Re: tree-climbing hominids

H. M. Hubey (
12 Oct 1995 03:13:03 -0400

chris brochu <> writes:

>YAAFI (Yet another argument from ignorance)

>Selection may have "directionality" at any point in time, but phylogeny
>is not "directed" toward some ultimate goal. Tail feather length may be

Yet another mindless comment. What the hell does "direction" have
to do with being directed toward some goal. That's a human concept.
If we want to attrribute it to evolution, it's just another word
just like force, and we can use phrases like "economic forces",
"evolutionary forces", blah blah...

Do you people only get stuck on words or can you understand
concepts too as well as show your stupidity.

Talking the talk is not proof of walking the walk. Monkeys can
be taught to push buttons. But they don't understand how the
light bulb lights up when they push the switch. YOu keep
repeating phrases your teachers taught you without comprehension.

>immediate benefit for having longer tails than those of your neighbor,
>not because you want your descendents in n generations to have outrageous

No kidding Sherlock.

>See above. This is a correct assessment. But, as stated above, there is
>a big difference between immediate selective direction and phylogenetic
>trajectory over geological time.

I don't know anything about that either. Are you saying that
there's absolutely no determinism in evolution?

If there is as determinism then there's a direction and it's
knowable. And that's the way it should be if it's a science.

What the hell good is a science that only seems to produce
rationalizations (i.e. 20/20 hindsight) for only things that
seem to have already happened but can't do any prediction at all.

>"Predictability" in science does not necessarily operate at the level of
>the process - it should also be valid for observations.


>Paleoanthropologists have a model that predicts the presence of early
>hominid remains, with tree-climbing ability and modest brain size, in
>woodland habitats. So far, this prediction has held. If something wierd
>were to turn up, we would have to amend our hypothesis.

That's interpolation. Try extrapolation.

Besides, if there's determinism and we know the rules,we can
extrapolate into the future.

If you don't think there's any determinism at all tell me
if you think it would have been possible for quadrupeds to
have created a civilization such as ours. Could aquatic animals
done it, no matter how big their brains? How about flying
smart birds?


Regards, Mark