|
|
Adaptationism and other constructs (was: Human penises, was Re)
Cameron Laird (claird@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM)
11 Jul 1995 09:05:00 -0500
In article <3thkop$eqk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Mary Beth Williams <mbwillia@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3thaqn$6oc@triton.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
.
.
.
>Anyway, as the proponent of a feminist/PP approach to my fieldwork, I
>would just as soon lump all of that *Darwinist* stuff together and lock
>it away in some dusty old closet where it can't corrupt young and
>impressionable minds <g>... However, as I said, Dr. Rindos does not
I echo Bryant's request to you for particulars.
I've lost track of what Darwinist ("Darwinist"?
"*Darwinist*"?) means in this context, and, al-
though I can guess how "feminist/PP" approaches
woodlands archaeology, I'd rather not guess.
Also, I think you've lost most of your audience
as to why Dr. Rindos is an authority on the
varies of adaptationism.
.
.
.
>conversation will have to be continued at a later date... I would
>argue, however, that much of the *selected* traits you all have been
>jabbering about, large breasts and penii, etc., are more closely
The only generally accepted plurals for "penis"
in English that I know are "penises" or, for the
more classically inclined, "penes".
>associate with the *australopithicine* grade of evolution, and are
>hence not unique to Homo, per se.
>
>In addition, there is a vast difference between the
>genetic-selectionist model that sociobiology promotes, and the
>cultural-selectionist model of Dunnell and Rindos (among others)...
Um, in general, OK, but I smell reification in
process. Is there one sociobiology out promoting
this selectionism? Would it be useful for me to
cite Wilson's explicitly cultural-selectionist
modelling?
.
.
.
--
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
claird@Neosoft.com +1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com +1 713 996 8546 FAX
|