Here is what you wrote:
>> 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.
What I am questioning is your presumption. The theory of evolution is true, but that does not imply that every trait, by default, should be presumed to be an adaptation. While you acknowledge spandrels, you are (or seem to be) suggesting that given a trait either you assume it arose due to adaptation or you it has to be demonstrated that it was a spandrel or something else. I claim that in the absence of corroborating evidence adaptationist explanations are just another "just so" story of equal importance as other "just so" stories which are also part of a reasonably justified system of belief: the "spandrel" story being part of the shared physiological development story. In truth, I would say, both the adaptation story and spandrel story are sub-stories of the evolution story.
> I am sorry I am getting annoyed. But some people here
> are being annoying just now for no good reason.
You are not being fair here. We, on the other side, could be getting annoyed too that you are not seeing our argument(s) and may be mischaracterising them. I am not being "annoying for no good reason". I am trying to discuss my thoughts with you. I might misunderstand you, and you might do the same, but we have to muddle through these things, together, yes? I can understand if (as Chuck put it appropriately with regards to Free Software) I am pissing on you or treating you dismissively, but I am not.
--ravi