Discussion with Sonny Williams from Human Ethology YahooGroups

[Craig Mackay]

Posted by: "mackaycraig11" c...@ast.cam.ac.uk   mackaycraig11

Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:26 am (PDT)

Dear Sonny

I think you are quite wrong to interpret recent advances in
neuroscience, genetics and related disciplines as pointing to more
rather than less genetic control over social behaviour. The most
unexpected and surprising result of the Human Genome Project was that
human DNA contains a mere 20,000 genes, approximately 1.5 percent more
than chimpanzee. These genes are recipes for proteins and not even
for the balance between protein expression rates in different cellular
environments which are largely controlled by RNA molecules, as far as
we know. Genetic diversity amongst humans is substantial but largely
a consequence of single nucleotide copying errors. However human
behaviour is so incredibly complex there really is no way it can be
encoded into the limited DNA we all possess, apart from some of the
most basic functions. Even things as lowly as learning to crawl and
walk learned not inherited. 300 extra genes, according to a 300 extra
proteins is not enough to constitute more than the most elementary
part of our behaviour.

Craig Mackay

--- In human-ethology@yahoogroups.com, "Sonny Williams" <sonnyw@...>
wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
> Thanks for the reply. I shall get to chapter one as soon as time
permits.
>
> I suggest that "brain" is a better term than "mind," as the latter
implies something extra-biological. The brain is a purely biological
mechanism/organ.
>
> I also disagree with this statement: "It is increasingly clear that
relatively little of our social behaviour is encoded in our biological
genes." Quite the contrary, recent advances in neuroscience, genetics
and related disciplines point to more, not less, genetic "control"
over social behavior observed in many animals, including humans
("control" demands explanation, but in a short post it makes my point
succinctly).
>
> Sonny Williams