Examples Of Evolutionary Psychology

Evolutionary Psychologists are making a mistake in supposing that modern human behavior can be explained by our evolutionary history. Although applying the evolutionary theory to the way we as humans act, there are still problems with the evolutionary theory. In this essay, I argue that (i) Humans do not solely act based on instinct like evolutionary history would suggest and (ii)not everyone’s behaviors are for reproductive success. I will start off this essay by explaining what evolutionary psychologists think human motives are ( Giving examples from famous Evolutionary Psychologist Darwin books that he has written about Evolutionary Theory). I will then present the two most cogent arguments against Darwin’s theory. These cases demonstrate

*****make some bullshit up****** Another point Darwin makes is that expressions we make out of emotions and communication to signal others were originally not meant for this purpose and were meaningless. An example he uses is that “a sneer would be derived from a bearing of teeth which originally made it easier to bite; only later did it get used in communication”.(site) This does not necessarily make sense that every single thing we do relates back to what has happened years ago ( For example, Evolutionary psychology claims to explain all aspects of human behavior, and thence culture and society, on the basis of universal features of human nature that found their final evolutionary form during the infancy of our species some 100-600,000 years ago. This for Evolutionary Psychologist, what its protagonists describe as the ‘architecture of the human mind’ which evolved during the Pleistocene is fixed, and insufficient time has elapsed for any significant subsequent change*site*). Furthermore, Darwin’s book called The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, are full of clever ideas about how reproductive competition of the purely sexual kind might have affected the evolution of human behavior

This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complex difficulty. As expert on living things Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National College/school of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: "New changes don't create new species; they create children/child that are damaged/weakened."1 (in almost the same way), the past president of the French College/school of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, said/argued that "[m]utations have a very limited 'constructive ability (to hold or do something)'" because "[n]o matter how many they may be, changes do not produce any kind of (change for the better, over