Eva meant this to go to the list:
>organism. So what is the point of reverse-engineering
>besides being a quaint subject to dumning down
>tv documentaries?
It's because "genetically" we are still hunter-gathers, we haven't had the
time to change "genetically" yet.
>> If we reject their findings because we believe that humans transcend
nature,
>> then we are left with "unexplainable behavior". If we continue to deny
our
>> animal nature -- if we embrace superstition and ignorance -- then we
condemn
>> our grandchildren to certain death.
>
>So if we don't except your (clever??) argument, our only option
>is to go for something silly? Humans deny their animal nature,
No they don't, they can't. Everything people does has its roots is
"genetics"! For example, "genetics" determines wheither you have lungs or
gills.
Evolutionary theory can not tell you if you will become a fireman or a nurse
when you grow up, but it can explain such planet-killing behavior as
deception and sel-deception. And explaining behavior is the first step
towards changing it.
>The "nobody believed Galilei" cry is somewhat misplaced
>here; he had a telescope anyone could look through to
>see reality for themselves, and Copernicus had
>a rather convincing theory, backed up even by
>his contemporary science.
>Your evidence is more on the ambiguous side, and then
>I've been polite.
Go to your local zoo. If you can SEE the "difference" between chimp
behavior and human behavior (I admit is a close call sometimes), then you
can SEE behavior differences due to "genetics". It's easier than in
Copernicus' day because you don't need a telescope -- just an open mind.
Jay
