Re: Natural Selection (was: Breast Size)
Jacques Guy (jbm@newsserver.trl.oz.au)
15 Jun 1995 07:05:08 +1000
mycol1@unm.edu (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.
However:
--------------------------begin quote-----------------------------------
From: mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant)
Date: 2 Jun 1995 12:41:09 -0600
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,talk.origins,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 <jbm@newsserver.trl.oz.au> wrote:
>mycol1@unm.edu (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?)...
^^^^^^^^^^
Bryant
----------------------------end quote-----------------------------------
The ^^^^^^ are my emphasis. The capitalization of "TO" is Bryant's
emphasis.
|