Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 21:35:19 EST
In a message dated 12/2/02 7:55:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> One of his examples was the giraffe's neck
> > which he thought got
> > stretched trying to reach food in high places and
> > was then inherited by the
> > giraffe's offspring.
> Which of course is a form of natural selection.
> Long-necked giraffes survive because they can eat
> leaves higher in trees.
> Please understand, I am not advocating (nor even
> describing) any of the positions. I was simply
> pointing out that "evolution" is a broad term that
> does not describe causal mechanisms in any detail and
> that particular theories (such as neo-Darwinism, etc.)
> postulate different causal mechanisms for how
> evolution takes place.
> I was passing no judgment on the fitness of any of
> those theories. If this still causes you confusion, I
> don't think I can help clarify it further.
I do think we are talking at cross purposes. I am a member of the Human
Behavior and Evolution Society. I am not used to speaking as generally as you
do about natural selection. I've discussed the evolutionary strategy of
Judaism with Kevin MacDonald and human differences with J. Phillipe Rushton,
they would not have spoken to me if I was as general in my use of my terms as
you are in this exchange. The Lamarckianism of the giraffe story is NOT a
form of natural selection. It doesn't occur in biological evolution, only in
cultural evolution. If you are truly using evolution in as broad a term as
you say you are, no progress can be made and that is fine. I accept that.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 02 2002 - 22:23:06 EST