"Josť F. Morales" wrote:
> . For all complex
> phenotypes, behaviors included (ie. language), biology and genetics
> has to be part of a progressive description of human behavior.
Josť, let me throw your earlier question back at you. Why? What is
progressive about such a description? Let's suppose the behavior in
question is voting behavior. Why is it in any way helpful or progressive to
explain why, say, people vote Republican even partly by biology and
genetics? On the contrary, it seems evident to me that in this example, such
an explanation would be unscientific and Nazi-like at the same time. The
fact that without certain genes people couldn't cast ballots fails to shed
light on their voting behavior.
Likewise, genetic modifications that led to voluntary control of the vocal
tract were probably necessary for speech ( see e.g. Terrence W. Deacon,
"The Symbolic Species" (Norton, 1997) for a clear explanation of this) but
it does not follow that these genes need have been selected for because of
speech, nor that cultural behaviors such as speech are to be regarded as
gene expressions as are say red hair (which, if not dyed red has no cultural
or learned component). When culture enters, as it clearly does in the case
of language, to use the term phenotype is highly misleading, and I think, as
I said before, highly tendentious (and quite possibly dangerous) as well. I
think it is up to you to show that you are not misusing a term to stake out
a hugely exaggerated claim for science.