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:

Re: Genes and traits

From:

NEWMAN STUART <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:24:43 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (148 lines)

Several times Ian has referred to his advocacy of Developmental Systems
Theory as the basis for generation of complex traits that might be
susceptible to selection.  This set of concepts, originally articulated by
Susan Oyama, a psychologist, along with other psychologists like Gilbert
Gottlieb, has made an important contribution to evolutionary developmental
biology, precisely because it shows how the environment collaborates with
the genes to produce phenotypic characters, even in such presumably
"hard-wired" aspects as morphology.  (See, for example, Robert, J. S., Hall,
B. K. and Olson, W. M. (2001). Bridging the gap between developmental
systems theory and evolutionary developmental biology. Bioessays 23,
954-62).  If body morphology is not as independent of the environment as
conventionally thought, certainly psychological attributes are even less so.
Thus DST is very different in spirit from the evolutionary psychology
purveyed by Pinker et al., who are always talking about presumed genetic
determination of cognitive characters, usually in the complete absence of
evidence.  Indeed, the recent edition of Oyama's "The Ontogeny of
Information" has a foreword by Richard Lewontin!

The idea that epigenetic, potentially reversible, mechanisms play, and
during evolution, have played, a greater role in the determination and
origination of biological characters than proposed by neo-Darwinism is
gaining increasing hold even among those scientists who actually study
specific genetic contributions to complex traits.  Thus evolutionary
developmental biology is moving away from neo-Darwinism; attempts to push
psychology further in that direction is thus doubly reactionary.  A volume
edited by Gerd Muller and myself with contributions by cellular,
developmental, and evolutionary biologists, that presents detailed examples
of this approach will be published in January (Müller, G. B. and Newman, S.
A. 2003. Origination of organismal form: beyond the gene in developmental
and evolutionary biology,  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Stuart Newman

***********************************************
Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D.
Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy
Basic Science Building
New York Medical College
Valhalla, NY 10595

Tel:  (914) 594-4048
Fax: (914) 594-4653
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.nymc.edu/sanewman



-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Pitchford [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Genes and traits


Stuart Newman wrote:

Perhaps my comments were off-target?  I was reacting to articles and
commentaries like the following: Balter M. Language evolution. 'Speech gene'
tied to modern humans. Science 2002 297:1105, and Savulescu J.  Procreative
beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics 2001
15:413-26.  I recognize that such things are not published in Human Nature
Review, but they are certainly part of the field known as evolutionary
psychology.  Indeed, In searching through articles listed on the Human
Nature Review website I almost never encountered the words "genetics" or
"genes."  (An exception is a review of a book on Human Evolutionary
Psychology where the only uses of these terms are in relation to the book's
background materials on the theory of evolution).
________

REPLY: You concentrate on genes rather than the integrative approach based
on
Tinbergen's four questions (proximal, developmental, functional, and
evolutionary) and rooted in Oyama's developmental systems theory that I
advocated. Language is certainly a good candidate for an adaptation for all
of
the reasons that Pinker and Bloom give in their well-known BBS paper
"Natural
Language and Natural Selection":

"All human societies have language. As far as we know they always did;
language
was not invented by some groups and spread to others like agriculture or the
alphabet. All languages are complex computational systems employing the same
basic kinds of rules and representations, with no notable correlation with
technological progress: the grammars of industrial societies are no more
complex than the grammars of hunter-gatherers; Modern English is not an
advance
over Old English. Within societies, individual humans are proficient
language
users regardless of intelligence, social status, or level of education.
Children are fluent speakers of complex grammatical sentences by the age of
three, without benefit of formal instruction. They are capable of inventing
languages that are more systematic than those they hear, showing
resemblances
to languages that they have never heard, and they obey subtle grammatical
principles for which there is no evidence in their environments. Disease or
injury can make people linguistic savants while severely retarded, or
linguistically impaired with normal intelligence. Some language disorders
are
genetically transmitted. Aspects of language skill can be linked to
characteristic regions of the human brain. The human vocal tract is tailored
to
the demands of speech, compromising other functions such as breathing and
swallowing. Human auditory perception shows complementary specializations
toward the demands of decoding speech sounds into linguistic segments.
This list of facts (see Pinker, 1989a) suggests that the ability to use a
natural language belongs more to the study of human biology than human
culture;
it is a topic like echolocation in bats or stereopsis in monkeys, not like
writing or the wheel. All modern students of language agree that at least
some
aspects of language are due to species-specific, task-specific biological
abilities, though of course there are radical disagreements about
specifics."
see:
http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/99/bbs00000499-00/bbs.pinker.h
tml
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection.
Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 13(4), 707-784.

It wouldn't be in keeping with developmental systems theory to evaluate the
hypothesis that language is an adaptation purely through a reductionist
approach centred on genes.

Chomsky and others have pointed out repeatedly that connectionist approaches
(based on simple rules of learning and a domain-general architecture) have
failed to produce realistic models of language. On the basis of the
information
we have at present I believe it's reasonable to conclude (tentatively, of
course) that language is an adaptation. This is good science, whatever you
want
to call it.

Regards

Ian Pitchford PhD CBiol MIBiol
The Human Nature Review
http://human-nature.com/

Department of Psychiatry
Creighton University School of Medicine
3528 Dodge Street
Omaha, NE 68131, USA

Tel: 402.345.8828
Fax: 402.345.8815
http://medicine.creighton.edu/psych/

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