>> >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
>Marc, I'm so happy you didn't understand what I was saying -- much of it
was tongue in cheek but some was for those folks who believe that the
genes
determine everything, behavior and all. When you said you were an
extreme
Darwinist with a functional view of behavior, I interpreted this as
ruling
out environment and culture etc. as additional factors in determining
human
behavior. Glad to see that I was wrong. But you do puzzle me with your
last sentence that the distinction between nature/nurture is completely
artificial. What do you mean by the distinction being artificial?
Thanks, Gerry
Genes without environment are nothing. It's not nature or nurture. It's
nature and nurture. I can't see any contradiction between the two.
Marc
Yes, genes and environment need a symbiotic relationship. So does
nature and nurture. QUESTION: is behavior related to genes, environment
or both?
Gerry
--
Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com