|
|
Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptive
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
28 Aug 1996 07:46:59 -0600
In article <lpiotrow.383.3222FEE1@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Len Piotrowski <lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>>>The brain and heart are at least physical objects. "Sugar craving" and
>>>"jealousy" are somewhat problematical in this regard.
[snip]
>>>The problem is with your definition of human behavior as "outputs of
>>>physical phenotype."
Perhaps we should take the example of thirst. The neuropeptide causing
the sensation of thirst has been identified (and, therefore, you would
presumably agree that there are relevant genes for selection to have
acted upon were thirst somehow evolutionarily adventageous).
That neuropeptide is a "physical object" by your accounting, yes?
It seems that you haven't addressed a central issue in our debate,
Lenny. If not the creation of adaptation by natural selection, what
force of evolution created the architecture atop the tongue which detects
sugar? Or thirst? Selection can act upon behaviors just as surely as on
bone structure, I believe. You don't seem to agree.
Bryant
|