Here at Robert Murphy’s “Free Advice” blog, a post called – advisedly – Just-So Darwinism
Yes, it is true. I collect stupid theories (like the sexy baldy and the “big bazooms”) theory of evolution, the way some people collect ceramic busts of Elvis Presley, not because they admire them but because they are intrigued by the fact that anyone, anywhere would.
The biology of baldness is complex. Some theorists believe that it renders older men so unattractive that – rather than sowing additional wild oats – they are forced to spend more time with their families and so help their children to survive. But the myriad Becky Sharps in literature and history help to disprove that theory.
By having his hair transplant Mr Berlusconi has confused his potential partners. If they are gold-diggers, not romantics or libertines, the last thing they will desire is a hint of relentless wrinkly coition.
Terence Kealey is vice-chancellor of Buckingham University
It is a bad sign when an educated person emits this rubbish.
Years ago, I listened to a gynecologist explain during a panel discussion that hair provides sexual excitement, hence “evolution” retains pubic hair. Was she right? Wrong?
This much I know is true: Pop Darwinism is vastly more ridiculous than the real kind. What is interesting is that so few serious Darwinists wish to cut the pop science loose.
What is the down side for serious Darwinists to just cutting the “evolutionary psychology” psychodrama loose, and focusing on what real science can say about evolution?
You must go to Uncommon Descent and register to comment.
Truth in Advertising: I write the Deprogram column for Salvo. I don’t deal only in ID; I often deprogram people from health nut moments.
Also just up at The Post-Darwinist:
Key scientist on the question of “Is taxonomydying“?
Podcasts and a reading from interesting blogs: Perfection in biology? And new podcasts
Quantum computing: US to axe work?