Re: How Did We Miss Montesquieu?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon B ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jerry Silverman on November 24, 1998 at 00:22:07:

In Reply to: Re: How Did We Miss Montesquieu? posted by Sophia Gates on November 23, 1998 at 22:59:16:

Sorry, folks. I just can't buy this entire thread.

As I understand it, an argument is being made that not only is there a genetic predisposition for a facility for weaving, but that predisposition is for a facility for the weaving of specific kinds and designs. And this is all made possible because peoples who are widely dispersed today shared common ancestral stock 15,000 years ago.

Then the magic words "human genome project" and "mitochondrial RNA" are waved across the argument like a wand to conjure the theory to life.

I know brain chemistry is pretty complex, but I'll bet $10,000 right now that this theory is never substantiated and that there is no "ur-weaver."

-Jerry-

Follow Ups:

Miss Montesquieu and the Weavers of Ur Alan Nagel 08:11:25 11/24/98 (1)
- Re: Miss Montesquieu and the Weavers of Ur James Allen 08:30:04 11/24/98 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Sorry, folks. I just can't buy this entire thread. : As I understand it, an argument is being made that not only is there a genetic predisposition for a facility for weaving, but that predisposition is for a facility for the weaving of specific kinds and designs. And this is all made possible because peoples who are widely dispersed today shared common ancestral stock 15,000 years ago. : Then the magic words "human genome project" and "mitochondrial RNA" are waved across the argument like a wand to conjure the theory to life. : I know brain chemistry is pretty complex, but I'll bet $10,000 right now that this theory is never substantiated and that there is no "ur-weaver." : -Jerry-

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon B ] [ FAQ ]