That first link has nothing to do with anything - I won't argue the issues with it as I would probably get in trouble for turning this into a blog. Who constructed the table in your second link? (it was not clear). Was it a credible academic clearly labeling themselves as an EP? If it is a legitimate source, you should cite them. Regardless, you should know that this is not how you reference sources in psychology. The sources are not at all clear... in the table, the author writes their piece, then say at the very bottom: "The four Central Questions are BASED UPON Darwin e.g. 1859, 1871; Lorenz e.g..." What does that mean exactly? Is this a bibliographic listing of sources that a person might have read before constructing the questions? Regardless, it needs to be made clear. A bibliography is much different than a reference list. Your table, for example, would seem to be YOUR WORK, with bibliographic references to the sources you claim to have read. You ask us to read the references if information is unfamiliar. I have stated here numerous times that Darwin's Origin of Species cannot be summarized in the way that you have done so.   

Tables are great ways of summarizing established information.  But you are using the table to forward a novel argument - this is a straightforward violation of NOR which is why the table should be deleted.  Your links only prove that other people use this table to make points not about evolutionary psychology.  E.g.: "THE FOUR CENTRAL QUESTIONS OF BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH USING ETHOLOGY AS AN EXAMPLE."  Aside from the fact that this does not come from a source that meets our sourcing standards, the source does not even say what you claim it says.    |  Talk 
An important question is also whether these concepts are key to EP or to evolutionary theory in general.