🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1i5gf2INN7ea@shelley.u.washington.edu>, jespah@carson.u.washington.edu (Kathleen Hunt) writes:
|> 
|> 6. Individual Recognition
|> Zebras have individually distinct stripes, so these social animals may
|> be able to recognize individuals by stripes.  I imagine this might be one
|> function of stripes, but not the function they originally evolved for.
|> (teleologically speaking. Of course stripes only evolved because of some
|> increase in fitness enjoyed by zebras with stripes, not with any goal in 
|> mind...let's nip that "Evolution Is Not Goal Oriented" flame war in the bud...)

But this does provide a good example of why teleonomic (*not* teleologic) language
is useful in describing evolution.  Let's try to recast the above without using
teleonomic language:
	  I imagine this might be one function of stripes, but not the function
	  that provided the original fitness increase that caused the stripes
	  to evolve.

Blech - a doubly embedded subordinate clause.  This sort of locution is hardly
conducive to clear communication.

[For a description of the distinction between teleonomic and teleologic, see
"Towards a New Philosophy of Biology" by Ernst Mayr].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com