I would have hoped we were beyond this here at EP. If genes dont determine behavior, then we should be able to raise a monkey to behave like a human, orMessage 1 of 12 , Sep 28, 2003View SourceI would have hoped we were beyond this here at EP. If genes dont
determine behavior, then we should be able to raise a monkey to
behave like a human, or vice-versa. We should be able to raise a cat
to hunt in packs and bury bones and hump legs. We should be unable to
find "human universals". We should be able to create workable
Communist societies. Unfortunately for those who assert complete
plasticity of behavior for humans, they are just completely wrong and
their assertion is laughable at this point given the existing
mountain of opposing evidence.
In the specific case of the study from ASU, she seems to be confusing
the fact that emergence can allow very few simple genetic
instructions to cause seemingly complex behaviors with an idea that
no genes are involved. The fact that individuals with genetic
abnormalities or physical brain damage to a specific area lose or
never develop the group social behavior skills most of us take for
granted clearly shows that an assertion that no genes are involved is
wrong. That we can be in every other way "normal" and not behave in
the way she sees as emergent disproves her theory.
Carmi Turchick tribalypredisposed@...
In a message dated 9/30/2003 2:39:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... And for those who are inclined to take this comment too seriously, I recommend a go at anyMessage 1 of 12 , Sep 30, 2003View SourceIn a message dated 9/30/2003 2:39:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yeh@... writes:
The myth of "The remarkable universality of the genetic regulatory
elements" was based on a single factor (PAX6) that is both in
verterbrate eye and some inverterbrate (probably also its receptor(s)),
That is clearly just a chance, and by now researchers of eye
development went off the idea of similarity in molecular mechanism.
You can always find homologuous proteins across phyla, but they don't
have the same role. Even the role of Pax6 is not the same.
For those who are in doubt, type "eye development" in Google, and read
some of the pages that come up.
And for those who are inclined to take this comment too seriously, I recommend a go at any good, current account of the molecular biology of developmental regulation, e.g., the book from Carroll, Greiner, and Weatherbee (FROM DNA TO DIVERSITY; Blackwell Science, 2001). "Remarkable," like most otehr emotive and success words, obviously means different things to different people, for different reasons.