reply to Kerry on evolution

Lisa Rogers EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS at EMAIL.STATE.UT.US
Mon Jul 17 17:53:38 MDT 1995


Kerry,
perhaps when you read my post about two weeks ago, you had missed the
previous post to which I was replying.  Your points were already
well-taken by me, and I'd like to hear some more.  I'm especially
interested in implications of such science for marxism, and
vice-versa.  A few comments below.

>>> KERRY <MACDONAK at meena.cc.uregina.ca>  7/7/95, 05:43pm >>>
:From: EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS at email.state.ut.us
One needs also to separate and not confuse breeding, the controlled
exageration of a particular characteristic (which is genetically
linked) within a species and evolution, which is the change within a
species at the genetic level (which may and usually is reflected at
the observable level).

Lisa adds: The similarity between the two is that both are genetic
changes that result from differential reproduction of individuals
with different genes.  The difference is that one is done by humans
to domestic species.  (That's also how species got domestic.)

Lisa's earlier post: ..."ethnic cleansing" i.e. genocide.  To a
considerable extent, genocide is :targeted toward "others" which are
geneologically distinct, by tribe, :language, geography, oral
history, self-identification, molecular :genetic assay, etc.  Ethnic
conflicts can then result in genetic :change, as some genes are
targetted for destruction....

Lisa adds:  My point was not intended to be about eugenics at all.
Rather, it is just that if genetically different populations are in a
killing war with each other, and one is substantially wiped out,
there could be the unintended effect of genetic change in the
population, or region.  I was addressing some question about
possibilities, I think, but I do not claim that warfare has ever had
a significant effect on gene frequencies by this mechanism.  Also,
such behavior clearly went on for a very long time before modern
knowledge of genes came about, and I was not addressing issues of
"justification".

Lisa earlier: Attitudes, learning, culture, are indeed inherited in a
sense, which:brings us to a big trend in anthropology right now: dual
inheritance.:We inherit genes from our parents, and culture from
society.

Kerry: You appear to confuse the process of procreation and
socialization.

Lisa now:  No I don't, not at all, quite the opposite.  Again, I was
answering a question about culture being "inherited", but it is not a
part of anthropology that I am into.  And I don't see how I can be
read as "confusing" the process of making babies and the process of
learning.  Perhaps you'd like to say more, to clarify what you mean?

Have you been following evolution on the list since then?  Please
jump in some more.

Lisa Rogers



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list