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 can not 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