Darwin was wrong
January 13, 2013 | James Kohl
NYT Opinion By DAN SLATER Published: January 12, 2013
Darwin Was Wrong About Dating
Excerpt: “One of the earliest critics of this kind of thinking was Stephen Jay Gould. He wrote in 1997 that parental investment theory “will not explain the full panoply of supposed sexual differences so dear to pop psychology.” Mr. Gould felt that the field had become overrun with “ultra-Darwinians,” and that evolutionary psychology would be a more fruitful science if it didn’t limit itself “to the blinkered view” that evolutionary explanations accounted for every difference.”
My comment: Clearly, this “blinkered view” explains nothing because nothing about the adaptive evoluti0n of species from microbes to man makes sense except in the light of biology. It is also true that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” But what we keep seeing are are attempts by evolutionary psychologists to skip the biology and leave us with explanations via theories that make no sense without theistic evolution. You start with a cell to get to adaptively evolved multicellular organisms with brains and culture. You don’t start with a theory or without a definition of what life that begets other life is. Life, for example, is nutrient chemical- dependent and life that begets other life is pheromone-controlled.
My comment to the NYT’s site:
Evolutionary theory explains nothing. For explanations, evolutionary psychologists and other theorists must examine what’s currently known about the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization required to link sensory cause to epigenetic effects and their affects on behavior.
Adaptive evolution occurs via the epigenetic effects of nutrients, which are required for cell survival. Nutrient chemical-dependent reproduction is pheromone-controlled in species from microbes to man. This fact establishes the ecological basis (food) of pheromone-controlled social niche construction that leads to neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction.
The molecular biology common to each level of niche construction is responsible for our ability to think about cause and effect in sexual interactions. Yeast species sexually interact, for example. There is even a ‘mating’ locus of genes that’s linked to nutrient chemical-dependent pheromone-controlled sexual or asexual reproduction and to the earliest form of sexual orientation.
Unicellular organisms are obviously capable of making nutrient chemical-dependent choices for reproductive fitness that are adaptive across the evolutionary continuum. That fact should help to explain our adaptively evolved food preferences and mate preferences. The explanations do not come from theory; they come from the common knowledge that sexual behavior is nutrient chemical-dependent and pheromone-controlled in all species.