Re: evolution everywhere?

Len Piotrowski (
Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:37:18 GMT

In article <514kil$> (Bryant) writes:


>In article <>,
>Len Piotrowski <> wrote:
>>Care to guess how "new" neo-Darwinism is? Oh, I've read a sociobiological
>>study or two, in my time. And I've read the critiques of sociobiological
>>studies or two, in my time. I think your wailing display over doubt over your
>>pronouncement of supreme importance for your method reflects more upon your
>>intellectual shallowness than anything else.

>To be fair, I presented the framework of evolutionary behavioral biology
>as "useful," never once pronouncing it, as you falsely quote me as
>saying, of "supreme importance."

To be fair, answer the question. Or are you so unconcerned about the
historical roots of your own chosen discipline? In as much as history is
unaccounted for in your self-important paradigm, I would hide from it as well!

>I find it very revealing that those who are most offended and shrill in the
>face of a suggestion that evolutionary theory may shed light on the
>behavior of evolved creatures such as ourselves are those folks least
>informed about the principles and findings of the science they so detest.

If you perceive intellectual disagreement as personal insult, you are
certainly mistaken.Your last ditch effort to vitiate the character of those
you wish to discredit does not reflect well on your argument. That, too, is
an old stratagem of the sociobiologists of at least some twenty years in
age. Not much has occurred since then to advance this lame and vacuous
form of argumentation.

I don't think anyone here has voiced offense at evolutionary theory as applied
to behavior, including any of your perceived antagonists. There is a
difference between the evolution of something and the
functionalist/selectionist account you present for it. If you could
substantiate with concrete evidence any one of the "sugar craving," "jealousy
craving," "sight craving," or "rape craving" traits you hail as hallmarks for
your paradigm, I don't think anyone would be in such strong disagreement
with you. However, without any testable or refutable evidence, your practice
is simply unscientific and denigrating to the efforts of many other scholars.
If you think the reaction to blind prejudice towards alternative hypotheses
and ideas is simply the shrill lament of woefully ignorant buffoons, you've
not only lost any credibility in the argument, you have no business in this
kind of forum.

>Once in a long while, I find something of merit in your posts, but the cost
>to benefit ratio has been growing less and less rewarding for those who would
>dig through your rambling assaults looking for these. So long.

Big loss there, eh Bryant? Finding you indignant over imaginary insults is
quite amazing, especially as you seem to by merrily impervious to your insult
upon an entire profession and scores of scholars. Long before now this
discussion has grown tedious and boring. So long, indeed, to an entire waste
of intellectual effort and electronic bandwidth.



"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
- perlstyle