.16R.C. Friedman, and J.I. Downey, “Neurobiology and sexual orientation: Current relationships,” Journal of Neuropsychiatry 5 (1993), 131-153.17R.C. Friedman and J.I. Downey, Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis: Sexual Science and Clinical Practice(New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 131.18C. Dreifus, “Exploring what makes us male or female,” New York Times Science Section (January 2, 2001).19Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, edited by G.A. Rekers (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); Hamer and Copeland, The Science of Desire.20Hamer and Copeland, The Science of Desire, 166.21Ibid., 167.22LeVay, Queer Science, 98.23Friedman and Downey, Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis: Sexual Science and Clinical Practice.24M.T. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973).25D. Schrier and R.L. Johnson, “Sexual victimization of boys: an ongoing study of an adolescent medicine clinic population,” Journal of the National Medical Association 80:11 (1988), 1189-1193.26R.C. Friedman and J.I. Downey, “Homosexuality,” New England Journal of Medicine 331 (1994), 923.27M.E. Tomeo, et. al., “Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 30:5 (2001), 535-541.28Greg Louganis and E. Marcus, Breaking the Surface (New York: Random House, 1995), 16.29Ibid., 76.30Ibid., 89.31Ibid., 79.32Daryl J. Bem, “Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation,” Psychological Review103 (1996), 320-335.33Richard Fitzgibbons, “The power of peer rejection,” NARTH Bulletin (August 1997).34A.P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg, and S.K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women(Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1981).35G.A. Rekers, “The formation of a homosexual orientation,” Hope for Homosexuality (Washington, D.C.: Free Congress Foundation, 1988), 1-27.36Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women.37J. Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1996); M.F. Swartz, and W.H. Masters, “The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Psychiatry 141 (1984), 173-181; E. James, Treatment of Homosexuality: A Reanalysis and Synthesis of Outcome Studies, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Library, 1978); K. Freund, “A laboratory method of diagnosing predominance of homo- or hetero-erotic interest in the male,” Behavior Research and Therapy 17 (1963), 451-457; K. Freund, “A note on the use of the phallometric method for measuring mild sexual arousal in the male,” Behavioral Therapy 2 (1971), 223-228; P.W. Blumstein and P. Schwartz, “Bisexuality in men,” Urban Life5 (1976), 339-358; P.W. Blumstein and P. Schwartz, “Bisexuality in women,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 5 (1976), 171-181; P.W. Blumstein and P. Schwartz, “Bisexuality: Some social psychological issues,” Journal of Social Issues 33 (1977), 30-45; C. Charboneau and P.S. Lander, “Redefining sexuality: Women becoming lesbian in midlife,” Lesbians at midlife: The creative transition, edited by B. Sang, J. Warsaw, and A. Smith (San Francisco: Spinsters Book Company, 1991), 35-43; K.K. Kinnish and D.S. Strassberg, “Gender differences in the flexibility of sexual orientation: A multidimensional retrospective assessment.” (Poster session presented at the meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research, Hamburg, Germany, June 2002).; C. Kitzinger and S. Wilkinson, “Transitions from heterosexuality to lesbianism: The discursive production of lesbian identities,” Developmental Psychology 31 (1995), 95-104.38W. Throckmorton, “Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays,” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33 (2002), 242-248.39Lisa M. Diamond, “Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual-minority women over a 2-year period,” Developmental Psychology 36 (2000), 241-250.40Kenneth J. Zucker, “The politics and science of reparative therapy,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 32 (2003), 400.41Robert L. Spitzer, “Prominent Psychiatrist Announces New Study Results-Some Gays Can Change (Encino, California: National Association For Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, May 9, 2001); Robert L. Spitzer, “Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 Participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 32 (2003), 403-417.42Scott L. Hershberger, “Guttman scalability confirms the effectiveness of reparative therapy,” Archives of Sexual Behaviors 32 (2003), 440.43Camille Paglia, Vamps and Tramps, (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 91.44Douglas Haldeman, “Gay rights, patients’ rights: The implementation of sexual orientation conversion therapy.” (Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., August 2000), 3.45Simon LeVay, Sexual orientation: The science and its social impact (2000), 12. Retrieved April 3, 2001 from: http:members.aol.com/_ht_a/slevay/page12.htm.46Hamer and Copeland, The Science of Desire, 214.47Friedman and Downey, Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis, 39.48B. Murray, “Same office, different aspirations,” Monitor on Psychology 32 (2001), 20.