Once again, I AM NOT A PANGLOSSIAN ADAPTATIONIST and the material I have written here is inconsistent with Panglossian adaptationism. You seethe stuff about "design failures"? Clashing and inconsistent adaptive traits? That ain't Panglossianism, it's pure Gould-Eldredge. Let's please stop this preaching to the choir, it is annoying and time wasting.
Me aside, the existence of "spandrels," which is what they call adaptationally pointless traits, does not mean that all traits are spandrels. If they were, the theory of evolution by natural selection would be _false._
Since the theory is true, the _presumption_ is that any given trait had an explanation saying that it originated because it was adaptive in some environment. The hypothesis that a trait is a spandrel is fallback of desperation, when no adaptationist explanation seems to be available.
--- Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Of course evolution has happened. But not every
> feature or change has
> >a purpose behind it.
> >
> >Doug
>
>
>
> Like the male mammary papilla discussed by Stephen
> Jay Gould in Male
> Nipples and Clitoral Ripples.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.