Is this a science blog?
No! I endeavor to stay current on the scientific literature in certain fields related to topics I write about. Much of what I write and how I think is directly inspired by journal articles. However, I’m more interested in the application of knowledge and thinking about its implications in relation to the sphere of ideas.

“The naturalistic and moralistic fallacies are to be avoided by scientists in doing science or potentially interpreting science and the merits of scientific theories. They are not applicable anywhere else.

[ is] using science to derive moral and policy implications from someone else’s science.  And there is nothing wrong with using science, as long as it is not done by scientists themselves. There is nothing wrong with applied science, as long as you don’t confuse it with pure science.  It is the job of politicians and policy makers to use science and derive social policies from scientific findings.  It is their jobs to do so, just as much as it is the job of pure scientists like myself to stay away from any moral and political implications of their scientific conclusions.” – Satoshi Kanazawa, PhD. (note: this quote was originally in no way referencing, but the principle applies)


Put another way, academically certified science is too slow and we shouldn’t wait around for the Kafkaesque Philosophers of Science™, Ph.D. to give the rest of permission to think about things. Besides, much of science has been under the velvet jackboot of social science and its human nature nihilism since Darwin.

“I don’t oppose evolutionary psychology on principle. The evolutionary source of our behavior is a fascinating topic, and I’m convinced that the genetic influences are far stronger than, say, posited by anti-determinists like Dick Lewontin, Steve Rose, and Steve Gould.  Evolved adaptations are particularly likely to be found in sexual behavior, which is intimately connected with the real object of selection: the currency of reproduction.  I’m far closer in my views on this topic to Steve Pinker than to Steve Gould.  And there are many good studies in the field, so I don’t mean to tar the whole endeavor.

But, for crying out loud, let’s have the journalists and scientists show a little more responsibility when reporting on evolutionary psychology.  If there are problems with a study, describe them.  If an idea is pure speculation, say it.” – Jerry Coyne PhD., Professor of Ecology and Evolution. University of Chicago. Author of Why Evolution Is True

I’ve read Dr. Coyne’s book and he’s earned my respect (except when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about) as a result. As such, consider this my warning that many (but not all) of the ideas I express here are speculative.

Also… I update my views with new information. I have biases, but am not beholden to many beliefs. There are things I’ve written that I no longer agree with, but remain on the site. There are also things I’ve written hyperbolically or as devil’s advocate. Quoting me exposes you to implied risk… proceed with caution and/or contact me for verification.

Is cannibalism paleo?
I know what you’re thinking but, do not… I repeat… Do not dine on the vegetarians. But to answer your question, yes, cannibalism was practiced in the paleolithic… by Homo neanderthalensis a.k.a. Neanderthals. And they’re extinct. ‘Nuff said.

What connects the topics of health, business, and relationships?
Evolution. Health: Humans evolved eating and exercising in a certain way. Business: Humans evolved trading and sharing resources in groups. Relationships: Humans evolved um… through sex and relationships. Human bodies and brains evolved to be good at certain things, and not so good at others. The question is how to apply that to the modern world.

Why are you trying to ruin my life by taking away my bread, tortillas, and cupcakes?
You mean aside from the sadistic joy, right? Though qualitatively and quantitatively different, the principles are the same as my general recommendation to avoid crystal meth. There are implicit costs and benefits to every decision we make. I’m just making the health costs of grain consumption explicit.

Well that and gluten causes neurological and autoimmune disorders and you might not even know it.

Is it possible for religious folks to benefit from the insights from evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology?
This is about fifty implied questions packed into one. The short answer is: yes, of course. All religions are not imagined equally, but no particular philosophical framework is required to apply anything here in a proximate manner and benefit from such an application. However, those who believe the world is only 6,000 years old and/or that evolution is “only a theory” will not be able to take advantage of the ultimate explanations and logical framework provided by a deep understanding of evolutionary principles.

Evolvify ©2010 - 2024.


We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?