[lbo-talk] Re: Instinct

Arash arash at riseup.net
Thu Dec 1 17:04:21 PST 2005


Care to surmise or cite the specific argument Gould makes against this point?

-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Miles Jackson Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 1:22 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Re: Instinct

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Arash wrote:


> Wrong, I'm not assuming every trait must benefit reproductive fitness,
they
> very well could be neutral to it, I am assuming that a trait that has a
net
> NEGATIVE EFFECT on reproductive fitness should fade out of the population
> over time.

Then you don't understand the theory of evolution or basic genetics. A good place to start if you're interesting in getting a handle on this stuff: Gould, Structure of evolutionary theory. You'll see why your common sense argument is baseless.

Miles ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list