🚀 go-pugleaf

Not bad. McGregor only contradicts himself a dozen times, and *modern*
research another dozen or so. I guess you didn't notice that the most
recent cite in his bibliography is 1982. Modern genetic research has
disproven virtually all of his claims.

But, that doesn't fit your belief system, so why mention it.


"Phil" <philpage23211@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c653b5da.0110031316.6eac4c96@posting.google.com...
> jsbot@mail.com (Johann Sebastian Bot) wrote in message
news:<ed90f6ec.0110020534.22e101b9@posting.google.com>...
> > THE EVOLUTIONARY FUNCTION OF PREJUDICE
> >
> > http://www.mankind.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >       ALAN McGREGOR  Institute for the Study of Man
> >
> >  The author examines the phenomenon of 'prejudice' and explains
the
> > possibility that its roots are not purely cultural. The proclivity
> > for prejudice appears to be deeply rooted in the human psyche, and
> > has been shown to be of distinct utility in furthering the process
> > of speciation.
> >
> > The sociobiological nature of 'prejudice' can only be clearly
> > understood if we realize that the emotional tensions generated
when
> > diverse ethnic groups are forced into close geographical contact
do
> > not derive solely from contrasting cultural systems: they reflect
> > deeply ingrained sociobiological mechanisms which serve an
essential
> > evolutionary function. Indeed, they are by no means of modern or
> > even recent origin in the history of our species.
> >
> > Like other animals, man is little more than a pawn on the
chessboard
> > of evolution. The basic patterns of human behavior and of human
> > emotions had already been determined by evolutionary forces long
> > before persons of diverse biological and cultural background were
> > thrown together within the confines of densely populated modern
> > societies. To properly understand the origin, nature and function
of
> > prejudice it is necessary for us to examine the biological role of
> > the emotional tensions associated with "in-group" and "out-group"
> > relationships - including racial relationships - in the
evolutionary
> > history of man. We must identify the evolutionary purpose of
ethnic
> > consciousness and of the sense of 'racial distance' that has
tended
> > to keep populations of diverse racial background genetically
> > distinct from each other through hundreds of thousands of years of
> > evolutionary development.
> >
> > The Evolutionary Process
> >
> > What do we mean by "evolutionary development"? Evolution is a
> > process of organic change by which new forms of life are
constantly
> > arising and replacing others less suited to survive in a state of
> > competition. The new concept of bio-social studies properly
> > emphasizes the close relationship between the biological and
social
> > sciences, showing how even social behavior evolves under the
> > selective guidance of a single arbitrating principle: the survival
> > of the species.
> >
> > Evolution reveals two major trends, the first of which is a trend
> > from the simplicity of unicellular life forms to the complexity of
> > advanced organisms such as are represented by mammals, primates
and
> > men. The second is the trend from the primitive uniformity of
early
> > life forms to the rich variety of diverse species, sub-species,
or,
> > in the case of man, the diverse races which today inhabit the
earth.
> > Both trends - the trend towards increasing complexity and the
trend
> > towards increasing diversity of life forms - depend on the genetic
> > isolation of discrete populations. In the case of simpler life
> > forms, geographical distance by itself may be sufficient to ensure
> > genetic isolation, but the higher more mobile forms of life
require
> > other defenses to prevent the accidental hybridization of evolving
> > sub-species. Clearly, the evolutionary process would be frustrated
> > if every new biological or evolutionary experiment, each new
> > phylogenetic continuum, sub-species or race, were to lose its
novel
> > and distinctive combination of genes by admixture with sibling
> > populations, or by the reabsorption of divergent sibling
populations
> > into the parental stock. In short, during the period in which
> > emerging sub-species are evolving into separate species - so
> > different from each other that they no longer have the biological
> > ability to crossbreed their genetic identity must be protected
from
> > crossbreeding by some form of barrier, either geographical or
> > psychological, which will effectively prevent the negation of
> > nature's experiments before they can even emerge as separate
species
> > and subspecies.
> >
> > The important role of racial differentiation in the evolutionary
> > process was clearly perceived by Dobzhansky as early as 1937, when
> > he observed that:
> >
> > If (the) differentiation is allowed to proceed unimpeded, most or
> > all of the individuals of one race may come to possess certain
genes
> > which those of the other race do not. Finally, mechanisms
preventing
> > interbreeding of races may develop, splitting what used to be a
> > single collective genotype into two or more separate ones. When
such
> > mechanisms have developed and the prevention of interbreeding is
> > more or less complete, we are dealing with separate species. A
race
> > becomes more and more of a "concrete entity" as this process goes
> > on; what is essential about races is not their state of being but
> > that of becoming. But when the separation of races is complete, we
> > are dealing with races no longer, for what have emerged are
separate
> > species.
> >
> > However, Dobzhansky continued: .... Races and species as discrete
> > arrays of individuals may exist only so long as the genetic
> > structures of their populations are preserved distinct by some
> > mechanisms which prevent their interbreeding. Unlimited
> > interbreeding of two or more initially different populations
> > unavoidably results in an exchange of genes between them and a
> > consequent fusion of the once distinct groups into a single
greatly
> > variable array. A number of mechanisms encountered in nature
> > (ecological isolation, sexual isolation, hybrid sterility, and
> > others) guard against such a fusion of the discrete arrays and the
> > consequent decay of discontinuous variability. The origin and
> > functioning of the isolating mechanisms constitute one of the most
> > important problems of the genetics of populations.
> >
> > As Dobzhansky added, genetic isolation becomes "advantageous for
> > species whose distributions overlap, provided that each species
> > represents a more harmonious genetic system than the hybrids
between
> > them."
> >
> > Essential Feral Restraints
> >
> > To prevent the negation of Nature's work of species-creation, we
> > find that all higher more mobile animals living under feral
> > (natural) conditions not only evolve a sense of territoriality,
> > whereby they become isolated or at least semi-isolated genetically
> > on a geographical basis in what are known as demes, but that they
> > also develop what zoologists call "feral restraints," that is a
> > marked unwillingness - amounting often to a positive refusal - to
> > interbreed with members of other sub-species. These "isolating
> > mechanisms" may be seen as "agents to ensure the mechanism that
> > keeps them (the separate sub-species or races) on their peaks by
> > preventing ... hybridizing" (Paterson, 1978). To the extent that
> > emerging species involve the selective development of new patterns
> > of harmoniously interrelated genetic qualities, hybridization can
be
> > devolutionary in its impact, creating what S. Wright (1956) has
> > referred to as "the formation of unharmonious constellations of
> > genes."
> >
> > The geographical isolation of separate sub-species or races, each
in
> > the process of evolving into disparate species, will often be
> > sufficient to protect the evolutionary process from any genetic
> > intermingling of the new "experimental" varieties before they have
> > become sufficiently differentiated to be biologically incapable of
> > miscegenation. But geographical separation is not always effective
> > in the case of the more advanced mobile forms of animal life, and
> > various "feral restraints" also customarily evolve to discourage
> > cross-breeding on those occasions that individuals from divergent
> > populations do chance to meet.
> >
> > These feral restraints serve a vital evolutionary process.
> > Zoologists have identified two types of such constraints, the
first
> > of which are called - "built-in" constraints, based upon physical
> > sign stimuli. "Built-in" physical constraints may take the form of
> > distinctive shape, color, smell, or even patterns of movement,
> > common to animals of the same subspecies, but absent from other
> > populations. Such distinctive characteristics serve as a warning
to
> > members of related but disparate subspecies not to attempt sexual
> > relationships. They are like a sign that reads "Danger! a new
> > biological experiment is in progress. Do not approach!" (Simpson,
> > 1964). But in addition to these built-in constraints, the
> > distinguished zoologist, Peter Klopfer, (1970) has shown that
> > acquired constraints exist among feral animals due to behavioral
> > imprinting. These may be equated with the culturally-reinforced
> > prejudices associated with "in-group" and "out- group" behavior
> > among human beings.
> >
> > Domestication Distorts Innate Behavior Patterns
> >
> > Domestication, by breaking down territorial restrictions and
> > destroying patterns of feral or natural activity, often results in
> > perverted, misdirected, unnatural and anti-evolutionary behavior.
> > The innate drives of domesticated animals generally express
> > themselves in a confused and evolutionarily useless variety of
> > patterns, while the behavior patterns of caged animals may become
> > more extensively deranged. Not only do they often refuse to eat,
but
> > those that do eat may experiment with masturbation and
> > homosexuality, or even seek to mate with animals of other breeds
> > (Calhoun, 1962) - an activity which, regularly and consistently
> > repeated, would necessarily negate any further speciation or
racial
> > diversification. Culture, particularly in urbanized societies, may
> > likewise pervert human instincts by suppressing natural feral
> > constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior, leading
> > to similar distortions of normal biological behavior, such as
> > homosexuality and the quest for abnormal erotic experiences,
> > including those associated with inter-subspecific sexual
> > experimentation. No human civilization has to date avoided
collapse,
> > and it is tempting to enquire whether social conditions which
> > diverge too widely from the natural or feral conditions under
which
> > mankind evolved - and to which humankind is biologically adapted -
> > may weaken the survival potential of over-domesticated populations
> > by promoting anti-evolutionary life-styles, together with their
> > concomitant reproductive abnormalities.
> >
> > The Sociobiological Role of Prejudice
> >
> > The sociobiological significance of prejudice becomes even more
> > apparent when we realize that evolution arises not solely from
> > individual competition. Team spirit and group cohesiveness have a
> > high survival value for those mammals and primates which have
> > adopted a pattern of group life. Furthermore, the concept of the
> > survival of the fittest among social animals such as man refers
less
> > to individuals than it does to breeding populations and entire
> > sub-species. Indeed evolution is concerned not with the individual
> > organism but only with breeding populations, with phylogenetic
> > continua. Evolution involves populations, sub-species and species.
> > Evolution is in no way concerned with the welfare or well-being of
> > any one individual organism except to the extent that the death or
> > survival of that organism may affect the gene pool of the breeding
> > population.
> >
> > Fitness also must not be misunderstood. In the evolutionary
context
> > - by which we mean the living reality - fitness means only the
> > ability of any breeding population, sub-species or race to
reproduce
> > itself, and, at the more complex mammalian, primate and human
> > levels, the ability of adults to protect their offspring until the
> > offspring can in turn successfully reproduce themselves.
> > Biologically, an individual is little more than a link in the
chain
> > of generations. The genetic integrity of the gene pool is
therefore
> > of paramount evolutionary importance. Evolution could not continue
> > its work amongst the higher animals if each new experimental
> > sub-species were to lose its identity before it had time to evolve
> > into a new species.
> >
> > The Importance of the Genetic Isolation of Races
> >
> > Evolutionary competition is between rival sub-species. It is
> > concerned with breeding populations, not with individuals as the
> > Social Darwinists have too often erroneously assumed, overlooking
> > the fact that Darwin specifically emphasized this when he chose to
> > name his epic work The Origin of Species by Means of Natural
> > Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for
> > Life. Indeed, cooperation at the primate and human level is aimed
> > more at group survival than individual survival. Social
cooperation
> > in the primate troop and in the primitive human band arose as an
> > evolutionary necessity to ensure the survival of the group as a
> > distinctive phylogenetic breeding population. As G.G. Simpson
(1964)
> > has explained, the genetic isolation of races as emergent species
is
> > a matter of "great evolutionary significance." The genetic
> > advancement of man arose as a result of ongoing competition for
> > survival between genetically different, non-interbreeding hominid
> > populations, and was sustained not merely by geographical
isolation
> > but also by developing bonds of cooperation and love within the
> > kindred, and of suspicion, fear, antagonism, and even warfare
> > against such alien groups as might become competitors for the
> > territorial and material resources necessary to sustain life.
> >
> > That the evolutionary struggle is commonly fiercest between
closely
> > related species, and particularly between sub- species who are
> > dependent on and consequently competing for similar resources, was
> > recognized by Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins and Valentine (1977),
who
> > wrote:
> >
> > Related species compete for resources that both are in need of,
and
> > one species may outbreed and crowd out another ...
> >
> > In their earlier more feral existence at the level of the primate
> > troop, the human band, and the human tribe, man's forebears
> > consequently developed a capacity to distrust and repel those they
> > perceived of as alien, as well as to love and to assist those whom
> > they identified as allies. Every member of every human group has
> > ever since experienced two different sets of reactions when
dealing
> > with others: one of loyalty towards members of the in-group, the
> > other of caution and competitiveness towards members of the
> > out-group. Ludwig Gumplowitz referred to these two separate sets
of
> > behavior as syngenism (attachment and loyalty) and ethnocentrism
> > (suspicion of aliens). He further suggested that the pressure of
> > competition from other groups tended to reinforce the feelings of
> > loyalty and cooperation, heightening the consciousness of
> > ethnocentrism and prejudice against "outsiders." These forces
> > enhance the competitive viability of the group in its struggle to
> > survive and to outbreed rival groups, and also serve to protect
the
> > ongoing process of homogenization within the group's own gene
pool -
> > a process which is itself dependent upon a high degree of genetic
> > isolation.
> >
> > Conclusion
> >
> > These attitudes of in-group loyalty and out-group suspicion, which
> > appear to have evolved long before the evolution of primitive
human
> > bands and to have developed more consciously identifiable forms at
> > the level of tribal and national societies, reflect a clear-cut
> > evolutionary purpose. Patterns of racial and ethnic prejudice, of
> > in-group loyalty and out-group suspicion, have served an effective
> > evolutionary purpose over the long history of primate and human
> > biological evolution, both in enhancing the competitiveness of the
> > individual breeding population and also in preserving the
uniqueness
> > of its distinctive genetic heritage by discouraging interbreeding
> > with the members of disparate sub-species. The evolutionary
message
> > is clear. Human groups which lose their internal sense of identity
> > and cohesion in respect of other groups eventually cease to exist
as
> > discrete realities. Amongst the higher more mobile forms of animal
> > life, isolating mechanisms such as prejudice are necessary to
> > preserve the genetic identity of races and sub-species (as
emergent
> > species) by inhibiting miscegenation. A human population which
> > practices endogamous marriage and strives to preserve the
integrity
> > of its gene pool should not be criticized as immoral. Such
behavior
> > implies that it is adhering to deeply rooted instincts essential
to
> > the evolutionary process, which process - from the point of view
of
> > purely logical, naturalistic thought - provides the only basis for
> > any scientifically sound system of ethical philosophy.
>
>
> Difficult for the PC types to accept. They still demand one biology
> for humans, another for the rest of the animal kingdom!
>
> Phil
> >
> >          REFERENCES
> >
> > Calhoun,J.B. 1962 Population Density and Social Pathology,
> > Scientific American 206, 2: 139ff.
> >
> > Dobzhansky, T. 1937 Genetics and the Origin of Species. (Reprint
ed.
> > New York: Columbia University Press, 1982). 1951 Genetics and the
> > Origin of Species. Third ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
> >
> > Dobzhansky, T., F.J. Ayala, G.L. Stebbins, and J.W. Valentine 1977
> > Evolution. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
> >
> > Klopfer, Peter M. 1965 Imprinting: a reassessment, Science 7:
> > 302-303. 1970 Behavioral Ecology. Belmont: Dickenson Publishing
Co.
> >
> > Lorenz, Konrad E. 1967 Evolution and Modification of Behavior.
> > Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
> >
> > Mayr, E. 1963 Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge,
> > Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1982 The Growth of
> > Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, Inheritance, Cambridge:
> > Belknap (Harvard University Press). .Morris, L.N. 1971 Human
> > Populations, Genetic Variation and Evolution. San Francisco:
> > Chandler Publishing Co.
> >
> > Paterson, H.E.H. 1978 More evidence against speciation by
> > reinforcement. S. Afr. J. Sci. 74: 369-371.
> >
> > Simpson, G.G. 1953 The Major Features of Evolution. New York:
> > Columbia University Press. 1964 This View of Life. New York:
> > Harcourt Brace & Co.
> >
> > Wilson, E.O. 1975 Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge:
> > Harvard University Press.
> >
> > Wright, S. 1956 Modes of selection. Amer. Naturalist 90: 5-24.