>Marc writes: As you know, I am an extreme Darwinist with a very
biological & a very functional view on human behaviour. There's no
contradiction between biological & cultural. Think of the bird dialects that
differ according to the forest they live in. Or the dolphins who learn the
peculiarities of their individual sounds from their mothers.
>Gerry: You say there is no contradiction between biological and cultural?
Are you also saying that what has been labeled as cultural (Boas et.al.) is
determined by genetics? Yet as illustration you mention bird calls differing
according to the forest they live in. Are you implying that genes "think"?
IOW, are you saying that genes "know" they are in different forests so they
change their tunes? Hmmmm. This is most peculiar. If language were genetic
then the calls would be the same because there were be a cluster of genes
that is labeled "oral twitters and peeps". WOW. This is a significant
thought. This means that those medical folks who think they can perform gene
therapy and replace a defectively constructed gene with one that works
properly are WRONG! Yikes! Stop all the Operating Room surgeries! We've got
a horrible problem on our hands! What can be done! Gosh Marc, any
suggestions? Whew, I'm so pleased that you pointed this out. And it's a good
thing you're an extreme Darwinist -- the entire human race could have been
doomed.
Gerry 2/18/00
Gerry, I'm sorry but I don't understand a word of what you are saying. The
birds learn their songs from their fathers & from neighbours. Nothing is
purely genetic in biology. What do you mean by genetic? DNA? but DNA is
wrapped in histones, protamines etc. It's in interaction with the nucleus,
the cell, the neighbouring cells. The distinction nature/nurture is
completely artificial.
Marc