[lbo-talk] Is Sex Fun for Girls? --> Sociobiology, Sex, and History

Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
Tue Jan 23 13:31:29 PST 2007


On Tuesday 23 January 2007 15:35, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> The just-so-ish nature of almost all evolutionary
> explanation has been frequently noted. It is a staple
> of creationist objections to evolution. The fact is
> that we will never do a lot better than the sort of
> explanation I offer here for most traits....
> Look, this biology 101 and baby philosophy of science.

Indeed.

I was always taught that evolutionary theory is not a theory about why the fly has a compound eye, but a theory about what forces drive change in species over time, and what mechanisms accomplish it.

"Why" questions are noncontroversial in the case of structures with a clear and specific purpose, like the mosquito's proboscis, and speculative -- I might, if I were feeling testy, say, idly speculative -- otherwise.

I remember Richard Lewontin years ago, at a rather rowdy party, asking -- rhetorically, in a discussion not unlike this one -- "why are there no organisms with wheels?" Sort of an evolutionary-biology koan.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list