Re: OT re:A problem with evolutionary theory
Re: OT re:A problem with evolutionary theory
Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.archaeology/2007−01/msg00185.html
• From: Doug Weller
• Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:29:09 +0000
On 7 Jan 2007 01:59:56 −0800, in sci.archaeology, chazwin wrote:
prd wrote:
In sci.archaeology message news:1168092881.722820.76320
@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com by "chazwin"
. . . :
prd wrote:
In sci.archaeology message
news:1167993284.221890.190560
@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by
"chazwin" . . .
:
There is a key problem in
evolutionary theory.
Theorists seem obsessed
with attributing a positive
survival factor to all traits.
But when
you
step back it is easy to see
why this is asking far too
much of
evolutionary theory: most
traits have no particular
survival
Re: OT re:A problem with evolutionary theory 1
Re: OT re:A problem with evolutionary theory
potential.
The reason for this is that
traits in themselves are not
selected by
nature − individual
organisms ARE selected by
nature. Within a given
organism are a vast
multitude of traits, some
provide selective
advantage, most are just
neutral, and some can even
be negative, but
just so long as the organism
manages to survive until it
manages to
reproduce, ALL of those
traits will be selected, warts
and all.
This means that natural
selection can provide
useless and dangerous
behaviours and traits that
science has no need to
explain: I only wish
the like of Dawkins and
Gould would give this factor
more attention.
Kuhn talks about the
scientific paradigm
enforcing a filter through
which phenomena are
squeezed. In evolutionary
theory such as
behavioural psychology
each manifestation of a
behavioural traits is
examined and assesed for its
utility to the subject − some
reason has
to be found for the existence
of the traits, but in reality no
such
reason needs to be, or
necessarily should be
sought.
This is not a topic for this group.
Re: OT re:A problem with evolutionary theory 2
Re: OT re:A problem with evolutionary theory
It is appropriate in sci.bio.evolution or
talk.origins, etc.
What a strange little man you must be to think that evolution
has
nothing to do with archaeology.
Clearly you know so little about either subject to advise me
thus.
I didn't say it has nothing to do with archaeology, what you
posted has nothing to do with archaeology and doesn't belong in the
group.
Archaeology is the study of the material remains left by anceint
cultures. It has nothing specifically to do with what Dawkins and Gould
thought.
Material remains and their evolution via meme theory, cultural
evolution and CRT has every thing to do with archaeolgy, unless you
want to be a "train spotter" who does little more than write down the
position of pot sherds but produces not interpretation and reproduces a
boring and completely irrelevant archaeology devoid of any cultural
meaning.
Why do archaeology if it has no meaning.
Whay alow assinine postings on "atlantis" but close your minds
something which might require you tho think a little more deeply?
I often disagree with prd, but he is right in saying that archaeology is
the study of material remains.
Some people interested in and/or qualified in archaeology may also be
interested in and even have some expertise in the field of biological
evolution, but that's irrelevant to the fact that it isn't appropriate to
discuss biological theory here any more than it is to discuss statistics,
probably more relevant to archaeology.
If you really want to discuss evolution, you should be in a newsgroup
where you can find those qualified to hold that debate with you,
specifically talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution.
If you are just trying to get publicity for your ideas, you will of course
avoid those two newsgroups and post only to those where you are unlikely
to find many interested in and/or qualified to discuss your ideas.
Doug
−−
Re: OT re:A problem with evolutionary theory 3
Re: OT re:A problem with evolutionary theory
Doug Weller −−
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun − co−owner/co−moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
.
Re: OT re:A problem with evolutionary theory 4