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

2. Comment #43963 by FXR on May 23, 2007 at 5:09 am
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.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.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.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.7. Comment #44013 by Hyrax on May 23, 2007 at 7:22 am
8. Comment #44021 by waxwings on May 23, 2007 at 7:38 am
9. Comment #44030 by waxwings on May 23, 2007 at 7:44 am
10. Comment #44035 by 3legcat on May 23, 2007 at 8:01 am
i call shenanigans11. Comment #44036 by BicycleRepairMan on May 23, 2007 at 8:01 am
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
13. Comment #44039 by BicycleRepairMan on May 23, 2007 at 8:08 am
14. Comment #44042 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 8:09 am
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.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.17. Comment #44111 by konquererz on May 23, 2007 at 10:32 am
18. Comment #44143 by Rtambree on May 23, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Most couples pair in narrow social tiers.19. Comment #44159 by poppythinks on May 23, 2007 at 1:43 pm
20. Comment #44181 by ? on May 23, 2007 at 2:41 pm
21. Comment #44184 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 2:45 pm
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.23. Comment #44192 by poppythinks on May 23, 2007 at 3:13 pm
24. Comment #44193 by the great teapot on May 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm
He is a Catholic.25. Comment #44197 by mr_darkman on May 23, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Satire helps if you understand what you are satirising.26. Comment #44202 by Shuggy on May 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm
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.
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.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.29. Comment #44259 by dirtpiggy on May 23, 2007 at 10:26 pm
30. Comment #44265 by Richard Morgan on May 24, 2007 at 12:23 am
31. Comment #44267 by pewkatchoo on May 24, 2007 at 12:47 am
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!!!!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.
1. Comment #43944 by Philip1978 on May 23, 2007 at 4:37 am
Other Comments by Philip1978