|
Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptiveLen Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:27:35 GMT
In article <50ieqh$n6l@news.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes:
>[snip]
>|> I suppose you can believe it's possible that every human behavior arose
>Lenny, I'd like to hear your ideas on the subject. You keep complaining
Depends! Are you talking about "sugar craving" or "jealousy."
>This example should be crystal clear:
>|> In article <504muq$2pqm@argo.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>|> >Eyes are adaptations because they have design features unlikely to have
>|> And too, unlikely to have accumulated as a sequential series of functional
>Try to do a little research before you make such absolutist
Your epistemology boggles the imagination!
>Throughout the biosphere
What makes this "gamut" complete, aside, I know, from the word of Firlmeister?
>which maps very well to the developmental evolutionary pathway.
Interesting mapping function here: where does this "evolutionary pathway"
> We have
... no eyes!
>plankton which can detect
... no eyes!
>and large numbers of independantly
... no eyes!
> to mammalian
... ah, eyed!
>Each incremental step of visual acuity provided
Oh, yes, eyes were the result of the "incremental steps" of plants, plankton,
>which is why vision systems have continued to
? Vision systems continue to evolve *because* of the adaptive benefits that
>You present "the goal" of being able to see in teleological terms,
... not I, the functional adaptationist does.
>which is erroneous of course,
Of course!
> but anyone who has thought about the
Except for those poor, crude plants, plankton, and "molluscs," [sigh]!
>The "causal reason"
I survive, therefore I see, is that it?
>|> >[snip]
>You're amazing, lenny.
Nah!
>You don't believe that animal vision evolved
Wrong!
>Too
... too functionally fixated to be of explanatory usefulness, to be precise.
> Again I ask, because
I have no agenda here, Firl.
> if something as obviously
What it (eyeball) can be used for (to see) says nothing about where it came
>I understand that you're very concerned about preserving a place for
Depends!
>|> >The only alternative to random accumulation in evolution is selection.
>|> "Random accumulation" of what? This is getting more and more remarkable.
>Remarkable indeed. Does it boggle the mind, by any chance?
I wonder!
> Read a
OKay.
>There
I bet!
>Do you know how the elephant got his long trunk?
Really? Did he/she have a need to trunk?
>|> Just so ...
>Something like that.
That's for sure, that's for dang sure.
Cheers,
--Lenny__
"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
|