I¹m reading a tremendous book on how creationists attack evolution and why those attacks are faulty, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero. (Hint: Often those attacks are based on the understanding of evolutionary processes several decades ago, not accounting for multiple findings that have refined theories.)
What I particularly like about it is that I¹m learning what has occurred in the past 30 years since I took high school biology (in Louisiana, which means I received a poor version, probably stripped of content about Darwin, etc.). It clears up some of the issues discussed in some of our posts about this, thought it is definitely not a evolutionary psychology text. Maybe it would be a good addition to a summer reading list. -- Paul Bernhardt Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD, USA On 4/27/09 9:43 AM, "Pollak, Edward" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Michael Britt wrote, "If I understand it right, some people are concerned > about this > perspective because, for example, even though animals demonstrate a > behavior that is in some way similar to what humans do doesn't mean > that the reason animals show this behavior (which is probably related > to increasing species' survival) is the same reason humans do it." > > You have one thing completely wrong, Michael. Evolution by natural selection > has nothing to do "increasing species' survival." Natural selection acts to > increase or decrease the frequency of genes. It does so by acting on the > survival and reproduction of individuals and their close kin. A minority > opinion suggests it act on groups of unrelated kin. But to my knowledge, no > one seriously suggests that natural selection acts on species. Besides, > "species" is a somewhat arbitrary concept, a scientific attempt to use a > binomial system to describe a continuous world. > This notion of natural selection favoring "survival of the species" is, IMO, > one of the most ubiquitous and persistent misconceptions in the modern history > of science. (The best treatment of this topic I've ever seen is Dawkins' "The > Selfish Gene.") > > Another frequent complaint/misconception of anti-evolutionary psychology types > is that if a trait is heritable it is immutable. This, of course, is utter > nonsense. There is a large number of examples of the members of numerous > species altering their behavior (and even of their basic social structure) in > response to altered environmental conditions. Just as the ability to learn a > specific thing is a heritable trait (ala Garcia), so too is the ability to > alter other behaviors (e.g., reproductive strategy) in response to > environmental changes. Humans are not unique in this regard. > > Ed > > > > Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. > Department of Psychology > West Chester University of Pennsylvania > http://home.comcast.net/~epollak > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, bluegrass fiddler and > herpetoculturist...... in approximate order of importance. > > Subject: From: Michael Britt <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:21:20 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 12 > > David Buss wrote a very good summary of the main ideas and some of the > recent research in the area of evolutionary psychology in the most > recent edition of American Psychologist (The Great Struggles of Life, > February-March 2009). It's really quite an interesting article and > since I've received a number of emails asking me about evolutionary > psychology I thought I would discuss the article in an upcoming > podcast. In doing this I don't really want to enter into the debate > over religion vs. science (though in some ways I guess it's going to > be unavoidable). I do, however, want to make sure I understand the > concerns/criticisms/uneasiness some people have with this area of > psychology. > > If I understand it right, some people are concerned about this > perspective because, for example, even though animals demonstrate a > behavior that is in some way similar to what humans do doesn't mean > that the reason animals show this behavior (which is probably related > to increasing species' survival) is the same reason humans do it. We > shouldn't jump to an evolutionary psychology explanation for every > behavior we see. Also, even if the behavior can be shown to > evolutionary roots, there may be a concern that some people might use > this as an "excuse" to continue doing something that we, as > intelligent and caring beings, should be able to discipline ourselves > not to do. If I understand these two positions correctly then I > think these are valid points. Feel free to expand on this if I'm not > getting it correctly. > > What are some of the other reasons people criticize, or are > uncomfortable, with this perspective (aside from the religious issue)? > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
