The article started out fine. It's an interesting topic that I've never really wondered about and it made me curious. And then I came across things like this:

The article started out fine. It's an interesting topic that I've never really wondered about and it made me curious. And then I came across things like this: Instincts are coded for by genes. Genes are made up of DNA strands which use a sort of language, Gattaca. In English words, a man’s instinct may have been quite simple, and something like the following: "Look at women, and see if they have a pair of round wobbly things on their chests. If they have such a thing, feel sexually repulsed. Increase this feeling as they are bigger, rounder, wobblier." One might argue that a man with such an instinct would do well, in the light of the changes in the bodies of women, to delete this programming entirely. However, a much smaller mutation could alter the programming to: "Look at women, and see if they have a pair of round wobbly things on their chests. If they have such a thing, feel sexually stimulated. Increase this feeling as they are bigger, rounder, wobblier." Can we say "pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo" here? Just because it's a smaller change in a natural-language description of an instinct, it doesn't necessarily mean that the mutation is smaller. The author is making a huge, unwarranted and rather silly assumption about the relationship between the DNA structure and the complexity of the natural-language description of the consequences of that DNA structure.