First one? Really? (Politics)

by David Turell , Sunday, June 14, 2009, 20:33 (5639 days ago) @ xeno6696

The entire field of behavioral genetics begs to differ. You accept evolution, but deny we inherited anything? - That's right. Babies are pretty much blank slates, not like a foal (at our ranch) who is up and nursing within an hour of birth. Babies' intelligence levels are raised by proper intellectual activities on the part of their parents as shown by recent research. Years pass by before their frontal lobes properly accept full responsibility for their own safe behavior. This is the price we pay for giant brains.
 
> This is an interesting turnabout! You suggest the behaviors we share are shared purely by chance? If evolution teaches us anything it teaches us that non-deleterious behaviors will be conserved. They recently found a "warrior" gene that is prevalent more frequently in gang members than the rest of the population funny study methodology actually... - I don't think 'evolution' teaches us anything. It is the evolution behavioral researchers who think they own the Holy Grail of truth, and try to convince us of their biases. I think you should read Robert Wright, "Non Zero" & "The Moral Animal". His points are good ones. We started with tiny hunter-gatherer groups for self-protection and cooperative help. As societies got larger we developed more rules for behavior. As a result, H. sapiens are 150,000 years old, more or less, but religion and systems of morals are perhaps 4-6,000 years old. My point is we taught ourselves these rules, not physical evolution. - http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2009/01/hotsauce - I don't buy this study at all. It is filled with the usual science weasel words: "suggest", "support", "controversial". Many genes are supposed to control an enzyme, from studies that statistically support 'association' to establish the connection. The problem with this type of research is the rapid adaptations controlled by various RNA types. I am currently reviewing an article in the Quarterly J. of Biology "Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance", which I will report on when I am finished. The point is rapid adaptations can occur to meet individual interpersonal or environmental challenges, and then are inherited. Lemark revisited, and true. Organisms can guide their own evolution. So I don'tknow what that warrior study really means, if anything.
 
> I'm going to push you further on this point...
 
> On the anatomic level we share how much in brain anatomy to other apes? Other creatures at large? - The anatomies are generally the same. Our brain is four times bigger than a chimp's, but amazing more powerful than times 4. Our consciousness makes us different. I've discussed that with George. - > Food seeking behavior? Fight or flight response? - 
These are natural required responses. I don't need instinctual genes for guidance in those circumstances. I learned them in childhood. - 
 
> This book you suggest is teetering on the top of the list. An author to be nearly insane to think of humans as something separate from or above animals... no offense. I haven't heard that argument since Aristotle or Aquinas. - 
Haven't you heard of Adler? Interesting man who lived until 98 years old. Born Jewish, adopted his wife's religion, became an advisor to the Catholic Church, and died a Catholic. As far as I am concerned our consciousness makes us different in kind, not degree.