Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Beast of Burden
Message-ID: <491@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 18:57:00 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.491
Posted: Mon Apr 22 18:57:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 08:17:47 EST
References: <948@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 39
Summary: 

In article <948@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
> Sermon:
> 
> This stuff is a positive hindrence to science.  We say "natural
> selection" and our brains stop thinking.  But until we understand the
> physiological and biochemical basis of organismal response to
> environmental stimuli, we're going to STAY STUCK, invoking the magical
> incantation "natural selection" whenever a problem comes up, and we're
> going to continue to remain ignorant.  Phooey.
> 
> We say "Natural selection - Ah!  Now I understand."  But do we?  Of
> course we don't.  What do you understand?  It's a buzzword that tells
> us exactly nothing except that what happened, happened.  Now, surely we
> could have deduced that without natural selection.  I'm not denying the
> concept _per se_.  Of course selection occurs.  But the real question
> is why one thing should be selected and not another.
> 
> I don't get it.  You guys all KNOW this.  I'n not telling you one
> single thing that you don't already know.  Yet this pretense of the
> idea that natural selection means something or tells us something, is
> maintained.  Why?  Why do you do it?

Natural selection IS being intensively studied.  Studies of predation,
parasitism, preferred foods and their nutritional values, quantitizing
factors of reproductive success, and a host of other things illustrate
the factors that compose and give direction to natural selection.

> I didn't forget.  But just how likely does it seem to you that two
> independent lines of development from a smooth-brained ancestor with no
> convolutions, to two different animals with convolutions, will result
> in EXACTLY the same number of fissures, and that all 14 will be in
> corresponding locations?  I confess skepticism (that healthy quality so
> highly touted).

The neocortex of all mammals is convoluted.  Which smooth-brained ancestor
are you talking about?  And what makes you think it was smooth brained?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh