Re: Horns, Antlers, Tusks, and the way evolution works

Len Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Thu, 5 Sep 1996 19:01:50 GMT

In article <50hd25$2tao@argo.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:

>[snip]

>It is, in my opinion, only possible to approach constraint and drift
>explanations by falsifying adaptationist alternatives.

Maybe so. However, if grounded properties and precursor events synchronize
with a trait of no known fitness value, is this, a priori, a false claim?

>The dismissal of adapationist hypothesizing as "just-so story telling" is
>only justified when those doing so cite no supporting evidence and make
>no falsifiable predictions about their hypotheses.

Similarly justified when those making the hypotheses provide no evidence other
than assertion of purpose to defend it's purported efficacy.

>Dismissing working
>hypotheses (which necessarily come before tested hypotheses) is
>counter-productive.

I would add to this unfounded conjectures disguised as working
hypotheses.

Cheers,

--Lenny__