In the interview, he stated flatly that we have wrapped up the question of the biological basis for behavior, it is no longer deniable given the research, and that, therefore, social science must adopt his view to be consistent with the harder sciences. I will leave the matter of standpoint to one side for now, since I have already voiced my position of this, and because I think, if this thread continues, the struggle over standpoint will emerge anyway. Social behavior is described as either controlled by culturgens or resting within the parameters of culturgens, i.e., culturgens set limits on and condition the expression of social behavior. It is argued, on this basis, for example, that war and sexism are the products of culturgens, these being at root such basic survival processes as territorial imperative, necessary dominance of one sex over the other, etc., and therefore forms of aggression can be only ultimately be understood in these terms. The following critique closely follows her excellent work on the subject of gender, aggression, and war.
Genes are pieces of DNA containing information that instruct cells on how make different proteins.
Consider the endocrine cells that produce hormones. Some hormones are proteins. Other hormones are more complex process involving proteins. They are made from cholesterol using protein catalysts. The protein catalysts are produced by genes.