Abstract The goal of this paper is to critically evaluate Anthropological Evolutionary Ecology (AEE) as a paradigm by utilizing the method for theory framework developed by Pickett et al. (1994). While AEE can contribute in some ways to our understanding of human behavior through methods and techniques derived from neo-Darwinian theory (as well as current approaches in animal behavior and decision theory), AEE as a paradigm remains theoretically ill-equipped for the study of human ecology. This critique will focus on Anthropological Evolutionary Ecology, however, references will be made to Biological Evolutionary Ecology (BEE) since AEE relies heavily on theoretical components derived from BEE. Introduction A critique of Anthropological Evolutionary Ecology (AEE) as a theoretical paradigm should begin with a definition of paradigm. Following Kuhn (1970), the definition reads: a paradigm is the world view, belief systems, series of assumptions, methods, techniques and exemplars for problem solution held in common by a scientific community. The critique here is meant to apply to AEE as a theoretical paradigm in general, often referred to as evolutionary behavioral ecology and to its submodels and subtheories, in particular optimal foraging theory and life history theory. The critique is divided into seven sections, closely paralleling the structure of Figure 1. This scheme depicts the general components of theory and their degrees of development. Basically, as theory develops, it changes in two major ways: 1) through the addition of theoretical components (see rows in Figure 1); and 2) through the refinement of components (see columns in Figure 1). This scheme shows both increase in the number and refinement of components as theory matures. The column headings from left to right represent increasing development of theory, whereas the rows from top to bottom indicate increasing completeness of theory. Box 1 describes the major components of theory that are referred to in the rows of Figure 1. Box 2 describes the stages of maturation depicted in the columns of Figure 1. During the early stages of theory development, the emphasis is on the addition of components. By the consolidating stage of theory development all of the components are in place. Subsequently, refinement of components is emphasized. Thus, as theory develops, it becomes more and more complete, by the addition and refinement of theoretical notions, constructs, derived constructs, and structure. Increasing richness of components is a hallmark of maturing theory. For AEE, notions, assumptions, facts, and hypotheses developed early, with assumptions being the first to be fully developed. But notions are not yet fully explicit, and confirmed generalizations, models, translation modes, domain and the framework are still in the process of being refined. The stages of maturation depicted in the columns of Fig. 1 can be thought of as an idealized developmental sequence. Theory change is actually often chaotic, reflecting a combination of different empirical pursuits and different subtheories, and in the case of AEE, more complex or highly derived components have not yet accompanied simpler ones. Draw-ing on other theories for components has also resulted in transfer problems, where those components have acquired different meanings and interpretations problematic in their new context. Nonetheless, the key idea is that the jobs a theory is able to do depend upon its stage of maturity (Box 2); that is, the richness of its roster of theoretical components and their refinement. As a theory begins to take shape and to be used it often becomes clear that existing components must be replaced or refined. Theory may emerge from pre-theoretic notions by adding components, without showing much refinement. At the consolidating stage basic conceptual components are refined, empirical content is refined and expanded, derived conceptual components are added and refined, and the theoretical framework and structure begin to take shape. …