Rotating Bitch wrote:
> At 02:23 AM 12/2/2005, Arash wrote:
>
>> Arash wrote:
>> >
>> > Care to surmise or cite the specific argument Gould makes against this
>> > point?
>> >
>>
>> Carrol Cox wrote:
>>
>> >It's a long and complex book. It is also a book that anyone who
>> wants to
>> >propound on evolution should read or shut up. If you aren't a
>> biologist,
>>
>> I was asking for a simple summation or citation of Gould's refutation
>> about
>> this very basic premise concerning reproductive fitness. I'd think
>> the onus
>> of shutting up would rest with those who evasively point to a long,
>> complex,
>> book in absence of offering a substantial counter-argument to the
>> specific
>> issue at hand.
>
>
> Well, it's not -- the onus. You don't see very many people disagreeing
> with miles, do you? Maybe that's because he's done a pretty good job
> of summarizing Gould for you already. OVer and over again, he's
> repeated it. So, I think it's time: get thee to a library. Or google it.
>
> Then we have C. bodi repeatedly using the word gender in a way only he
> does. Yoshie explained to him how gender has come to be used:
> simplistically, to indicate man and woman, not male/female.
>
> I don't know Miles, you sure have a lot more patience than I do.
> Personally, I don't like wall head. But then, I have hair. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bitch | Lab
> http://blog.pulpculture.org
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk