No, this is what Gould and Lewontin ridicule as "fundamentalist Darwinism". Even Darwin did not make the bold claim TK makes above. It is naive sociobiology to assert that every single discrete characteristic of a species must exist because of adaptive pressures. (My favorite example from Lewontin: the human chin is an inadvertent result of shifts in facial bone lengths over many eons; we do not need an adaptationist story to explain the existence of the chin at all--unless you're a dogmatic sociobiologist!)
Miles
First: "Even Darwin did not make the bold claim TK makes above." Darwin also never mentions anything about genetics, although later on he did have the chance to read Gregory Mendel's research paper, but never bothered.
Second: "It is naive sociobiology to assert that every single discrete characteristic of a species must exist because of adaptive pressures". In sociobiology, the study is of similarities in ethos, thus it serves as a bridge between the gaps. Sure it could be used for racist purposes - e.g. The Bell Curve - but they usually dwindle away after good criticism - e.g. Jared Diamond's detraction of The Bell Curve.
Third: Speaking of Stephen Gould and criticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Controversies
Fourth: "My favorite example from Lewontin: the human chin is an inadvertent result of shifts in facial bone lengths over many eons; we do not need an adaptationist story to explain the existence of the chin at all--unless you're a dogmatic sociobiologist!)" No but it does make the topic more coherent. ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20050603/18dcde8d/attachment.htm>