|
Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptiveLen Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:09:05 GMT
In article <322F9B07.420D@megafauna.com> Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com> writes:
>[snip]
>I don't think your were joking. I think your were just ignorant of the facts.
Opinions vary. Do you expect mine to be in error?
>>
>That's more like it.
So happy to see you so easily satisfied.
>>[snip]
>I'm not an expert. Just a reasonably well-read layman who doesn't make ex-cathedra
Glad to hear you're not an expert. Suppose that qualifies you as an expert on
>>[snip]
>They are eyes. Take my word for it, or ask Gould.
Your classification is as loose as Firl's. Does it include plant eyes as well?
>> >[snip]
>Look it up.
Citations from the well read lay-man? Both on octopuses/mollusks and Firl's
>>[snip].
>You stated unequivocally that molluscs don't have eyes. That is a question of fact.
Not a question of fact but of definition. I would classify what a snail has
>>[snip]
>Not the "need" for a patch. Rather, the fact that having a patch puts one at an
Not a real difference here between "need" and "advantage," neh?
>>[more of the same]
>So just what is it that you don't doubt?
That there are representative in your zoological garden that reflect your
>It's easy to doubt. I can easily doubt that
I guess! Could I offer you a zoological garden as proof of my existence?
>>[snip]
>I explained my hypothesis. What's yours?
Your hypothesis to explain your zoological garden as evolutionary progress
>> >[snip]
>No. They have evolved independently. That is perhaps the most compelling evidence that
How can they be independently evolved yet aspects of "incremental
>>
>You seem to be coming around to an adaptationist point of view. Congratulations.
My point of view has never changed. Perhaps you've recognized a nuance which
Cheer,
--Lenny__
|