Re: Human penises, was Re
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
8 Jul 1995 11:13:46 -0600
In article <3tlstg$dkp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Rkeeologi <rkeeologi@aol.com> wrote:
>Believe me, Bryant, I am plenty familiar with selectionist and
>sociobiological frameworks, have just spent the past two months being
>educated almost daily by Rindos (sorry you find this name dropping... A
>tad jealous perhaps?)
If you appeared to have picked up basic evolutionary theory during that
time, I may admire your opportunity. Alas, it appears to be one you blew.
>However, I have a 5 page abstract due for next
>year's SAAs, a paper on my genitalia effigy pottery to complete, and
>haven't the slightest inclination at getting into an argument over two
>approaches, neither of which I support.
It would take you no more time to clarify your ideas about adaptationist
theories from sociobiology, evolutionary ecology, and evolutionary
psychology being "less than selectionist" than it did to insert your shoe
in your mouth in the first place.
Were you a high school kid or a recreational cybersurfer, I wouldn't be
as annoyed at your unwarranted (and bizzare) assertions and subsequent
avoidance dances around my questions. But you'll be teaching people,
presumably. You'll be confusing the hell out of them, from the looks of
it. You really have an obligation as an academe to learn that of which
you speak. You're obviously very confused about the nature of the
selectionist/constraint schools of evolutionary theory, and of what
adaptationism is really about.
Did you want, at least, to clarify what you meant in your comment about
Australopithecine penii size?!
Bryant
|