Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

by Jeff Guhin, bustedhalo.com

Thanks to BicycleRepairMan for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/RichardDawkinsTheGodDelusionandTheCasualEvolutionist.htm
Ape cocktail
For most of my adult life, I was what you might call, a casual evolutionist. You know, the type of person who could handle your run-of-the-mill, cocktail-party conversation on Darwinism. All the obvious stuff just seemed to make sense, like how giraffes with longer necks had a better shot than their shorter cousins. Or that stronger lions killed more zebras than the weak ones. Or how Donald Trump is still able to date fashion models because…

OK, well, perhaps Darwin's theory had its limits.

But during my recent breakup with my girlfriend, Linda—somewhere between the "I swear this is the last 3 am phone call" and the restraining order—I had an epiphany. With all the extra time on my hands and a serious existential crisis brewing, I began reading Richard Dawkins' popular book The God Delusion. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist who became famous years ago for writing The Selfish Gene. His life's work has been consumed with explaining how all of evolution goes back to genetics and all of life goes back to evolution. The man is a genius. Reading Dawkins' books was like being born again. It was as if the scales had been removed from my eyes. How could I have been so blind to how all-encompassing this theory of evolution truly is?

Origin of the Hotties

I finally had answers to all of the questions that had plagued me for years. Why am I attracted to certain kinds of women? Well, obviously a beautiful woman is more likely to have beautiful children, and those children are more likely to reproduce and so it's in my genetic best interest for me to fall in love with hotties.

What about my thing for smart women? Clearly, smart people have a better shot at surviving adversity—be it a wooly mammoth or a boardroom presentation—so my attraction to smart people has nothing to do with our shared "love of literature." I just want someone who will bear me smart, strong, sabre-tooth cat fighting children.

All my categories had been blown apart. While I thought I was looking for someone who was kind, compassionate, and who treated me as more than a piece of man-candy, Dawkins convinced me that every attractive woman is really just a set of great genes stuffed into a pair of great jeans.

Me…A Natural Selection
Dawkins convinced me that every attractive woman is really just a set of great genes stuffed into a pair of great jeans.
But while it's easy to see the genetic components to attraction, it's far more difficult to recognize them in other areas of our lives. Take my career for example. I teach English at an inner-city, Catholic high school. Wouldn't it be in my best-interest to do something more profitable, like the stock market, or computers, or assembling clothing for the GAP? Ah! This is where my genes demonstrate their true gene-ius. You see, it's in their best interest for me to appear "concerned about children" so that I might attract a woman who wants kids and would prefer them not to work in my "Making Shoes is Fun!" Backyard Sweatshop. Sure, helping young minds grow in their understanding of great literature is nice in theory but it pales in comparison to my deepest desire to spread some DNA.

The Decentness of Man

Truth be told, that's all women want as well. My ex-girlfriend Linda's desire for "a kind, compassionate man" who will remember her birthday and the fact that she's violently allergic to AXE body spray was just a front for those of us too weak to recognize the truth. Every woman's deepest drive is to find a man whose y-chromosome will carry her x-chromosomes forward for centuries.

Now, I admit, I used to believe that most behavior could be explained by evolution, but that things like art, beauty, truth and music transcended simple biology. I believed I could validate my distinct humanity in the feeling of connection I found in a U2 song or the sense of pain I felt for Harry Angstrom in Rabbit is Rich. How could I have been so wrong? Come on, wake up and smell the pheromones, people! Talk to any teenager who picks up a guitar or any artist who ever told a girl he wanted to paint her. My apologies to Messrs. Bono and Updike, but listening to that music and reading all those books just helped me figure out how to connect to women better, and by connect I mean...well, you know what I mean.

Thank you Charles Darwin. Thank you Richard Dawkins. When I think of the heartache I could've avoided had I only understood all of this sooner…my God! (Oops, sorry guys, force of inherited habit.) Were it not for you I would still be torturing myself wondering why Linda left me for her personal trainer (free trial membership my a**!). But thanks to your help I'm now able to realize that it wasn't really Linda telling me she "needed a break;" it was just the genetics talking.

Jeff Guhin is an associate editor at BustedHalo.com

Comments to: editor@bustedhalo.com

Comments 1 - 33 of 33 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #43944 by Philip1978 on May 23, 2007 at 4:37 am

 avatarAh so that's why I am single and will remain so for a long time, am wearing the wrong genes!

Other Comments by Philip1978

2. Comment #43963 by FXR on May 23, 2007 at 5:09 am

 avatarFrom Gerorge Washington to George Bush makes a monkey out of Darwin.

Gore Vidal

Not relevant but I thought it was funny.

Other Comments by FXR

3. Comment #43972 by alovrin on May 23, 2007 at 5:31 am

Reposted from the other bustedhalo with the gringe worthy picture of the man who thinks there are spiritual laws to success Dr Deepak.

Sheeeesh.. this guy needs to take up masturbation, or something, 'cause writing book reviews and talking about "spirituality" are just not his forte, as his dick seems to get in the way....a lot.
No wonder his girlfriend left him, he probably spent more time talking about his member than using it

Other Comments by alovrin

4. Comment #43981 by whirledviews on May 23, 2007 at 5:52 am

Beware. If your computer isn't protected, this web site may infect you with the JS/Exploit-BO.gen virus when you visit.

Other Comments by whirledviews

5. Comment #44005 by eno on May 23, 2007 at 7:11 am

That was a fun and refreshing read actually. I do know what he's saying but it's more relevant in The Selfish Gene than in GD. I love this quote: "Dawkins convinced me that every attractive woman is really just a set of great genes stuffed into a pair of great jeans" - brilliant.

Other Comments by eno

6. Comment #44007 by Lana on May 23, 2007 at 7:15 am

This wasn't a book review, just a funny essay. And I thought it was funny. And I like that the book has gained enough attention to be used as fodder for humor writers.

Other Comments by Lana

7. Comment #44013 by Hyrax on May 23, 2007 at 7:22 am

 avatarMaybe I'm just taking it all too seriously but this shows a very crude and often misguided interperatation of Dawkin's works. Perhaps I need to lighten up ;)

Other Comments by Hyrax

8. Comment #44021 by waxwings on May 23, 2007 at 7:38 am

 avatarFor having had his eyes opened, the author still seems to have a weak grasp of the myriad ways in which selection can act. This is probably because he read 'The God Delusion' instead of one of Dawkins' other (and better) books on evolution.

He ought to try 'The Blind Watchmaker' since he seems a bit confused by the concepts.

Other Comments by waxwings

9. Comment #44030 by waxwings on May 23, 2007 at 7:44 am

 avatarYou know, having just re-read this piece, I now not only think the author's understanding of evolution is not nearly so good as he imagines, I also think this whole piece is a very trite, poorly written bit of fluff.

I'm surprised so many of the people here seem to think it was good.

Other Comments by waxwings

10. Comment #44035 by 3legcat on May 23, 2007 at 8:01 am

i call shenanigans

Other Comments by 3legcat

11. Comment #44036 by BicycleRepairMan on May 23, 2007 at 8:01 am

 avatarAs I said in my previous post, I think he might be sarcastic, by pretending to be overly materialistic in his darwinian thinking, that everything is just plain survival, and he is poking fun at the evolutionists for "waking up" to see this.. but I'¨m not sure, maybe he is somewhat genuinely excited about evolution. At any rate, he fails to note in this article atleast, that an understanding of evolution doesnt mean you need to scrap the non-survival related activities in your own life.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

12. Comment #44038 by 3legcat on May 23, 2007 at 8:03 am

I now not only think the author's understanding of evolution is not nearly so good as he imagines


it is because he is having a laugh at our expense, it is sarcasm and purposeful over simplification, though fairly subtle frankly.

Other Comments by 3legcat

13. Comment #44039 by BicycleRepairMan on May 23, 2007 at 8:08 am

 avatarYup. After reading it once more,an taking a look at his other articles, this is definitely meant as sarcasm/parody

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

14. Comment #44042 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 8:09 am

 avatarI recognise the style, using it quite often on pukiemon.com. He is employing a mix of satire, sarcasm and irony. Whether or not he has a good understanding of evolution is unclear from such a short piece.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

15. Comment #44096 by infidel_michael on May 23, 2007 at 10:11 am

Dawkins convinced me that every attractive woman is really just a set of great genes stuffed into a pair of great jeans.

Yes, that's true, but who cares? We like them, they like us, scientific theories cannot stop us. Music is just a set of waves in the air, but we like the mental representations of them, that is important for us. We like our mental representations of women, not their genes/molecules/atoms/quarks/strings :)

It doesn't make sense to focus only on this level of description (self-replicating molecules) when you talk about relationships between people. It is something like thinking about software as "just a set of 0's and 1's" when talking about user-friendliness, effectiveness or correctness of programs. Just a wrong point of view, and useless. There is much more to say about it.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

16. Comment #44104 by Gustaf Sjoblom on May 23, 2007 at 10:18 am

While this is satirical there is enough truth in there to confuse those of us who have a bit deeper understanding of the concept of evolution.

We are not really the best audience for this though as we are more likely to point out errors in reasoning rather than enjoying the fun parts.

Overall I think it is quite funny, at least the first read.

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

17. Comment #44111 by konquererz on May 23, 2007 at 10:32 am

 avatarI found myself chuckling at this article. I don't really care about his true level of understanding, but it was funny on a simple level that you have to just accept and laugh at or ignore it and move on. I didn't find it hilarious, or repulsive, just amusing. Funny little article.

Other Comments by konquererz

18. Comment #44143 by Rtambree on May 23, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Most couples pair in narrow social tiers.

We all want the a-list, but the a-list doesn't want us.

So there's a ceiling and a floor in each strata.

University-educated people tend to prefer university-educated spouses, upper class to upper class, middle class to middle class, working class to working class, welfare class to welfare class, etc. Then there's the relationship between women's dress size and men's income. There's all sorts of interesting patterns that are *generally* the case.

There's a saying - don't criticize the faults in your partner, because it's those faults that prevented your partner from getting someone better.

This works for employers, employees, friends, spouses, etc.

Other Comments by Rtambree

19. Comment #44159 by poppythinks on May 23, 2007 at 1:43 pm

 avatar".... to my deepest desire to spread some DNA."
"Truth be told, that's all women want as well"
this guy is really stupid. he has a stupid attitude towards women, no wonder the girlfriend
left.
"Every woman's deepest drive is to find a man whose y-chromosome will carry her x-chromosomes forward for centuries."
not me, mate.
"Reading Dawkins' books was like being born again"
sarcasm or what...
he is clearly suffering from a relationship break-up, can't deal with his emotions, so parodies
dawkins, evolution and women to make himself 'feel better'.
in short, one ego-centred-idiot-in-denial, and well done for leaving him linda....

Other Comments by poppythinks

20. Comment #44181 by ? on May 23, 2007 at 2:41 pm

 avatarDawkins has often attacked simplistic attempts to make "Darwinism" a philosophy about how we should live our personal lives. Also, one of the main reasons for meme theory is that Dawkins realizes very well that genetics do not explain every aspect of human behavior. The article is cute, but stuff like that bugs me. If he wants to make fun of shallow pop-Darwinism, make fun of writers who actually promote it.

Other Comments by ?

21. Comment #44184 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 2:45 pm

 avataroh poppythinks, get over yourself.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

22. Comment #44188 by kizumoto on May 23, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Reading the messages, I detect confusion over the writer's reason for writing ths article. A look at the web site and some of his earlier articles on that site suggests he is trying to ridicule evolution while displaying his wit to the other site members. It is a Catholic site and he is one of its main participants.

Other Comments by kizumoto

23. Comment #44192 by poppythinks on May 23, 2007 at 3:13 pm

 avatardear pewkatchoo
i sent an email to bustedhalo to tell jeff he was a scumbag. r u 1 2??

Other Comments by poppythinks

24. Comment #44193 by the great teapot on May 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm

He is a Catholic.
No wonder she needed a break.

Other Comments by the great teapot

25. Comment #44197 by mr_darkman on May 23, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Satire helps if you understand what you are satirising.

Perhaps the christians should stick to what they know best, like cutting and pasting an image of Darwins face onto a picture of a monkey.

Other Comments by mr_darkman

26. Comment #44202 by Shuggy on May 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm

 avatar
All the obvious stuff just seemed to make sense, like ... how Donald Trump is still able to date fashion models because…

OK, well, perhaps Darwin's theory had its limits.

He obviously hasn't read anything recently. Young women hooking up with rich and powerful men with bad toupées to support their children (and young and handsome men on the side to father them*) is exactly what the theory predicts.

*I don't know if that's exactly true in Trump's case, but if I were a fashion model, that's what I'd do.

Other Comments by Shuggy

27. Comment #44215 by 5537P06 on May 23, 2007 at 5:38 pm

This piece was clearly written to mock Dawkins and The God Delusion by portraying both as shallow, but the author succeeded only in demonstrating his own lack of understanding of evolution and the principles behind natural selection.

Other Comments by 5537P06

28. Comment #44233 by Russell Blackford on May 23, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Not a bad parody of pop evolutionary psychology, and it gave me a laugh or two, but the trouble is that pop evolutionary psychology most likely contains a certain amount of truth. Some of these scenarios that we are supposed to take as obviously ridiculous are only mildly exaggerated extensions of recognisable human mating behaviour. We really are a little bit absurd when you stand back and look at how we act. Perhaps inadvertently, the piece ends up making fun of us as much as it does of evolutionary psychological explanations.

Also, surely it's more a parody of something like Matt Ridley's The Red Queen than anything by Dawkins.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

29. Comment #44259 by dirtpiggy on May 23, 2007 at 10:26 pm

 avatarI had a chuckle. But knowing why we feel things doesn't change the actual feeling.

Other Comments by dirtpiggy

30. Comment #44265 by Richard Morgan on May 24, 2007 at 12:23 am

 avatarMany years ago, when I was a trainee neurotic, I had a good friend who was a psychotherapist.
One day, we were kicking a football around on his lawn, and when he had scored his umpteenth goal against me, I justified my vulnerability by saying, "It's easy to score againt me, as a hopeless neurotic my defence systems aren't working properly."
He came over to where I was lying on the grass, sobbing gently into the ground,and he playfully kicked me in the face and walked on my testicles, and came out with this memorable sentence (memorable because I can remember it, dummy!): " For fuck's sake, Richard, it isn't always therapy! Sometimes it's just fucking life!"

Yeah!
Now, thirty years later, I am a fully qualified, card-carrying neurotic but I can still say: "For fuck's sake, it isn't always evolution! Sometimes it's just fucking life!"

Reductionism is great for the Borneo head-shrinkers and Weight-watchers. But you can be sure that Richard Dawkins doesn't go around spotting evolution in every shop window, in every roll of fair-trade recycled toilet paper, or in the Hitch-hiker's Guide to Creatonist Stupidity.

Most of the time it's just life, chum.
Linda realised that before you did.
Because she was genetically programmed to do so.





errr...




Oh, shit.....

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

31. Comment #44267 by pewkatchoo on May 24, 2007 at 12:47 am

 avatarI went and had a quick look around the busted halo site. It seems that our OP fancies himself as a humorist xtian. A contradiction in terms perhaps. So on reflection he is taking the p. Shame, I originally thought that he might have been having a dig at himself for being a bit clueless. But he has form.

Still doesn't make poppythinks right though. A numpty is a numpty.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

32. Comment #44286 by Stuey on May 24, 2007 at 5:17 am

I'm really bored of people mentioning Richard Dawkins' books as having CONVINCED them of Evolution or the non-exitence of God. Using the word "convinced" suggests that Dawkins is trying to pursuade us to believe when, in reality, all Dawkins has done is written a record of absolute truth. If someone has needed to be convinced of the truth then I feel sympathy for them for being so deluded but at the same time I feel enraged by them for thinking that their ability to be convinced or otherwise has any bearing on either the truth or the massive intellect or Richard Dawkins. GET A LIFE, PLEBS!!! YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT NOR THE INTELLECT TO VOICE YOUR OPINIONS RELATING TO THE TRUTH. I LIKE BRICKS BECAUSE THEY MAKE MY HOUSE BUT THAT IS OF NO INTEREST TO ANYONE!!!!

Other Comments by Stuey

33. Comment #44464 by MrEmpirical on May 24, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Why do so many people assume that genes are responsible for ALL behaviours and EVERY aspect of life? Genes are responsible for our innate dispositions and traits, but plenty of other traits and aspects of life are determined by socialisation, memes, the environment, etc.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: