Peace be unto you.

Peace?

Typical

The propensity for violence plus the cultural norms which
reinforce that tendency is what is genetic. They attack
their enemies in an order based on how close the source
of conflict is to their gene pool. Tribal enmity stems from
the xenophobic suspicion of ‘outsiders’. A second cousin
is an outsider compared to a first cousin, and so on. Foreigners
are on the outside fringe of ‘outsiders’ and thus there is
cooperation amongst countrymen who temporarily unite
to eject the common enemy.

They share no deviant gene to distinguish them from any other
race. All races have a duality in their rejection/fascination with
violence. Theirs is just a bit more primitve because it has been
socially condoned and sometimes encouraged to a greater extent
than western civilizations.

That does not change the fact that ‘genetic memory’ (as you
reference with Jung’s Archetypes) ties ancient human behavior
and it’s violence to modern day man, regardless of race.
I should have been listening to your signals, without verbatim
language, that this is a racist notion. It would be if I were saying
that violence was the province of Arabs to the exclusion of some
other race. No, it is something shared, but with different social
controls.

You have averred on a number of occasions (several threads) that tribal / sectarian warfare was “genetic” and “in their blood” and similar terms. I responded several times that you were incorrect. You have yet to make a cas that this was so; you just keep repeating it.

It is up to you support your contention, not me.

I say it’s false, I have said why I think it’s false.

You say it’s true, but you have not made your case. Make your case, or don’t. I don’t care.

You have to build your own case before you can ‘demolish’
another.

Have some Senokot and try again.

You’ve gone from helpless to hopeless to pathetic

“Continued censorship of criticism invites additional fraud, so evolution has suffered more embarrassments than any other scientific theory. The Piltdown man was a lie taught to schoolchildren for decades, even featured in the John Scopes Monkey Trial textbook, and only five years ago a dinosaur-bird fossil hoax was presented as true on the glossy pages of National Geographic.”
http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=14069&loc=/opinion/columns/phyllisschlafly/2004/12/27/14069.html

“Many textbooks feature pictures of giraffes stretching their necks to feed high off of trees, but genetics and observed feeding habits disprove that as a basis for evolution of their long necks. Moreover, the striking beauty of the colored pattern on the giraffes illustrates that design, not merely usefulness, is what animates our world.”

Just like you, when it’s convenient and fits the accepted world view,
Schafly champions genetics.

Remember; 500 years ago it was ‘true’ that the earth was flat and all
who claimed the earth was not the center of the universe were at
risk of being burned at the stake. These are good companions for
the knowledgeable, but still tragically ignorant, Frank D’s of the world.

And I thought you followed every breath Phyllis takes.

Try reading that isn’t recommended by Phyllis Schafly.

Derogatory declarations, my ass. You’ve been talking down to me for days, you phony.

Time for you to back down, because you are W – R – O – N – G.

Incidentally, Captain Tomorrow, if you don’t realize that I annihilated your stupid idea, several posts back (Mar 1 2006, 9:57 PM), then you haven’t been reading.

‘While the above comment awaits moderation, perhaps you could
entertain me with information that disproves my  genetic memory
error.”

I issued the first challenge which is unanswered, except for the
derogatory delcarations.

I’m sure you’ll run for the “incomprehensible metaphor” dodge.

At least you are consistent in your intransigent and fossilized grey cells.

Let’s agree not engage in the future. It is a fruitless endeavor.

Get over yourself, You’re grasping at straws, because you are fighting from adownhill position.

I have a better challenge for you, and easier: Demonstrate, with a ‘preponderance of evidence’ (not because you say so, that the tribal [sectarian] warfare in Iraq has a genetic basis. That was (and has been for some time) your contention.

I’m done until you demonstrate that. Everything else is Bravo Sierra.

Incredible.

They are brilliant minds taking one posit and extrapolating a string of
subsets to form their conclusions. You are comparing the Human Genome
Project to them?

There is nothing new about the brain’s role in producing responses due
to chemicals released or not released. There has been much research
done to suggest that the brain is little more than a very prolific
gland, but I do not embrace that view. The brain is more than that,
but it is only my opinion. If you are interested in such subjects, you
should read; “Programming and Metaprogramming the Human
Biocomputer” By Dr. John Lily.

As for what is provable by human standards of ‘proof’ I have a challenge
for you which no philosopher has dared try since Descartes wrote the
line “I think, therefore, I am”. A Cartesian cop-out. He IS because
he says HE IS.

If you care to, impress me with your thinking and writing skills, please
convince me and the scientific world that you exist, Frank.

Make it easy on yourself and prove that a tree exists, or your
5th floor apartment. Take your choice.

There is much that is mysterious in this world, but only the bold,
heuristic thinkers give us a glimpse of the truth before it can be
discursively ‘proven’.

But what the hell do I know, I’ve only been studying human behavior, formally and informally, for forty years, and actually worked in the field for ten years. You’ve been studing it way longer than that, right, Cleo?

Let me how you make out in that anthropology course, and tell me what you think of Mood Genes when you’re done.

You know, “It’s ridiculous to you now, because you’re not forward thinking enough, but someday, I’ll be be proven right, and you’re going to feel foolish.”

I was reading about Penfield and Gazzaniga as far back as the mid – 70’s. Gazzaniga wandered off the scientific reservation years ago. There’s a kernel of truth, but nothing like you’re talking about — like Julian Jaynes (I know you’ve heard of him, right?)

You’re talking to me about evolution, and saying (erroneously) that I called it fantasy. Everyone here said it was “science” because there evidence behind it, and evidence to back it up. Now I’m saying that “genetic memory” is a crack – brained theory, and you’re saying, “Someday we’ll find out it’s true.”

All this because of your pig – headedness in refusing to back off your Omar Sharif / Anthony Quinn “Sheik” stereotype of ancient Arab feuds, and now you’re trying to support it by saying it’s genetic.

You can go get 100 links, and all of them in their totality wouldn’t support the notion of a genetically driven tribal conflict. Not 100 — not 1000.

It ain’t so.

Talking down down to me is just making you look more and more foolish.

Locomotives, indeed…

If I remember correctly, you also regard the theory of evolution as
‘fantasy’, and there’s the rub for our dear traditionalist who regards
the emerging science of epigenetics as ‘pseudo’ primarily because
it threatens that brittle worldview.

http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/genetic_memory.cfm

The Pope is no longer the only authorized purveyor of knowledge in
the world, Frank. Galileos everywhere continue to challenge the
status quo, which you so desperately cling to. Steam engines no
longer have a place in the world, except as a curiosity. If locomotives
continue to be your preferred mode of transportation, you will assuredly
arrive late for your appointment with destiny

Maintaining the integrity of the tribe might be an ancient tradition. It is, nonetheless, a tradition, i.e., something that is passed down by learning.

When a baby cries a new mother’s breasts will leak milk. She will not “instinctively” hop into her Chevy Nova, and ride out to the Piggly Wiggly.

Why don’t you stop trying to insult me, go find out what in the hell you are talking about, and come back later.

Let’s look at some of your “material”:

In humans, some behaviors run in families. For example, there is a clear familial aggregation of mental illness.

Absolutely. From generation to generation, in each and every family member, each having the same mental illness?

Of course not.

Drosophila: genetics meets behaviour.

Oh, yes, those complicated, sophisticated fruit flies. We behave exactly like them. In fact, I was in a fruit fly shopping mall the other day. Parking was, naturally, extremely difficult, because it stood only 18 inches tall.

Cleo, how many ways can I say you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Every single behavioral course I’ve ever taken brings up the idea of “nature vs. nurture.” It is clearly understood by almost everyone but you, I guess, that humans are distinguished from almost every other living thing by the FACT that there is very little of an instinctive nature in their behavior.

The closest thing to “genetic memory” is Jung’s idea of ‘collective unconscious,’ and it doesn’t refer to genetic memory. It refers to ancient archetypes: things that frighten us and confuse us from the ancient past of our ancestors.

As it says in the World Book Encyclopedia of the Internet WikiPedia: Genetic memory is a device used in science fiction but it is not scientifically proven to occur in human beings.

You are way out of your league, my friend. “Some core courses on theories of genetically ascribed behavior,” indeed. For what I’m paying, I haven’t got time for “Art Bell” junk science.

By the way, have you ever taken a “core course” in Anthropology?

Have you ever read Mood Genes,by Samuel Barondes?

Check it out…