Re: Joel and Bryant /talk/ about Antlers and Culture

Len Piotrowski (
Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:58:21 GMT

In article <4vif0e$> (Bryant) writes:


>>Question: If Gould and Lewontin are creating only imaginary adaptionists, how
>>do you reconcile such explanations for "orgasm" and " having a lot of kids"
>>with non-functional arguments?

>Why would I need to? As I made clear in the parts you quoted from my
>posts, evolutionists treat "function" as "evolved/adapted to do..." That
>evolutionists suspect function for the female orgasm does not well
>illustrate Gould & Lewontin's contention that evolutionists see naive
>function in *everything.*

On the contrary, your example appears to accentuate Gould & Lewontin's
contention. What is your point?