Validity of Evolutionary Explanations Demonstrated

An article in Ethology is claiming much for itself.  It purports to show “New evidence for the validity of evolutionary explanations,” according to EurekAlert.  Researchers are claiming evidence that “Men holding high positions within a hierarchical organisation have more offspring than those in other positions within the same organisation.”  The sample was male university employees.  Apparently this group compensated for unexpected results from other groups:

Although a positive relationship between male status and offspring count has been predicted by evolutionary theory and found in animal species and “traditional” human societies, in modern societies, most studies found no or even a negative relationship. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

So how to account for the discrepancy?  According to the brief summary, “status may be a more important dimension for subsamples than for representative samples of entire societies.”
    Economists and managers should take note of this finding, the report says.  It suggests that “evolutionary forces may still be at work in modern societies” and “might explain the striving for high and prestigious positions in men.”

There are so many things wrong with this study, Darwinists should silence these researchers so as not to embarrass the Party.  (1) When you have to use subsamples instead of representative samples to get the results your theory predicted, what does that tell you about your theory?  (2) What kind of bizarre sample is university male employees, anyway?  Perhaps it could be compared to the jungle, so we might grant that possibility.  (3) More offspring is not better.  In the university milieu they might all be gay.  (4) Evolution is not a force.  Suggestion: replace o with a, then it works.  (5) Men in high and prestigious positions don’t have time to have kids.  If their fable were true, why is the country being overrun with low-income workers with big families who grow up to repeat the cycle?  (6) Women don’t marry such men to have kids.  They marry them to divorce them and take their money.  (7) Feminists are going to get mad about this sexist idea, because it will appear to give scientific justification for male ambition.  (8) The argument is self-refuting, because if being a scientist is an example of a high and prestigious position, then these scientists did not come up with their fable to discover a truth, but to pass on their genes.
    That should do for starters.  “Evolutionary explanations” is an oxymoron, like vanilla fudge, rock opera or Microsoft Works.  O, for reporters who would not let the Darwinists get away with unadulterated tripe.  Nobody on a school board is going to read Ethology, but the Darwinists hope their little bugle calls on EurekAlert will make everyone salute as a conditioned response.  Sorry, those days are over.  Since the Baloney Detector went online, the prisoners in the Darwinist concentration camps (i.e., high school biology classes) have seen the outside world, and are no longer afraid of the authority figures behind the Bamboozle Curtain.