Sure, but then you don't have the trait, just the gene for it.
it's not nonsensical
> to say observe 2 organisms with no biological
> difference (on the genetic
> level) exhibiting totally different behaviors and
> conclude the variation
> is not due to biological difference and if there's
> no biological
> difference then it can't influence behavior.
I am not sure what you are saying here. If there is no biological difference, then the different behaviors are not due to biological differences, that is true.
just
> like black holes can't
> exert gravitation influence on objects if they don't
> exist.
I am losing you here. What the point of this analogy?
if it is
> nonsensical you haven't explained it properly......
> physics would be dead
> if physicist just concluded since all objects have
> mass you can't make any
> conclusions about why some objects with mass behave
> differently because
> it's dependant on having mass.
Now I am totally lost. Perhaps you take me to be supposing, or saying, that only events or things or properties that are directly observable without special equipment can be causally efficacious. I assure you that I believe no such thing. And the issue is entirely irrelevant to the one wea re discussing.
>
> well you could isolate a person and see if say that
> person has a
> preference for say male goats or female goats. or
> raise a kid in total
> social isolation and see if it starts assigning
> gender roles to inanimate
> object and starts to pursue those objects sexually
> based on the gender it
> assigned to them. of course i'm being very silly but
> one could conclude
> from that exactly what behavior was biological or
> not..... obviously the
> kid will still exhibit some capacity for language
> but will it exhibit any
> capacity for sexual preference apart from say
> rubbing up against things in
> general? (i am ashamed of what i am saying).
I am certain that you could not conclude anything about whether some or other sexual behaviours were "biological" or not from an experiment of this sort. Please not that even in the case ofa feral child or Skinner box, you have not removed the environmewnt -- just the social environment. It is conceptually impossible to remopve the environment. That is my pount.
> no one is saying 'sex' but 'sexual preference'....of
> course sexual desire
> is got to be innate but desire to have sex with what
> or whom and how is a
> totally different matter.
What do you mean, "innate"?
>
> > I do get tired of having to say this again and and
> > again. It's not so hard, or shouldn;t be. But it
> is.
> > And yet this is really elementary biology.
>
> i'm sorry but gene and behavioral variation is not
> elementary biology. the
> intracacies of evolution (especial social) isn't
> elementary biology
> either.
>
No, but the point I am making is a point about the relationship of any genetic basis to any trait whatsoever, and the point is so basic that it is almost poart of the metaphysics of biology. When it comes to anythingelse but behavior, it is totally uncontroverial.
Think of height or eye color or something like that. If you are interested in why an organism hasa trair like like height (sexual preference, sexual behavior, whatever), all you can do is note that it has certain genetic potentials thata re manifested in various ways in different environments. It makes no sense to say, How much is due to the genes and how much to the environment? Try this analogy: how much of the soluability of salt is due to the chemical structure of salt, and how much to the presence of water? Once asked, the question exposes itself as nonsense.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com