Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists
Stephen Barnard (steve@megafauna.com)
Fri, 05 Jul 1996 22:24:39 -0800
Richard Foy wrote:
>
> In article <31DD4C6C.26DF@megafauna.com>,
> Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com> wrote:
> >Richard Foy wrote:
> >>
> >> This is a very interesting speculation. It is the only speculation
> >> about human breasts that I have heard that doesn't seem to be a
> >> sexist.
> >> --
> >
> >I'm wondering what you think qualifies speculation as "sexist". Is it
> >impermissible and incorrect to speculate that humans might be subject
> >to sexual selection, just like many other animals are? I'm not
> >talking about "incorrect" in the sense of "factually wrong" -- I'm
> >talking about "incorrect" in the sense of "politically incorrect".
>
> Much of the speculation about the evolution of womens breasts seems
> to be not much more than justified by thinking like, "I like womens
> breasts, therefor womens breasts evolved by sexual selection."
>
> There have been many discussions in this group clearly explaining why
> womens breasts evolving as a result of sexual selection is highly
> improbable, at least as improbable as the AAH and even less testable.
It wasn't at all clear to me that there was a consensus about this. Not
at all. Not the least little bit. You just said "much" of the
speculation, but before you implied "all" of the speculation (preceding
the most recent one) was sexist.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the speculation that women's
breasts evolved as a result of sexual selection is improbable and
untestable (two characteristics that are not uncommon among speculations
in this newsgroup), does that make the speculation ipso facto "sexist"?
That's question #1.
Question #2 is: Is it ever permissible, according to the "sexist" litmus
test, to speculate that human evolution might be influenced by sexual
selection?
Steve Barnard
|