From: Eal195 (
Date: Wed Jan 21 1998 - 15:30:45 GMT

Dear Stevan
I'm beginning to panic now, I don't understand the fundamental arguments
people like Gould have to adaptation as a descriptive process of many of our
characteristics. Nobody has said (I think) that adaptation and only adaptation
explains all in evolutionary development. I understand the basic difficulties
with so called just-so stories - that there is no evidence of conditions in
the EEA, no evidence that ancestors did any of the things we think might have
led to our developing traits for particular ways of behaving. But as with
Dupre's criticisms, if the only argument is that we cant prove it, and no
alternative offered, how valid are Gould's criticisms? Is he saying that all
our traits are just by-products of other chance developments?
Please help!!

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:09 GMT