Mokele

In theory, toxins or damaging chemicals could make their way into the middle ear and damage it. However, the eustachian tube is so small, and open so infrequently, that you'd be dead of whatever toxin it was long before you felt any damage to the ear.

So where's your basis for this sweeping generalization? Not actually - genetic doesn't equal reversible. If you altered the genes associated with limb development in an adult human, there would be no effect - development already happened and locked in the original pattern. Sometimes, once something is built, that's the way it stays.

Proof, no. Evidence, yes. At the moment, we don't fully understand the mechanisms of sexual orientation. A full study of the evidence generally supports the idea that sexual orientation involves genes, in-utero environment, early childhood, epigenetic factors and possibly pheremones. More to the point, however, there is a massive preponderance of evidence showing that, regardless of exact cause, sexual orientation is set in stone long before puberty, and actual change is impossible. However, as I pointed out, the choice issue is a total non-sequitur. We choose religions (or lack thereof), choose political parties, choose our jobs, etc, and yet none are an acceptable basis for discrimination.

Any local bookstore will have GRE guides with practice tests. There's also one at the GRE website.

Hershberger, Scott L. 2001. Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Orientation. Pp. 27-51 in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identities and Youth: Psychological Perspectives, edited by Anthony R. D’Augelli and Charlotte J. Patterson. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Quoted in Bearman and Bruckner, 2002. Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG (March 2000). "Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample". J Pers Soc Psychol 78 (3): 524–36. PMID 10743878 Hu S, Pattatucci AM, Patterson C, et al (November 1995). "Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females". Nat. Genet. 11 (3): 248–56. doi:10.1038/ng1195-248. PMID 7581447. Mustanski BS, Dupree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH (March 2005). "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation" (PDF). Hum. Genet. 116 (4): 272–8. doi:10.1007/s00439-004-1241-4. PMID 15645181. http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf Also, "born" is irrelevant. If that was the sole criterion, we could dispense with freedom of religion, since nobody is 'born Christian'.

I found the Kaplan test books helpful

AFAIK, it's never based on necessity, actually. Asexual vertebrates are asexual regardless of circumstances. The ability to switch back and forth seems beyond our abilities.

Theoretically, but the odds are so incredibly long that it's basically never going to happen. It's far less likely than winning the lottery every day for a year straight.

Why shouldn't poly people get married?

We are everywhere. Fnord.

Just wait - I know of at least one high-profile court case that's seeking to overturn DOMA. If it succeeds, then gay marriage in any and every state will simply be a matter of a weekend trip to New England. The rest of the country will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Real scientists back their claims up with evidence.

It's fairly simple: we simply don't have the technology yet.

Oh, you're one of *those* crackpots? Show me empirical evidence, and stop wasting our time with your gibberish.

You assume that just because we haven't yet, we can't. Clearly this is baseless and likely wrong.

Religion is absolutely irrelevant to the question. What matters is one thing: Show me empirical evidence of your theory.

Your "Theory" is nothing but baseless and seemingly random thoughts, devoid of any sort of internal logic or empirical evidence. Do you have any actual empirical evidence to support this?

2007 was warmer than 2006. I love the brave way you simply tuck your tail between your legs and scurry away in the face of evidence that contradicts your claims. Don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you're wrong? Then what are you even doing on Scienceforums?

You're treading dangerously close to the line of dismissing any actions or personality you don't agree with. Who are you to say they're posing, that this isn't what they're "really like"? And what gives you the right to say someone is/isn't a poser, based on nothing more than a cursory examination of their behavior? Implicit in your statement is that nobody is "really like" that, and it's all just affectation, which is incredibly dismissive, if not outright prejudiced. Furthermore, how do you think such a social convention even got started? Was there a Super Secret Gay Meeting where the Council of Gays stated that everyone has to act that way, even though nobody there wanted to? Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong, and that some people really do have those personality characteristics?

You can also solve it via simple kinematics equations, without diff. eq.

Fungi do possess cell walls.

#3 does not require differential equations - you can do it with simple algebra.

So? Why shouldn't they, and what's wrong with it? People don't have to all act the same - compare an accountant to a punk rocker. Why should someone adopting a set of behaviors and mannerisms that their group prefers be a problem?

No, Fungi are a different kingdom from plants and animals, and are actually more closely related to animals. See this family tree, which includes plants, animals, fungi, and lots of other critters As for the "why", the major unifying trait we can really see is that Fungi, animals, etc, when they have a flagullum on their cells (such as sperm), have only one and only at the 'rear' end (compared the plants, whose pollen may have multiple flaggelae). However, I suspect this classification also owes a lot of molecular data, which only really has the explanation of "the genes are more similar".

Try ignoring crappy spin and looking at the actual facts. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that you're an alcoholic. What? You aren't? Well, denial is the first sign of a problem, you know! Same thing here - you're dismissing legitimate, data-based objections to your claims as "rationalizations", thereby constructing a false situation which no data can possible negate. This is sleazy debating at best, and persistent fallacy at worst. Wrong again. The support is the data. Wrong. Most are *very* aware of it. Cite a source for your claim, or actively recant it. They were condemned as inaccurate. By your standards, evolution is an example of "groupthink". We state that it's firmly decided, all conflicting data is explained away, disparage creationists, etc. Or relativity Or the theory of the atom Or the germ theory of disease You're using the 'groupthink' accusation because you have no evidence. Cite an actual source (peer-review journal only) or stop wasting our time.