[lbo-talk] Sociobiology

[Miles Jackson]

joanna wrote:
>>
>> 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

All evolutionary theorists that I know agree with you; species shape 
their environments.  I guess we profs need to do a better job accurately 
disseminating the theory!

Miles