<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1><pre>> There are no "accidents" in the process of evolution.  The reason fingers<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>> where developed - over time, of course - was because of some factor in the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>> species environment; otherwise it would not have stood the test of time.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>> This includes the number of fingers on the hand... watch someone with a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>> missing finger or two and you will notice their hand movement is slightly<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>> different in certain things, nothing drastic though.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>No, this is what Gould and Lewontin ridicule as "fundamentalist Darwinism".  Even <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Darwin</st1:place></st1:City> 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<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>at all--unless you're a dogmatic sociobiologist!)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Miles<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre> <o:p> </o:p> <pre>First: “Even <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Darwin</st1:place></st1:City> did not make the bold claim TK makes above.”  <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Darwin</st1:place></st1:City> also never mentions anything about genetics, although later on he did have the chance to read Gregory Mendel’s research paper, but never bothered.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>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.  <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Third:  Speaking of Stephen Gould and criticism: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Controversies">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Controversies</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>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. ;)<o:p></o:p></pre></div> </body> </html>