Evolutionary Psychology under attack Topic overview Warm-up exercises Points to ponder Questions to think about 'Test your wits with the experts!' Darwin's theory of evolution in a nutshell The battle between creationism and evolution Is Darwin's theory free of 'cultural values'? Seminar reading and viewing PBS video "Darwin: Reluctant Rebel" PBS video "Courtroom Controversy" PBS video "Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist" PBS video "Teaching Evolution Case Studies: Dealing with Controversy" Colby (1996) "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" To what extent has human behaviour evolved? Seminar reading The Pinker vs. Rose debate Gould and Lewontin (1979). "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm.." Gould (1997) "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism" Tooby and Cosmides (1997). response to Gould's "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", Alcock (2000). "Misbehavior: How Stephen Jay Gould is wrong about evolution" Buss et al. (1998). "Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels" Panksepp & Panksepp (2000). "The seven sins of evolutionary psychology" Evaluation of evolutionary psychology as a theory of human behaviour The Theory of Evolutionary Psychobiology Glossary  References Supplementary reading Further reading

Enter your search terms Web www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk Submit search form Visit the SALMON Bookshop for recommended books on this topic

Topic overview

This topic covers some fairly demanding material. You may find it useful to do the three 'warm up exercises' before tackling the more advanced material. They are designed to show you that you already have a reasonably clear understanding of evolutionary psychology by this stage of the module.

Darwin's writings on evolution have spawned two fundamentally different types of controversy.

• Some people object to the idea that animals we see around us have evolved from species that lived in the past. Creationists believe that the Book of Genesis is a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life on our planet.
• Contemporary scientists are not creationists. Scientists accept that evolution has occurred, but disagree amongst themselves on how evolution happened. They have particularly fierce debates on the role of natural and sexual selection in human behaviour.

It is very important to appreciate and keep these two controversies separate in your mind. Most of this seminar focuses on the second type of controversy - the debate between scientists on the role of selection in the evolution of human behaviour

We begin with a series of videos showing that the theory that animal species evolve is controversial. I encourage you to view this material before attending the seminar because it illustrates just how sensitive this issue is, even today. If you don't have a high speed internet connection, borrow a pair of headphones and use a campus computer to view the videos.

I have included a section on work by contemporary historians and philosophers of science which seeks to unravel cultural influences on Darwin's work. This should help you appreciate current controversies over evolutionary theory as a paradigm for psychology.

The main thrust of this page is to consider contemporary attacks on evolutionary psychology by biologists and social scientists. I have chosen two examples to illustrate the intensity of feeling sparked by the claim that some aspects of human behaviour may be the result of natural selection:

• a debate between Rose and Pinker on where we came from, who we are now, and where we are going,
• Gould and Lewontin's classic 1979 paper on 'spandrels' and the 'Panglossian paradigm'

I use Gould's 1997 article in the New York Review of Books :"Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", to illustrate the raw intensity of the debate. This article provoked a savage response from Tooby and Cosmides - you can judge the merits of both sides of the argument for yourself. John Alcock's response to Gould's attack is somewhat more restrained and alludes to the four types of question that can be asked about a behaviour. These were laid out by Niko Tinbergen and I have used them as a 'framework-of-sanity' in this module.

If you want to delve deeper into this topic, Brown (2000) and Ruse (1999) provide informative, revealing and entertaining accounts of the passions that are aroused by recent attempts to explain aspects of human behaviour in terms of natural selection.

We then move on to consider a much more carefully judged - but boldly titled - critique of evolutionary psychology by Panksepp & Panksepp: "The seven sins of evolutionary psychology". I found plenty to think about in this article.

Finally at the end of the seminar we explore just how difficult it is to construct a good theory by constructing our own theory of the evolution of behaviour.

Warm-up exercises

These  'warm up exercises' are designed to show you that you already have a reasonably clear understanding of evolutionary psychology by this stage of the module.

Klimt's 'Tree of Life'

Exercise# 1 Points to ponder The Greek philosopher Aristotle viewed animals as positioned along an ascending linear scale (scala natura) with humans at the top of the scale. Nowadays all biologists reject this linear concept of species. It was firmly driven out of psychology by Hodos and Campbell in their 1969 paper "Scala naturae: Why there is no theory in comparative psychology." Nevertheless, I suspect there are still remnants of the scala natura in the popular imagination with a tendency to view humans as 'more-highly-evolved' in some way compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Do you think remnants of this type of thinking may subtly influence attitudes to animal rights across species, race and social class?: In a  famous English comedy sketch,  a tall, upper-class John Cleese looked down on a mid-height, middle-class Ronnie Barker, and they both looked down on a small, lower-class Ronnie Corbett. You might find it useful to listen to this radio programme chaired by Melvyn Bragg between Pinker, Richards and Gray in which they discuss if there is really such a thing as human nature.

Michaelangelo's   David

---

Exercise# 2 Questions to think about: Are human beings animals? Have modern humans evolved from chimpanzees? Jane Goodall talks to the BBC about chimpanzees in this  video the Scientific American Frontiers video (2001) "Chimps Observed" describes Goodall's work, gives very good reasons why you should abscond from university ASAP, and mentions the issues raised by scientific observations that may have direct implications for how we view our own species. the Scientific American Frontiers video (2001) "Chimp Nations" discusses culture in chimps Scientific American Frontiers video (1995) "Monkey See, Monkey Do"  discusses differences in imitation learning in primates and humans Sir Neil Chalmers lectures on "Monkeys and Apes:Are they nearly human?"  in this Darwin Centre: Natural History Museum video (2003) Do human beings represent the 'end-point' of evolution? Has human behaviour evolved? Will people in the future be more intelligent, attractive, longer-lived, less disease-prone etc? Will authoritarian states evolve into democracies? Will 'primitive tribes' evolve? What does the phrase 'primitive tribe' mean? How do you react to the words of the famous hymn: "All things bright and beautiful, all creature great and small, all things wise and wonderful, the Lord God made them all."

Darwin's theory of evolution in a nutshell

Reading Malthus' "An Essay on the Principle of Population", Darwin was struck by the fact that all organisms produce considerably more offspring than are needed to replace the parents. For example, a pair of spawning salmon are estimated to produce 5,000 fertilized eggs, if all these eggs developed into adult salmon our rivers would be choked with salmon. Clearly there is massive mortality between egg and adult organism. Despite this tendency to a progressive increase in numbers, the numbers of a given species remains more or less constant From these two factors it follows that there is a 'struggle for existence' - some offspring survive, others perish Offspring are not 'carbon-copies' of their parents; there is widespread heritable variation Darwin suggested the novel idea that the fittest tend to survive, the unfit perish Consequently this leads to adaptive improvement over the generations - evolution Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): What is a species? How did life on earth originate? How did Darwin's finches evolve into different species?

If you were educated in a British school you are probably not aware that nowadays the teaching of evolution is very controversial in some some American states.  Here is a set of videos that show that evolution was born in controversy, and continues to arouse strong feelings.   Begin by reviewing the PBS video Darwin: Reluctant Rebel in which "James Moore explains that Darwin developed his theory of evolution by natural selection at a time when creationism dominated the public thinking. In this clip, Darwin is seen arguing for his theory with creationist thinkers, including the H.M.S. Beagle's Captain FitzRoy, his colleagues, and even with his own wife Emma. Philosopher Daniel Dennett explains that humans naturally want to believe that there is some purpose to the universe, and prefer to think of themselves as "special," rather than just another species in the animal kingdom. " View the PBS video "Courtroom Controversy" which is available online in order to get an insight into the long running battle between creationism ("the religious doctrine that all living things on Earth were created separately, in more or less their present form, by a supernatural creator, as stated in the Bible") and evolutionary theory in America. What is at stake is the right to teach evolutionary theory and creationism in American schools. View the PBS video "Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist" which is available online and gives a very clear insight into creationist teaching in a religious context. View the PBS video "Teaching Evolution Case Studies: Dealing with Controversy" which is available online and shows how teachers have dealt with the controversy surrounding teaching evolution in American schools in the last decade. Although teaching children that plants and animals evolved has not generated widespread controversy in British schools, Emmanuel College, Gateshead, was recently in the news for teaching creationism to its pupils along with evolution. This was the subject of a BBC radio programme Do you think children should be taught evolution in British schools?

Is Darwin's theory free of 'cultural values'? In recent years a 'Darwin industry' has developed involving historians attempting to understand, unravel, and interpret the cultural influences on Darwin, and Darwin's influence on culture. There is very clear coverage of the cultural context, impact and scientific merits of Darwin's theory in: Bowler (2000) "Charles Darwin: The Man and his Influence", University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Chapter 1 "The Problem of Interpretation". Patterson (1999). Evolution, 2nd Edition, Cornell University Press, New York. Chapter 14 "Proof and disproof; science and politics". Ruse (1999). "Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construct?". Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chapter 3 "Charles Darwin" When Darwin published his theory of evolution in 1859 it generated less controversy than we are sometimes led to believe. On the contrary, it was generally welcomed. Darwin's theory did not come as a 'bolt out of the blue' to an unsuspecting audience. In fact, Darwin was not alone in proposing a theory of evolution. There were already several accounts of evolution, but they were fundamentally different to Darwin's. Pre-Darwinian theories postulated that evolution was the progressive unfolding of a purposeful plan involving a linear trend of increasingly complex species that culminated in the appearance of humans i.e. the natural world was considered to be a scala natura. These were evolutionary theories - in the sense that they rejected the picture of creation presented in the Book of Genesis - but they allowed space for God to operate as the master planner of a gradually improving world. But careful reading of Darwin's theory shows that it does not admit a purposive plan, and does not imply that humans occupy the highest rung on an evolutionary ladder. Instead it suggests that the mechanism underlying evolution involves random variation between individual members of a species being fed into a filtering mechanism composed of environmental pressures. Evolutionary theories were welcomed by some in the mid nineteenth century; they offered a progressive way forward for a society dominated by church and aristocracy. But they were treated with suspicion by others because they threatened to abolish the special place of Man in the natural world, and disrupt a relatively stable social structure that had seen fundamental political upheavals in nearby France. Perhaps Darwin's theory of evolution was better adapted than others to survive in the scientific and social environment that existed in England nearly 150 years ago. Bowler suggests that in 1859 readers interpreted the main message of the Origin of Species in line with the cultural beliefs of their times: They paid little attention to Darwin's theory that evolution relied on natural selection as the mechanism for change, and focussed instead on an evolution powered by Lamarkism, orthogenesis or a divine plan. They held to the mistaken belief that evolution produced progress along a preordained path as a result of "the struggle for existence" and the "survival of the fittest", to attain the 'highest point' of evolution - mankind. Darwin may have colluded with this misinterpretation to facilitate popular acceptance of his theory. Ruse (1999) argues that Darwin believed in social progress and this is increasingly evident in later revisions of the Origin of Species. For example, in the third edition published in 1861 he wrote that "natural selection clearly leads towards highness" (see Ruse 1999, p69-70). Furthermore, Darwin seems influenced by the values of his social class, upbringing and circle of acquaintances. Ruse points out that in Darwin's book on human evolution - The Descent of Man - published in 1871, "Darwin brought in all of the cultural values of his sex, race and class. Not only do we learn that men are string and brave and brainy, whereas women are kind and gentle and sensitive; that whites are intelligent and hardworking whereas blacks are stupid and lazy; but that, on the whole, capitalism is no bad thing." Darwin was highly respected during his lifetime - both before and after publication of the Origin of Species - and this is reflected in his resting place: He was buried next to that other national scientific hero, Sir Isaac Newton, in Westminster Abbey in 1882. And his fame lives on: In 2002 Darwin was voted fourth in a poll of the most important Britons of all time in a national survey organized by the BBC. He was beaten by Churchill, Brunel and Princess Diana. But you are now faced with a problem. Should you criticize Darwin's theory because it was tainted by cultural factors from an earlier period of our history? Or do you accept that Darwin, like all of us, is a product of our time and culture, but nevertheless he had an important insight into a reality that exists independently of time and culture? Reading Ruse (1999) Chapter 1 "Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn: Two Theories of Science" may help resolve this dilemma. The power of Ruse's (1999) evaluation of Darwin's influence comes from his analysis of: the epistemic values of Darwin's theory together with a consideration of non-epistemic factors surrounding evolutionary theory Epistemic values or "scientific values" are a set of characteristics of a scientific theory that reveals a reality that - we assume - exists outside ourselves, and exists independently from us (i.e.' truth'). Ruse draws on work by McMullin to draw up a list of epistemic characteristics or "scientific values" which include: predictive accuracy - the ability to forecast what we have not yet observed internal coherence - the various parts of the theory should not contradict each other external consistency - the theory should not contradict other accepted theories, or 'laws of nature' unifying power - the theory should bring together and explain previously disparate areas of knowledge fertility - the theory should generate novel hypotheses falsifiability - it should be possible to construct hypotheses that could lead to the rejection of the theory - this is an especially important scientific value simplicity and elegance - this is a value judgement i.e. it is a subjective judgement made by scientists. Consequently simplicity is a desired characteristic rather than a defining characteristic of a scientific theory. Non-epistemic or "cultural values" factors refer to factors in our culture that persuade us to construct a theory of reality based on our cultural experiences the feedback-influence of scientific theories on our culture Here is an example of  theory construction and the scientific method applied to a current problem. Examination of the Darwin's life and times shows the influence of non-epistemic cultural values on the genesis of his theory, and particularly its development by his disciples. Furthermore, the epistemic qualities of evolutionary theory has had a powerful feedback effect on cultural values in the last century. For example, the use of metaphor such as Dawkin's 'selfish genes', and value-laden phrases such as 'survival of the fittest' (which was adopted by Darwin from Herbert Spencer), and "the struggle for existence" have entered the popular imagination. When it was first published, Darwin's theory was not as epistemically strong as it is now. Ruse provides a convincing case that Darwin's theory contained several epistemic weaknesses: The theory made few short-term predictions that could be objectively measured to enable falsifiability Contemporary estimates of the earth's age did not allow enough time for evolution to have occurred Darwin found it difficult to account for the evolution of sterile insects Darwin did not provide a convincing explanation of how characteristics were passed from generation to generation But Darwin's theory triumphed in its ability to unify information from separate areas of biology And. We now know that the earth is older than first suspected. Mendel's work provided the 'missing' mechanism for heredity. Evolutionary theory now forms the paradigm for the biological sciences. A paradigm is a body of theory, results, methods, and set of acceptable questions that are embraced by the vast majority of people working in a particular discipline. It is a generally accepted way of doing science (see Ruse 1999, p19). You may be wondering what paradigm binds together all psychologists. I can't give you the answer. I started my undergraduate studies in Zoology, Physiology and Botany so was immersed in the evolutionary paradigm from a tender age. But then I switched to psychology where a favorite student-discussion question used to be "Is psychology a science". I used to thoroughly enjoy arguing with friends that 'psychology is a pre-paradigmatic junk yard full of cognitive scrap metal'. Read about Thomas Kuhn's views on scientific paradigms in Ruse Chapter 1 if you want to continue this time-honored student drinking game. Additional reading: Kohn (2002) review of "Charles Darwin: the power of place" by Janet Browne in The Independent newspaper, 16 November 2002, available online  Marr (2002) Darwin: Andrew Marr's Greatest Briton broadcast by BBC TV. Video clip and web page supporting  the programme

In order to gain a deeper understanding of contemporary evolutionary theory you might find it useful to read parts of Colby (1996) "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" in The Talk.Origins Archive which is available online. You might like to consider the following points which are covered in the first nine pages of the article:

• Kettlewell's study of moths is a controversial, but oft-quoted, example of natural selection. (See Wells (1999) "Second Thoughts about Peppered Moth", or use Google to find out more about the controversy surrounding Kettlewell's research)
• Be aware that the word evolution is often used to convey several different ideas.
• You have already encountered examples of the impact of environmental factors on phenotype
• The relationship between organisms and their environments is complex; earthworms process soil; humans tear down forests
• Evolution depends on genetic variation. It is worthy taking the time to understand sources of variation, the concept of alleles and how they change and interact.
• This simple spreadsheet allows you to change the frequency of alleles at a locus and observe the effects on the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
• Explain, with examples, the effects of natural selection on genetic variation.
• Are genes, groups, or individuals selected?
• Does natural selection favor behaviour that is beneficial to genes, groups or individuals?
• Explain the difference between the way biologists use the words 'selfish' and altruistic', and the way these words are used in everyday life.
• Does natural selection lead to perfection?
• Does natural selection work to a plan? If so, whose plan?
• What is the difference between 'adaptation' and 'exaptation'?
• What is an animal fit for?
• Why are females attracted by secondary sexual characteristics?

Read the section "The Development of Evolutionary Theory" in Colby (1996) and consider the following points:

Lamark

Compare and contrast Darwin and Lamark's view of evolution. Lamark's ideas on evolution found favor in Russia under Stalin in the 1930s and '40s because they meshed neatly with Marxism and promised the birth of better citizens through parental striving to meet the soviet ideal. According to the geneticist Lysenko the ability to withstand harsh environments would be inherited from parent stock that had been exposed to these conditions. (See Gaglioti (1996) The fate of Soviet genetics). Why is the idea of 'blending inheritance' wrong, and impossible to reconcile with evolution via natural selection? Colby (1996) states that "Mendel mailed his paper to Darwin, but Darwin never opened it". I don't know if this is true but Mendel does not appear in Darwin's biography written by Desmond and Moore (1991), and according to Boakes (1984) , Mendel's work on the inheritance of the characteristics of peas was lost until 1900.

Stalin

Read the section "Scientific Standing of Evolution and its Critics" in Colby (1996). Do you agree with Colby's dismissal of scientific creationism?

---

To what extent has human behaviour evolved?

Darwin was very restrained when he wrote the Origin of Species. It is only in the final pages of the book - after he had presented the theory of evolution of plants and animals by natural selection - that he made his views on the evolution of human behaviour clear: He wrote: "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation."In other words Darwin believed that human behaviour was subject to natural and sexual selection. It also suggests that Darwin was particularly interested in humans and the evolution of human behaviour. Reading about Darwin, I get the impression that these underlying interests were suppressed due to the political and social climate in which he lived ( e.g. Abrams (2001) "Ideals of womanhood in Victorian Britain"available online)

Pinker

And it's not only in 19th century England that Darwin's thoughts are considered shocking. As we shall see the application of this view by evolutionary psychologists is not very popular with some contemporary biologists and psychologists. Read the Pinker vs. Rose debate which is available online and consider the following points. What is the main message in Pinker's book "How the Mind Works"? Are Pinker and Rose creationists? Do Pinker and Rose believe that the ways things are is the way things should be? Do Pinker and Rose believe that our behaviour is a product of nature or nurture? What do Pinker and Rose believe is the function of an individual's life? Do Pinker and Rose believe that behaviour is controlled by a soul?

Rose

• What is reductionism?
• What does it mean to argue that psychologists view perception as an adaptation?
• Has our perception of the world evolved?
• Have our emotions evolved?
• What do you understand by the term 'selfish gene'?
• Do genes cause behaviour?
• Is all our behaviour adaptive?
• What behaviours are not adaptive? What behaviours have not evolved?
• Does a deterministic and paternalistic biology prop up capitalism and patriarchy?
• Could evolutionary psychology cause harmful political consequences?
• What is the place of personal attacks in scientific debate?
• To what extent do Pinker and Rose engage in personal attacks? - illustrate your answer with appropriate quotations.
• Contrast Pinker and Rose's view of 'mind'.
• Contrast Pinker and Rose's view of 'love'
• Does Rose want to retain the concept of humans as unique animals?
• Are we more than 'lumbering robots' containing 'selfish genes'?
• .Rose introduces several terms to explain how "our lives form a developmental trajectory, or lifeline." He rejects the terms 'nature' and 'nurture' because he believes they have come to represent either/or categories of influence on development. He prefers the terms 'specificity' and 'plasticity'. The term specificity refers to genetic influences that ensure the organism remains unaffected by environmental factors. The term plasticity refers to
an organism's ability to react appropriately to its environment. In his own words "The crucial thing is this. All living organisms have simultaneously both to be and to become".( see The Pinker vs. Rose debate, Part 1 page 4)
After you have read Rose's argument, try to recast his explanation in your own words, and illustrate his concepts with your own examples. This may help you to understand his contribution to the debate. You may find it useful to refer to Rose "Darwin, Genes and Determinism" on the BBC Evolution website available online for a further insight into Rose's criticisms of what he terms 'fundamental Darwinism'.
• What has Rose contributed to the nature-nurture debate? Is he attacking a 'straw-man' version of the debate?
• Does evolutionary psychology offer us a picture of humanity as a collection of adaptations produced by selfish genes brought together as replication machines?

Read the reactions by Pinker and Rose to each other's presentation ( see The Pinker vs. Rose debate, Part 1 page 5) and consider the following points:

• Pinker writes "...I don't understand what the point of Professor Rose's argument is." This may be because Rose uses a number of unfamiliar terms (plasticity, specificity, homeodynamics, autopoetic process etc.) that you have encountered when I invited you to rephrase Rose's central point in your own words (see above). Can you help Professor Pinker out of his confusion?
• What does Pinker mean by the term 'adaptationist program' / 'reverse engineering'? It may help you to come back to this question again after you have read the paper by Gould and Lewontin. You might also like to consider how Rose might react to this paper, and Gould's attack on evolutionary psychology in "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism"
  This is a 'big issue' in contemporary critiques of evolutionary psychology. I suspect it may lie at the root of the disagreements between Pinker and Rose. Basically critics say that evolutionary psychology is too keen to view all human behaviour as a set of adaptations that have been shaped by natural and sexual selection. The critics argue that there may be some aspects of our behaviour that are not the products of these processes which propel evolution. In other words everything we do has not been designed to meet some demand in our environment.
  Of course Pinker is aware of the points made by Gould and Lewontin on the limits of adaptation, but he seems keen not to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' when he defends the insights that have been gained through the adaptationist programme. Rose does acknowledge the advances that have come from the adaptationist programme (e.g. perception and the eye), but he is critical of applying this technique in other areas e.g. 'love'.
• Rose criticizes Pinker for suggesting that human psychology evolved to meet conditions in the Stone Age. What is the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA) described by Cosmides and Tooby? Are Rose and Pinker referring to the EEA, or have they been seduced by the catchy phrase  "Modern skulls house a stone age mind."?
• Do you agree with Rose's criticism that evolutionary psychology confuses metaphor, analogy and homology?

You may find it useful to read Curry's response ( which is available online ) to the Roses' attack on evolutionary psychology in their book "Alas, Poor Darwin" published in 2000.

Curry (2003) discusses

• the usefulness of the adaptationist programme:
  • in predicting psychological mechanisms that have evolved to deal with problems faced with our ancestors,
  • and explaining peculiarities of human psychology
• the possibility of evolutionary changes in human behaviour since the end of the Stone Age
• evolutionary psychologists view of how environmental pressures might interact with underlying human 'universals' to produce variation in behaviour across cultures
• the Roses' criticisms of Daly and Wilson's work on children's risk of abuse from step-parents
• Steven Rose's earlier claim that evolutionary psychology harks back to the politicization of science by supporters of eugenics

The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme

Stephen Jay Gould obituary

Obtain a copy of Gould and Lewontin (1979). "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, No 1161, pp. 581-598, available online This is a complex paper written by biologists for biologists, and may not be easily understood by scientists without a first / higher degree in biology. We will concentrate on those parts of the paper that formed the basis for Gould's attack on evolutionary psychology.

Richard Lewontin

What do the terms 'spandrel' and 'Panglossian paradigm' in the paper's title mean?

Spandrel (or pendentive) is the triangular area between two curved arches in buildings. These areas are often used to house elaborate paintings or carvings which are precisely designed to fit into the available space. It is obvious that these decorations have been placed within spandrels to cover an otherwise bare section of the buildings. No one would argue that the building was constructed with curved arches in order to leave spandrels that could be decorated. The spandrel arises because of an architectural constraint. The spandrel is a consequence of the way the building was constructed. A spandrel provides a blank area for an artist to exercise their imagination. Here are examples of that exercise of imagination: image 1; image 2

Gould and Lewontin argue that features of an animal's body and behaviour may have developed for the same reason as spandrels. These spandrel-features are consequences of true adaptations of the animal's body and behaviour which truly evolved under the pressures of natural and sexual selection.

Panglossianism refers to the search for an adaptive reason for every aspect of an animal's behaviour. Panglossianism ignores the possibility that some features of body and behaviour may be spandrels. Gould and Lewontin detected traces of Panglossianism in evolutionary psychology. Panglossianism is named after Dr Pangloss, an eternal optimist in Voltaire's book Candide. He believed that everything was for the best, in the best of all possible worlds. Panglossian explanations are simply the exercise of creative imagination over careful experimental investigation, for example our noses evolved to support spectacles as we grow older; earlobes evolved to support earrings, or benzodiazepine receptors evolved in the brain so that anti-anxiety drugs such as Librium and Valium would have somewhere to attach to.

Voltaire

In the paper find Section 5. "A Partial Typology of Alternatives to the Adaptationist Programme": Go to the last paragraph of Subsection 3 "The decoupling of selection and adaptation", and read the paragraph beginning "Adaptation" - the good fit of organisms to their environment - ..."
This paragraph contains the essence of Gould and Lewontin's criticism of Sociobiology (the forerunner of evolutionary psychology. Look up 'adaptation' in the glossary of this page.

• How does the glossary definition of adaptation differ from that provided by Gould and Lewontin?
• Explain what Gould and Lewontin mean by the terms:
  • physiological adaptation
  • cultural adaptation
  • Darwinian adaptation
• What is the role of genes in cultural adaptation?

Read the abstract at the start of Gould and Lewontin's paper and consider the following points:

• What is the cardinal feature of the 'adaptationist programme?
• Think back to the debate between Rose and Pinker - to what extent are Rose and Gould adaptationists? To what extent are their differences of opinion related to their relative commitment to the adaptationist programme?
• What impact could these differences of opinion between scientists make on the tension between creationists and teachers of evolutionary theory in American education?
• Do you think the behaviour of animals should be analyzed as an 'integrated whole', or as a series of modular traits.? What approach would be favored by Rose and Pinker?
• Are there viable alternatives to 'adaptive stories' to act as a basis for research designed to understand human and animal behaviour?

Feel free to read the rest of Gould and Lewontin's paper. Do not be put off if there are unfamiliar biological terms. Remember that the paper is directed at biologists who use the adaptationist programme to guide their research in areas you will not have encountered before, and do not relate directly to evolutionary psychology (e.g. tyrannosaurus legs). Here are some highlights:

• In the Introduction, the criticism of Harare's explanation of Aztec human sacrifice as a source of protein - I think I tend to agree with Gould and Lewontin - this does look like a spandrel.
• In section 2 "The adaptationist programme", the authors provide a very clear exposition of what they consider to be over-exploitation of the explanatory power of natural selection.
• Is there a parallel between what biologists call 'traits' and the 'modules' studied by evolutionary psychologists? What message do Gould and Lewontin have for these psychologists?
• In Section 3 "Telling Stories" do you agree with the criticism of Barash's study of aggression in mountain bluebirds?
• In Section 2 "The Master's Voice Re-examined" the authors invoke Darwin's words to support their attack on the adaptationist programme. Do you think that Darwin's words "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main, but not the exclusive means of modification" indicates that he would have supported Gould and Lewontin's arguments? Can you think of an alternative explanation for Darwin's outburst?
• In Section 5 "A Partial Typology of Alternatives to the Adaptationist Programme" Gould and Lewontin present several ways in which an animal's form, function and behaviour could arise independently of adaptation based on natural selection. There first example involves 'genetic drift' - a situation in which there is no adaptation and no selection.

Here is a little story I tell myself to explain genetic drift and Gould and Lewontin's critique of the adaptationist programme:

Two rats with short corkscrew tails met, fell in love, and decided to elope. They boarded a cruise liner and disembarked onto an uninhabited island where they wed and prospered. After that, ships seldom visited the island which was overrun with rats.
Several years later two adaptationists visited and pondered .... Eventually they stopped an inhabitant and - pointing to his tail - asked "What's it for?".
"Nothing, great-grandfather and great-grandmother were born this way and there seems no good reason to abandon tradition" came the reply.
Missing the point, the scientists stayed and the island is now populated by men with long beards and women in blue stockings who wander about pointing at this and that asking, "What's it for?".
Recently, a professor of evolutionary psychology at the island's university ordered several cases of fine wine - he has an idea !

Well, it makes sense to me ...

Read Section 6 "Another, and Unfairly Maligned, Approach to Evolution" in Gould and Lewontin.

• How do you think this section relates to the points raised by Rose in his debate with Pinker?
• What do you think Pinker would make of the issue raised by Gould and Lewontin?
• Do you agree with Gould and Lewontin's conclusion that "Too often, the adaptationist programme gave us an evolutionary biology of parts and genes, but not of organisms", do you think this criticism extends to evolutionary psychology?

If you have persisted with this set of readings you should now be in a good position to appreciate the sometimes vicious exchanges between Gould and a number of leading evolutionary psychologists.

You should have sufficient background knowledge to appreciate Gould (1997) "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", New York Review of Books, June 26, 1997 which is available online. As you work through the article you could retain the following issues in mind:

• Bear in mind that you are reading a newspaper article. You are unlikely to come across such a vitriolic attack in a scientific journal. This is one reason why you should scan newspapers for book reviews etc. to get a feel for how scientists really feel about things, but which they would never be allowed to say in a peer-reviewed journal article. There is also a steady stream of very good popular science books appearing on the market. I know these are expensive on a student budget. Scour the second-hand bookshops for them - I do!
• You may be puzzled by references to 'punctuated equilibrium'. This controversial theory was introduced by Gould to explain the emergence of new species. You can read about it in Colby (1996), or skip these section - as far as I know it doesn't figure strongly in the evolutionary psychology literature, nor in the evolution literature (see Ruse,1999, p151).
• If you are in a hurry omit paragraphs 11-18
• What is the difference between 'ultra-Darwinian fundamentalists' and 'pluralists'? Draw up a list of names of authors you have read on this module and see if they fit under one, or the other, category.
• Would regarding reading and writing as 'spandrels' benefit or harm students of evolutionary psychology?
• Is Dennett's attack on spandrels justified?
• Is the search by evolutionary psychologists for adaptations in a long-past environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) unscientific guesswork?
• Have we come full-circle, is there a similarity between evolutionary psychologists and fundamental Christians in their adherence to faiths?
• What aspects of evolutionary psychology does Gould accept?
• Is there a role for Lamarkian evolution in the explanation of culture?
• Is culture an ornament on a brain spandrel? If it is, what are the implications for psychology? Should psychologists study the ornaments on spandrels, or focus their attention on the surrounding arches?

Read Tooby and Cosmides (1997). Letter to the Editor of New York Review of Books on Stephen Jay Gould's "Darwinian Fundamentalism" (June 12, 1997) and "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", (June 26, 1997) available online

• The first paragraph contains one of the most vicious personal attacks I have ever - or ever want to - read on a colleague. (The letter was not published in the New York Review of Books (Brown, 1999, p 150) - presumably it was judged too vitriolic, but it is available on the internet)
• The authors mount a spirited defense of their own work against Gould's criticism that evolutionary psychologists adopt an uncritical adaptationist programme in their research.
• The authors argue that far from searching for Panglossian explanations of known human behaviours, evolutionary psychologists use the concept of an EEA to predict features of the brain that we do not already know about. This is a very powerful rebuttal of the "Just so story" / Pangloss criticism of evolutionary psychology mounted by Gould and others. Having talked to some psychologists about evolutionary psychology, I agree with Tooby and Cosmides comment that the "Just so story" criticism has reached the level of 'urban myth'.

Read Alcock (2000). "Misbehavior: How Stephen Jay Gould is wrong about evolution. Boston review, April/May 2000 (available online)  for a response to Gould and Lewontin's attack on the adaptationist programme by an evolutionary psychologist / sociobiologist.

Here are some points for you to consider:

Alcock accuses Gould of favoring 'proximate explanations' over explanations based adaptive or reproductive value of behaviour. Does Tinbergen's explanation of the four ways that the question "Why ?" can be posed provide a way out of this controversy?

You are probably familiar with the fact that the clitoris and glans penis develop from the same tissue under the influence of hormones. Is it worth exploring an adaptive function for female orgasm? Can you point to any advances in understanding human behaviour that have been made by evolutionary psychologists utilizing the adaptationist programme?

Acquire a copy of  Buss et al. (1998). "Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels", local copy available here. This is an extremely well written and useful paper. I found it helped to read pages 533-539 even though it reviews material we have encountered already. Alternativly, you may want to begin at the section "Exaptations and Spandrels" on page 539

• Pages 533-535 of this paper present a very clear account of the roles of natural selection, sexual selection and inclusive fitness in evolution.
• Pages 535-537 cover  adaptations and by-products of adaptations - what they are and how they are influenced by ontogenetic events, mutation, the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, and random factors.
• Pages 538-539 discusses several factors that constain adaptation.
• Page 539 explains the concept of exaptation
• Buss et al (1998) claim that Gould uses the term exaptation in two ways. Explain in your own words the critical difference between Gould's two uses of the term.
• In this article do Buss et al use the term exaptation to refer to a functional or functionless mechanism? Be very careful, be very,very careful to get this straight in your head before proceeding! The answer is 'functional', but ensure you know why this is the answer.
• Explain with an example what  Buss et al mean by a co-opted adaptation.
• Is a co-opted adaptation an exaptation?
• What is a 'spandrel'? Is it an exaptation or a co-opted adaptation? The answer is that it is an exaptation but it is not a co-opted adaptation, but can you explain why?
• Buss et al (1998) use the term co-opted spandrel instead of Gould's term spandrel. Do you think this linguistic-balance innovation helps clarification?
• Make a list of the spandrels put forward by Gould to help you appreciate the breadth of behaviours Gould considers to be functionless. If Gould is correct in his analysis, what is the consequence for evolutionary psychology?
• Explain the difference between the use of the term adaptive by evolutionary biologists and in everyday speech.
• Must all exaptations/adaptations increase the fitness of an organism in its present environment?
• If a person uses his hands to play tennis and his brain to solve anagrams in a newspaper, does this mean that the brain and the hand have not evolved? Or do tennis playing and anagram solving involve co-opting evolved mechanisms?
• How would you test the hypothesis that religion is an exaptation?
• Is it worthwhile distinguishing between an adaptation and an exaptation?
• Is natural selection important in the emergence and persistence of exaptations/ co-opted adaptations / co-opted spandrels? If so,why?
• Is the theory evolutionary psychology characterised by a set of epistemic values?
• Can evolutionary psychology predict useful novel adaptions that might evolve in the future?
• Can evolutionary psychology do more than generate research papers and grant applications?
• If youve reached this far pour yourself a gin and tonic, fire up the PlayStation or indulge in your favoutite vice - you deserve it!

If you want to delve deeper into this topic, Brown (2000), Ruse (1999) and Morris (2001) provide informative, revealing and entertaining accounts of the passions that are aroused by recent attempts to explain aspects of human behaviour in terms of natural selection.

"The seven sins of evolutionary psychology"

Read Panksepp & Panksepp (2000). "The seven sins of evolutionary psychology". Evolution and Cognition, vol. 6 no 2, 108-131 which is available online. This is an important paper because it goes beyond the type of criticism of evolutionary psychology you have come across already. For example, some commentators argue that evolutionary psychology relies on 'Just so' stories. The Panksepps put forward the potentially more fruitful criticism that evolutionary psychology tends to be 'anthropocentric' and ignores research carried out on other mammals.

As you read the paper consider the following issues:

• Do you think the picture of the 'businessman' exemplifies the approach to evolutionary psychology advocated by the Panksepps? What type of approach to understanding animal behaviour does the picture represent?
• Can you think of examples of "special-purpose, genetically-dedicated circuits for various emotions and motivations in subcortical regions shared by all mammals"?
• How do these circuits differ from the modules studied by evolutionary psychologists?
• Describe, with the aid of an example, 'inclusive fitness'.
• Is it necessary to speculate about the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) to discover modules?
• Why do you think psychology largely ignored biology during the 20th century?
• What is meant by the term 'tabula rasa'? What has been the significance of this term in psychology?
• "Behaviour controlled by subcortical areas of the brain is the subject matter of evolutionary psychobiology. Behaviour controlled by cortical areas of the brain is the subject matter of evolutionary psychology." Discuss
• What are the roles of cortical and subcortical areas in fear? (Consider work by LeDoux).
• Explain with examples the terms: 'spandrel' and 'exaptation'
• Describe the role of Broca's and Wernicke's areas in language. (You may need to do some further research for this question.)
• Explain MacLean's concept of a 'triune brain'.
• List several motivations and emotions shared by rats and humans. What is the consequence of this similarity for evolutionary psychobiology?
• How do Panksepp and Panksepp view the evolution of 'mind' in mammals?
• To what extent would evolutionary psychology benefit by incorporating research conducted by comparative psychologists?
• "Evolutionary psychology does not go far enough backwards in evolutionary time to discover the roots of human behaviour." Discuss
• Is concentration on human behaviour a strength or weakness of evolutionary psychology?
• What is the place of 'animal models' in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary psychobiology?
• What is the place of 'computer models of the brain' in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary psychobiology?
• What does the term 'modular' mean? What aspects of behaviour are ' modular'? Give a list of behaviours you consider to be modular.
• To what extent do studies of the relationship between neurotransmitter systems and behaviour provide "...a suitable foundation for brain/mind theorizing in evolutionary psychology."? (Panksepp & Panksepp, page 120 par. 2)
• How do studies of the biological bases of social attachment relate to inclusive fitness?
• What is the 'developmentalist challenge' to evolutionary psychology?
• Are brain imaging studies creating a modern phrenology?
• What are 'transgenerational effects', and what is their significance for evolutionary psychology?
• Is present day psychology too anthropocentric?

The Theory of Evolutionary Psychobiology

This section gives an insight into just how hard it is to construct an evolutionary theory of behaviour. Lets try to construct a novel theory by returning to the basic ideas used by Darwin in his theory of evolution:

• animals are grouped into species;
• species are characterized by within-species variation;
• species evolve through natural and sexual selection.

Our theory - let's call it evolutionary psychobiology to distinguish it from evolutionary psychology - suggests that the principles that govern the evolution, development and expression of different behavioural modules are identical to the principles that govern the evolution, development and expression of different species.

Let us for the sake of argument make two assumptions:

• behavioural modules are subject to the same laws of nature as species;
• behavioural modules co-exist in a brain in the same way that species live together in ecosystems.

What we know about species	What we theorize about behavioural modules
Species have a physical reality which enables them to be distinguished from each other.	Behavioural modules have a physical reality involving cells and neurotransmitter systems within the brain, but at present are most easily distinguished from each other in terms of their behavioural 'output' e.g eating and fighting are the products of discrete behavioural modules. However, modules can impart a 'quality' to behaviour e.g. ritualization (BBC, 2003, Ritual).
Several discrete species make up an ecosystem	Several discrete behavioural modules make up a brain and nervous system.
Similar but discrete ecosystems contain the same species e.g. it is reasonable to assume that a 10 acre field one mile east of my village contains the same biodiversity as a 10 acre field one mile west.	Similar but discrete individuals contain the same behavioural modules e.g it is reasonable to assume that you and I eat, drink, sleep and occasionally make love.
Individual members of a species show variation as a result of the continuous influence of genetic, environmental and random factors.	An individual's behavioural modules vary as the result of the influence of genetic, environmental and random factors on the continuous development of each behavioural module.
Species evolve through natural and sexual selection.	Behavioural modules evolve through natural and sexual selection
Species can evolve independently of other species	Behavioural modules can evolve independently of other behavioural modules
Species can co-evolve with other species	Behavioural modules can co-evolve with other behavioural modules
Species are discrete, but can interact with each other e.g. sharks and cleaner fish are discreet species but they interact	Behavioural modules are discrete, but can interact with each other e.g. eating depends on eye-hand co-ordination.
The functioning of a particular species may be dependant on the normal functioning of other species e.g. a decline in prey may lead to a decline in predators	The functioning of a particular behavioural module may be dependant on the normal functioning of other co-dependent behavioural modules e.g fear may lead to a decline in sexual motivation
We can control the impact of a particular species within an ecosystem e.g. pest control.	We can potentially control the influence of behavioural modules through psychological and/or physical intervention.
Serious depletion of a species within an ecosystem has unpredictable effects and may destabilize it.	Serious disruption of a behavioural module may have unpredictable effects that interfere with the overall functioning of the individual e.g the impact of Parkinson's disease.

How good is this theory if we judge it against Ruse's epistemic and non-epistemic values. I am not convinced that our theory is fertile or falsifiable in its present form. But this may be a good thing because we can address these issues in the seminar.

The theory of evolutionary psychobiology is clearly fundamentally different to the SSSM (standard social science model) and it also differs from Cosmides and Tooby's evolutionary psychology. Here is a 'straw man' comparison of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary psychobiology to get the debate started.

Consider each area of interest/ type of evidence. If you can find examples / omissions / counterexamples to contradict my prejudices, bring them along to the seminar.

Glossary

• Adaptations are characteristics that have developed during evolution through the mechanisms of natural selection and/or sexual selection. Adaptations are thought to have a genetic basis and therefore pass down the generations. Adaptive features confer reproductive success on individuals that possess them.
• Analogous structures are similar but they do not have a common evolutionary origin
• Anthropomorphism refers to giving animals human motives and emotions. This can lead to great fiction (e.g. Beatrix Potter) but poor science.
• Convergent evolution refers to the evolution of analogous structures in unrelated species subjected to similar environmental demands
• Exaptations are characteristics that originally evolved to perform one function but later performed another. For example, bird wings originally evolved as limbs to support walking.
• Homologous structures are similar because they have a common evolutionary origin
• 'Just so stories' refer to creative evolutionary accounts that cannot be tested. Gould was inspired to make this criticism of some evolutionary psychology by Rudyard Kipling's book that contained fantastical accounts of how animals got to be the way they are.
• Lamarkism: the - now discredited - belief that evolution occurs because offspring inherit characteristics from their parents which were acquired during their lifetimes. For example, a baby giraffe is born with the ability to reach leaves on the top of trees because its parents learnt to collect leaves from there.
• Orthogenesis: the - now discredited - belief that evolution occurs because of a predetermined life force that brings about progress towards 'higher forms' of life.
• Panglossianism is the search for an adaptive reason for every aspect of an animal's behaviour. This criticism of evolutionary psychology was made by Gould and Lewontin who were reminded of a character - Dr Pangloss, an eternal optimist in Voltaire's book Candide - who believed that everything was for the best, in the best of all possible worlds. Panglossian explanations are simply the exercise of creative imagination over careful experimental investigation, for example our noses evolved to support spectacles as we grow older;earlobes evolved to support earrings, or more seriously benzodiazepine receptors evolved in the brain so that anti-anxiety drugs such as Librium and Valium would have somewhere to attach to.
• Spandrel:
  • This term was originally an architectural term for the roughly triangular wall space between two adjacent arches.
  • Gould and Lewontin used the term spandrel for a nonadaptive by-product of evolution . For example the human belly button serves no adaptive function; it is a by-product of the umbilical cord.
• 'Straw man' exaggerating or presenting a caricature of an opponents position / argument so that it appears ridiculous and can be easily dismissed.

References and online resources

• Abrams (2001) "Ideals of womanhood in Victorian Britain" on the BBC History site, available online
• Alcock (2000). "Misbehavior: How Stephen Jay Gould is wrong about evolution. Boston review, April/May 2000, available online
• authors@MIT (2002) Steven Pinker discusses "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" October 31, 2002 available online. The video length length is 1:52:2, Pinker begins at 10:55
• Barrett, et al. (2002). Human Evolutionary Psychology , Palgrave.
• BBC Jane Goodall talks to the BBC about chimpanzees  video available online
• BBC (2002) "Series: In our Time" radio programme   chaired by Melvyn Bragg between Pinker, Richards and Gray in which they discuss if there really is such a thing as human nature.
• BBC Radio Four (2003), 'Ritual' radio programme in which Dr Gillian Rice looks at human and animal rituals, audio available online
• BBC Four (2002). "Human Instinct" propgramme website
• BBC Four (2002)."Breakfast TV" interview based on viewers questions to Robert Winston before "Human Instinct" was transmitted. Interview broadcast on   on 22 October, 2002
• BBC Four (2002). "Human Instinct" Programme 5 -  Debate broadcast on Wednesday 13 November 2002, 10-10.30pm
• BBC (2002). "The Long View",  radio programme broadcast on Tuesday, 9 April 2002, (includes a contribution from Richard Dawkins discussing creationism and education in familiar combative style.)
• Boakes (1984). From Darwin to behaviourism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Bowler (2000) "Charles Darwin: The Man and his Influence", University of Cambridge, Cambridge
• Brown (2000). "The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man". Touchstone/ Siman and Schuster, London.
• Buss, DM. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
• Buss, D.M., Haselton, M.G., Shackelford, T.K., Bleske, A., & Wakefield, J.C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53, 533-548. local copy available here
Chalmers (2003) "Monkeys and Apes:Are they nearly human?"  Lecture from the Darwin Centre: Natural History Museum video available online
• Colby (1996) "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" in The Talk.Origins Archive, available online
• Cosmides & Tooby (1997). Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer, available online
• Curry (2003). Evolutionary psychology: "fashionable ideology" or "new foundation"? Human Nature Review. 3: 81-92. available online
• Desmond and Moore (1991). Darwin, Penguin Group, London
• Darwin, On the Origin of Species (1859). Available online
• Gaglioti (1996) "The fate of Soviet genetics", World Socialist Web Site, available online
• Goodenough, McGuire and Wallace (2001) Perspectives on Animal Behavior, 2nd Edition, Wiley, New York.
• Gould (1997) "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", New York Review of Books, June 26, 1997, available online
• Gould and Lewontin (1979). "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptionist Programme." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, No 1161, pp 581-598, available online
• Hodos and Campbell (1969).  "Scala naturae: Why there is no theory in comparative psychology." Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 337-350.
• Morris (2001) "The Evolutionists: the struggle for Darwin's soul", Freeman, New York.
• Panksepp & Panksepp (2000). The seven sins of evolutionary psychology. Evolution and Cognition, vol 6 no 2, 108-131. Available online.
• Patterson (1999). Evolution, 2nd Edition, Cornell University Press, New York.
• PBS (2001) video "Courtroom Controversy" available online
• PBS (2001) video "Teaching Evolution Case Studies: Dealing with Controversy" available online
• PBS (2001) video Darwin: Reluctant Rebel available online
• PBS (2001)"Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist"  available online
• Pinker vs. Rose debate on evolutionary psychology held at London University's Institute of Education under the sponsorship of Dillon's and The London Times available online
• Rose "Darwin, Genes and Determinism" on the BBC Evolution website available online
• Hilary Rose and Steven Rose (2000). "Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology". London, Jonathan Cape, 2000
• Ruse (1999). "Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construct?". Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• Scientific American Frontiers  (1995) "Monkey See, Monkey Do" video available here
• Scientific American Frontiers  (2001) "Chimps Observed" video available online
• Scientific American Frontiers  (2001) "Chimp Nations: Differences among chimp groups suggest chimpanzees have cultures, too. How are complex traditions passed down through generations? video avalable online
• Tooby and Cosmides (1997). Letter to the Editor of New York Review of Books on Stephen Jay Gould's "Darwinian Fundamentalism" (June 12, 1997) and "Evolution: The Pleasure of Pluralism", (June 26, 1997)  available online
• Wells (1999) Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths, available online

Supplementary reading

• Hieronymus Bosch,  painted The Seven Deadly Sins. The picture contains a painted rectangle with a central image of the eye of God, with Christ watching the world. The Seven Deadly Sins, depicted through scenes of worldly transgression, are arranged around the circular shape.

• The Across-Species Comparisons and Psychopathology Society (ASCAP) publish research on the interface between psychopathology and evolution.
• The ASCAP Bulletin, Volume 2 No 3, pages 13-16, August 2001 contains abstracts of several reactions to the Panksepps' Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology article. A local copy is available
• Geoffrey Miller home page

Copyright Dr. C.A.P. Kenyon 1994-2006