[lbo-talk] Sociobiology

[joanna]

>
> But the whole point of evolutionary theory is that there is no 
> predetermined "direction" to natural selection!  There is no "higher" 
> or "upward" in evol theory; there is simply the emergence of traits 
> that help a species to survive under specific environmental 
> conditions. --Thus the disappearance of vision in some crustacean 
> species that live in the dark.  The lobsters without eye stalks are 
> not "higher" or "lower" on some evolutionary ladder than lobsters with 
> eye stalks; rather, they are well adapted to the environment is which 
> they live.
>
> --Now, I agree that the popular representation of evolution encourages 
> the "great chain of being" fallacy, but that is a misunderstanding of 
> the basic premises of evolutionary theory.  In fact, evolutionary 
> theory and research demonstrate how silly that idea is.  For instance, 
> in evolutionary terms (survival and reproductive success), insects are 
> kicking primates' asses.  From the perspective of evolutionary theory, 
> it is incoherent to argue that primates (or homo homo sapiens) are 
> somehow "higher" on a unidimensional evolutionary ladder than insects 
> are. 

Well, yes and no. Because you do get animals who not only adapt to the 
environment but who adapt their environment to their needs -- in other 
words, "intelligence" is a trait that raises the odds of survival and, 
whoever wins at the survival game wins at "evolution." And that's not 
just a popular representation.

Picking nits.

Joanna