"but also empirical science itself."

How would you know? And since when did you care about protecting social sciences, since you believe they're all junk science at their core anyway?

As usual you have no idea what you're talking about. Stop reading creationist blogs. Natural selection isn't anywhere near sociology, economics, politics, or anything else. I have great familiarity with this because my own dissertation had to drop any usage of biological metaphors and any reference to an 'organic state'. Even if it were, there is nothing inherently 'unscientific' about it. You don't like anything that smacks of natural selection so you cry unscientific without bothering to explain why it is so. It's just part of your anti-science conspiracy theorizing.

As to the claim that religion has contributed to knowledge...
I would like to counter claim that cubism and atonal music has contributed to knowledge in much the same way... i.e. knowledge of our imagination... rather than knowledge in the much more usual sense - knowledge of reality - of the world in which we live. Piss Christ has similarly contributed to knowledge. This is not to say that art and music and literature and other aesthetic contributions to humanity have no value - not at all... it's just silly to say that once something is imagined, that it becomes Knowledge of Truth... which is how I read such claims.

The fact that people (many, not all by a long shot) enjoy Mozart is interesting... and, more to the point, the fact that tonal music is much more widely loved than atonal music is interesting - and may mean something - but to therefore conclude that "Beauty" is some sort of universal absolute quality is a leap. What is more interesting to me is that: 1) concepts of beauty are *not* universal - even though some are widely shared, 2) the question of why we appreciate aesthetics in general... Simply because we enjoy something does not automatically mean that there is some eternal, absolute, universal quality of beauty being expressed in that thing we are enjoying (we are forgetting ourselves in that logical leap). I enjoy the relief in going to the bathroom... it does not follow that going to the bathroom is beautiful. I enjoy a peanut butter sandwich... many people do... but it would be silly to suggest that a peanut butter sandwich therefore expresses eternal, universal, absolute beauty. No - it tastes good - probably because it has a balance of ingredients that my body finds appealing... because it is nutritious (or mimics other nutritious foods).

Surely if we could poll animals on the topic, we would find that cattle find a grassy meadow to be beautiful (as do we commonly - which is not surprising), but would find a pile of pebbles on a field of ice to be completely unappealing. A penguin, on the other hand, would be very excited about the pebbles and would go about setting up a nest... but would show no interest in a grassy meadow. A fly is attracted to a fresh poop... humans, not so much. Etc.

The fact that humans have general (but not universal) agreement about the beauty of certain things says more about humans and our place in the world than it does about the world in general... IMO.

"As such their work may be a little bit more difficult for some to comprehend as it lacks polemics"

Excuse me, there is hardly any work more polemical than these two. But since they're useful idiots in your quest to attack Darwin they're absolved of any such sins.

http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/TexteFS10/Gould1997.pdf

Here's one of Gould's more famous "non-polemical" personal attacks on Darwinians.

I also don't get why you hate Huxley, considering Huxley didn't agree with Darwin's natural selection mechanism. Huxley's views are closer to Gould's.

yes, i have already described it as a leap. again, that is what a leap beyond logic, or rather it is a leap across the gap which is a feature of logic itself. i am much in agreement with your comments on atonal music and cubism - that argument was a central topic in my university thesis.

regarding your other statements, though, it is a muddle. yes, of course, concepts of beauty are not universal - the idea that Beauty is a quality means that Beauty as a category is the universal. this example is a good illustration of why something that is universal is in fact an empty placeholder - things have the capacity to be beautiful, though in each particular iteration that may be a different thing. the category of beauty itself is the universal component here. we circle around it with our own particular attachments to specific things that we find beautiful, even if it is not universally accepted that that specific thing is beautiful.

http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm

A good essay on why creationists like Fulham love Gould, who himself claimed to despise creationists.

fulhamish,
"@ dexter, apology accepted. I guess you could find nothing in my posts to disagree with. I must try harder next time :-)"
I wouldn't conclude that I didn't find anything in your posts to disagree with... some things I simply haven't had time or sufficient interest to address. Maybe I'm waiting for more explicit statements.

"I am a creationist, but not a young Earth creationist. Therefore I must indeed believe in intelligent design, but not to the exclusion of a role for natural selection. Will that do?"
So I was right. I appreciate your honesty. Funny that you were offended that I pegged it. I am at least glad you aren't the young Earth variety... they are impossible.

Yes, I realize that Darwin used the term, survival of the fittest. I was just noting that it's been often misunderstood and misused. Darwin, of course, also used "natural selection" - it was even in the title of his famous book.

"1) As a someone a little familiar with chemistry I am afraid that I look for the rate limiting step and I will therefore introduce a word that has so far been absent from this thread - mutation. Now all of the moral subjectivity which you tentatively, but somewhat wistfully, assign to Natural Selection must ultimately rest on this process. What is more in order for the new moral climate to become the status quo, sufficient individuals must undergo this mutation together, with suitable environmental interaction, at a more or less contemporaneously. In my opinion to believe that this is the mechanism which underlies what is considered to be a subjective morality requires a powerful belief system. One that is every bit as powerful as the theist who believes in objective morality. Now you might say that your view on subjective morality is based on some other concept. I do hope that you don't resort to the memetic ideas, which I alluded to earlier in the thread. So what exactly are you left with?"

Huh?
(Actually I mentioned mutation previously - in my post about Creationist skeptic misunderstandings about evolution).
I do not understand your assertion that change must be somehow coordinated - together (and happen suddenly?). Seems to me that change, whether genetic or social, can proceed very incrementally and quietly in the background - and eventually the norm slowly shifts. Perhaps you can explain what it is you mean another way. Are you referring to the micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution canard?

As to your hope that I "don't resort to the memetic ideas" - I'm not sure I understand that objection either... just as I didn't buy your proof (?) that Dawkin's idea of memes (or some broader or different concept of memes) has died simply because his organization is no longer.

"2) If the theory that natural selection dictates our current moral zeitgeist is not quantitative then how can it be falsified? As such it is surely not scientific. It seems to me that this can be extended to evolutionary psychology itself, but like you I know little of the subject.

Finally I continue to emphasise that, in my view, the extension of Natural Selection into morals, sociology, politics, linguistics, economics, eugenics etc. is a retrograde step which does much to harm, not only the interests of the disadvantaged, but also empirical science itself."

I agree with much of what you say in this last passage. Science depends on testable theories. Moral zeitgeists are probably inevitably several steps removed from science - and often are not founded in science at all (of course). Science must procede carefully and thoroughly... and I trust it will. Those who lead the charge with hypotheses about all kinds of possibilities *are* of value - but must be followed up with the occupying force that is evidence based science. Ideas must be tested. And yes, at least the public's view of science is threatened by people spouting off about something being scientifically shown to be X or Y (whether it be pop psychology about gender roles, or it be the latest cure all advertised on TV).

"Gould and Lewontin were/are both excellent evolutionary scientists. They are not, however, populist dogmatic greedy reductionists ( to quote Dennet, of course. who else?)"

Fullhamish can you give a specific example a claim by Richard Dawkins that you consider to be greedy reductionism?

You have touched on the your objection to the idea that human behaviour is ultimately a combination of genetics and environment. Could you suggst another factor which deserves consideration, or which might be even more influential?

Regarding Lewontin, he is not wholly opposed to natural secution. It is true he doesn't like the term, but he *does* support the notion of variation, fecundity, heridity and selection as a driving force of evolution. What he doesn't agree with is that everything being attributed to adapation. Some traits or not adaptive, some, are are side-effects of other apadptations, and some are accidents. And so for some traits we must don't know. Lewontin objects to the positing of adaptive theories to explain everything, which he says can sometimes be like "just so stories". This is reasonable, and Richard Dawkins would not disagree.

fullhamish I suspect that the reason you have a problem with the idea the interplay between genetics and the environment being ultimately responsible for human behavior is that this is a deterministic notion which seems to go against the notion of free will. Is that what it is really about?

I asked this before but i'll it again just so you don't miss it. If not genetics and the environment, what other factors?

@ Dexter, firstly, and most importantly, I am glad that we have a measure of agreement on the application of the scientific method to Natural Selection and its abuse by those with an agenda of some kind. Excellent. Putting to one side, for the purposes of this debate the role of the term ''survival of the fittest'' (although I do have more to say on the subject), I would respond as follows:

Most importantly I note that despite my invitation to do so, you find no other explanation for your views on subjective morality other than Natural Selection (NS) and its extension, memetics. Our shared views on the abuse of the scientific method rather mitigate against your views on the possible explanatory powers of memetics. Thus I assume that this was mere speculation on your part, unless of course you have some evidence to offer?

I am afraid that I cannot agree with you on the mechanics of natural selection. For your theory to be plausible society itself would have to be the agent on which mutation works, rather than the individuals who make it up. It seems to me that this akin to making a sociological or social Darwinist argument. On the individual level your denial that the mutations must be temporally close is rather puzzling to me, given that natural selection is at heart the mechanistic interaction of the genotype with the environment, and the latter is subject to change and usually random change at that.

To further clarify/answer your question I do not hold to the micro/macro view that you refer to, indeed just the contrary. I have posted in the past about speciation, an inherent part of NS I think you will agree, and the prima facie implicit implication for human society in terms of racism. We can go into it again if you like.

Thank you for your considered response.

""I am a creationist, but not a young Earth creationist. Therefore I must indeed believe in intelligent design, but not to the exclusion of a role for natural selection. Will that do?"

^ Some how I missed this. fullhamish, I think you have answered my question about "other factors" aside from genetics and environment, unless there was something else you wanted to add.

Moving back to the subject of morality. How do people feel about biological determinism and free will. Is there room from free will in a determined universe? If not, is there room for morality?

typo... Is there room *for free will in a determined universe?

> @ spyman I love your questions, keep them coming. Seriously if we are open minded enough we all learn from one another's questions.

Fullhamish can you give a specific example a claim by Richard Dawkins that you consider to be greedy reductionism?

> The claim that the gene acts as the agent of natural selection. It is the phenotype not the gene which interacts with the environment. Admittedly it makes things a little more complicated, but there we have it.

You have touched on the your objection to the idea that human behaviour is ultimately a combination of genetics and environment. Could you suggst another factor which deserves consideration, or which might be even more influential?

> I believe that morals are objective rather than subjective. The Holocaust, for instance, was an objectively evil event. Now I concede that I cannot prove this to you. I doubt, however, that you can prove the contrary.

Regarding Lewontin, he is not wholly opposed to natural secution. It is true he doesn't like the term, but he *does* support the notion of variation, fecundity, heridity and selection as a driving force of evolution. What he doesn't agree with is that everything being attributed to adapation. Some traits or not adaptive, some, are are side-effects of other apadptations, and some are accidents. And so for some traits we must don't know. Lewontin objects to the positing of adaptive theories to explain everything, which he says can sometimes be like "just so stories". This is reasonable, and Richard Dawkins would not disagree.

> Lewontin has many points of disagreement with Dawkins too. May I recommend the link which I gave earlier? Specifically he is not so keen on selection as the driving mechanism of evolution in all/most circumstances. It is here that we must be clear on terms and define evolution as just ''change''. This is important throughout much of this debate and is a cause of much confusion for at least the last 150 years.

As Lewontin puts it: ''
The Panglossians have confused Darwin's discovery that all adaptation is a consequence of variational evolution with the claim that all variation evolution leads to adaptation. Even if biologists cannot, philosophers are supposed to distinguish between the assertion that "all x is y" and the assertion that "all y is x," and most have. This is not simply a logical question but an empirical one. What evolutionary geneticists and developmental biologists have been doing for the last sixty years is to accumulate a knowledge of a variety of forces that cause the frequency of variant types to change, and that do not fall under the rubric of adaptation by natural selection. These include, to name a few: random fixation of nonadaptive or even maladaptive traits because of limitations of population size and the colonization of new areas by small numbers of founders; the acquisition of traits because the genes influencing them are dragged along on the same chromosome as some totally unrelated gene that is being selected; and developmental side effects of genes that have been selected for some quite different reason.''

fullhamish I suspect that the reason you have a problem with the idea the interplay between genetics and the environment being ultimately responsible for human behavior is that this is a deterministic notion which seems to go against the notion of free will. Is that what it is really about?

> I am most certainly not a determinist in matters of human behaviour and I do hold to the ultimate presence of free will in us, yes you are correct.

I asked this before but i'll it again just so you don't miss it. If not genetics and the environment, what other factors?

> I don't like the way you ask the question. If you mean, as I think you do, ''if not the interplay between genetics and the environment then what else?'' Then I would answer as I have done above, that our basis set of morals are not subject to evolution (change), but are objective. That objectivity is rooted in the Divine's relationship with us. I would also add that many here have said in the past that, although they don't believe in free will, they find it a useful construct. Who knows they might even be involved in the justice system ;-). I would extend this by saying that, in the context of morality, it might be useful to similarly find a useful construct in the Divine.

@ spyman and your next post, do you really hold to the idea that the universe is determined? Surely two universes set off by two identical big bangs would not necessarily progress in an identical manner, or do you disagree?

@ spyman, may I take the liberty of repeating a question which I asked you earlier? Anyway here it is again, in case you missed it:

Seriously did you read that Lewontin piece? I was partricularly impressed with this example, what did you think?

''In contrast, most evolutionary biologists work on natural populations of plants or animals that they have chosen because they believe they can tell a natural historical story of how selection actually operates in a particular case. The most famous example is the increase in the black form of the wings in the peppered moth that has occurred in England since the mid-nineteenth century. The explanation offered and repeatedly appearing in textbooks (although since called into question because of faulty methodology) was that the moths rested on tree trunks where they were at risk of being eaten by birds. Before the spread of heavy industry the tree trunks were covered with lichens whose speckled appearance was matched closely by the “peppered” appearance of the moth’s wings, so the camouflaged moths were only occasionally attacked. With the air pollution caused by heavy industry, the lichens were killed, so the moths were easily visible on the naked dark bark and were heavily preyed upon. A mutation to black wings appeared and was strongly favored by natural selection since the black-winged forms were now once again camouflaged.

There is little doubt that this example, widely taught in lectures and textbooks, had a powerful influence in convincing evolutionary biologists who came into the field from their prior interest in natural history that one could tell the causal story of natural selection. One unfortunate feature of this case is that the caterpillars of the dark-winged forms also have a slightly higher survival rate than those of the speckled-wing form, even though they are not black, so something more is going on, but this fact is not part of the curriculum.''

fullhamish I read the piece (and not just that passage). What I took from it is not that Lewontin disagrees with natural selection itself but that particular explanation offered (camouflage), while seemingly plausible, was not necessarily true. And that biology is full of similar "just so stories". Lewontin believes that other more subtle factors may be at play here, but nonetheless ultimately selective factors. For example perhaps dark moths are more resistant to disease or lay more eggs etc. The obvious explanation of camouflage might just be a red herring. Lewontin also posits more complex ideas about populations sizes and genetic drift which go over the heads of most people (including me), as well as limiting factors to do with the mechanics of genetics (way over my head).

Lewontin and Dawkins have a few other issues aside from disagreements about natural selection. One is political. Lewontin thinks that the term "natural selection" itslef is inherently right-wing, and that the emphasis on competition and selection is right-wing. Another issue I think they have is that Dawkins writes popular books about evolution. Books that in order to be understood by the average readers present ideas in ways that some other "experts" deem too simplistic. I think this is an accusation that is leveled at all authors who write popular books about complex and technical subjects. But to I think that this over-simplification is unavoidable, to an extent.

"n my opinion to believe that this is the mechanism which underlies what is considered to be a subjective morality requires a powerful belief system. One that is every bit as powerful as the theist who believes in objective morality"

This seems to be a trend with advocates of theism (we have still not heard an actual argument for objective morality), in that they do not actually make a positive case for objective morality or anything else, they are content with a draw on the question and do little more than try to tear down moral relativism/atheism as being equally implausible. It's a strange way to commit yourself to a belief system.

"Then I would answer as I have done above, that our basis set of morals are not subject to evolution (change), but are objective. That objectivity is rooted in the Divine's relationship with us."

And the fact that the Divine has sanctioned genocide, and Christians have supported genocide and based that support on the Bible, this poses no problem for your assertion that genocide is objectively evil?

I would like to hear someone finally elaborate on how the "Divine's relationship with 'us'" is the source of moral "objectivity".

I don't see why Lewontin & Gould's anything but adaptation bias is considered rigorous science or less political compared to the Darwinists they constantly bash. They set out to find mechanisms that aren't natural selection and inflate their importance and purposely do everything they can to attack natural selection for explicitly political reasons, especially in Lewontin's case. Biologists don't take them seriously. Only non-biologists do.

@fullhamish, you said: "Now all of the moral subjectivity which you tentatively, but somewhat wistfully, assign to Natural Selection must ultimately rest on this process. What is more in order for the new moral climate to become the status quo, sufficient individuals must undergo this mutation together"

No. first i'm not claiming that survival of the fittest explains morality.

Second, you don't need any mutations in the human genome to change social norms. You need education, memetics of some kind. Humans are able to learn when it is appropriate to behave in certain ways, as i've stated above.

Take a feral human devoid of interaction with others and they will still be able to be violent or act sexually. This is a 'fixed action pattern' which i understand to be genetically coded for.

Now morality on the other hand is a learned trait, something which depends on the environment (ie parenting, education, prevailing social norms) - morality tells us when it is appropriate to be violent or sexual (or compassionate or any number of other fixed actions patterns with which i'm not familiar)

So i reject your claims about the mutation in it's entirety.

I has nothing to do with mutations, it has everything to do with brains, these neural networks which we evolved and which allow us process social rules, and understand the behaviour of others of our own species.

So to memetics, i don't know much about this area, what are your objections exactly?

Since there have been several attacks of evolutionary psychology from someone who admits to being ignorant about the field, and the whole urban myth of 'just so' stories, I thought this article would be a useful rejoinder from actual evolutionary psychologists.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html

Just to add a point, most of my knowledge of the subject comes from this, rather excellent, lecture series on human behavioural biology http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D

Very interesting, mostly when he goes through most of the science which takes apart other disciplines, each building on previous ideas and then being ripped to shreds by the next - thus i find it explains the development of several parallel approaches to understanding the different aspects of human behaviour, while also highligthing the several limitations of each approach.

Awesome orathaic. I'll have to check it out.

@ orathiac you wrote this: ''No. first i'm not claiming that survival of the fittest explains morality.''

I think that we have a major point of agreement here if you are indeed seeing that NS through genetic/environmental interaction has little to do with human morality (and by extension, behaviour?). I think that it is so relevant that we are clear on this between us that I would like to confirm that this is indeed your position before moving on to memetics.
Thank you for your considered reply and the YouTube link which I will indeed look at (when i am not at work!).

one more thing, before i forget - natural selection vs sexual selection.

Being more fit in terms of your environment may mean being better able to find food (say) but being picked as a mate is driven by the members of the opposite sex rather than the environment.

This touches quite closely on the question of moral behaviour - it is possible to select a mate based on their behaviour, thus pushing moral behaviour into a powerful selection situation still without any genetic basis (merely some memetic one)

Sexual selection is very powerful, and can lead to much more rapid changes (in things like penis shape) than natural selection - as seen across many species (i'm thinking mostly of crickets... but i'm sure there are countless examples)

sorry, that youtube link is about 24 2hour lectures... an entire behavioural biology course... (and i'm only about 22 lectures in) i don't expect you to watch it all right away...

As for 'human behaviour as an extension of morality' - i think i would state that human behaviour is genetically determined (people are genetically pre-disposed to suffer from depression, or to exhibit a variety of other behaviours) and our current genetic makeup is largely determined by natural and sexual selection... but individual behaviour is modulated by the environment (of which culture and ethics is a part) and this, i believe can have much faster changes (mutations/idea creation/new strategies) and the whole mechanism of evolutionary theory isn't sufficient on it's own to describe the development of human morality (and i specifically use the word development not he word evolution here)

"... NS through genetic/environmental interaction has little to do with human morality"

What about sex and child rearing? Since these activities are directly related to our survival, there must be consistent patterns within human behavior that are heritable and which are selected. Patterns with powerful emotional and ultimately moral consequences. Expectations of fidelity, for example, between sexual partners. This is a moral issue and an issue which affects the passing on of our genes. How could this conceivably not be the case?

@fulhamish,
"@ Dexter, firstly, and most importantly, I am glad that we have a measure of agreement on the application of the scientific method to Natural Selection and its abuse by those with an agenda of some kind. Excellent."

Just to be clear, I see this primarily as a problem that crops up in communication between scientists and non-scientists (such as journalists - taking quotes out of context or without understanding, etc.) - and how non-scientists, and non-biologist scientists sometimes misunderstand and misapply the the concepts involved in evolutionary theory. I don't see much of an agenda, other than the agenda of being properly understood, by those within the field itself.

"Most importantly I note that despite my invitation to do so, you find no other explanation for your views on subjective morality other than Natural Selection (NS) and its extension, memetics. Our shared views on the abuse of the scientific method rather mitigate against your views on the possible explanatory powers of memetics. Thus I assume that this was mere speculation on your part, unless of course you have some evidence to offer?"

Again - my knowledge in the area is limited... as yours obviously is as well. So, do not take my current lack of evidence to mean anything about the questions you pose - other than my lack of knowledge... and my scientific instinct to be conservative in my claims in the absence of a ready set of references on the matter. This is not a weakness, but is the way it should be approached, IMO.

"I am afraid that I cannot agree with you on the mechanics of natural selection. For your theory to be plausible society itself would have to be the agent on which mutation works, rather than the individuals who make it up."

You misrepresent what I said. I specifically noted that mutation works on individuals and that since a society is a collection of individuals, natural selection's effect on society would be one step removed and thus muted. (but not absent)

"It seems to me that this akin to making a sociological or social Darwinist argument. On the individual level your denial that the mutations must be temporally close is rather puzzling to me, given that natural selection is at heart the mechanistic interaction of the genotype with the environment, and the latter is subject to change and usually random change at that."

I have little idea of what you're trying to say here. Sorry. ...but I'll take a stab at it.
You *seem* to be saying that mutations have to be across an entire population and have to be at the same time. I don't understand why you believe this would need be the case. For one thing, it is not at all necessary for all or most or even many of a population to have the same mutation. One individual could be sufficient. That individual, if the mutation is favorable for survival in the new environment, would have an increased chance of survival compared to others... and thus would be both more likely to survive and be more likely to have children with that trait that survive... each generation would therefore tend to have more and more individuals with that trait and those without the trait would be less successful and eventually become a minority. Perhaps with continued change to the environment, the new trait (the mutation) becomes so important that those without it die off in large numbers - essentially dooming the old trait to extinction. If those with the old trait are extinct, that small slowly growing population with the new trait becomes the only population... and the spread of the new trait is only limited by population growth.

This is actually not unlike a meme (as I understand it)... Consider... for the idea that, say, democracy is better than monarchy to spread across the world, it does not have to happen all at once (indeed, that is highly unlikely). It can easily (and it did) start with one country, and then people talk and move, books are written, the idea spreads... and the democracies, if they are a better system, will be more efficient and powerful, on average, and win the competition politically, economically, and militarily over many generations against the system of monarchy. For evolution of political systems to happen, it does not require that everyone wake up one day suddenly in a democracy. Heck, you can even have democracies disappear for a while (after the Ancient Greeks and the Roman Republic and before the U.S. and post-revolutionary France) and still come back to it. There is random chance involved - both with the mutation, and the success of each individual with or without that mutation. If the mutation is superior, it may take a few times for it to take hold on the population, but once it does it will become the dominant form.

I could come up with endless analogies... how about group of poker players (being the population)... one poker player (let's call him "the house") comes up with a new and improved strategy which turns his success rate from being identical to the other players to being 1% more likely to win a hand than the other players on average. Given enough hands (with small bets - for the probability to accrue - rather than be blown in one case of betting it all), and random chance, this player is likely to win all the money on the table... This sort of statistics is what keeps casinos in business and very wealthy - in a very predictable manner. They have a rather small advantage in any given hand or roll of the dice and they simply have countless numbers of hands and rolls of the dice for this advantage to build a fortune. Such as it is with a favorable mutation.

"To further clarify/answer your question I do not hold to the micro/macro view that you refer to, indeed just the contrary. I have posted in the past about speciation, an inherent part of NS I think you will agree, and the prima facie implicit implication for human society in terms of racism. We can go into it again if you like."

I don't remember the conversation - sorry. You do realize that having variation - including up to ethnic groups and races does not imply necessarily that speciation will happen, right? So long as the population can and does interbreed, speciation will be resisted. Indeed those differences can even lessen over time if the interbreeding rate is high enough... as you can probably guess.

Are any of the moral objectivists ever going to produce an account of why moral standards are so varied across time & space, or are we going to get nothing but complaints about scientific and natural selection based explanations because they don't comport with your preconceived narratives, all while whining about 'biased' scientists? I guess by "biased" you mean not sufficiently dismissive of any adaptive explanation.

putin, that question has already been answered - language, psychology, politics, social custom, etc.