Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.

From: Jason Eshleman (jae_at_vici.ucdavis.edu)
Date: 12/31/04 

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:55:51 +0000 (UTC)

In article <1104480636.626415.104550@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Is it simpler to explain the clear human-chimp differences in abilities
>at moving through water as being the result of natural selection (like
>all the other *BILLIONS* of species pair-substrate permutations) as the
>AAH argues, or is it better to invoke *other* explanations for this one
>permutation and not any other?

As the adaptationist explanations I've seen for these differences are not
simple, not elegant and lack in their consistency with the evidence, it
does not at this point appear to me that it is simplier to
ascribe them a priori to some direct product of selection in the medium
you not the difference. Invoking the hypothesis, which is not yet
supported with evidence, and confirming the hypothesis are not the same
thing, but you seem far too ready to leap from the former to the latter
with disregard for the overall lack of strength of support and now appear
to justify this because of some perceived need to generate adaptationist
explanations that directly address the problem as you frame it.

I do not enter with a pan-adaptationist view of biology and actually
regard it as a true handicap for those who employ it. Natural selection
is but one of the mechanisms of evolution. I do not think you have proper
appreciation for this. Selection does occur and produces some wonderous
results, but it's not responsible for all differences between organisms,
not by a long shot. Because I appreciate this and don't feel the a priori
need for adaptationist explanations in all regards, I tend to be
conservative and require fairly solid evidence to back adaptationist
explanations and certainly do not put weight behind adaptationist
explanations when the adaptations as described as so incomplete and
shoddy.

I dispute your claim, residing in your parenthetical remark (which,
however relevant, are unnecessary) that the *BILLION* [emphasis yours] of
"species-substrate" pairs are all adequately or in practice actually
explained by direct selection in that environment. These things indicate
to me that you do not have sufficient understanding of evolutionary
biology as a discipline or the natural histories of many species to make
your claims. It further indicates to me that you are making up odds off
the top of your head to emphasize a point for which you do not actually
have supporting data.

[snip rest of post leading up to where Algis again claims I've got some
prejudice]

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
    ... > simple, not elegant and lack in their consistency with the evidence, it ... > ascribe them a priori to some direct product of selection in the medium ... > explanations that directly address the problem as you frame it. ... > explanations when the adaptations as described as so incomplete and ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: What did the first talking monkeys mom look like?
    ... and the evolution of speech is no exception. ... call chance or Natural Selection. ... Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Homosexuality
    ... Wynne-Edwards was wrong and that it is impossible for natural selection ... to produce adaptations in organisms that serve to keep the population ... kept the population down was by eating the larva of other beetles. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • This - do you get the drift - debate (was Re: Mayrs Way)
    ... within 'the growth of the Tree of Evolution'. ... It's a fight between adaptationism and *pluralism*. ... kinds of other explanations, including thermodynamic and chemical ... of selection is sufficient, not whether he's giving only a single ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... > selection is genetically determinist and based on sacrificing one's self ... SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER SPECIES HAS EVER ASPIRED ... If natural selection followed the classical models ... to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)