Telic Thoughts is an independent blog about intelligent design.


Archive for the 'Evolutionary Psychology' Category

America The Stupid

Posted in Evolutionary Psychology, History, Humor, Media, Religion, School on February 16th, 2008 by Joy

The Books section of the weekend New York Times offers this article:
Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

It begins…

A popular video on YouTube shows Kellie Pickler, the adorable platinum blonde from "American Idol," appearing on the Fox game show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" during celebrity week. Selected from a third-grade geography curriculum, the $25,000 question asked: "Budapest is the capital of what European country?"

Ms. Pickler threw up both hands and looked at the large blackboard perplexed. "I thought Europe was a country," she said. Playing it safe, she chose to copy the answer offered by one of the genuine fifth graders: Hungary. "Hungry?" she said, eyes widening in disbelief. "That's a country? I've heard of Turkey. But Hungry? I've never heard of it."

Read the rest of this entry »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

23 Comments »

Crossing Stephen Pinker with Ann Landers

Posted in Evolutionary Psychology, Humor on September 19th, 2007 by MikeGene

From here:

I've been searching for a relationship for some time but I don't meet many men whom I find good-looking - and looks are important to me. I see many more attractive women than men. Do men have more choice when it comes to good-looking partners?

Y'gotta see Dr Luisa Dillner's answer:

Read the rest of this entry »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

2 Comments »

Pink and Blue

Posted in Evolutionary Psychology on August 31st, 2007 by MikeGene

From here:

A study in Current Biology reports some of the first conclusive evidence in support of the long-held notion that men and women differ when it comes to their favorite colors. Indeed, the researchers found that women really do prefer pink–or at least a redder shade of blue–than men do.

So how is this explained?

The explanation might go back to humans' hunter-gatherer days, when women–the primary gatherers–would have benefited from an ability to key in on ripe, red fruits.

"Evolution may have driven females to prefer reddish colors–reddish fruits, healthy, reddish faces," Hurlbert said. "Culture may exploit and compound this natural female preference."

C'mon, this is just a classic example of a "just-so" story. The only thing the researchers actually measured is the biological difference between male and females. And that's where the science ended. There is nothing in the study that indicates "evolution may have driven females to prefer reddish colors–reddish fruits, healthy, reddish faces." Don't believe me? Just watch the imagination go wild some more:

About the universal preference for blue, "I can only speculate," said Hurlbert. "I would favor evolutionary arguments again here. Going back to our 'savannah' days, we would have a natural preference for a clear blue sky, because it signaled good weather. Clear blue also signals a good water source."

Why in the world does there have to be an adaptive explanation that supposedly accounts for such color preferences?

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

12 Comments »

Sloan Reviews Dawkins

Posted in Evolutionary Psychology, Religion, Richard Dawkins on July 12th, 2007 by MikeGene

It's been four months since I posted an entry on Dawkins, so I decided that I better not disappoint any longer. Today, I bring you a truly thought-provoking review of Dawkins' book from biologist David Sloan Wilson. Sloan begins his lengthy review with:

When Dawkins' The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues.

and ends it with:

Time will tell where Dawkins sits on the bell curve of open-mindedness concerning group selection in general and religion in particular. At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.

For those of us interested in evolution and religion, I highly recommend the review to you (it provides balance to the religion-as-accident "theory" I discussed before). I will probably offer some brief comments, but wait until tomorrow so you can read the review without the filter of my words.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

53 Comments »

MacNeill: Is Religion Adaptive?

Posted in Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, Religion on March 26th, 2007 by Joy

Cornell lecturer in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Allen MacNeill has announced another summer course, this one entitled Evolution and Religion: Is Religion Adaptive? It looks to be fairly interesting, and of course has PZ all atither. Because the idea has been explored a little bit here in the thread Hard-Wired for God: Take 2, let me list below the 6 requirements for qualification as an evolutionary adaptation that MacNeill offers:

Read the rest of this entry »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

184 Comments »

Darwin Doesn't Like Ugly Women?

Posted in Evolutionary Psychology on August 1st, 2006 by MikeGene

From here:

HOLLYWOOD'S most beautiful couple, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, are in the grip of evolutionary forces that made it almost inevitable that their child would be a girl.

According to research, attractive parents are 26% more likely to have a daughter than a son as their first child. It is an inexorable process that has resulted in women becoming increasingly more attractive than men.

This is because of differing "evolutionary strategies" that each sex has adopted to survive, claim researchers at the London School of Economics.

While reproductive success for males depends largely on the status of the father (as sons from higher-status families inherit their position and are in turn able to protect and invest in their offspring), daughters' reproductive successes mostly depend on their youth and attractiveness. "We have shown two things," said Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, who led the research. "Beautiful parents have more daughters than ugly parents, because physical attractiveness is heritable and because daughters benefit from attractiveness more than sons.

Researchers rated their beauty according to height, weight and apparent age, all factors that can be used to judge basic attraction levels without subjective viewpoints.

Yes, but did they factor in hunger? :mrgreen:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

6 Comments »

Evo-Pysch Break Throughs

Posted in Evolutionary Psychology on July 28th, 2006 by MikeGene

Effectively, the new theory–"selective investment theory"–presents a striking alternative to traditional self-interest theories of close relationships that tend to emphasize what individuals get from others, not what they give.

"Viewed through the lens of selective investment theory," Stephanie Brown said, "the fabric of close relationships appears different. Sacrifice becomes a characteristic feature of healthy, enduring relationships rather than aberrant, inexplicable, or diagnostic of pathology".

What makes selective investment theory distinctive is not only its focus on high-cost altruism, but also its premise that "selfish genes" are ultimately responsible for selfless, other-directed behavior. -Here

If you say ID theory, that's evidence that you don't understand what theory is and thus you don't understand science. If you say selective investment theory, that's a new theory in science. That new, fruitful field of evo-psych keeps coming up with new theories.

Men who have skipped lunch find larger women more attractive than their slimmer counterparts, new research has revealed.

A team of psychologists established that men who are hungry are attracted to plumper women, but the researchers found that, once they had eaten, men's taste in women reverted to those with slimmer figures.

The academics suggest the phenomenon arises from primeval associations between larger body sizes and health and survival. -Here

Why be so PC about this? This is powerful evo-psych evidence that selection shaped us to be cannibals.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

10 Comments »

The evolution of Rapid Fire Syndrome

Posted in Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, Humor on May 17th, 2006 by Krauze

In response to my list of 5 signs you might be an intelligent design critic, Mark Nutter has put together a 45-item long You may be an intelligent design supporter if"¦ list. Item 29 goes:

You blame the theory of evolution for war, rape, the Holocaust, bestiality, racism, the high cost of gasoline, and the fact that you never seem to notice that the toilet paper roll is empty until after it's too late.

While it's clear that the theory of evolution cannot be blamed for any of those things, there might be reasons for blaming evolution itself for them. Take the fact that you never seem to notice that the toilet paper roll is empty until after it's too late. If this is a trait in humans, then evolution must have created it, right? This insight prompted me to provide an explanation for the evolution of this trait, which I'll present below, freshly pulled out of my… no, let's not go there.

Read the rest of this entry »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

15 Comments »

Science Made Easy

Posted in Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, Humor, Science on May 23rd, 2005 by MikeGene

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has been a little too fruitful lately. A couple years back, Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer argued that rape is an adaptation. When evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne criticized their thesis, Thornhill labeled him as an "anti-evolution critic."

Well, there is a new discovery on the block. This time, evolutionary psychologist David Buss, from the University of Texas, argues that murder is also an adaptation.

Murder could be traced back to the "ruthless evolutionary drive to reproduce", he said.

Thousands of years ago killing an enemy would boost a man's social status and improve his chances of attracting a mate, the book argued.

Murderers' genes won the evolutionary battle over those of their victims and the instinct to kill now lies dormant in all of us, Prof Buss argued.

I don't want to comment on Buss's argument as I have not read the book. Nevertheless, since it is so easy to create a new field of scientific exploration about human behavior using Darwin's theory, I am inspired to try my hand at it.

Read the rest of this entry »

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • StumbleUpon
  • YahooMyWeb
  • del.icio.us

25 Comments »

  • You are currently browsing the archives for the Evolutionary Psychology category.

  • Featured Books

    The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies

  • The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene


  • Pages

    • About Us
    • Afon
    • bipod
    • Bradford
    • Deuce
    • Guts
    • Joy
    • Krauze
    • macht
    • Steve Petermann
  • Categories

    • Animal Rights Extremism (39)
    • Approaches (3)
    • Bioethics (24)
    • Biology (153)
    • Brain (30)
    • Bunny Fright Week (7)
    • Cell (15)
    • Computer Science (6)
    • Convergent Evolution (2)
    • Creationism (46)
    • Design Inferences (20)
    • DNA Repair (2)
    • Engineering (11)
    • Eugenics (22)
    • Evidence (12)
    • Evo-Devo (11)
    • Evolution (229)
    • Evolutionary Psychology (9)
    • Fine-tuning (5)
    • Friday Quote (33)
    • Front-loading (129)
    • Gene's Gems (2)
    • Guest Post (12)
    • Hating Mike (1)
    • Henry Rollins Award (3)
    • History (26)
    • Hoax (1)
    • Humor (171)
    • Intelligent Design (476)
    • Irreducible Complexity (20)
    • Just For Fun (12)
    • Media (91)
    • Meeting of Minds (7)
    • Memory Hole (1)
    • Metatalk (30)
    • MikeGenes World (15)
    • Morality (1)
    • Nanotechnology (2)
    • Nature (16)
    • Nature of Science (93)
    • Origin of Life (39)
    • Paul Mirecki (16)
    • Peer Review (11)
    • Philosophy (65)
    • Philosophy of Mind (17)
    • Post-Wedge World (20)
    • Proteins (4)
    • Quote Mining (9)
    • Random Stuff (116)
    • Religion (134)
    • Repost (34)
    • Richard Dawkins (86)
    • RNA (5)
    • School (54)
    • Science (135)
    • Shoddy Science (10)
    • Stereotypes (4)
    • The Critics (213)
    • The Debate (296)
    • The Design Matrix (68)
    • The Duck (6)
    • The New Atheists (58)
    • The Rabbit (231)
    • Threatiness (84)
  • Evolution

    • Anthropology Weblog
    • Charles Darwin on the web
    • Darwin@home
    • Genetic Code Evolution
    • Stephen Jay Gould Archive
    • The Loom
    • Tree of Life
    • Was Darwin Wrong?
  • blogroll

    • Bilbo’s Blog
    • ID and Theology
    • Intelligently Sequenced
    • The Design Matrix
    • The Design Matrix Facebook Group
  • Teleology

    • Akilli Tasarim
    • An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution
    • ARN Board
    • Darwinian Fundamentalism
    • Darwiniana
    • Dasafiando a Nomenklatura Cientifica
    • Design Inteligente
    • Evolution Engineered
    • Evolution News & Views
    • Evolution Oriented
    • Evolution und Schöpfung
    • Exiled from Groggs
    • He Lives
    • ICON-RIDS
    • ID the Future
    • ID.plus
    • Intelligent Reasoning
    • ISCID EoSaP
    • Michael Behe’s Blog
    • Post-Darwinist
    • Real Physics
    • Reality Cheque
    • ResearchID.org
    • Robin Collins
    • Steve Jones
    • TeleoLogic
    • Telic Meme
    • The American Scientific Affiliation
    • The Creation of an Evolutionist
    • Thought Provoker
    • Uncommon Descent
    • withallyourmind.net
    • Wonders For Oyarsa
  • People With Interesting Ideas

    • Albert de Roos
    • Biosemiotics
    • Cell Intelligence
    • Darwin or Design
    • James Shapiro
    • Michael Syvanen
    • Panspermia
    • Paul Davies
  • Anti-Teleology

    • Center for Naturalism
    • Kenneth Miller
    • NCSE
    • Pharyngula
    • Richard Dawkins
    • Talk Reason
    • Talk.Origins Archive
    • The Brights
    • The Panda’s Thumb
    • The Scientific Fundamentalist
  • Archives

    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • September 2006
    • August 2006
    • July 2006
    • June 2006
    • May 2006
    • April 2006
    • March 2006
    • February 2006
    • January 2006
    • December 2005
    • November 2005
    • October 2005
    • September 2005
    • August 2005
    • July 2005
    • June 2005
    • May 2005
    • Meta

      • Register
      • Log in

Telic Thoughts is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).