Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptive
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
4 Sep 1996 09:22:45 -0600
In article <lpiotrow.399.322D8B65@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Len Piotrowski <lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <504n6q$qjs@argo.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>>OK-doke. I would like to see a reference someday (from anybody)
>>demonstrating that a culture exists in which sexual jealousy is unknown,
>>but that's a tangent.
>
>It's a central problem to your thesis of a functional adaptationist
>explanation for a human behavior. Do babies in your family display
>jealousy?
Not until they're a bit past infancy. What's your point, Lenny? They're
not sex-seeking either. Would you argue that sex urges are therefore not
evolved?
>>Lenny, unless organic chemistry is an exercise in metaphysics,
>>nueropeptides count as physical entities. :)
>
>Unless I become an organic chemist, I'll have to take your word for it, capice?
So we are brought to the question of whether you mean that
(A) You think I've made neuropeptides up myself, and there's no actual
evidence that they exist,
or (B) You think that proteins can be "non-physical entities."
You could try to speak more plainly, Lenny. You leave your audience
guessing at what exactly you are trying to say a lot of the time. See
the first quote above. You seem to suggest that if a trait is not
present at infancy, it is not an evolved trait. Is that really what
you're arguing?
>--Lenny__
Bryant
|