[muawiyah]

We have the scientific reports on the tooth/breast/sweat/hair gene before us. We don't need to call in additional experts to make notice of the obvious ~ when an exceedingly stable gene controls those factors, and the only serious mutation among humans resulted in flatter teeth, smaller breasts, more sweat and thick stiff hair, the whole idea Darwin advanced about large brests attracting the healthiest males is just bizarre!

The genes failed to respond appropriately and did their own thing for their own purposes whatever they were.

[Dysart]

I have uncovered a certain Joan Roughgarden who attacks sexual selection in a 2004 book, but her premise is awful weak and narrow. And she has not appeared to set the scientific community abuzz with her views. Maybe in time her views will be accepted, but that isnt the case yet.

But also, this from someone who agrees with her fwiw:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-adair-gowaty/was-darwin-wrong-about-se_b_2672827.html

[Dysart]

Btw, this Roughgarden while disavows creation science and ID, she does posit a role for God in evolution. She is interesting, I will say that.