Custom Search

Sunday, August 06, 2006

The latest from evolutionary psychology: Colour vision evolved to detect blushing, NOT snakes

Recently, we learned that colour, detail, movement, and 3-D vision evolved in order to help us avoid snakes (as opposed to all the other dangers, nuisances, and hassles that flesh is heir to). It now turns out that colour vision evolved to help us detect others blushing.

... a team of California Institute of Technology researchers has published a paper suggesting that we primates evolved our particular brand of color vision so that we could subtly discriminate slight changes in skin tone due to blushing and blanching. The work may answer a long-standing question about why trichromat vision (that is, color via three cone receptors) evolved in the first place in primates.

"For a hundred years, we've thought that color vision was for finding the right fruit to eat when it was ripe," says Mark Changizi, a theoretical neurobiologist and postdoctoral researcher at Caltech. "But if you look at the variety of diets of all the primates having trichromat vision, the evidence is not overwhelming."

So let me get this straight: For one hundred years, we were expected to absolutely believe (in publicly funded systems) that the evidence that colour vision evolved to help us find the right fruit to eat was overwhelming - but it now turns out it wasn't. Now we are informed of a "speculation" that colour vision evolved to detect blushing.

Of course, for blushing detection to be a really important factor in the development of the modern human, we must assume that original humans were only lightly pigmented, so that blushing was easy to detect. Do we know this? How?

(In that case, we must also assume that other methods of detection of lying and cheating were not readily available. Why not?)

I have lived all my life among very light-skinned people, and I cannot clearly recall a single instance where blushing was used to determine a person's intentions. For one thing, blushing can be brought on by a number of factors - heavy labour in hot weather, overheated rooms, vigorous exercise, emotional stress, menopause, pregnancy, disease, heavy drinking, surface skin freezing in very cold weather, to name just a few. Awareness of these possible causes of blushing does not require a high level of education, just observation of the people in one's own environment - if one is usually surrounded by very light-skinned people.

No discerning person would take seriously an explanation of truthfulness/intentions based only on blushing. It's a good thing that all this evo psycho is only a "speculation." That's okay with me, really, except, how does it come to be classified as science?
If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Labels: , , ,

New book: Politically incorrect guide to Darwinism

I gave up being politically correct a while back, when I discovered I was practically choking on my own flesh, let alone my own words - my brain was turning to mush, thinking of ways to say what I really meant without offending people I did nto even respect - so I decided it was better and safer and more sane to just be politically incorrect and call the shots as they came down. My life improved dramatically. The people I lost were never really friends.

Jonathan Wells, one of the hated ID biologists, has just written The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

Given how much that guy is viewed as a problem for puncturing Darwinist icons - in an environment where it is not yet legal to behead unbelievers - you should buy and read this book if you think the establishment is sometimes wrong. But not if you think the establishment is always right or should always be given the benefit of the doubt, despite growing dissent. In that case, why upset yourself? There's lots of pap on legacy mainstream TV.
If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove's critique of Darwinism

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.
Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Labels: ,

Who links to me?