Quote Originally Posted by FirstBorn View Post
Well i allready said i doubt the genetics but Wiscoman stated that thing about being in the middle of evolution.
Well thats true but evolution in the darwinistic sense meens change happens over noumerous generations. Thus evolving from sub parents to hypercontrolling dom, is a contradiction of evolution and genetics as an explanation.
A misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution there, FirstBorn. Also, a severe misunderstanding of evolution and genetics in general. I'd refer you to Mendellson's work as an introduction to the concept of genetics and the passing on of traits.

Studying people i have noticed that some tend towards submissive behavior in all or most aspects of life. Following leaders, experts and dominant features. Clearly this is a survival strategy of sorts, keep your head down and people are more likely to accept your shortcommings.

But humans are born with way underdeveloped intellect and hardly any skills compared to most other spiecies. With brains developing untill age 22 or so and sexual maturety pretty late in this development.
Nonsense! Most human behaviour is learned (we do have some instinctive behaviours though). Most other animals work on a mainly instinctive level, and learn only a few behaviours. Though I must admit that the evidence of learned behaviours in most species is staggering.

Submission and dominance are most likely instinctual and associated with our "instinctive herd/pack behaviour". How much submission/dominance a person evicences is also likely mainly generic. Some will be learned (exemplary learning from the people who surrounded you when you were very small - parents, aunties and uncles, grandparents) some likely just depends on the types and orientations of specific genetic fragments. No, no one has gone looking for a "dominance" gene, nor will anyoine look for such a thing, since it is unlikely to have as distinct and on/off feature as eye colour or such.

[/QUOTE]An indication that people can indeed have their sexual preferences imprinted on them would be how phobias work. A common statement on phobias is that alot of american skyscrapers were built by prarie indians. Why? because having never been to tall places before a pretty late age theyr not afraid of heights (well thats how it was back in the day). Most studies on phobias claims they stem from learning emotional responses from parents (moms mainly as i recall it) So if your with your mom at an early age and she has what you interpit as a fearful reaction to spiders, height og whatever. Youll pick up that reaction because since she reacted so strongly its obviusly important to your survival.[/QUOTE]

Most of the skyscrapers had Mohawk workforces (they are an Eastern Woodlands nation, nor prairie), and it had nopthing to do with phobias and everything to do with a genetic tendency towards a superb sense of balance and lack of fear of heights.

I discounted the rest of your argument as being based on false premises.