[lbo-talk] Re: Instinct

[ravi]

At around 2/12/05 8:46 am, Carrol Cox wrote:
> 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
> 
> It's a long complex argument -- complex meaning the parts are
> inter-related. And I am not responsible for your elementary education,
> hence the "read or shut up above.'
> 

Not fair. Gould is not the only authoritative word on evolution, his
1000 page baseball tomes notwithstanding. He has his own axe to grind
(it so happens fortunately that's the axe I grind too), and he does not
hesitate to do so in every book he writes. Much of his slant,
interpretation, and personal theories are under debate.

I haven't read the book but I plan to "propound" on evolution on this
list, nonetheless.

Mayr, Haldane, Darwin... maybe even Maynard Smith... if you must. If its
fiery opinion, then Lynn Margulis is a real biologist and more interesting!

Also, frankly, I am not a biologist, but none of the material I have
read on LBO thus far (say 7 years?) has particularly impressed me as
authoritative or thoroughly informed. Bluster, yes, definitely. ;-)

I think Arash's question regarding the survival of maladaptive traits
(net effect, IIRC his phrase) is worthy of an answer, however elementary
it may be.

	--ravi

-- 
If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by
substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!