"Is 'genetic determinism' empirically valid, and is it essential to the "Modern Synth

molbiogirl Yet according the article Elmer posted elsewhere (prof. Strohman about epigenetics) these rare genetic diseases are responsible for "less than 2% of out total disease load". So these casual relationiships are perhaps more rare exceptions which should be extrapolated - as causes - to other diseases very carefully.http://www.thecomplementarynature.com/...nomics~dynamics.pdf

Elmer, you forgott quantum mechanics. The determinism is dead more then 100 years in physics. Oddly enough it survives still in neodarwinism, I agree.

Hi Elmer,you've written: This "psychologically motivated" process is something what is totally neglected by the modern science. Nowadays neo-darwinism reminds me of marxism - everything is only superstructure (phenotype) over base (nature and nuture, genes and environment). The first is fully explainable by study of the second even if in some cases it has it's own special rules.The whole relationship is based on dialectical connections between base and superstrucre, but it is the base which is responsible for almost everything - like culture, religion etc... I am afraid neodarwinian human sociobiology continues to spread such ideas. Wilson and Dawkins are major proponents of these concepts, of the "gene's eye view".Wilson is more honest than Dawkins admitting that his theories are valid also for humans.Arguing philosophically with marxism and neodarwinism have no sense on my opinion. It is unexplainable details that will kill both naturalistic paradigmas from mid 19 century. Newtonian physics ruled centuries until it philosophical determinsm has been changed over by the quantum mechanics.--As to the discussion about change of average height of population: the process should be connected also with earlier sexual maturation. The process is more psychological and environmental as genetic one I would say considering the fact that average height of population in the 10-th century was much greater than in medieval era. One psychological explanation of the height is maybe observable at Universities. The prevalent type of scientists who now occupies Universitties are rationalists. Those people are thin and tall - more jovial types of pycnics are to be found at Art schools I suppose. Some research would be interesting.