Ah, the very outraged critiques by people who do not understand what he is talking about that I warned of. Read the article. Chris ===============
Jim Dougan wrote: > > > At 11:53 AM 11/22/2007, you wrote: >> "roughly, he argues that nature can't prospectively "see" the kinds >> of things that we retrospectively typically say are being "selected >> for." " > > Seriously, does any respected biologist hold such a teleological view > of selection? Talk about a straw man.... > > Natural selection has four parts: > > 1) Random variation occurs > 2) Some variations confer selective advantages > 3) Those organisms with the advantages have more offspring survive to > reproductive age (i.e., reproductive success) > 4) The advantageous variations are thus represented to a greater > degree in the next generation. Repeat. > > Nothing teleological there. > > If Fodor is really saying what you claim, then he apparently has no > understanding of evolution. > > -- Jim > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > ---
