> >> Evolutionary psychology states that *every* human psychological trait >> is either the result of direct selection or a side effect of direct >> selection. (With a bit of possibility of something being fixed due to >> random genetic drift.) > > > This is arguing from a conclusion. The conclusion is that > everything that > exists in living organisms arose via evolution, therefore everything > has an > evolutionary explanation.
Well, everything that we understand so far has an evolutionary explanation, so it's a fair step to look first at evolutionary explanations. If one proves to be unsatisfying, then it will be discarded. > I'll certainly allow that it *may* be true, but > it certainly isn't proved -- our understanding of evolution is far > from > complete. Yours may be - that doesn't mean others don't have a far better grasp... > Furthermore, I think pure Darwinian explanations are generally > wrong. Good, 'cause so do most biologists. That's why the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and more recently other leaps in evolutionary theory, have prevailed. > Everything doesn't arise from competition No, but competition does provide much of the direction. > and we have mathematics > (complexity) that demonstrates that, or at least very strongly > suggests that > Darwinian models are substantially incomplete. Which particular models are you thinking of? > > > Ouch. Though I love the concept of a meme, it is at best vaguely > defined. > Clever, but not obviously useful, at least to me. So it's very > little help > to me to postulate that religions are memes. There we agree. I happen to think religion is an emergent phenomenon. Charlie _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
