Culture may be encoded in DNA

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Saturday, September 5, 2026 00:24
VIEWED: 9894
PAGE 9 of 14

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, July 3, 2010 11:17 PM

Byte,

You're free to believe whatever you want. Fortunately, science is not a democracy.

Citizen,

You missed my earlier post where I said basically exactly what you just said. Actually, I said it in two posts. Anyway, I agree. But whether or not it's survival depends on your circumstances, or rather, those of your genetic group. Remember, if something represents a 1% survival or reproductive advantage, it takes over in 20 generations, if it is a 100% advantage, it takes over in 1 generation. Given the length of generations, I think its highly conceivable that this would change relatively quickly.

As for humans in Europe, sure. I was referring to Europeans as a genetic group, who are almost exclusively descended from east Africans. There are a few remote groups like the Sami who are related to earlier Europeans.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 4, 2010 12:26 AM

The study makes the case pretty plain for something which we can logical deduce to be true. Anyone with a brain can do it. So why do I now see so many theories that have no logical trace at all? Seriously, I think this is wandering into rampant speculation, and is coming up with pro and con arguments just on a simple X is wrong so Y is true, and other logical fallacies. Sorry, but it's just what people sre posting.

Conclusion: these posts represent highly emotional reactions based on preconceived political iddas and have nothing to do with science. Not a lot of thinking went into much of this, it's pretty much a knee jerk rejection of science in favor of superstition.

That said, mal, I had to point out just a couple things

1) color is subjective anyway. Because it was the sky, your brain evolved to see it as blue. What that means, I have no idea, but I know that it is true.

2) a human 20,000 or 40,000 years ago isn't really definitive information. Some would be genetically the same as you, some not at all. All tars happened in the interim is really a lot fo genetic mixing, so your just more of a universal hybrid and less of a specific type of human than your earlier ancestor would have been. I'm not sure this says anything about evolution, except that differentiation can fade over time.

3) Rhythmic gymnasts. They're not scrawny or steroidal, like their more athletic counterparts. They look thin because they're Russian, and so some part asian,

4) note I said indo European because were the same genetic group. Pentatonic music is African, or easy Asian, Indian music is 44 tone, if your European, your ancestors might have been Aryans, or they might not, but Aryan is a culture. I have no idd a whether the liking of 44 tone music is genetic. All humans respond positively to pentatonic music. Most rock and roll is basically pentatonic, with minor modifications.

5) I never said mating wS the only survival trait. Obviously if a mouse gets eaten, he does not have children after that point. That would interfere with his gene expression in the gene pool regardless of what girl mice think of his sexy new cat avoidance.

6) despite what people might want to believe, a two day old infant can neither see nor think for itself. The human brain has not yet been built. The reason humans have an extended nursing time is that the human brain is not completed until sometime in the second yearly. Thats who you can't remember your first year, nothing was being recorded. This sips a stark contrast to most of the animal kingdom. The brain was a very costly evolution which occurred over less than a million years. The body just could not keep up with the demands, so, we have this set up. But this point hinges on venturing into the absurd. I can prove that humans see by virtue of the fact that they respond to it without debatjng the electron shift of rhodopsin molecules.

7) you are correct that language capability is programmed in. I don't know if language bent is in a cultural sense, I would highly doubt it, but I don't know. I'm actually surprised by the bird study, I would have thought bird songs were leared. Anyway, the capacity of the brain to handle language is something which has been studied on a neurological level. Your vocabulary limit is also genetic. A typical dog has a limit of about 200 words, human ps vary from a few thousand to tens of thousands. You cannot apparently get more, but you can get less.: if the child is not exposed to language early on, the space gets taken over by neighboring, and older, brain functions.

As for the babies and fairy tales, interesting idea. I think it would have to be longer, and they would need to not be isolated, because they need to develop normal language skills in order to be interested at all. I say take european babies and give them to Africans and African babies and give them to europoeans if you wanted to find the answer.

My guess is that the result would be something like this:

The euro baby wiuld prefer the african tales, but they would be slightly more inclin

BYTEMITE

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:25 AM

Actually, in my case it's a knee jerk reaction because I see the science as politicized, but point taken, which is why I said crazy eddie on me.

MAL4PREZ

Sunday, July 4, 2010 6:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The study makes the case pretty plain for something which we can logical deduce to be true. Anyone with a brain can do it. So why do I now see so many theories that have no logical trace at all? Seriously, I think this is wandering into rampant speculation, and is coming up with pro and con arguments just on a simple X is wrong so Y is true, and other logical fallacies. Sorry, but it's just what people sre posting.

Hunh. So... are you generally addressing everyone on the thread or someone in particular? Cause I don't want to go all open-can-of-whoop-ass on you if you weren't talking to me.

And if you were, I don't see as any further discussion with you is something to spend time on. I mean, given the uncharacteristic amount of typos and poor grammar in your post, it seems to represent a highly emotional reaction based on preconceptions that have nothing to do with science, and likely not a lot of thinking went into it. In fact, it's pretty much a knee jerk rejection of open-minded discussion in favor of assumptions, ego, and self-righteousness. I have no interest in that.

Ooops. The can leaked a bit.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CITIZEN

Sunday, July 4, 2010 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

You missed my earlier post where I said basically exactly what you just said. Actually, I said it in two posts. Anyway, I agree. But whether or not it's survival depends on your circumstances, or rather, those of your genetic group. Remember, if something represents a 1% survival or reproductive advantage, it takes over in 20 generations, if it is a 100% advantage, it takes over in 1 generation. Given the length of generations, I think its highly conceivable that this would change relatively quickly.

I missed it, I've not reading this thread exhaustively because I don't have much time for a nature/nurture debate, largely because I think both sides are wrong. So Yeah I probably did miss it, but i still think we're coming to somewhat different conclusions.

Anyway I'm fairly sure genetics won't change that quickly. It's not like theres a channel from the brain's cultural belief system to the bodies genetics, you're looking at a feedback through survival of the fittest that means genes that most effectively represent the cultural meme's become more prevalent. Firstly that'll take several generations just to get started, think how long it takes to produce a new breed of dog, which is a far more simple and directed change. Secondly the human animal's exposure to survival of the fittest has eroded significantly, to the point where it probably has little to no bearing on human evolutionary pressure at this point. This is generally the purpose of civilisation, to protect it's weaker members, and that has held more or less true for the last 6000+ years I think.

Not least in Europe the idea that everyone should diet and be thin didn't really come about until the mid-1800's, and didn't really take off until the early twentieth century, I find it hard to believe that a genetic predisposition could happen that quickly ever, even if it was a 100% advantage (which clearly it isn't, since fat people can still get laid now, thankfully).

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
As for humans in Europe, sure. I was referring to Europeans as a genetic group, who are almost exclusively descended from east Africans. There are a few remote groups like the Sami who are related to earlier Europeans.

You go back far enough everyone is related to Africans, I think the "Out of Africa" theory is pretty much de facto at this time.

But I think the Indo-Europeans are thought to have migrated from the Fertile Crescent, the area around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, outward through what is now Iran to India, and Europe. I think the actual indo-Europeans themselves didn't come into Europe until around 10,000-5000bc.

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

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 4, 2010 12:57 PM

Citizen

Yeah, humans came from Africa, but the out of Africa theory is bogus. It explains one migration, and ignores all others. Humans aren't a single origin 200.000 years ago, they're more like a single origin in africa 3,000,000 years ago. A minor technicality, but in the interest of science p, worth noting. Europeans, however, are a result of that last migration.

Mal

No, I would have singled out you if I meant you, I see you have a can of whoop ass ready, maybe you should lower it from your shoulder.

I was actually including me in the people who had gone astray. I think we all wander off and started spounpting things that were pure speculation which could not be logically traced to science, and really were seeded by our own personal beliefs. I thought it was time for that particular train to stop.

KPO

Sunday, July 4, 2010 2:51 PM

Quote:
Ideals of beauty are a shifting phenomenon, thus most likely cultural.

This seems like a really big leap to me (although I do hear it a lot): we identify a few different ideas of beuty apparently prominent in other cultures - and so we conclude that beauty is probably 100% cultural?

Okay so if I devise an experiment where I take pictures of 10 very different adult women (different health, age, fertility; different facial symmetry, different facial expression [why not?] - though nobody disfigured) and get a sample of 100 men from each of the most different cultures of the world that we can find, to rate their attractiveness, do we think there will not be strong correlation? Imagine a line for the male opinion of each culture on a line graph (all the women rated from 0-10 say) - I think the lines would undoubtedly follow each other.

We seem to take for granted the so many ideas of beauty we have in common. How about something like beauty is 95% innate, and 5% cultural.

Heads should roll

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

This seems like a really big leap to me (although I do hear it a lot): we identify a few different ideas of beuty apparently prominent in other cultures - and so we conclude that beauty is probably 100% cultural?

Not 100%, no. But more nurture than nature, I think. And I did identify two things I believe are encoded (youth and health) and pointed out that even those are no be all end all border to sexual attraction, so... yeah, I feel it's largely cultural and psychological, because humans have a fairly wide range even within one culture.

Quote:

Okay so if I devise an experiment where I take pictures of 10 very different adult women (different health, age, fertility; different facial symmetry, different facial expression [why not?] - though nobody disfigured) and get a sample of 100 men from each of the most different cultures of the world that we can find, to rate their attractiveness, do we think there will not be strong correlation? Imagine a line for the male opinion of each culture on a line graph (all the women rated from 0-10 say) - I think the lines would undoubtedly follow each other.

And I think the common denominator would be youth and health, not necessarily a very particular shape, as was suggested here.

Quote:

We seem to take for granted the so many ideas of beauty we have in common. How about something like beauty is 95% innate, and 5% cultural.

30/70 in favor of nurture is about as high as I would go, and that includes stuff as basic as "human" and the target gender. If it was encoded, there would be extremely little variability in human sexual attraction, which is simply not the case. Each person would have ONE particular type, also not the case. And all the many forms of psychologically influenced variances in sexual attraction would also probably not exist.

Human sexuality, though, is extremely succeptible to psychological and cultural influences, both working in accordance and against each other, the same way they work in accordance and against any genetic encoding there may exist. Just look at the plethora of fetishes. 95% encoded sexual preference would probably limit that.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:40 PM

If its 1% nature than nature would win as the guiding force as culture or nurture is far more apt to change than nature.

But an argument for nature re beauty would go something like this:

KPO

Sunday, July 4, 2010 3:46 PM

Quote:
Do Indians babies growing up in the US, if they have no contact with Indian culture, retain a genetic pre-disposal to pentatonic music? If I had grown up in India with Indian parents and nothing but Indian culture, would my brain recognize a pentatonic scale as more sonorous than the Western heptatonic?

Understand me Mal4Prez, I believe human beings everywhere are pretty much the same, and that genetic differences are hardly ever much more than 'skin deep'. Differences between groups are cultural (and within groups, 'sub-cultural'?). This thread is interested in what human beings and cultures have in common, which is a lot, through history and around the world; and whether we can read something into the human condition from them. Like gender roles: are they learned, or is human society programmed to be like that? Or both (a more sensible inference)?

Quote:
If a human baby grew up on the world with a shit-brown sky, without ever knowing about earth or talking to anyone who had, would they associate the shit-brown color with tranquility?

Well we've evolved over thousands of years under blue sky... I think for the baby's sake we shouldn't perform that experiment - that kid could grow up with issues. And in general I think we ignore/dismiss innateness at our peril.

Here's the 'pink' study I was talking about: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12512-women-may-be-hardwired-to-
prefer-pink.html

Quote:
Actually, for those last two points and regarding fertility and gymnasts: woman with very little body fat often stop menstruating. Today's sex symbol is NOT particularly fertile, so the evolution argument for the male attraction to it is pretty silly. It's totally cultural.

There is a variation on the idea of beauty within cultures - and within any group of male friends or whatever. I think it's more accurate to say differing ideas of beauty are psychological (or maybe down to different genes - black men liking big bums? At the risk of sounding like Kaneman...).

Of course, culture can inform psychology - but so can other things: formative realtionships, life experience. These may still be 'nurture', but not quite 'culture', I think...

Heads should roll

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE