Abstract |
The modern genetic determinism is based on some constitutional beliefs of
sosialbiologism. In parallel, it is made up of some wrong deductive followings.
A comparison between the “genetic units” of sociobiologists to the genes of biologists
is necessary. The genes of super Darwinists bare the above features: On the other
hand, the genes of biologists are parts of DNA that exist in the genome, in which
come between non coded sequences. The genes can be multiply used and the coded
proteins bring several functions. Certain sosialbiologists believe that organisms
simply transfer their genes and their morphological and principles’ characteristics -
thus their attitude - are under this goal. Therefore, the whole history and future of life
on Earth are under this goal. For biologists, there is no goal. Life neither has a goal
nor serve one. For socialbiologists, the relation between phenotypes and genotypes is
linear but for biologists rarely does.
The differences from the evolution theory, that constitute genetic determinism
in theories of socialbiologism are the following: Socialbiologists, accept that the
adoption (choice) is only in the field of genetic units. This belief seems to be
problematical as natural adoption (choice) acts at once and at several stages/levels. On
gene, genome, the procedures inside cells, the sole cell, phenotypes, the population.
For this, the univocal expression of the genetic unit – gene by phenotypes – does not
exit.
Evolution does not depend only on natural adoption but also on several factors
that exist on the system. Socialbiologists assume that any phenotypic characteristic
represent a character that have been chosen on the past or can be chosen. This is not
correct. Evolution cannot predict changes on the environment. It is impossible
because of the factor of randomness.
For Dawkins, the favourable characteristics of organisms can develop
uncontrollably. That does not stand. Physics and chemistry define certain limits in this
development.
The arguments against socialbiologism end in that the signification of the
environment is subjective as organisms transform the environment in which they live.
That conflicts with socialbiologism. Socialbiologism claim that organisms are mainly
passive representatives of their genetic programming and they are chosen by natural
adoption. For the environment’s matter regards organism, there is a synonimity as
regards Dawkins’ beliefs. Both the scenario of “extended phenotypes” and the idea of
transformation of environment, converge on the conclusion that surroundings can be
considered as the phenotypes of organisms that live inside them. But the linear and
univocal relation between genotypes and phenotypes contradicts. If a genotypes A
corresponds a phenotypes As it cannot be explained the common environmental
phenotypes of organisms with the same genotypes.
As regards deduction, problems that arise are the following: Behaviours are
cut of the framework of the organism. Both sexuality and altruism are cut of the total
of life and are being apprehensible only by the relation among organisms. Behaviours
are not a static value but procedures and as a result they cannot be cut. That’s why the
results of experiments on these matters are contradictory.
There is also an argument beyond genes of aggressiveness, depression or
cruelty. As regards aggressiveness, it is called that people with increased
aggressiveness showed transmutation of a certain enzyme that is responsible for the
production of a neurotransmitter. People that bared this transmutation displayed
“tendency for arson”, “tendency for rape”, “tendency for exhibition”. What is the
matter; can so different behaviours grouped in cruelty? Under which circumstances
happened this grouping that seems to be a social convention? The plea: a social
practice cannot be the main parameter for a biological grouped classification that can
lead to the responsible genes. In this place, ethics also gets into the tangle. If it is
considered that the different ethic’s theories are assessment sequences a certain social
frame, it does not exist, in biology terms, a common genetic classification for ethic.
The equation that relates the dispersion, the genetic setting and the
environment, cannot be used in studying the characteristics of the human kind. The
dipole between genetic setting and the environment in the forming of the behaviour is
false. The characteristics are not based on the genetic setting nor the environment.
They consist the product of interaction between the biological settings and the
environmental ones. This interaction differs each time but always exists.
For some concepts of human behaviour, stand proportion and not confession
connections. It is common, changes on the phenotypes of human kind that stand for
social definite constructions, such as aggressiveness, to be identified in guinea-pigs.
The biological structures in organisms that phenotypes was found, are corresponded
by deduction. In such cases, the environment of the guinea-pigs is usually not taken
into account. If there is proportion between the concepts then the deduction is
incorrect and the structures are not identified.
|