In which sloppy scientific reasoning inspires weak attempts at humor

Apropos of nothing much:

How many evolutionary psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. Millions of years of sexual selection have adapted us to navigate in total darkness by tripping over furniture.

And in the interest of balance:

How many evolutionary biologists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Only one—but, you know, if we wait long enough, we strongly expect non-deterministic processes to change the bulb for us.

(Confidential to Guillaume: I, for one, would love to hear an adaptive hypothesis to explain the origin of an academic field heavily devoted to making up hypotheses without ever testing them. Perhaps it’s some sort of honest signalling mediated by h-scores?)