Austin Fontaine 
Megan Novelli As already mentioned, Evolutionary Psychology is crafted using a great deal of conjecture based on correlations (and less on tangible derivations). But what about the implications? Are we really just an increasingly complex version of lower animals, galvanized to our current state of success through centuries of adaptations brought about by our environment and random genetic shifts that offer either advantages or impediments? Can “the human being” really be debased all the way back to a primal ancestor?
It seems increasingly common to find people who have no problems with the idea, especially considering evolution’s increasing popularity. Obviously, depending on your views, this may vary considerably. Those that subscribe to Creationism may obviously feel drastically different about the situation. I personally feel we accept the idea far too readily. Are we really no more than the success of feral ancestors centuries ago, brought to success by random chance and good genes to boost our odds? Could it really have been so easy for some other dominant creature to take the reins of civilization, had events occurred in a slightly different fashion?
The video on the origin of human expressions had me wondering if the explanations for how we came to be are really that simple. Can something as complex as social interactions and varying facial expressions be tied all the way back survival mechanisms back in a less sophisticated state? I’d like to think not, but in the same way evolutionary psychology offers more conjecture than evidence, I have nothing with which prove it wrong.
What about laughter (as brought up in class)? What survival mechanism did that serve? Is it possible that as time went on and people become the more “dominant” creature on this world, we were able to socially develop these behaviors in a time where security and time were not scarce resources (as in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), as a complex byproduct of increased social interaction?
It’s the implications that bother me the most, that our dominion on this world is more a product of chance and our claim to it even less tenuous than before, that at the core we have our primitive ancestors driving our race, that our behaviors can be traced back to behaviors that promoted survival, engineered by instrumental conditioning. Looking back, it’s kind of like comparing us to machines. As much like I’d like to take a stand and say no, that we’re something above all that, I have nothing with which to prove it. We could just be a bunch of over-glorified primates for all I could prove.
Josh Morrison
10:10 pm, 09.29.10
Debates like this always interest me and stir a particular personality trait within me, namely that I have no sanctimony for humanity. That sounds nihilistic or whatever, but that’s not what I’m intending. It’s like patriotism. I want America to succeed as a country because I live here and so do the people I love and I want us to have good lives. Were I to move to another country, my loyalties would immediately come with me. I don’t have any particular affections for this country. That’s how I am in regards to my species. I care deeply about and find people so interesting only because I am one and not because I think there is inherent cause to. The origin of my species is incredibly irrelevant to me as anything other than a fun fact and regardless of how I exist I won’t feel demeaned by it.
Michael Bartholomew
10:22 pm, 09.29.10
I would honestly have no problem with the idea if it weren’t monkeys… I just can’t stand them (though media representation might have something to do with that). It could have been a rat, a raccoon, or an iguana for all I care, but it had to be monkeys… I don’t know, I suppose that’s a personal deal, but I refuse to subscribe to the idea of being an advanced simian, even at the risk of being considered close-minded.
Jonathan Sanders
2:43 pm, 10.01.10
The central part of my angst with the theory that through evolution we transcended from monkeys is that nothing explains the leap from not having a soul to suddenly having one. There is a definite separation between body and spirit in humans, and the soul is an integral part of our lives that is not recognized in the animal kingdom. Furthermore, from my understanding and interpretation, the soul is not made up of physical matter and neither can it “grow” or be enhanced because it is ethereal in its existence. There is no doubt about the definite similarities between certain physical attributes and behaviors between animals and humans, but what about the soul?
Jordan Johnson
6:17 am, 10.04.10
I was watching my dog eat his food the other day and i noticed how he protected his food with his stance as another dog came near his bowl. His stance widened and he covered his food. I then went to a local fast food place with my wife. I saw two kids eating together, the older kid was taking food from the younger ones plate. The younger kid widened his legs where he sat and covered his bowl. We may be over glorified primates, but the fact that we can analyze this behavior says a lot for our species. As far as Jonathan’s idea of the soul and when is one acquired along evolution, when is one acquired at what age as a human maybe not acquired but when can it be considered evil and condemned to hell is it based on age or is it based on intelligence, can a retarded person go to hell. I think questions of the soul have a lot more to deal with other than just if we are human or not.