From: Gerry Reinhart-Waller
Message: 1616
Date: 2000-02-22
>Yes, of course.
> >>> >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 havebeen
> 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
>
> To both of course.
>
> Marc
> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates--
> as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees.
> Apply NOW!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/967/0/_/2431/_/951174176/
>
> -- Check out your group's private Chat room
> -- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=cybalist&m=1