<unk>  sounds as if it were merely another branch of traditional normative<unk> .  This is not the case.  To use its own terminology, EP seeks to heal a fundamental division at the very heart of science --- that between the "soft" human social sciences and the "hard" natural sciences.  That human science is a category separate and apart from natural science ultimately carries with it a wrongheaded philosophical implication that humans are, in some way, separate and apart from the natural world ---the historical fallacy that the Darwinian perspective now works to correct.  The fact that human beings are living organisms demands that<unk> , as the study of the human mind, be understood as a branch of biology, the science of all living organisms.  And, in keeping with the requirements of good biological science, EP derives its theoretical foundation solely from the same source as biology:  Darwinian<unk>  theory.  EP also properly understands its place within the rubric of biology as a branch of primatology.  Succinctly, EP is the natural science studying the mind of the human primate.  Thus, in the broadest sense, EP is the rather dramatic announcement to the world that<unk>  has finally "graduated" to the status of natural science and that the fundamental dichotomy at the heart of science between human science and natural science is now (or will soon be) at an end.  With the birth of EP, there will, eventually, be needed only the umbrella term "science" to represent one fully consistent  "monolith" of falsifiable knowledge.  Likewise, the phrase<unk> " is seen as merely a stopgap terminology that will end upon the full recognition that<unk>  is, necessarily, a biological science.  “In the future, the study of human<unk>  will be completely transformed by the Darwinian approach…it won’t be called<unk> ’.  It will just be called<unk> ’".
Just as human<unk>  physiology has worked to identify physical adaptations of the body that represent "human physiological nature," the purpose of<unk>  is to identify evolved emotional and cognitive adaptations that represent "human<unk> cal nature."  EP is, to quote Steven Pinker, "not a single theory but a large set of hypotheses" and a term which "has also come to refer to a particular way of applying<unk>  theory to the mind, with an emphasis on adaptation, gene-level selection, and modularity." EP proposes that the human brain comprises many functional mechanisms, called<unk> cal adaptations or evolved cognitive mechanisms or cognitive modules designed by the process of natural selection. Examples include language acquisition modules, incest avoidance mechanisms, cheater detection mechanisms, intelligence and sex-specific mating preferences, foraging mechanisms, alliance-tracking mechanisms, agent detection mechanisms, and so on. 
EP has roots in cognitive<unk>  and<unk>  biology (See also sociobiology).  It also draws on behavioral ecology, artificial intelligence, genetics, ethology, anthropology, archaeology, biology, and zoology. EP is closely linked to sociobiology, but there are key differences between them including the emphasis on domain-specific rather than domain-general mechanisms, the relevance of measures of current fitness, the importance of mismatch theory, and<unk>  rather than behaviour. Many<unk> sts, however, argue that the mind consists of both domain-specific and domain-general mechanisms, especially<unk>  developmental<unk> sts. Most sociobiological research is now conducted in the field of behavioral ecology.
The term<unk>  was probably coined by Michael Ghiselin in his 1973 article in Science. Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby popularized the term<unk> " in their highly influential 1992 book The Adapted Mind:<unk>  and The Generation of Culture. EP has been applied to the study of many fields, including economics, aggression, law, psychiatry, politics, literature, and sex.
EP uses Nikolaas Tinbergen's four categories of questions and explanations of animal behavior.  Two categories are at the species level; two, at the individual level.  The species-level categories (often called “ultimate explanations”) are
the function (i.e., adaptation) that a behavior serves and
the<unk>  process (i.e., phylogeny) that resulted in this functionality.
The individual-level categories are
the development of the individual (i.e., ontogeny) and
the proximate mechanism (e.g., brain anatomy and hormones).<unk>  emphasizes the functionality category.<unk>  is a hybrid discipline that draws insights from modern<unk>  theory, biology, cognitive<unk> , anthropology, economics, computer science, and paleoarchaeology. The discipline rests on a foundation of core premises. According to David Buss, a prominent researcher in the field, these include:
Similarly, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, two of the founders of the field, offer these five foundational principles of<unk> :
Evolutionary psychology
Cognitive science
Social neuroscience
Neuroeconomics
Forensic science
Evolutionary neuroscience
Sensory neuroscience
Medical physics