When scientist Tom Tombaugh quit the Carriertom Into-Wishen Research Institute, it was said that he just felt lonesome for like-minded companionship. He would sit in the lunchroom and long for intelligent discussion on some learned matter of science, for example, how boisterous belching or earth-splitting flatulence evolved over the eons, since our ancestors who didn‘t carry on in that way failed to scare away predators and were thus eaten. Alas, his religious lunch mates would attribute it all to Adam and Eve and our fall into sin!
That was a joke. Evolutionists have not yet attributed flatulence to survival of the fittest.
But if anyone believed the report, they can be forgiven. Assertions only slightly less asinine are routinely dispensed from on high, and are eagerly lapped up by us, the ignorant masses.
For example, can you spot a shapely woman two counties away? Where does that knack come from? Naturally, from your cavemen ancestors! For when you drool over a pretty girl, you're simply responding to evolutionary mathematics embedded in our very genes. You unconsciously calculate the waist hip ratio! 0.7 is what you're looking for, and diversely weighted woman such as Marilyn Monroe, Twiggy, Sophia Loren, and Kate Moss have all sported that ratio. (Guys should be 0.9) It turns out that women of the golden ratio are healthier, more fertile, and they have convenient shelves for carrying babies. Natural selection favors them. A 1:1 woman, for example, will drop all her babies and kill them, which impedes species survival. How this perfect ratio gets locked in our heads and converted to notions of "attractiveness" I've not yet heard, but evolutionary psychologists are convinced that it does.
Consider another example. Toward the end of the twentieth century, career types were disheartened to realize they couldn't hold a marriage together to save their lives. But they didn't want to be disheartened, they wanted to feel good about themselves. So it became essential to come up with a explanation and, above all things, that explanation had to totally absolve them from responsibly, blame or guilt....all antiquated notions unfit for modern humans. Again, the cavemen delivered!
You see, those cavemen had to spread their seed if they wanted to win the survival game, so it was no good staying in one relationship. You had to move on! But you'd better not move on too quick. No, you have to hang around four years, to ensure that your toddlers don't get eaten by predators! After that, the woman can ensure it while you go in quest of the golden waist hip ratio. Again, the evolutionary psychologists, who are taken seriously and not laughed off the planet as they ought to be, assert that this behavior got locked into our genes, to be passed on to progeny.
I don't much care for this notion, but recent discoveries seem to support it. Out in the wilds somewhere, anthropologists have recently unearthed fossils of Yabbadabba Man, a boring ancestor if ever there was one. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble are thought to be members of this species. They had one or two kids apiece and just hung around afterwards plunked in front of the TV, until even their own wives got fed up with them and tossed them out on their ear, though alas, too late in life for them to start anew and spread their seed. As you might expect, that bunch died out.
Then there was Slambang Man, another recent find. These Romeos were forever moving on in search of shapelier babes. They each had hundreds, maybe thousands of kids, but they left them all to predators so they could go out carousing, and every last one of them was eaten. This species, too, died out, though they are eternally reborn with each new generation.
Of all branches of science, evolutionary psychology seems the most ridiculous. Is there any proof to support it's conclusions? Or is it not simply the case that its advocates have already accepted evolution as the rock solid unquestionable base from which to work. and are determined to link every eccentricity of human behavior to that base? While the layman can usually follow their reasoning, is it not pure speculation on their part?