home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!tdat!tools3!swf
- From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
- Newsgroups: sci.bio
- Subject: Re: why (evolutionarily) are zebras striped?
- Message-ID: <1687@tdat.teradata.COM>
- Date: 4 Jan 93 20:18:33 GMT
- References: <1992Dec31.204015.18922@husc3.harvard.edu> <crystal.725914988@glia> <1JAN199320283193@utkvx3.utk.edu> <1i5gf2INN7ea@shelley.u.washington.edu>
- Sender: news@tdat.teradata.COM
- Distribution: usa
- Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
- Lines: 27
-
- 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
-