"Peter F"  wrote


> > Would anybody like to dispute this supposition?

> Sorry, but from my position of overviewing (and providing/offering my simple
> supplementary 'Evolution Philosophical/Theoretical' umbrella-terminological
> understanding of) how we evolved, I don't see that there exist (or even
> _can_ exist) any competing (and apparently valid) hypothesis. %-]

I agree.  But then I'm prejudiced.  

> However, I am sure there are plenty of pundits who *like* (and are terribly
> inclined) to dispute your supposition anyway! :-)

So far the disputes have not amounted to much more than, "this 
different therefore it must be ignored."  

> If one allow oneself to think of all the selection pressure involved in how
> we evolved, as being a puzzle, all these pieces (in your post) - including
> your "seasonal dessication and communal territorialism"
piece - are needed
> on the way towards forming the *approximately total* picture (of all the
> evolutionary pressures involved).

Right.  The problem with selling this theory is that, as you 
indicate, my audience must understand the puzzle.  And to 
understand the puzzle one must have a relatively sophisticated 
understanding of evolutionary theory, ecology, paleontology, 
and, maybe most importantly of all, how all of the above relate 
to each other.  Without this understanding one cannot 
effectively refute competing hypotheses and arrive at an 
understanding of the "puzzle."  

Currently there is a tremendous amount of superstitious thinking 
in all of the fields that involve evolutionary theory.  A good 
example of this superstition, and one that my hypothesis of 
human evolution is a big victim, is this notion that group 
selection is not possible.  Now, if anybody was to take a 
scientific approach to this issue and attempt to prove--once and 
for all--that group selection is impossible they would find that 
they could not do so.  But this never happens.  Instead they find 
it easier to make dogmatic assertions about NS and employ phoney 
algebra to create the illusion they are being definitive, 
concise, and scientific when, in actuality, they are doing little 
more than allowing their poorly considered (and never explicated) 
assumptions lead them to inevitable conclusion.  

(Another good example is the linguistic and logcical gymnastics 
of my opponents in the threads in this NG involving genetic drift.  
It is apparent that they would consider just about anything but 
the possibility that genetic drift is mistaken.)

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/5/03 3:11:45 PM