Friday, December 04, 2009

Evolutionary Explanations

There's plenty of science in biology. Cladistics, measurements of the rate of evolution in the fossil and genomic records, the double hierachy, so on and so forth. You know, those parts of biology nobody ever hears about. There is precisely ZERO science in those parts of biology accessible to and proselytized to the mainstream public.

Ever wonder what an "Evolutionary Explanation" is technically? How biologists come up with them, work with them and test them? What their methodology is? Well it's pretty simple. When you strip out all the crap it boils down to that they IMAGINE what advantages a feature could have conferred way back in the past. Does this sound like mystical voudoun yet? The kind of "there are no coincidences in life" crap religionists specialize in putting out? If you've been paying attention, it should.

Let's take a look at the "evolutionary explanation" for visible breasts. For a long time biologists were convinced that visible breasts in human females developed due to sexual selection. Yeah, because for some magical reason, it happened in humans but not in any other animal species. Sounds convincing innit? But let's not let logic get in the way of biology! This is Serious Business here. This is fucking Academia damnit. You don't get to bring no logic in thar biology unless you have a P.H.D!

Then as if the biology profession were saved by Jeezus, they (or some of them anyways) cottoned on to the idea that homo sapiens, uniquely among animal species, doesn't have muzzles. And with infants' faces being crushed to a female's chest on a regular basis, they run the risk of being asphyxiated. The solution to that was big breasts to let the infant live and breathe. Aha! Surely life and death of infants provides a much stronger selection pressure than some "sexual selection" claptrap? You know, just IMAGINE it and you'll KNOW it's true. That's how science works innit? On IMAGINATION!

Of course, if biology were science then they would have heard of William of Ockham's famous razor. They would have noted a few psychological FACTS such as,

  1. infants draw comfort from breastfeeding
  2. breasts are imprinted as sources of comfort deep in the human psyche -- if blankets can be so imprinted just because they're soft, imagine the double whammy that comes from being soft and nourishing?
  3. adults are sexually drawn to sources of comfort as evidenced by the recent emergence of plushie fetishists
  4. an infant would judge the size of a breast compared to the size of their head
  5. people's perceptions of size don't make any allowances for growing up -- it's why your childhood bed seems so small after growing up

All of these are measurable, verifiable facts. Facts we can measure right now, today, and don't have to rely on our imaginations to make up. Add them all up together and what do you get? You get that there's more than sufficient reason for (ever-growing) big breasts to have evolved by accident. And if biologists were real scientists, as opposed to hopeless hacks, they would have left it at that.

But that's not all! You see, "evolutionary explanations" are bad enough. Try to wrap your mind around the cluster-fuck that is "evolutionary psychology". Yeah because that's all we needed. It's not enough to have one field that's a pseudo-scientific proto-science. No no, it's far better to cross it with another field that's pure verified pseudo-scientific proto-science. Yeah. That makes the pseudo-science synergize together until it's totally awesome. Paradigm shift baby!

No wait, I'm not done yet. Behold the total awesomeness that is evolutionary moral psychology. Yeah, because crossing TWO pseudo-scientific fields ruled by worthless hacks just wasn't enough. THREE is better! How the fuck do these people manage to breathe? Let alone eat and breed. Seriously.

Why are they so retarded? It's as I keep saying, they're magical thinkers. They're not analytic so they lack even the capacity to reason abstractly. And logic is an abstraction. Now you might think that magical thinkers get attracted to all fields of academe equally but that's not true. They get preferentially attracted to the fuzzy fields by a wide margin. And biology? Whoa.

The field of biology is a mass of contradictions because biology itself (ie, DNA and proteins) is nothing but a mass of arbitrary, contradictory, ad hoc crap. (Not to mention that it's non-linear as all hell so you actually cannot apply reductionism to it if you are going to be at all logical. The number one tool in the logic toolbox just doesn't work and even reaching for it is a horrible horrible idea.) So biology doesn't just attract wooly and fuzzy thinkers, it actively repels logical thinkers. A logical biologist would be suicidally depressed and on the verge of losing their sanity. And THAT is a neat logical explanation for why biologists came up with the ridiculous notion of Evolutionary Moral Psychology.

Next up, you thought that physicists were immune from braindead idiocy? Ha! Marvel at physicists' own special brand of retardation.

2 comments:

Meo De said...

I came across this searching for something else. I'll just leave my thoughts anyway.

While I am a skeptic of evolutionary biology myself, I believe that there are many topics or applications of biology which are not non-linear (double negative, I know). For example, learning of a certain illness, you learn how aberrations at the molecular level affect a protein, whose malformation may affect a cellular process, and so on until the aberration symptomatically manifests itself in the human (on a much larger scale). This is how illnesses are diagnosed, drugs are developed, etc.

The study of biology is based on SCIENTIFIC observation, but it often involves more analytic fields, such as chemistry or physics. I don't think biology is contradictory. Perhaps the conclusions drawn of biology in fields such as evolutionary biology are.

Of course I, not having studied any field in biology or philosophy yet, may not know entirely of what I speak. I study biochemistry this coming fall.

Richard Kulisz said...

HAHAHA. Of course in ANY system, especially any randomly evolved system, there will be parts of the system that ARE linear. And naturally, those are the parts of the system that are understood FIRST.

Well, biologists have had several centuries to understand biology and ecology and medicine. That's how we know that the action of most poisons is largely linear to the dose, for example. Assuming this is even true since I can't think of anything that's really linear in biology.

But again, biology and medicine have had SEVERAL CENTURIES to figure this stuff out, to elucidate and clarify every single last thing that IS linear in biology. Which leaves what? Well, it leaves all the things that AREN'T linear!

Yes, reductionism worked. PAST TENSE. And now predictably it doesn't. Any idiot capable of logic (eg, an engineer) will testify that this is blatantly obvious. The reason biologists don't get it is because they're NOT capable of logic, and they are therefore SUB-idiots.

As for biology being contradictory, you will learn that it is soon enough. And be revolted by it. Or you will never learn it because your brain is incapable of detecting self-contradiction, being deficient. I could really care less either way. You will learn or you won't.