Strange Herring Strikes Again

_{Barry Arrington

April 28, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Over at Strange Herring, Anthony Sacramone gives us an hilarious send up of the latest evolutionary idiocy:

Researchers, looking into obesity, discovered that fatty foods not only send feelings of fullness to the brain but they also trigger a process that consolidates long term memories.

It believed that this is an evolutionary tool that enabled our distant ancestors to remember where rich sources of food were located.

Now they hope to develop drugs which mimic the effect of fat rich foods in order to boost memory in those suffering from brain disorders or who need to cement facts in their brain.

I believe every word of this. BECAUSE IT’S SCIENCE. And if science says a bacon doublecheeseburger will make you smarter, then who are you to question?

It all makes sense now: Why is it I can never remember where I left my keys but I ALWAYS remember where Phat Burger is? It’s evolution!

When Og and Mrs. Og wanted a quick, satisfying dinner, do you think they had all day to run around trying to find the closest Domino’s, what with all the brontosauri marching about?

Now, what is the evolutionary imperative for dark-chocolate M&Ms?

Comments

I apologize Dave, I misread your comment.Upright BiPed_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Dave, if everything in the Universe is reducible to material - chance and necessity - then what else is there? Are genes a product of chance and necessity, or no?Upright BiPed_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Hi Stuart, Can you name one evolutionary psychologist who says genes control all of our behavior? I honestly cannot think of even one.Dave Wisker_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Evolutionary Psychology is my favorite intellectual pastime. I love to give intelligent positions where I can never be wrong, because I am always right. For example: Q. Dr. Harris, why would a mother run into a burning building to save her baby? What explains this altruistic behavior? A. It’s quite simple you creationist moron. Genes control all our behavior and genes exist because of undirected, purposeless natural selection. She is simply acting out her genetic destiny. By saving her child she is preserving her genes – the very genes that control her actions. Genes create her actions and her actions create her genes. And don’t give me any of that “tautology” stuff. Q. Dr. Harris, why would a mother not run into a burning building to save her baby? What explains this selfish behavior? A. It’s quite simple you creationist moron. Genes control all our behavior and genes exist because of undirected, purposeless natural selection. She is simply acting out her genetic destiny. By avoiding the chance of death she remains alive to have other babies, or to take care of other children she may have, thus preserving her genes. Q. So Dr. Harris, are you saying that Evolutionary Psychology can equally explain one thing and its opposite at the very same time? That doesn’t sound like science. A. You don’t know anything about science. You’re a right wing fascist creationist moron.StuartHarris_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

And the question is if natural stink alienates potential gene spread partners why hasn’t selection removed it?
One explanation I have heard that makes sense is that armpit and other body-produced smells actually are sexually attractive, but the practice of clothing them increases their stink level — just like with our smelly, smelly feet, which, after all, aren't actually "stinky" all by themselves.Lenoxus_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Really, longevity and health have much less to do with diet than with exercise. As long as you burn what you eat, you can eat as much as you want, fat included, with few ill affects. Probably the current preoccupation with low-fat diets, or low-carb diets depending on who you're talking to, is because changing your diet is much easier than changing your exercise habits. The easy way out is bound to be the more popular one, especially when there's the boob tube waiting for you in front of the lazy boy. But back to the OP: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!tragic mishap_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Riddick writes, "Studies of traditional diets show that our ancestors probably did eat more fat than we do today. The high-quality fat they ate (much of it saturated!) came from the real thing: butter, eggs, yogurt, meat, etc. Our politically correct, low-fat diets could, indeed, be a factor in memory loss and other brain disorders." Yes but ... our ancestors had much lower longevity rates than today in Western democracies, where the public is hectored relentlessly in favour of a low fat diet. Memory loss and brain disorders are far more common in old people than young people = you need to be a long time survivor already, to have the problem! How many seniors do you think managed to make it to 100 years of age in the Stone Age? Today, the Canadian government is endlessly pestered to send congratulatory telegrams to people who make it to that age - as my grandmother did. About diet: Fat: Right? Wrong? I don't know. I am not a dietician. But if you want a long life, here is what you should do - Follow the diet of modern democracies and live within easy reach of a hi-tech Emergency Room. That is precisely what I do. And do not bother about what your Stone Age ancestors were forced to eat. It's too bad about what they were forced to eat. But if you can choose your diet, choose what works for you, in relation to religious and cultural principles.O'Leary_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

The real evolutionary part is why do humans want to rid themselves of smelly sweat? Is it love? Is it the nose too close for comfort? Is it to keep friends, find mates and spread your genes?
Maybe we didn't know we stank until Madison Ave told us we did?Dave Wisker_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

@3
Our politically correct, low-fat diets could, indeed, be a factor in memory loss and other brain disorders.
No wonder Darwinian theory the consequent social implications are so prevalent in society! =P (That was a joke, *badum bum tschhhh*)PaulN_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

My own non-evolutionary hypothesis on many memory related brain disorders is anti stink paste. That's right ladies and gents. All that aluminum based deodorant being pasted to your arm pits - right near main arteries and such, day after day, year after year... Sooner or later yer brain's gonna grab some and mess up. Well gee that wasn't hard. The real evolutionary part is why do humans want to rid themselves of smelly sweat? Is it love? Is it the nose too close for comfort? Is it to keep friends, find mates and spread your genes? And the question is if natural stink alienates potential gene spread partners why hasn't selection removed it? Only you evolutionary psychologist can think up the 'true' Darwinally(?) correct fairy tale! ;-)Borne_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

By concentrating on the "evolution" aspect to the story, Barry and O'Leary throw the baby out with the bath water. Studies of traditional diets show that our ancestors probably did eat more fat than we do today. The high-quality fat they ate (much of it saturated!) came from the real thing: butter, eggs, yogurt, meat, etc. Our politically correct, low-fat diets could, indeed, be a factor in memory loss and other brain disorders.riddick_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Just to clarify, everything after "evolutionary idiocy" was written on Sacramone's blog, not by Barry Arrington. Barry appears to be above using ALL CAPS and mischaracterizing research ("a bacon doublecheeseburger will make you smarter"? Really?) to make his points.Ludwig_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Barry, thanks, The basic problem with all evolutionary psychology is - as I was recently trying to explain to a Scottish TV producer, with what success I do not know - is that it is a discipline without a subject. If we could somehow bring back to life a real Old Stone Age human community -and communicate with them and interview them - we might have a basis for all this evo psycho stuff. Apart from that, it is all just speculative nonsense, really. I could just as easily construct a just-so story for why humans are attracted to a lean diet as for why they are attracted to a fat one. If I messed around in the brain long enough, I would discover support for my view. The brain is more like an ocean than like a machine, so there is bound to be support for my view somewhere in there. The main thing is, from the moment we became humans and not animals - however it happened - everything changed for us. We will find such answers as we find, in real time today, not in the distant past. That is what makes "evolutionary psychology" a waste of time.O'Leary_{April 28, 2009
April
04
Apr
28
28
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply