0
0

The ideological opposition to biological truth | Why Evolution Is True (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)

hauntedchippy が 投稿

全 9 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]mrsamsa 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

There's a great rebuttal to this piece here.

[–]hauntedchippy[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Neither great nor a rebuttal.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/i-get-pushback-on-the-sexual-selection-theory-for-sexual-dimorphism/

[–]mrsamsa 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

But Coyne hasn't responded to the criticism, he's just commenting on why he thinks his sexual selection theory is true.

[–]hauntedchippy[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's not his theory of sexual selection anymore than it's his theory of evolution by natural selection. It's a very common theory (first put forward by Darwin) on how the sexual dimorphism in humans arose and stays maintained. As listed in the original post the theory made several testable predictions that were later observed. Something that the various oppositional ideas have not done (or could possibly do).

I’ll respond to her hypothesis tomorrow (she calls mine a “story,” a snarky way of denigrating it since there’s ample evidence supporting the sexual selection hypothesis),

I eagerly await a more thorough takedown (postponed until Thursday unfortunately) but until then we have a summary of the complaint (against Dunsworth herself, not the glorified blogger you linked above who did no work)

Finally data on the nature and traits that are sexually dimorphic in humans have, as noted above, been predicted by the sexual-selection hypothesis but not by Dunsworth’s “growth and reproduction tradeoff hypothesis.” So not only is her hypothesis contradicted by data already known, but is countered by many facts about sexual dimorphism in body size, not only in humans, but also in our primate relatives and other animals. Comparing the sexual selection theory with the tradeoff story, it’s clear that the former is the best explanation for the facts.

Once again, the blank-slaters still have to contend with the fact that behavioural sexual dimorphism exists in uncountable other species besides our own and as far as I am aware there is no Gorilla Patriarchy.

EDIT: Well thank Odin for time zones I guess

[–]mrsamsa 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's not his theory of sexual selection anymore than it's his theory of evolution by natural selection. It's a very common theory (first put forward by Darwin) on how the sexual dimorphism in humans arose and stays maintained. As listed in the original post the theory made several testable predictions that were later observed. Something that the various oppositional ideas have not done (or could possibly do).

Nobody is presenting an "oppositional theory", treating the criticism as if it were saying that there is no sexual dimorphism that could be caused by the processes he mentioned completely misses the point of the criticism.

Once again, the blank-slaters still have to contend with the fact that behavioural sexual dimorphism exists in uncountable other species besides our own and as far as I am aware there is no Gorilla Patriarchy.

The idea that you think blank slatism has any relevance here simply supports the original criticism of Coyne's arguments.

This is what I hate about laymen inserting their politics into defending fields like evolutionary psychology - nobody is arguing evolution doesn't occur. Nobody is arguing for blank slatism. The fact that there's never been a blank slate position in science should tell us that academic criticism of evo psych isn't based on a blank slate assumption.

The criticism is with the assumptions, approaches and methodology of evo psych. They can try to dodge it as much as they like by inventing straw opponents but the criticism will still be there.

EDIT: Well thank Odin for time zones I guess

And again he refuses the address the criticism.

[–]hauntedchippy[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nobody is presenting an "oppositional theory",

That is precisely what happened, did you read Dunsworth's post? Originally, Coyne presents and comments on the prevalent theory of human sexual selection as a response to a recent PZ post that misunderstands sexual selection and the only response to Coynes post is to criticise the very idea of sexual selection itself and offer up a completely infeasible alternative (women don't grow because they are too busy having children? What complete fiction) and one can only speculate as to why there is such a rush to push back at any indication that human behaviour may be sexually dimorphic. Dunsworth explicitly puts forward an oppositional theory to sexual selection being responsible for sexual dimorphism, which would be fine (genuinely) were it not for the fact that in order to be plausible it has to ignore or otherwise rubbish a substantial amount of data.

This is what I hate about laymen

Coyne? Who literally wrote the book on speciation?. Versus Jesse Singal? Who (after a quick google) appears to be no more than an egotist with a twitter account.

And again he refuses the address the criticism.

It could not be addressed more directly. He explicitly dissects Dunsworth's alternative idea (concocted to challenge the theory that sexual selection can in anyway explain the sexual dimorphism of human beings) based on no more than observable and well documented evidence alone. People who reject/ignore evidence are usually the ones guilty of injecting the politics (cf climate change). That some human behaviours can be explained as a result of evolution terrifies some people (because then where does individual responsibility go?) as evident from reading the comment section of the original PZ piece. What's true however, has no bearing on an individuals preferred philosophy (cf Auguste Comte).

[–]mrsamsa 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody is presenting an "oppositional theory",

That is precisely what happened, did you read Dunsworth's post?

I did. Her argument was against an approach to evo psych, not an attempt to come up with a rigorous alternative theory to that specific claim.

This is what I hate about laymen

Coyne? Who literally wrote the book on speciation?. Versus Jesse Singal? Who (after a quick google) appears to be no more than an egotist with a twitter account.

I was more talking about people on reddit and elsewhere that talk about the problems with "blank slatists" but yes, Coyne is obviously a layman when it comes to evo psych - he's no more qualified than Singal.

It could not be addressed more directly. He explicitly dissects Dunsworth's alternative idea (concocted to challenge the theory that sexual selection can in anyway explain the sexual dimorphism of human beings) based on no more than observable and well documented evidence alone.

The criticism isn't that his argument about sexual dimorphism is wrong.

People who reject/ignore evidence are usually the ones guilty of injecting the politics (cf climate change).

Indeed and that's what Coyne is obviously doing.

That some human behaviours can be explained as a result of evolution terrifies some people (because then where does individual responsibility go?) as evident from reading the comment section of the original PZ piece.

But again, nobody is disagreeing that evolution is true or that it affects things like our psychology.

You're doing exactly what the criticism of Coyne argues that people do. Instead of addressing the criticism they fall back on some imagined enemy that supposedly denies evolution.

I don't see what value or use there is in making things up like that.

[–]Snugglerific 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That post at least kinda sorta provides evidence. But he's completely wrong on studies of violence as well as, well, citing Buss. Also, I love this:

As I noted in part I of this response, neither Singal nor Dunsworth appreciated that I have a long published history of criticizing “just-so” stories in evolutionary psychology.

...

see Steve Pinker’s book The Blank Slate

[–]Snugglerific 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh man, Coyne never stops, does he?

We get the usual vague things that the commies are allegedly denying:

the insistence that race doesn’t exist (and before you accuse me of saying that races do exist, read about what I’ve written here before: the issue is complex)

I read it, it's still dumb.

that there are no evolutionarily-based innate (e.g., genetically based) behavioral or psychological differences between ethnic groups

What is this supposed to mean -- Jews are adapted to be accountants?

that there are no such differences, either, between males and females within humans.

Does anyone actually believe this? Sex hormones are a thing, sure. So...?

Well, I’m not an expert on testosterone, but what I do know is that levels of that hormone are not only correlated with aggression within and among the sexes, but that injecting it into both men and women also makes their behavior and psychology more aggressive. Thus the correlation at least partly reflects causation.

Only half-true -- the effects of injected testosterone don't have a 1:1 relationship with aggression. Depending on the context it may increase pro-social behavior.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/41/11633.abstract

males, who have cheap gametes, must compete for females who have expensive gametes and invest more in reproduction. And that is why, in study after study in humans, male sexual behavior shows promiscuous mating, while females are more selective.

This hasn't actually been demonstrated to apply to humans universally.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403194

All this is to say that body size is a proxy for behavior in our own group—primates—and that body size correlates with behavior: sexual behavior. To deny that the differences between human males and females in size and strength are evolved is to deny at the same time that differences in behavior between males and females is evolved. Only the blinkered ideologue would do that. Sadly, these ideologues continue to promote antiscientific ideas on the Internet.

This doesn't really address the relevance of the analogies. Humans are most closely related to chimps and bonobos, and sexual dimorphism decreased over the course of human evolution.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/667605

see Steve Pinker’s book The Blank Slate

Lel

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/making-hay-with-straw-men