|
|
Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptive
Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
9 Sep 1996 20:39:55 -0600
In article <lpiotrow.431.32346FAE@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Len Piotrowski <lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>Your pre-jealousy law theory is worthless without laws. Why even continue with
One last time, in case you're actually trying to comprehend the point:
In order to illustrate how traits which were (or may have
been) once adaptive need not be so anymore, I said that:
if one imagined male sexual jealousy to offer fitness advantages to
mate-guarding males in ancestral human populations, and one further
imagined a subsequent culture in which acting on jealous instincts led to
severe fitness reductions (like castration or prison), one can see the
point that what's adaptive changes. Traits shaped to meet challenges in
ancestral environments need not be adaptive now.
Bryant
|