Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

GEnetic cascade of causations

Expand Messages
  • Jazi Zilber
    I find the genetic arguments highly unsettling. The thing is that it is a complex causation structure. Most animal development is enviroment dependent. Vision
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I find the genetic arguments highly unsettling.

      The thing is that it is a complex causation structure.

      Most animal development is enviroment dependent.
      Vision is hampered is eyes are closed at critical period. Does it make
      vision enviromental? Clearly not! Vision is genetically programmed.
      And only some kinds of variations are primarily enviromental (some
      color attention, for example).


      Most of the studies assume some fixedness of most parameters, as it
      naturally is.

      Yet, when you disentangle ALL crucial links in development and
      variability, your overal correlation sum will be between 1000%-10,000%
      because there are so many stages and parts in biology/psychology


      But this obscures the meaningful idea of "what causes what" means. It
      usually talks about what happens under usual parameters, ad which
      commonly occuring variance has the strnger effect.


      Hence, most of the use of "epigenetics" is misleading. Because it
      tries to escape the meanningful idea of causation. It is akin to
      saying that oxygen is the main cause of motorcycle deaths. Not! The
      central cause is careless driving, random bad luck, lack of helmets
      etc. depending on your level of analysis, and where you put the
      causation focus.

      This is just a short part of the genetic confusion analysis. Maybe,mi
      shall write some more.


      Jazi
      Twitter.com/Yzilber
      Yzilber.blogspot.com
      Jazi yechezkel Zilber
    • james kohl
      I have traced the evolution of complex gene-environment cause and effect back to ligand-receptor binding in yeasts at the advent of sexual reproduction. The
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 1 3:23 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I have traced the evolution of complex gene-environment cause and effect back to ligand-receptor binding in yeasts at the advent of sexual reproduction. The ligand is the alpha mating pheromone and it is similar to mammalian gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), which controls mammalian reproduction.  This ligand is conserved across species. The receptor diversifies (as is required for the effect of sensory input on the neuroendocrine and neuroimmune systems.

        In mammals, olfactory/pheromonal cause and effect is directly via gene activation in GnRH-secreting cells of brain tissue. Cause and effect is not evaluated at any one level; it requires evaluation of the gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system pathway that links the sensory stimulus directly to behavior ....(and then a casual look around to find that only olfactory/pheromonal input directly activates genes in species from microbes to man, which makes effects of other sensory input on the neuroendocrine and neuroimmune systems of evolved organisms secondary effects via association with stimuli that directly affect behavioral development.)

        But when people look around, they see what they think are direct effects of visual and auditory stimuli on hormones that affect behavior and tell stories about the visual and or auditory stimuli they think are most important to different behaviors in different species. While they're looking around, they somehow seem to forget the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that are clearly responsible for the evolution of behavior.

        James V. Kohl
        The Mind's Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences
        Powerpoint presentation: http://scentoferos.com/ego-wall/reissplenary2007forsite
        Proof of concept: Human pheromones, epigenetics, physiology, and the development of animal behavior


        --- On Wed, 2/1/12, Jazi Zilber <yzilber@...> wrote:

        From: Jazi Zilber <yzilber@...>
        Subject: [evol-psych] GEnetic cascade of causations
        To: "evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com" <evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2012, 1:38 AM

         

        I find the genetic arguments highly unsettling.

        The thing is that it is a complex causation structure.

        Most animal development is enviroment dependent.
        Vision is hampered is eyes are closed at critical period. Does it make
        vision enviromental? Clearly not! Vision is genetically programmed.
        And only some kinds of variations are primarily enviromental (some
        color attention, for example).

        Most of the studies assume some fixedness of most parameters, as it
        naturally is.

        Yet, when you disentangle ALL crucial links in development and
        variability, your overal correlation sum will be between 1000%-10,000%
        because there are so many stages and parts in biology/psychology

        But this obscures the meaningful idea of "what causes what" means. It
        usually talks about what happens under usual parameters, ad which
        commonly occuring variance has the strnger effect.

        Hence, most of the use of "epigenetics" is misleading. Because it
        tries to escape the meanningful idea of causation. It is akin to
        saying that oxygen is the main cause of motorcycle deaths. Not! The
        central cause is careless driving, random bad luck, lack of helmets
        etc. depending on your level of analysis, and where you put the
        causation focus.

        This is just a short part of the genetic confusion analysis. Maybe,mi
        shall write some more.

        Jazi
        Twitter.com/Yzilber
        Yzilber.blogspot.com
        Jazi yechezkel Zilber

      • Don Zimmerman
        ... DWZ: Yes. That kind of analysis seems to me to be going in the right direction. Please do write more. The expression cascade of causation is a good one.
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 1 9:28 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Jazi Zilber <yzilber@...> wrote:

          > I find the genetic arguments highly unsettling.
          >
          > The thing is that it is a complex causation structure.
          >
          > Most animal development is enviroment dependent.
          > Vision is hampered is eyes are closed at critical period. Does it make
          > vision enviromental? Clearly not! Vision is genetically programmed.
          > And only some kinds of variations are primarily enviromental (some
          > color attention, for example).
          >
          >
          > Most of the studies assume some fixedness of most parameters, as it
          > naturally is.
          >
          > Yet, when you disentangle ALL crucial links in development and
          > variability, your overal correlation sum will be between 1000%-10,000%
          > because there are so many stages and parts in biology/psychology
          >
          >
          > But this obscures the meaningful idea of "what causes what" means. It
          > usually talks about what happens under usual parameters, ad which
          > commonly occuring variance has the strnger effect.
          >
          >
          > Hence, most of the use of "epigenetics" is misleading. Because it
          > tries to escape the meanningful idea of causation. It is akin to
          > saying that oxygen is the main cause of motorcycle deaths. Not! The
          > central cause is careless driving, random bad luck, lack of helmets
          > etc. depending on your level of analysis, and where you put the
          > causation focus.
          >
          > This is just a short part of the genetic confusion analysis. Maybe,mi
          > shall write some more.


          DWZ:
          Yes. That kind of analysis seems to me to be going in the right direction. Please do write more. The expression "cascade of causation" is a good one.

          Saying "X causes Y" is misleading if A, B, P, Q, R ..... intervene between X and Y and are constantly changing and difficult to disentangle.

          Best regards,

          Donald W. Zimmerman
          Vancouver, BC, Canada
          dwzimm@...
          http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
        • clarence_sonny_williams
          Good points, Jazi, but I suggest all of us gene-centrists begin using the term genetically channeled rather than genetically programmed. I ran across
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 1 9:32 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Good points, Jazi, but I suggest all of us "gene-centrists" begin using
            the term "genetically channeled" rather than "genetically programmed."
            I ran across that terminology used by Peter Carruthers in his book, The
            Architecture of the Mind (arguing for domain-specificity), and really
            like it. It is easier to transition from it to a discussion of the
            important role played by environmental conditions. It implicitly
            includes the regulatory genome and the role of gene regulation in both
            phenotypic development and evolution. Some evo-devo types think the
            regulatory genome is some "extra-genomic" process, and using
            "channeling" rather than "programming" blunts this argument at the
            outset. "Programmed" is a little too strong for my personal tastes.

            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Jazi Zilber
            <yzilber@...> wrote:
            >
            > I find the genetic arguments highly unsettling.
            >
            > The thing is that it is a complex causation structure.
            >
            > Most animal development is enviroment dependent.
            > Vision is hampered is eyes are closed at critical period. Does it make
            > vision enviromental? Clearly not! Vision is genetically programmed.
            > And only some kinds of variations are primarily enviromental (some
            > color attention, for example).
            >
            >
            > Most of the studies assume some fixedness of most parameters, as it
            > naturally is.
            >
            > Yet, when you disentangle ALL crucial links in development and
            > variability, your overal correlation sum will be between 1000%-10,000%
            > because there are so many stages and parts in biology/psychology
            >
            >
            > But this obscures the meaningful idea of "what causes what" means. It
            > usually talks about what happens under usual parameters, ad which
            > commonly occuring variance has the strnger effect.
            >
            >
            > Hence, most of the use of "epigenetics" is misleading. Because it
            > tries to escape the meanningful idea of causation. It is akin to
            > saying that oxygen is the main cause of motorcycle deaths. Not! The
            > central cause is careless driving, random bad luck, lack of helmets
            > etc. depending on your level of analysis, and where you put the
            > causation focus.
            >
            > This is just a short part of the genetic confusion analysis. Maybe,mi
            > shall write some more.
            >
            >
            > Jazi
            > Twitter.com/Yzilber
            > Yzilber.blogspot.com
            > Jazi yechezkel Zilber
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.