Re: human/chimp oral differences

John Croft writes:

> Testosterone endochrinologically has been linked to adrenal function.
> This is not aggressive behaviour so much as preparation for
> fight-flight. Which of the two it manifests in I would suggest depends
> upon the memes operating in your culture.

Gerry: Conclusion: by the memes operating in my culture, this behavior
is considered aggressive, correct.

> >G: 2) do all infants begin as XX entities?
>
> JC: Nope. They have a slightly more than 50% chance of being XY. Higher > prenatal mortality amongst XY's (due to sex-linked inheritance of fatal > characteristics) brings the male-female rate close to 50% (still > slightly higher in male cases). This seems due to the fact that there > is a slight Y preponderance in male sperm. Infants start as either XX > or XY (with very slight numbers of XXY or XYY). The fact that XYY > males tend to be higher proportions in basketball teams (due to their > height) or prisons (due to their social difference) was once linked to > testosterone, but now seems due to social marginalisation as seeming > physically "different".

Gerry: Hmmm. I forgot about high testosterone being linked to height.
Makes sense. But again, the very tall folks, although physically
different, shouldn't be relegated to "social marginalisation".

G:> > 3) is the Y put in place by testosterone levels in ??both male and

> > female? Or only the male?

JC:> Nope. Y is put in place by chance at fertilisation.

Gerry: Do you mean chance by probability? Hmmm. Makes sense.

> > Glen: Now does that mean the baby is "animalistic"? Perhaps we should > > leave these prejudicial attitudes buried with Hitler (<- or is he > > cremated... or maybe he's living in Texas right now?) :P

> > > > Gerry: And here it's Hitler again. But how do we talk about "social > > Darwinism" and "group selection" without invoking the concept of > "Nazi". > > We can refuse to acknowledge the issues, I guess. I'd be most > pleased > > to hear your ideas.
>
>JC: Gerry, group selection theory has been on the outer ever since it was
> demonstrated by Darwinians to not hold water in an evolutionary sense.
> For instance, Darwin used group selection to explain altruism, but it
> is clear that any group that has wide altruistic genes is extremely
> vulnerable to an individual that mutates to have a selfish state.
> Selfish genes produce more offspring. Thus no "group selection".

Gerry: So are you saying that Darwin did NOT believe in group
selection? Do you think Darwin selected his belief based on "science"
or based on "politically correct at the time"?

>JC: Only recently has a very limited group selection re-emerged in looking
> at the "energy cost of Hawkishness" as a negative selection pressure,
> but it would seem that the equilibrium point is still much closer to
> selfish individualistic evolution than "group selection". Social
> Darwinism went out with the disappearance of eugenics (which was abused > not just by Nazi's, but also by the good state of California before the > war with complusory sterilisation orders on those who were not white, > middle class, heterosexual protestants!)

Gerry: God, John! Are you claiming with authority that CA required
such heinous measures? If it's true then it explains why I feel so
"lost" living here in CA. Could you possibly supply me with references;
my husband doesn't believe what you say.

> Hope this helps
>
> John

Gerry: Looking forward to your reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! ZERO! Rates as low as
> 0.0% Intro APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no
> hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the credit
> you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/966/0/_/2431/_/951277809/
>
> -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
> -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/cybalist/?m=1

--

Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com