= new reply since forum marked as read
- I mean up there with the "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens" guy and the playing-with-their-own-poop fundy numbskulls who blame bad weather on teh geyz. If this woo were true something truly remarkable would have happened - human beings, good old homo sapiens, the species who is wise, would be the one and only higher animal on the planet with no hardwired instincts and predispositions. Dogs bury bones, cats cover their poop, chimps climb trees, grazing animals band together in herds, but nope, one animal in the history of the evolution of life has no hardwired instincts - humans. The likelihood of this being true is on the Santa Claus/transubstantiation level of sheer ridiculousness and impossibility.
That this "concept" is absolutely barking-at-the-moon, batshit fking insane is so readily apparent to anyone who knows anything about natural selection that it barely merits refutation.
Science is bad because it might discover evil things, especially things that disagree with our already set-in-stone ideas of what the world is. For christ's sake don't confuse the issue with hard scientifically-tested, rigorously evaluated evidence!
Exactly the same types of fact-free rationalizations are heard from the young-earth creationist dimbulbs. 
The one core fact about science and the scientific method is that anything learned by its application is subject to revision in the light of more advanced knowledge. Otherwise it ain't science.
The postulations of evolutionary psych will either be found plausible and valid through the application of the scientific method or they won't. My money is that a surprising amount of the hypotheses will wind up scientifically valid.
And I'm supposed to be the one with the "volatile room temperature IQ"???
Hey, too bad you can't edit that thing, huh.
. . . because of its implication of gender determinism, or determinism, period. However, I haven't had one radfem or feminist helpful enough to verify if that's the case.
I tried to say that sociobiology implies no such thing. That a biologist doesn't see genetics as determining outcomes at all, if anything, they see genes providing possibilities.
Though I have to admit, they may be suspicious as male scientists tell them certain facts, theories and hypotheses. They may think the data has been cooked to undercut feminism. In presuming the data is corrupt, they then throw it out and make their own guess. And wouldn't you know, they base their guesses on social science, a category of academia known for it's reliable data and unbiased researchers, all of whom in no way want to prove their own theories and launch social movements based on them.
Until you actually get more female scientists into the sociobiology or psycho-biology fields, you're not going to settle this. Not when distrust is running so high.
