runtime wrote:
It could be that you've been taking the very long way around the barn to say that you think social and cultural forces are better explanations for what we found than are evolutionary pressures that had their effect in the past.
That's a perfectly reasonable statement, and (as an anthropologist) I can see a variety of ways to see whether it holds up or not (and I listed some of those earlier).
What?! This is what I've been saying the whole time. I said it on the FIRST PAGE! Go back and read it. I wouldn't say that's the long way around the barn. The post you're referring to was saying that you were trying to swallow social/cultural explanation into your evolution explanation. I don't think it was unclear. I even gave specific examples of discrimination of females in sports, to which Deaner has not given a response.
My contention is that there is a serious logical flaw in the author's argument. The entire argument rests on the premise that there are no longer any social and cultural differences in how women are treated in sports. The author makes a weak attempt to justify the premise, citing the supreme court for example. However, as others have pointed out, it is nearly impossible to rule out social and cultural forces.
As long as there are still cultural barriers to women in running (and it is obvious that there are--just browse the letsrun message board), you cannot reasonably claim that evolution is the driving force behind the observed performance differences, especially since you can't do any experiments to test this claim. This is a simple and straightforward objection to the research, and it is one that you would expect to encounter if you presented the research at any serious university. Honestly, I think the author would get laughed out of the room in a serious anthropology or gender studies department. I urge you to give it a shot and report back.