Re: Biosocial Phobia

Danny Yee (danny@STAFF.CS.SU.OZ.AU)
Mon, 12 Dec 1994 13:56:22 +1000 

--

 

> Only two coherent theoretical alternatives have been offered to explain why

> organisms are adaptively constructed.  ... Darwin.

 

There is only ONE coherent theoretical explanation as to why organisms are

adaptively constructed -- physics.

 

> Some behavioral scentists seem to imagine that "learning" constitutes a third

> explanation for adaptation, a sort of ontogenetic alternative to natural

> selection.

 

Some biologists seem to imagine that "evolution" constitutes an

explanation for things, a kind of biological alternative to physics.

 

> Yet, to propose

> "learning" as an alternative to an evolutionary explanation is categorical

> nonsense, confusing the simultaneously valid questions of ontogenetic process

>  and natural selective history.  Developmental mechanisms, including learning,

> are *themselves* products of natural selection.

 

To propose "evolution" as an alternative to physical explanation is

categorical nonsense, denying the reality of molecular genetics and

chemistry.  Evolution and natural selection are themselves products of

physical processes.

 


--

 

I think that's enough to get the point across.

 

Evolution may be the only explanation of biological adaptation BUT:

 

* not all adaptations are biological.

* there is more to evolution than natural selection.

* biology and evolution are not disconnected from culture and psychology any

  more than they are from physics.

 

I'm with Mike Lieber 100% in this debate, not because I'm opposed to

the "biosocial" (I am just as interested in evolutionary biology as

in anthropology), but because I'm opposed to bad *biology*.

 

All that simple population genetics -- Hardy-Weinberg ratios,

ESSs, and so on -- is great stuff, but it's vitally important

that its limitations be kept constantly in mind.  It is clear that

understanding evolution, rather than just being a matter of matching

genes to adaptations, requires knowledge of complicated ecological

relationships, multi-species geographical distributions, and any

number of other things (*) besides which allowing room for the "social"

and the "cultural" doesn't seem nearly so much of a shock.

 

Danny Yee.

 

(*) My current reading material includes John N. Thompson's _The

Coevolutionary Process_, which seems to be a good overview of some

of this stuff.