"Tim" <qwery@qwerty.com> wrote in message
news:WcidnRr1da7lyFjeRVn-qw@aci.on.ca...

Neuroscientists at McGill University have grafted quail brains onto
chicken brains and have observed quail behaviours in the altered
chickens. Behaviour is then, at least in part, determined by the genes?

http://www.exn.ca/news/video/exn2006/01/10/exn20060110-quail.asx

Wow, something I can respond to besides ad hominum name calling? Sorry
about not responding at times, but I don't think it useful to respond to
things that are often besides the point.

A skeptic could claim that the quail learned to imprint its blank slate
and when this tissue was grafted unto the chicks brain tissue this learned
assembly could determine its behavior.

Awesome idea though. A better example for arguing about the degree of
genetic influence upon behavior is twin studies;

...traits as complex as human behavior are influenced by many genes, each
of which shares only a small fraction of the total control. These
"polygenes" cannot ordinarily be identified by detecting and tracing the
mutations that alter them. They must be evaluated indirectly by
statistical means. The most widely used method in the genetics of human
behavior is the comparison of pairs of identical twins with pairs of
fraternal twins. Identical twins originate in the womb from a single
fertilized ovum. The two cells produced by the first division of the ovum
do not stick together to produce the beginnings of the fetus but instead
separate to produce the beginnings of two fetuses. Because the twins
originated from the same cell, bearing a single nucleus and set of
chromosomes, they are genetically identical. Fraternal twins, in contrast,
originate from separate ova that just happen to travel into the
reproductive tracts and to be fertilized by different sperm at the same
time. They produce fetuses genetically no closer to one another than are
brothers or sisters born in different years.
Identical and fraternal twins provide us with a natural controlled
experiment. The control is the set of pairs of identical twins: any
differences between the members of a pair must be due to the environment
(barring the very rare occurrence of a brand-new mutation). Differences
between the members of a pair of fraternal twins can be due to their
heredity, their environment, or to some interaction between their heredity
and environment. If in a given trait, such as height or nose shape,
identical twins prove to be closer to one another on the average than are
fraternal twins of the same sex, the difference between the two kinds of
twins can be taken as prima facie evidence that the trait is influenced to
some degree by heredity. Using this method, geneticists have implicated
heredity in the formation of a variety of traits that affect social
relationships: number ability, word fluency, memory, the timing of
language acquisition, spelling, sentence construction, perceptual skill,
psycho-motor skill, extroversion-introversion, homosexuality, the age of
first sexual activity, and certain forms of neurosis and psychosis,
including manic-depressive behavior and schizophrenia.

There is a catch in these results that render them less than definitive.
Identical twins are regularly treated alike by their parents, more so than
fraternal twins. They are more frequently dressed alike, kept together for
longer times, fed the same way, and so on. Thus in the absence of other
information it is possible that the greater similarity of identical twins
could, after all, be due to the environment. However, there exist new,
more sophisticated techniques that can take account of this additional
factor. Such a refinement was employed by the psychologists John C.
Loehlin and Robert C. Nichols in their analysis of the backgrounds and
performances of 850 sets of twins who took the National Merit Scholarship
test in 1962. Not only the differences between identical and fraternal
twins, but also the early environments of all the subjects were carefully
examined and weighed. The results showed that the generally closer
treatment of identical twins is not enough to account for their greater
similarity in general abilities, personality traits, or even ideals,
goals, and vocational interests. The conclusion to be drawn is that either
the similarities are based in substantial part on genetic closeness, or
else environmental factors were at work that remained hidden to the
psychologists.

My overall impression of the existing information is that Homo sapiens is
a conventional animal species with reference to the quality and magnitude
of the genetic diversity affecting its behavior. If the comparison is
correct, the psychic unity of mankind has been reduced in status from a
dogma to a testable hypothesis.

On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/

Tim wrote:

Neuroscientists at McGill University have grafted quail brains onto
chicken brains and have observed quail behaviours in the altered
chickens. Behaviour is then, at least in part, determined by the
genes?

obviously, but remember that eating and sleeping are also behaviours. :)

Tim wrote:

Neuroscientists at McGill University have grafted quail brains onto
chicken brains and have observed quail behaviours in the altered
chickens. Behaviour is then, at least in part, determined by the genes?

http://www.exn.ca/news/video/exn2006/01/10/exn20060110-quail.asx

I think it would be false to transplant the idea of mechanical
behaviour upon more complex creatures which also have a sense
of inherited culture. Yet i can see that argument being used
as a short cut for reason.