Bourgeois Science-How about Darwinism?

Carrol Cox cbcox at
Mon Dec 3 15:42:06 MST 2001

Greg Schofield wrote:
> John you have read too much into what I said.

> > Lanugage is a different thing altogether, reliant on these biological
foundations it lays at a different order of magnitude and complexity - not
reducible to Darwinist principles.

"Dawinism" (as currently developed) includes exaptation as well as
adaptation. Many features of an organism "piggyback" on features that do
have darwinian survival value, the piggybacking features being merely
neutral, positively destructive (as with sickle-cell) or, as with those
features which ground speech) of no immediate utility but later under
different circumstances having great utility. Homo sapiens was probably
fully formed by 150,000 years ago, but language may be only around
50,000 years old. I.e., the _capacity_ (intellectual and physical (vocal
cords,etc) was there long before that capacity was used. One biologist
(current issue of _Scientific American_) speculates that langauge may
have been invented first by children and only later picked up by adults.
There may be a relationship between the invention of language and the
elimination of the Neanderthals -- they and homo sapiens having survived
together for about 100,000 years, at which time the neanderthals
disappeared very quickly.

I haven't read any of John's posts. One serious oddity on the left (it
showed up some months ago in really idiotic comments by some posters on
schizophrenia) is the presence of those individuals who are endlessly
skeptical of "establishment" science and endlessly gullible of any
half-wit science that belongs in the National Inquirer.


PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list