This is a shortsighted and reactionary post: DH1 or DH2 at best [1]. I understand your frustration, but if you only have frustration to contribute then HN prefe

This is a shortsighted and reactionary post: DH1 or DH2 at best [1]. I understand your frustration, but if you only have frustration to contribute then HN prefers silence. It's the path to maintaining a respectful community. It turns out, unsurprisingly, that all human phenotypes cannot be explained by naïve evolutionary biology but instead require more genetics and biochemistry to describe. Consider the specifics of eye color: evolution does not specify this feature, so a theory which goes above evolution (not contrary to what EGreg is asking for) is necessary to predict this phenotype. We're just more complicated than that. This is a rebuttal to using pure evolution to model the shape of human physiology that doesn't introduce religion. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html