language and biology

[Dr. John E. McLaughlin]

> [Stanley Friesen wrote:]  The point is that social change is another form
> of biological process, it
> is just not *genetic* change.  Social change operates under the general
> constraints and modes of biological processes, even though it does not
> directly involve genetic factors.

No it doesn't.  One society can change it's entire structure virtually
overnight to match another society.  An organism may borrow (if your data
are correct) a few genetic features from another organism in rare
circumstances, but a blue-green algae cannot change to a bacteria overnight.
Society can, however.  The Pueblo culture of New Mexico is virtually
identical from Pueblo to Pueblo, yet this culture is practiced by
representatives of four totally unrelated language families.  On the social
level, there are radically different social and political systems between
the Hopi and the Shoshoni even though they are related.  Social change and
biological change are NOT similar.  Once again, social change, like
linguistic change, can borrow from another society wholesale and biological
change cannot.  IF biologists are discovering a few instances where genes
can be "borrowed", they are the exception rather than the rule.  IF
biologists discover that borrowing of genes is more common than presently
accepted, then the correct statement is that biological change is similar to
social or linguistic change, NOT the other way around.  We staked out the
scientific ground first.  Biology, IF you are correct (which I don't accept
yet), is only catching up.

John E. McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
mclasutt at brigham.net

Program Director
Utah State University On-Line Linguistics
http://english.usu.edu/lingnet

English Department
3200 Old Main Hill
Utah State University
Logan, UT  84322-3200

(435) 797-2738 (voice)
(435) 797-3797 (fax)