Noam Chomsky has long been suspicious of evolutionary, selectionist accounts of the origins of language, yet his reasons for this suspicion have never been entirely clear. In a recent book, Jerry Fodor offers us "the usual Chomskian story" as to why language need not be a product of natural selection. I point out that this argument is exceedingly weak, formally speaking. I argue, further, that Fodor's premises - attributed to Chomsky - are implausible. (Warning: virtually no experimental evidence will be discussed in the course of this presentation. I am, after all, talking about Fodor and Chomsky.)