I have argued that the discontinuous gap between humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of survival and extinction had been different, the gap would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as if cast in stone.How does one logically adhere to neo-darwinism yet separate oneself from sociobiology?
-Dawkins
Animal Liberation Front?
Were you trying to make a point?
Darwinism, i.e. TOE as modified by genetics, is Neo-Darwinism (I object to using his name, but it often is anyway). This "new synthesis" deals with the effect of genes and genetics on the physical properties of the organism.
Sociobiology as defined by E.O. Wilson extends genetics to the behavior of the organism, and by similarity, the effect of evolution on behavior. Some characteristics that are not physical clearly have a genetic piece to them (such as intelligence), but behavior in humans, especially, is so complicated that a solid link between Sociobiology and Evolution is difficult to establish. Your question is silly. Studying Evolution is for establishing relationships between organisms and the "origin of species". It has a strong genetic piece. Genetics and Behavior is another separate field. It's the same as studying Abiogenesis and Evolution. Clearly successful abiogenesis will lead to some overlap with evolution, but until abiogenesis is much better understood, they operate separately. So, until Sociobiology is better established it must operate spearately from evolution because the overlap bewteen them at the present is not clear. (rambles a bit, but I'm comfortable with it).