Re: Natural Selection (was: Breast Size)

Jacques Guy (
15 Jun 1995 07:05:08 +1000 (Bryant) writes:

>Phil, I hate to argue semantics like this. But, I didn't say that
>natural selection is driven "to" anything. I said that adaptations can
>safely be referred to as functional--"opposable thumbs are for grasping."
>That's all I've meant to convey in this thread.


--------------------------begin quote-----------------------------------
From: (Bryant)
Date: 2 Jun 1995 12:41:09 -0600
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: Re: Breast Size (Was: Re: Homosexuality and genetic determinism)

In article <3qlj4c$90i@tardis.trl.OZ.AU>,
Jacques Guy <> wrote:
> (Bryant) writes:
>>Quantity/quality questions don't really require an adaptation that makes
>>women "less attractive" to solve. That (I think--?) was the original posit:
>>women evolved breasts to reduce their attractiveness and hence, group tensions.
>Once again, women have not evolved breasts TO whatever. Nor have dugongs.
>You don't evolve TO. You evolve, period.

You don't evolve. Lineages and populations evolve. Because fitness
advantages shape many traits (adaptations), it's fair to say that those
traits evolved TO provide those fitness advantages. Our opposable thumbs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

evolved TO grasp (Gil, leave that one alone, eh?)...

----------------------------end quote-----------------------------------

The ^^^^^^ are my emphasis. The capitalization of "TO" is Bryant's