|
|
Re: Horns, Antlers, Tusks, and the way evolution works
Len Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:04:20 GMT
In article <50nfsv$27vi@argo.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>[snip]
>>bryant said:
>>>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?
>Um, perhaps one more time in English?
If there is no known physical trace for an "adaptive trait" indentifiable in
the record, and no known fitness value for this same "trait" now, is it still
a functional adaptation?
>>>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.
>You just repeated what I said, there. Is doing this supposed to contribute
>somehow to the discussion???
You just misread what I meant. The differences lie in the intended subject as
well as the subject's intent. Do I detect some territorial imperative???
Cheers,
--Lenny__
|