LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  November 2002

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE November 2002

Subject:

Genes and traits

From:

NEWMAN STUART <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:26:42 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (220 lines)

Given what genes actually do (specify primary sequences of proteins, and
they don't even do that in a straightforward fashion--almost every RNA
transcript in vertebrates is spliced, and at least half are alternatively
spliced), the idea of a "genetic explanation" for any trait at all, let
alone behaviors and beliefs, is problematic.  There are clearly some cases
in which morphology (e.g., wrinkling of peas, number of fingers in humans),
a disease propensity (for sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis), a sensory
capability (color blindness, perfect pitch), and undoubtedly behavioral
propensities, are strongly influenced by one or more genes.  But in none of
these cases does there exist a genetic explanation of the trait affected by
the gene variants.

Any complex system can be sent along one or another of its potential
pathways by small changes in a subset of its components.  If the origination
of a character (trait, shape, behavior) is ontologically distinct from the
mutation that elicits one or another version of the character, the
sociobiological/evolutionary psychological style of assertion that most
species-specific commonalities in human form and behavior are "genetic"
becomes indistinguishable from saying they are "biological."  Moreover, the
multiplicity of way our species differs from the next nearest ones makes it
in principle impossible to determine the extent to which our proteins define
our species nature.   Furthermore, the assertions of sociobiologists and
evo-psychologists that some behavioral differences between groups are
"genetic" is also a category mistake.  The only rational meaning this could
have is that some protein variants selected for at earlier stages of human
evolution influence developmental pathways responsible for behavior
patterns.  Although this is plausible, it has not been shown for any human
protein/behavior, and processes other than genetic mutation, many of which
are reversible (stress, malnutrition) can also influence developmental
pathways .

If human evolution is analogized to domestication of animals (Darwin's
favorite model for evolution), with humans domesticating themselves, it
might be argued that different groups are distinguished by genetic changes
similar to those that separate domestic breeds from their wild counterparts.
But in perhaps the best studied case of experimental domestication (see
Trut, L. N. (1999). Early canid domestication: the farm-fox experiment.
American Scientist 87, 160-169; Prasolova, L. A. and Trut, L. N. (1993).
Effect of the "Star" gene on the rate of melanoblast migration in silver fox
(Vulpes vulpes) embryos. Dokl Akad Nauk 329, 787-9) the differences between
domesticated and nondomesticated strains are not mutations--actual changes
in gene sequence--but paramutation--reversible modification in the chemical
modification or chromosomal configuration of a gene that affects its
expression (Hollick, J. B., Dorweiler, J. E. and Chandler, V. L. (1997).
Paramutation and related allelic interactions. Trends Genet 13, 302-8).
This is probably why domesticated animals often revert to their feral
appearance and behavior after a few generations in the wild.

The relation of genes to complex traits is an area that is still unresolved
for systems in which the most precise experimental methods are available.
It is clear, however, that inheritance of traits almost never means there
are genes "for" that trait, and differences between individuals with regard
to a trait, even if the trait breeds true, doesn't necessarily mean that
there are allelic (gene sequence) differences between those individuals.  So
what are evolutionary psychologist talking about?


-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Handler
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 11/2/02 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: What are we doing here?

Wow,
I am definitely in favor of this direction expecially these questions
Dick Levins just put out.

The questions that I would add related to Dick's contribution are these:

1.  What are the inherent limitations on genetic explanations?  All
explanations that can be qualified as scientific have to be based on our
ability to gather evidence both for and against (Popper's notion of
falsification).  Information gathering is not free it is subject to the
2nd law of thermodynamics as is everthing else.  In particular this
means that there are always information losses (entropy implies that not
all of the energy in a system is available to do work which implies that
it is not possible to know all of the internal states of a system).  On
the other hand chaotic dynamics informs us that that systems whose
behavior varies wildly due to insignifigant, immeasurable variations in
initial conditions are quite common.  Given that it appears that
biological systems fall into the chaotic category, it seems that the
attempt to characterize behavior of systems given simple physical
initial conditions which vary from individual to individual and can not
be measured with great precision, such as genetic determinism or
quasi-determinism (really the same thing with various qualifications
that other things may matter, but no questions or research directed
toward what those other things are)  would be doomed to failure were it
not for the attractiveness of the view among many people independent of
its explanatory power.

Another way of saying this is to pose the question on how much
information can cross hierarchical boundaries?  From gene to cell,
from cell to tissue, from tissue to organ, from organ to system,
from system to individual and from individual to society.  Not only
are there information losses on the way, other information at the
same level of hierarchy also appears from other sources, the
the environment.  Reductionists seem to presuppose that information
flows freely accross these boundaries, there is much room for
skepticism on this point.

To my mind this means that many subjects must be studied in their own
domains.  While a knowledge of genetics and neurphysiology can be very
important to psychologists and therapists, it is hardly ever decisive.
 The basic elements of the domain being studied must be developed by the
people researching the subject, they can not be deduced from the
structural elements that make up a physical body.  To posit that
psychology would become a subdomain of evolutionary biology is absurd.

2.  What kinds of things about behavior can be deduced from biological
structure?  I think the answers are probably more along the lines of the
kinds of spectra of behavior that a biological system can support rather
than attempting to deduce the existence of specific behaviors such as
altruism or aggression.  I am no biologist, but it seems peculiar to me
that the focus of evolutionary psychology is to explain specific human
behaviors rather than, at least as a starting point, to understand how
to characterize and/or parameterize the whole behavior spectrum.
 Without an adequate understanding of the size of the domain being
studied, it seems to me that it is impossible to escape the conclusion
that the topics being studied are arbitrary and based on the subjective
biases of those doing the research.  That is not necessarily a bad thing
in itself, but I think it becomes problematic when larger questions are
not acknowledged or even dismissed as seems to be the case.

3.  How independent is the social structure of humans (and other animals
with socital structures) from biology?  This is probably just a
paraphrase of Dick's questions.  In particular, the kinds of questions
to ask here are how much behavior does not vary as environment changes
and how much behavior does change as the environment remains fixed?
 Biological determinism must argue that behavior is an adaptation to the
environment, so if it remains fixed when the environment changes, that
set of behaviors must not be based on any genetic (or at least any
detectable) structure and conversely, if behavior changes when the
environment is fixed, it becomes hard to see how one could argue that
genes are responsible.  The other issue here that has been raised in
the past is the pace of behavioral change compared to the pace of
genetic change.  Even when a behavior does "track" the environment,
if that behavior changes in new creative ways faster than the pace
of genetic change (which I understand is measured in tens of thousands
of years), then there is another major discontinuity with the relation
between behavior and genetics.  These are fairly simple ideas, I think
they can be strengthened.

I like Dick's idea that we "... not let the reductionists set the
agenda".  That was the case during the sociobiology debate which I think
by all accounts we won.  We might as well try again.

-- Ivan



Richard Levins wrote:

> 3. Our own alternative approach. The question of the appearance of
human
> behaviors is a worth while topic.This should start from the assertion
of
> both continuity and discontinuity in human evolution that would help
> understand what we mean by "traits". I do not doubt that the physical
and
> chemical organization of the brain is the starting point. Questions of
> connectivity and neurotransmission are relevant, but to what? Human
labor
> requires that we imagine the product before it is made. This capacity
to
> visualize is then available to visualize all sorts of other things
that
> have no evolutionary significance but are humanly important. The
adrenals
> are active in a stress response, but the adrenal rush is not
necessarily
> aggressive. It can be euphoric. So yes, in a sense corticosteroids may
> be a
> precondition for some kinds of aggressive behavior (spontaneous
> individual
> aggressiveness, not premeditated aggression that is part of the
> "cost/benefit" analysis by criminals or the impersonal aggressiveness
of
> the warmakers). And a gene that inhibited synthesis of these molecules
> may
> alter the behavioral options(sugar levels might not rise much, blood
> pressure and heart rate may be stable). But this in no way explains
> "aggression". Similar, language makes limericks and sonnets possible
> but a
> biochemical variant that makes word recall slower or faster would not
> be a
> gene for  poetry. The task of a real integration of the biological and
> social is to show the emergence of human behaviors out of human social
> arrangements on a substrate of rather general biological capacities.
> Or we
> could start with a problems such as, how have people coped with the
> variability of the environment? The basic modes are detection with
> response, prediction, broad tolerance, prevention and mixed
> strategies. We
> could examine any of these to see how they emerge from pre-human
> modes. For
> instance, all animals face food shortage. Food could be stored in the
> body
> as fat, in the ground as acorns, in more abstract form as social
> bonds,  or
> more recently as wealth and money, in which case it can be insatiable.
> But
> where we do not have social/cultural mechanisms to cope with the
> environment, biological and behavioral modes persist. For instance in
the
> short- and long term survival at high elevation.
> Let's not let the reductionists set the agenda.
>

--
Ivan Handler
Networking for Democracy
[log in to unmask]


--
--
Ivan Handler
Networking for Democracy
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager