quote:

---

Yes, I realize that you [Skadie] don't subscribe to Darwin, which I find quite appalling, in particular as you have not demonstrated any evidence for any other model in conflict with Darwin--some of which are listed on other threads. The only justification is that, despite all the physical and formal evidence, you dislike it for political reasons. But while we may be motivated to take one position or another for political reasons, one of us must have a superior claim to truth.

---

Yes Mandos, my problems with Darwinism are highly philisophical. That is because people insist on applying his biological theories to philosophy and human society. I don't disagree that genes mutate over time to create a more complex individual. I DO disagree that this scientific model can somehow be translated into a social model of patriarchy.

quote:

---

To select from this enormous abundance of animal observation only those moral tales that seem to support the naturalness of particular aspects of human sexual relationships and of the patriarchy is to imperil our understanding of both nonhuman and human social biology. If the tales selected by popular ethological accounts all appear to point in a single direction, one must ask: What interest is such a selective account serving? Just as undrestanding the behavior of baboons or lions is not helped by spurious analogizing from that of humans, so understanding the social biology of humans is not helped by reducing it to that of baboons.
(p. 160)

An ethology that observes the nonhuman animal world through the lenses offered by its understanding of human society acts somewhat like Beatrix Potter; it projects, willy-nilly, human qualities onto animals and then sees such animal behavior as reinforcing its expectation of the naturalness of the human condition: Mothers are nurturative because Peter Rabbit's mother offers him camomile tea when he finally escapes being put into Mr. MacGregor's pie. In this way the behavior of nonhuman animals is persistently confused with that of humans. Inappropriate analogies make animal ethology harder to do. At the same time they form ideological refractions that seemingly reinforce the "naturalness" of the status quo in human societies.
(p. 159)

---

I think it is folly to deny that some behaviours have their ROOTS in our evoluntionary history, down-right silly if you ask me.

That does not CONDONE these behaviours, but perhaps if we could understand how and WHY they continue to occur despite thousands of years of "thou shalt nots" we could better identify, and work towards altering said behaviours. Denying their causes or roots is a dangerous thing.

Reading on the behaviours of chimp tribes is fascinating and scary. They've been observed doing some VERY human things.... and things that are seen as abhorrent in their societies and don't seem to have a biological explanation.

"Human?": Rival tribes. One tribe was observed travelling quietly and in single file through the jungle, careful not to break twigs, etc, and attacked the other tribe with rocks and sticks.
There wasn't more food at this site, or better breeding, etc, they were just rivals according to the scientist.

"Odd": Case that comes to mind was a mother-daughter team of chimps. They prowled at night, and stole newborn infants, EATING them. The rest of the tribe was terribly distressed by this, I think they ran them both out, I can't remember.

What I find amusing about Social Darwinists is that their constructs are subtly designed to "prove" why rich guys and white guys come out best and that this was the proper progression. If they really knew their Darwin, they'd be embarassed all to blazes, because evolution is a blind force, not a directed process. It is indifferent as to the ultimate consequences of the changes in species that occur due to natural selection in response to environmental pressures.

quote:

---

In short, Social Darwinism is not a valid application of Darwin's theories. I believe Darwin himself disliked the misapplication of his theories to other than the process of change of species.

---

In fact, social "Darwinism" is actually Lamarcian. As Peter J. Bowler, a history of science professor at Belfast wrote in his book called "The Non-Darwinian Revolution" (Johns Hopkins Press, 1988), Spencer's social Darwinism set out to prove that individual initiative is the sole mechanism of progress. But Darwinism is based on the utterly different proposition that an organism's genetic makeup determines whether or not it will survive. Effort makes no difference in Darwin, but does so in the theories of Lamarck, where it is possible to acquire characteristics.

quote:

---

And you do confirm to me that the only reason you seek alternatives to Darwinism is that you find the consequences of Darwinism politically inconvenient.

---

quote:

---

That does not CONDONE these behaviours, but perhaps if we could understand how and WHY they continue to occur despite thousands of years of "thou shalt nots" we could better identify, and work towards altering said behaviours. Denying their causes or roots is a dangerous thing.

---

Trinitty captures my thoughts very closely.

We might observe in nature that, to use the example popular in another thread, that male lions will kill cubs sired by the male it is usurping, and then look to child abuse statistics in humans, and note that step children seem to be more often abused or killed by step parents than by thier biological parents. I don't think anyone anywhere has ever said: "Gee, that's just natural behavior, no crime here." when step parents are abusive to children in their care.

quote:

---

We might observe in nature that, to use the example popular in another thread, that male lions will kill cubs sired by the male it is usurping, and then look to child abuse statistics in humans, and note that step children seem to be more often abused or killed by step parents than by thier biological parents.

---

You cannot prove causality with a correlation. It is not "scientific" to assume that just because some animals have a particular behaviour, and some humans seem to have a similar behaviour, they both have the same cause.

quote:

---

Where causality can be proven, I have no problem with biological causes for human behaviour. The problem is that most socio-biology is self-serving bunk.

---

I don't disagree. Right now, I think the possibilities that might result from this field of study warrant further looking into.

For myself, I think we are still too ignorant to even know if this will be a productive endeavor or not; and that we are very far from reaching any substantive conclusions-- or even at a point where we can say if we'll ever come to any conclusions.

As you pointed out about my thumbnail example, things are likely far too complicated for there ever to be such a clear cut correlation.

We may not know exactly what we are, behaviorally, but we do know we ain't lions.

Certain mammals care for different species when they are nursing. Surely you have seen the pictures of cats, dogs, or pigs curled up with infant mice, birds, etc.

There are well documented incidents where primates risk their own lives to save individuals that are not related to them.

In hunter-gatherer communities women provide at least 80% of nourishment while men play games and occasionally hunt. In some tribes ONLY the men get to eat the meat they have scored. (I don't know if this could be defined as matriarchical or patriarchical, but my point is that men aren't traditionally the bread-winners and as a matter of fact their contributions were/are symbolic rather than necessary *within hunter-gatherer societies*.)

There are theories claiming the x chromosome is more evolved than the y. So obviously men are less evolved than women.

There are at least as many acceptable SOCIAL theories for patriarchy as there are BIOLOGICAL ones. For example the idea that men compensate for their lack of ability to gestate and give birth to new life by controlling the entire process. (The tables turned on penis envy.)

And finally, in discussing animal behavior in relation to human behavior it must be AS USEFUL to discuss FEMALE behavior as well as MALE behavior. The focus of socio-biology (in relation to patriarchy at least) is dominated by the behavior of MALES and seems to discount the natural selection and evolution of female behaviors. (Artificial insemination is CLEARLY an adaptive behavior! )

In my opinion patriarchy can be linked to males fear of uselessness. (Slicks interpretation that feminists were calling him a failure illustrates my point nicely.)

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: skadie ]

quote:

---

There are theories claiming the x chromosome is more evolved than the y. So obviously men are less evolved than women.

---

It was common, when evolutionary science was in its infancy, to speak of more- and less-evolved creatures as if forms of life could be arranged on different rungs of a step-ladder leading up to the most-evolved.

But scientists have since discarded such a hierarchical view of life. All species change over time. Evolution creates new species from old. But none are more- or less-evolved than any other.

quote:

---

The focus of socio-biology (in relation to patriarchy at least) is dominated by the behavior of MALES and seems to discount the natural selection and evolution of female behaviors.

---

That was true during the 1970s, when EO Wilson coined the term sociobiology. But many of the leading evolutionary psychologists working today are women, and are indeed investigating which female behaviours have a genetic basis.

quote:

---

Certain mammals care for different species when they are nursing. Surely you have seen the pictures of cats, dogs, or pigs curled up with infant mice, birds, etc.

---

quote:

---

Individuals with an inherited instinct to care for their young may be more successful than the less-maternal, but that maternal instinct can be spoofed or taken advantage of by other individuals.

---

But because evolutionary adaptations are not intelligently designed, the ostensible purpose of an instinct--take care of your young, say--and its mechanism are two different things.