No, none of that. What we have is evidence of a some recent changes,
not only that but some differences that are associated with geography,
genes enabling people living at high altitudes to process oxygen
better. genes to tolerate lactose so people can drink milk. Genes to
change skin color so people can live at different latitudes come to
mind. The fact that there are recent identified genetic changes causes
many, not just Wade to suspect that there are other changes. If there
is a sudden ability to do something or tolerate something or change into
something or get sick in some new way, there is a suspicion that
genetics are involved. And scientists will be trying to prove or
disprove an association. Unfortunately (fortunately for sick people)
scientists are most often looking for genetic causes of diseases.
Lawrence
On 7/8/2016 7:25 PM, John McCreery wrote:
Lawrence,
As you suggest, let's keep this scientific and avoid the ad hominem argument that those interested in genetics as a possible explanation of human behavior are espousing inherently racist views. I haven't followed the discussion closely enough to be sure that what I write below is relevant. Please correct me where my third-hand views of second-hand discussion of primary sources I have never read goes astray.
Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we have on the table the proposition that changes in genes explain the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture.
Do we have any evidence of any form that demonstrates the presence of these genetic changes prior to the appearance of agriculture or coinciding with it?
If we see morphological evidence of, for example, predictable changes in the skeletons of those who practice agriculture versus those who practice hunting and gathering, how do we determine that these are the results of changes in genotype and not changes due to behavioral changes required by agriculture, e.g., bending over to hoe and weed?
How do we address the effects of population mobility and the mixing resulting from what my first Anthropology teacher called the only natural law that anthropologists have ever discovered: When peoples meet, they mate?
And then, of course, we come to the question of genetic mechanisms. Here we have to address recent advances in hard core biochemically based studies of genetic processes that indicate that the same genotypes can have radically different effects depending on the specific proteins with which they interact.. . . .Obvious enough when one considers that the same embryonic stem cells can become specialized bone, heart or liver cells, but sorting out how that happens turns out to be a wicked problem.
Cheers,
John
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 11:05 AM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Larry Kramer. Yes.
John
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Ursula Stange <ursula@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Larry Kramer?
On Jul 8, 2016, at 8:50 PM, Mike Geary
<jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On the old Philosophy and Literature list there were two
politically conservative posters named Lawrence, (1) you -
Lawrence Helm and another Lawrence whose last name escapes me
now. I used to refer to the two of you as "the two Larrys."
Does anyone remember the other Larry's name? As I recall,
there were several politically conservative leaning members
on that list. Perhaps there are several here as well but who
find this list not the proper podium to practice their art. This list is certainly a lot less politically oriented. Liberal-Conservative stances show themselves far more readily
in political conversations and those are few and far between
now. I hail from a very liberal,Irish-Catholic, Southern
white, working-class, maternally-ruled, (my mother could have
taught Betty Friedan some lessons), Civil-Rights-marching
family of five boys and one girl. -- and a very hard
working, calm and amused father. At dinner Mom would read a
paragraph or two from some liberal political magazine such as
Ramparts and we would all be expected to discuss it. It was
argument among the like minded -- but I would often play the
Devil's Advocate just for fun. I miss growing up.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Lawrence Helm
<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I should have included a disclaimer but I didn't know
quite how to phrase it. I still don't but I'll try
anyway. For many years I have read or acquired to read
everything I could find on genetics as it affects human
and canine evolution. The magnitude of my effort strikes
me as very small, but I have erred in the past when
estimating the worth of various efforts. OTOH while I
have been receiving three news feeds on scientific
advances for quite a long time, I have not been keeping
up very well with them. So, while I am very aware that
the study of genomes, genes, alleles, etc. for the
purpose of determining what everything does is relatively
new, the nature of natural selection and the recent
discoveries have triggered speculations not just with
Wade. In fact I had already thought of a significant
percentage of what Wade writes in his book. He is much
more thorough than I could have been and of course he has
access to materials I couldn't have or could have but
wasn't aware of. Still, as has been demonstrated fairly
often (without a clear explanation of why it happens, a
"climate of opinion" sometimes exists. Had Darwin for
example not produced his theory of evolution Alfred
Russell Wallace would have.
I am not claiming anything more than a certain degree of
attentiveness which has caused me to have many of "the
thoughts floating around out there" that anyone (or many
ones) interested in these aspects of genetics will have.
I have no reason not to embrace whatever new discoveries
are made in these fields of genetics. I also confess to
not being aware (until reading Wade's book) that there
was resistance to the possibility of racial genetic
differences because of 1) they might inspire new bouts of
racism, 2) they run counter to Marxist theory, and 3)
they run counter to Leftist ideas.
The other day I ran across an old Lit-Ideas' comment of
Geary's in which he is answering the question of someone
who hadn't been on Lit-Ideas for a long time and was
wondering "where everyone was." He identified me as the
only true "conservative" still on Lit Ideas. I frankly
don't think of myself that way any longer. I have "given
up politics" for the duration. I don't plan on getting
into any of the political arguments I did in the past --
and yet here we are in a new arena. Something that
strikes me as purely scientific, that is, looking at
evidence from science, history, anthropology etc and then
speculating or reasoning from it strikes me as
non-political. I'm not saying that this reasoning
somehow turns into evidence or proof. At best it becomes
a plausibility to be set alongside other plausabilities
and I don't see any thing in that to be afraid of. Perhaps other people do however, and I can respect that.
While I had already thought of or encountered elsewhere
much of what Wade wrote I felt a need to post a
recognition of and perhaps speculate about ideas I hadn't
already encountered, but I needn't post them on
Lit-Ideas. I can post them on my blog and have that be
the end of them. I might be able to get back to poetry
more quickly if I take that course.
Lawrence
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub,
vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
<http://www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html>
-- John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324 <tel:%2B81-45-314-9324>
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.wordworks.jp/
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://www.wordworks.jp/
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12583 - Release Date: 07/08/16
