Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptiveLen Piotrowski (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:27:05 GMT
In article <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Bryant) writes:
>Perhaps we should take the example of thirst.
Since you have no answer to the "sugar craving" gene or the "jealousy" gene,
>The neuropeptide causing
I can't figure out what your saying here. A neuropeptide causes the
>That neuropeptide is a "physical object" by your accounting, yes?
I take your word for it.
>It seems that you haven't addressed a central issue in our debate,
I believe the question of central importance was "sugar craving" in humans, or
I had no idea thirst was detected by receptors in the mouth. Care to elaborate?
>Selection can act upon behaviors just as surely as on
Not in the same way, I think, especially meaningful human behavior. Is it
But that's beside the point. I take issue with your general functionalist