Re: Human penises, was Re

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Tim Benham: "Re: Male Parental Investment"
• Previous message: deb@chattanooga.net: "lost person"

In <3tcm6v$e0g@triton.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>
>In article <3ta9n8$ng7@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>Mary Beth Williams <mbwillia@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <3sek8n$jed@triton.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>>
>>>Perhaps. I hope not. Why was she "disgusted," do you think?
>>
>>Well, initially it was for many of the reasons J. Moore (I think)
>>mentioned...However, now my disgust has spread more generally,
covering
>>most sociobiological approaches... I think I'd sooner grovel at the
>>altar of Dunnell than be forced to utilize an SB framework...
Couldn't
>>have imagined that anything could make selectionism look attractive
in
>>contrast... Egads...
>
>Dr. Williams is apparently unaware that sociobiologists are working
>within the adaptationist framework (i.e., she just contrasted
>selectionism with selectionism, and found that selectionism looks good

>vis a vis itself). Sigh.
>
>>MB Williams
>>Wesleyan
>
>Bryant
>
>
Egads! I hope that you all can discern between sociobiololical and
selectionist frameworks, as my conversations with Dave Rindos would
lead me to believe that he draws few parallel between SB frameworks and
his own (which I personally feel epitomize selectionism at it
foremost...) I've forwarded on to him a few selections from this
thread, and would ferverently argue that the views promoted in this
thread are at odds with general *selectionist* thought, as proposed by
Dunnell and Rindos...

MB Williams
Wesleyan (soon to be Umass/Amherst)

• Next message: Tim Benham: "Re: Male Parental Investment"
• Previous message: deb@chattanooga.net: "lost person"