|
|
Re: Adaptationism's Lessons (was Re: Evolution, "adaptation")
Robert Snower (rs222@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 02:59:56 GMT
lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Len Piotrowski) wrote:
>In article <51l3v4$fa6@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> rs222@worldnet.att.net (Robert Snower) writes:
>>There is no gene for "jealousy." There might be a gene, or genes, for
>>an instance of jealousy, or instances of jealousy. There are no genes
>>for abstract concepts, including "altruism," or "selfishness."
>>Best wishes. R. Snower rs222@worldnet.att.net
>Do I take your second sentence ("There might be a gene, or genes, for
>an instance of jealousy, or instances of jealousy.") to mean there might be
>a gene or genes behind structures, mechanisms, processes, and integrating
>operations that are involved in some social situation mutually definable by
>the participants as manifesting jealousy?
Yes.
> If this is so, then this same set of
>system properties (including the social interaction) are implicated in the
>expression of other abstract concepts, including altruism and selfishness,
>without any "task-specific" brain mechanism determined by the ancestral
>functional adaptiveness of a particular genetic loci behind each and every one.
>Cheers,
>--Lenny__
I am afraid I don't follow your reasoning. The specific behavior is
adaptive or not (contributes to fitness). Therefore its genetic
component (if it has one) is adaptive or not.
Best wishes. R. Snower rs222@worldnet.att.net
|