Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptive
Len Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Wed, 4 Sep 1996 14:13:46 GMT
In article <50528n$11oa@argo.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>[snip]
>>
>>This is all well and good, but as I've made clear, the problem that arose was
>>with your "sugar craving" and "jealousy" traits as apparent counter examples.
>I thought that I pulled those from my hat to illustrate (crudely) how
>once-adaptive traits need not be currently adaptive. I think I was
>critiquing problems with optimality models (something Gould and I agree
>about), not attacking Gould.
Whatever your reason, and however crudely you presented it, the
functional adaptationist explanation of your behavioral examples are still
challengeable.
>I could be mistaken, but I thought that you pulled the various quotes
>from different msgs and put them together to show that I was being
>inconsistent by saying Gould overstates his case and then daring to
>speculate about the adaptive function of sugar craving and sexual jealousy.
You are mistaken. I could provide your original post, but what difference
would that make?
>>>[snip]
>>Then I guess you would agree that there are other possible processes
>>accountable for the existence of these "traits."
>Of course. How many times must I say I'm not Dr. Pangloss before you'll
>believe me?!
As far as I am aware, this is the first time you've admitted to possible
non-adaptationist origins for "sugar craving" and "jealousy," at least in this
thread. Did I miss something along the way?
>>These were juxtaposed in context with the Gould & Lewontin critique, not,
>>interestingly, as examples of "functional design," but as an apparent counter
>>to Gould & Lewontin's claim. I merely pointed out that they *were* examples of
>>"functional design," something to which you took some exception.
>I think I just communicated poorly. And perhaps misunderstood your point.
>I think that the adaptationist program is sensible; look for a functional
>"purpose" for a trait before dismissing it as the result of non-selective
>forces of evolution. It's easier, usually, to test the predictions
>derived from adaptationist hypotheses than from hypotheses which posit
>that a trait has no functional significance.
This is still incongruous given your critique of Gould & Lewontin. Despite this
poor communication, I would submit that the method you choose to "look for a
functional "purpose" for a trait" creates only the illusion of an explanation
because it posits a priori a need that is outside the system of analysis and
patently unclassifiable as a "trait."
Cheers,
--Lenny__
|