Re: Exaptation and cookie cutters
Thomas Clarke (clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu)
5 Oct 1995 12:50:52 GMT
In article <44nai5$3un@news.global1.net> writes:
> Elaine Morgan <Elaine@desco.demon.co.uk> graced us with the following
> words:
> [Discussion of "Exaptation" omitted]
> I hope you read Jerry Drawhorn's excellent article on bipedalism. In
> case you haven't I am going to repost it here.
Did my response to his post make it out? No one has commented
about the what I said concerning the implausability of his
picture of the "first family" drowning.
> There is a story about some archaeologists in the US who believed that
> atlatl hooks and weights were fish net hooks and net spacers used to
> make fishing nets. To prove their point they used them to make a
> rather nice fishing net.
Nice story. So what were the atlatl hooks and weights for?
> The problem with making intepretations of functionality in this way
> arre compounded when you try to assign anatomical structures a
> function in a niche they never occupied. It is compounded by the
> "can't prove me wrong" attitude the envelops such stories.
Don't you have any fun in science? Are you limited only to what
is absolutely, iron-clad provable on the basis of well deocumented
obsdrvation? No speculation allowed?
Tom Clarke
|