@hbdchick @JayMan471 actually he does discuss twin studies in that book, but the "discussion" is totally idiotic +
-
-
-
@pseudoerasmus@JayMan471 yes, he does. not really in that chapter tho. except re. gays, but he gets that wrong (identical are DIScordant).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@hbdchick An impressive achievement. Similar to writing about Darwin without mentioning adaptations. I haven't read his book, though... -
@EPoe187 i just flipped through it on google books last night. light on science, heavy on dogma, afaics. =/ reads just like his blog. -
@hbdchick Doesn't surprise me. I'll just take your word for it and waste my time on a more informative book!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@hbdchick That person has no idea what they are talking about? -
@JayMan471@hbdchick Because that person is Jonathan Marks. -
@eawilloughby@JayMan471@hbdchick Because he is an irrelevant ideologue who deliberately misrepresents mainstream research -
@autonomousoblas
@eawilloughby@JayMan471 thanks all three of you! that clears that up then. (^_^)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.