[Note from PP, June 24, 2017: the following is a guest post and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pumpkin Person. Out of respect for the authors, please try to keep all comments on topic. I understand conversations naturally evolve, but at least try to start all discussions with on topic comments]
Introduction
Jean Phillipe Rushton (1943-2012) was a British-born Canadian psychologist known for his theories on genetically determined racial differences in cognition and behavior between Africans, Europeans, and East Asians. While marginal among experts, Rushton’s theories are still widely accepted amongst the proponents of eugenics and racialism. This article will focus on Rushton’s Differential K-theory which tries to apply the r/K selection model to racial differences in behavioral traits. To be fair, Rushton wasn’t the only one to use r/K selection as an explanation for psychological differences within humanity. For instance, some have associated the continuum with left-wing vs. right-wing ideologies. And although ecologists (the specialists of ecosystems) find applying r/K selection to humans inappropriate, the behavioral sciences have identified life-history patterns that roughly correspond to the colloquial fast vs. slow life differences in life history. For that reason, Rushton may have accidentally discussed variables and trends that are largely acknowledged by experts but his theory lies on a misunderstanding of core principles of the r/K model as well as using flawed (or non-existent) data.
Agents of selection
To begin, confusion about the modes of selection in an ecological context needs to be cleared up. There are classes of natural selection in ecological theory to be discussed: r-selection where the agent of selection acts in a density-independent way; K-selection where the agent of selection acts in a density-dependent way; and alpha selection which is selection for competitive ability (territoriality, aggression). Typical agents of K-selection include food shortage, endemic and infectious disease, and predation. Typical agents of r-selection temperature extremes, droughts, and natural disasters. Typical agents of alpha-selection are limited resources that can be collected or guarded, examples being shelter and food, showing that alpha-selection is closer to K than r (Anderson, 1991).
As you can see, the third mode of selection in ecological theory is alpha-selection—which Rushton failed to bring up as a mode of selection to explain racial differences in behavior. He didn’t explain his reasoning as to why he did not include it—especially since alpha-selection is selection for competitive ability. One may wonder why Rushton never integrated alpha-selection into his theory—either he was ignorant to the reality of alpha-selection or it could occur in numerous ecosystems—whether temperate/cold or tropical. The non-application of alpha-selection throws his theory into disarray and should have one questioning Rushton’s use of ecological theory in application to human races.
The Misuse of r/K Theory
Ecoregions
Rushton’s model starts with the erroneous assumption that the populations he describes as humanities three main races qualify as ecological populations. When studying the adaptive strategies of organisms, ecologists only consider species within their evolutionary niche—that is, the location that the adaptation was hypothesized to have occurred. When it comes to humans, this can only be done by studying populations in their ancestral environments. For this reason, Africans, Europeans, Amerindians—any population that is not currently in their ancestral environments—are not suitable populations to study in an evolutionary ecological context. The three populations no longer inhabit the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred, so any conclusions based on observing modern-day populations must be viewed with extreme caution (Anderson, 1991). Even in the Old World, constant gene flow between ecoregions, as well as alterations of the environment due to agriculture and then industrialization, make such a study virtually impossible as it would require ecologists to study only hunter-gatherers that have received no admixture from other areas.
Rushton’s next misuse of the theory is not discussing density-dependence and density-independence and how they relate to agents of selection and the r/K model. K-selection works in a density-dependent way while r-selection works in a density-independent way. Thusly, K-selection is expected to favor genotypes that persist at high densities (increasing K) whereas r-selection favors genotypes that increase more quickly at low densities (increasing r) (Anderson, 1991). Rushton also failed to speak about alpha-selection. Alpha-selection selection for competitive abilities and, like with K-selection, occurs at high population densities, but could also occur with low population densities. Alpha-selection, instead of favoring genotypes that increase at high densities “it favours genotypes that, owing to their negative effects on others, often reduce the growth rate and the maximum population size” (Anderson, 1991: 52).
The r/K continuum
The r/K continuum—proposed by Pianka (1970)—has been misused over the decades (Boyce, 1984) and that is where Rushton got the continuum and applied it to human racial differences. Different agents of r-selection produce different selection pressures, as does K-selection. However, where Rushton—and most who cite him—go wrong is completely disregarding the agents of selection, along with perhaps the most critical part, reversing r and K in application to human races (if it were applicable to human races, that is), which will be covered below.
Dobzhansky (1950: 221) notes that “Tropical environments provide more evolutionary challenges than do the environments of temperate and cold lands.” It is erroneously assumed that living in colder temperatures is somehow ‘harder’ than it is in Africa. People believe that since food is ‘readily available’, that it must be ‘harder’ to find food in the temperate/Arctic environments so, therefore, selection for high intelligence occurred in Eurasians while Africans have lower intelligence since it’s so ‘easy’ to live in Africa, as well as other tropical environments.
Africans, furthermore, have been in roughly the same environment since the OoA migration occurred (the Ice Age ‘ended’ about 11,700 ya, although we are still in an Ice Age since the planets caps still have ice), and so any assumptions about it being ‘harder’ for the ancestors of Eurasians to survive and pass on their genes is a baseless assumption. Tropical environments that provide more evolutionary challenges than temperate and cold lands whereas the migration that occurred Out of Africa introduced humans to novel environments. As described above, endemic disease is an agent of K-selection whereas migration to novel environments are agents of r-selection. Thus, cold temperatures would be an agent of r-selection, not K-selection as is commonly believed, whereas endemic disease would be an agent of K-selection.
Even though intelligence nor rule-following were not included on the list of variables that Pianka (1970) noted on his r/K continuum, Rushton chose to include the variables anyway, even though selection for intelligence and rule-following can occur due to agents of r- or K-selection (Anderson, 1991: 55; Graves, 2002: 134-144). Pianka (1970) never gave experimental rationalization as to why he placed the traits he did on his continuum (Graves, 2002: 135). This is one critical point that makes his theory unacceptable in application to racial differences in behavior. By Rushton’s own interpretation of the r/K model, Africans would be selected for intelligence while Eurasians would be selected to breed more since novel environments (i.e., colder temperatures) are agents of r-selection, not K. Using the terms r- and K-selection to describe the traits of an organism is inappropriate; Rushton’s application of r/K theory to the traits of the three races, while ignoring that r/K describes a mode of natural selection “indicates circular reasoning rather than support for Rushton’s hypothesis” (Anderson, 1991: 59).
Reznick et al, (2002: 1518) write: “The distinguishing feature of the r- and K-selection paradigm was the focus on density-dependent selection as the important agent of selection on organisms’ life histories. This paradigm was challenged as it became clear that other factors, such as age-specific mortality, could provide a more mechanistic causative link between an environment and an optimal life history (Wilbur et al. 1974, Stearns 1976, 1977). The r- and K-selection paradigm was replaced by new paradigm that focused on age-specific mortality (Stearns 1976, Charlesworth 1980).” r/K selection theory was dropped for the much stronger life-history approach (Graves, 2002)—which uses some elements of r and K, but otherwise those terms are no longer used since other factors are more important as agents of selection, rather than density dependence and independence as was commonly thought.
Simple models?
One of the main reasons that Rushton’s r/K continuum gets pushed is because it’s a ‘simple model’ that so ‘parsimoniously’ explains racial differences. (e.g., cold winters supposedly take more intelligence to survive in and supposedly are an agent of K-selection.) But ecological systems are never simple; there are numerous interactions between the physical environment and the biological system which interact in complex ways.
Rushton’s use of this ‘simple model’—the r/K continuum—and its application to human races are wrong because 1) the three races described are not local populations; 2) the r/K continuum as described by Pianka (1970) is a poor representation of multidimensional ecological processes; and 3) cold weather is normally an agent of r-selection while endemic disease in Africa—as described by Rushton—is an agent of K-selection. Simple models are not always best—especially for organisms as complex as humans—so attempting to reduce complex biological and environmental interactions into a linear continuum is mistaken (Boyce, 1984). The simpler the ecological model, the more complex ecological sophistication is needed to understand and apply said model. So, although Rushton prefers simple models, in this context it is not apt, as complex biological systems interacting with their environments should not be reduced to a ‘simple model’.
Applying r/K to human races
If the r/K model were applicable to humans, then Caucasoids and Mongoloids would be r-selected while Negroids would be K-selected. Endemic and infectious disease—stated by Rushton to be an r-selected pressure—is actually a K-selected pressure. So Negroids would have been subjected to K-selected pressures (disease) and r-selected pressures (drought). Conversely, for Mongoloids, they migrated into colder temperatures which act in a density-independent way—hence, cold winters (temperature extremes) are an agent of r-selection.
Pianka’s (1970) r/K continuum “confuses the underlying pattern of life history variation with density-dependence, a process potentially involved to explain the pattern” (Gaillard et al, 2016). Furthermore, one cannot make assumptions about an organism’s traits and the selection pressures that caused them without studying said organism in their natural habitat. This seems to be impossible since one would need to study non-admixed hunter-gatherer populations that have received no outside contact.
Gonadotropin levels, testosterone, prostate cancer and r/K theory
Numerous attempts have been made to validate Rushton’s r/K theory. One notable paper by Lynn (1990) attempts to integrate gonadotropin levels and testosterone into Rushton’s r/K continuum. Lynn cites studies showing that blacks have higher testosterone than whites who have higher testosterone than Asians. He then implicates higher levels of both testosterone and gonadotropin levels as the cause for the higher incidence of prostate cancer (PCa) in black Americans.
Lynn (1990) asserts that by having fewer children and showing more care, this is shifting to a K strategy. So, according to Lynn, the best way to achieve this would be a reduction in testosterone. However, there is a fault in his argument.
The study he uses for his assertion is Ross et al (1986). He states that the two groups were both “matched for possible environmental factors which might affect testosterone levels” (Lynn, 1990: 1204). However, this is an erroneous assumption. Ross et al (1986) did control for relevant variables, but made two huge errors. They did not control for waist circumference (WC), and, perhaps most importantly, did not assay the subjects in the morning as close to 8 am as possible.
Testosterone levels are highest at 8 am and lowest at 8 pm. When doing a study like this—especially one to identify a cause of a disease with a high mortality rate—all possible confounds must be identified then controlled for—especially confounds that fluctuate with age. The cohort was assayed between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm. Since testosterone assay time was all over the place for both groups, you cannot draw evolutionary hypotheses from the results. Further, the cohort was a sample of 50 black and white college students—a small sample and a non-representative population. So it’s safe to disregard this hypothesis, on the knowledge that blacks don’t have significantly higher testosterone levels than whites.
Another correlate that is used to show that blacks have higher levels of testosterone is the higher rate of crime they commit. However, physical aggression has a low correlation with testosterone (Archer, 1991; Book et al, 2001) and thusly cannot be the cause of crime. Furthermore, the .14 correlation that Book et al, 2001 found was found to be high. Archer, Graham-Kevan, and Lowe (2005) show that even the .14 correlation between testosterone and aggression is high in a reanalysis of Book et al (2001) since they included 15 studies that should have been omitted. The correlation was then reduced by almost half to .08.
Other theories have been developed to attempt to explain the racial crime gap which centers around testosterone (Ellis, 2017), however, the theory has large flaws which the author rightly notes. Exposure to high levels of testosterone in vitro supposedly causes a low 2d/4d ratio and blacks apparently have the lowest (Manning, 2008). Though, larger analyses show that Asians—mainly the Chinese—have a lower digit ratio compared to other ethnicities (Lippa, 2003; Manning et al, 2007).
Testosterone also does not cause PCa (Stattin et al, 2003; Michaud, Billups, and Partin, 2015). The more likely culprit is diet. Less exposure to sunlight along with low vitamin D intake (Harris, 2006; Rostand, 2010) is a large cause for the prostate cancer discrepancy between the races since low vitamin D is linked to aggressive prostate cancer.
Even then, if there were, say, a 19 percent difference in testosterone between white and black Americans as asserted by Rushton and Lynn, it wouldn’t account for the higher rates of crime, nor higher acquisition and mortality from PCa. If their three claims are false (higher levels testosterone in African-Americans, larger penis size, and high levels of testosterone causing PCa), and they are, then this obliterates Rushton’s and Lynn’s theory.
Differential K Theory has, as noted above, has also been associated with a larger penis for black males in comparison to white males who have larger penises than black males (Lynn, 2012), which is not true, there is no reliable data and the data that does exist points to no evidence for the assertion. Lynn, (2012) also used data from a website with unverified and nonexistent sources. In a 2015 presentation, Edward Dutton cites studies showing that, again, Negroids have higher levels of testosterone than Caucasoids who have higher levels of testosterone than Mongoloids. Nevertheless, the claims by Dutton have been rebutted by Scott McGreal who showed that population differences in androgen levels don’t mean anything and that they fail to validate the claims of Lynn and Rushton on racial differences in penis size.
r/K selection theory as an attempt at reviving the scala naturae
Finally, to get to the heart of the matter, Rushton’s erroneous attempt to apply r/K selection theory to the human races is an attempt at reviving the scala naturae concept proposed by Aristotle (Hodos, 2009). The scala naturae organizes living and non-living organisms on a scale from ‘highest’ to ‘lowest’. However, these assumptions are erroneous and have no place in evolutionary biology (Gould, 1996). Rushton (1997: 293) attempted to apply r/K selection theory to human populations to try to revive the concept of the scala naturae, as can be clear by reading the very end of Race, Evolution, and Behavior.
This, of course, goes back to Rushton’s erroneous application of r/K selection theory to human races. He (and others) wrongly assert that Mongoloids are more K-selected than Africans who are more r-selected while Caucasians are in the middle—it also being asserted that K organisms, supposedly Mongoloids, “are the most K evolved” (Lynn, 2012). However, if r/K selection theory were applicable to humans, Mongoloids would be r and Africans would be K. Rushton further attempts to provide evidence for this ‘evolutionary progress’ by citing Dale Russel (1983; 1989) and his thought experiment troodon that he imagines would have eventually have gained human-like bipedalism and a large brain. Nevertheless, Rushton himself doesn’t say that it was only one dinosaur that would have supposedly had human-like intelligence and mobility, Reptile brains, however, lie outside of mammalian design (Hopson, 1977: 443; Gould, 1989: 318), and so, Russel’s theory is falsified.
This use of r/K selection theory as an attempt at bringing back the scala naturae may seem like an intuitive concept; some races/animals may seem more ‘advanced’ or ‘complex’ than others. However, since Rushton’s application of r/K selection theory is not correctly applied (nor does it apply to humans) and any of the claims that Rushton—or anyone else—makes while invoking the theory can be disregarded since he misused r and K selection.
In an attempt to “[restore] the concept of “progress” to its proper place in evolutionary biology,” Rushton (2004) proposed that g—the general factor of intelligence—sits atop a matrix of correlated traits that he proposes to show why evolution is synonymous with ‘progress’, including how and why K evolved organisms are so-called ‘more highly K evolved’—which is a sly attempt to revive the concept of scala naturae. Rushton’s (2004) paper is largely copy and pasted from his 1997 afterword in Race, Evolution, and Behavior—especially the part about ‘progress in evolution’ (which has been addressed in depth).
As can be seen, Ruston attempted to revive the scala naturae by giving it a new name, along with the misuse of ecological theory to make it seem like evolution is synonymous with progress and that K organisms are ‘more evolved’, makes no sense in the context of how ecological theory is (or was) applied to organisms. Rushton’s theory is correct, if and only if he applied r and K correctly to human races. Rushton did not apply r/K selection theory correctly to human races, so Rushton’s claims and any that follow from them are, on their face, immediately wrong. The claims by Rushton et al showing evolution to be ‘progressive’ have been shown to be demonstrably false since evolution is local change, not ‘progress’ (Gould, 1989; 1996).
Conclusion
Rushton’s r/K selection theory has enamored many since he proposed it in 1985. He was relentlessly attacked in the media for his proposals about black penis size, testosterone, brain size, sexual frequency, etc. However, the explanation for said racial differences in behavior—his r/K selection theory—has been rebutted summarily rebutted for misapplying ecological theory and not understanding evolution (Anderson, 1991; Graves, 2002). Even ignoring his racial comparisons, his application of the theory would still be unacceptable as he didn’t recognize agents of selection nor alpha selection.
Rushton is wrong because
(i) he misapplied r/K selection in application to human races (Africans would be K, Mongoloids would be r; rule-following and intelligence can be selected for in either environment/with any of the agents of r- or K-selection),
(ii) he arbitrarily designated Africans as r and Mongoloids as K due to current demographic trends (the true application of r and K is described above, which Rushton showed no understanding of),
(iii) the races do not differ in levels of testosterone nor penis size,
(iv) testosterone does not cause prostate cancer nor does it cause crime, so even if there was a large difference between blacks and whites, it would not explain higher rates of PCa in blacks, nor would it explain higher rates of crime,
(v) the scala naturae is a long-dead concept no longer in use by evolutionary biologists, along with its cousin ‘evolutionary progress’, while r/K selection is the attempt at reviving both,
(vi) human races are not local populations; since human races are not local populations then his application of r/K selection to humans is erroneous.
Rushton was informed numerous times he wrongly applied ecological theory to human populations. Yes, E.O. Wilson did say that if Rushton had noticed variation in any other animal that ‘no one would have batted an eye’, however, that does not say a word about Rushton’s incorrect application of r/K selection to human races. No race of humans is more ‘highly evolved’ than another.
Anyone who uses Rushton’s theory as an explanation for observed data is using incorrect/misapplied theory meaning that, therefore, by proxy, their theory is wrong. Rushton’s r/K theory is wrong, and people need to stop invoking it as an explanation for racial differences in behavior, politics, religion, and any other variable they can think of. If Rushton’s application of the theory is wrong, then it logically follows that anything based off of his theory is wrong as well.
whoever is having sex with the most beautiful girls wins ok … !
Aight, JJ owns it.
yet when jj posts pictures of beautiful women they’re all ugly. sad!
i think by “beautiful women” jj means men.
and when confronted with genuinely beautiful women he thinks they’re “drug addicted lesbians”.
what does your fiancee say when you insist that she wear the brazilian national team uniform during sex?
when JJ fucks he ain’t jocking.
peepee’s promised post on cacti and redwoods has yet to appear.
i’m thinking it was the 9,000 penises.
That’s going to be a brief post. It will probably appear this week.
but there are some small minority of spaniards and lusitanians i might mistake for arabians or north africans, and there are some sicilians who look jewish.
the mistaking goes in one direction.
it’s a gestalt. that is, it’s something one can be genuinely certain of yet give no account of. it’s a right hemisphere thing.
this is expected. europe is separated from MENA by the mediterranean, the caucusus, the frigid and dry central asia.
MENA is separated from afro’s people by the sahara. limited gene flow means divergence even if just due to drift rather than selection.
john and jim belushi were both 100% albanian.
yet they are obviously european.
of course afro will be unable to tell.
it’s funny because john belushi pretends to be an arab in The Blues Brothers.
Very confused and badly written article. Rushton’s theory is far from perfect, but I don’t see how it was debunked here.
“Half the guys in Hollywood take steroids.”
How?
“Rushton’s theory is far from perfect, but I don’t see how it was debunked here.”
One of the biggest reasons is that he reversed r and K selection. He arbitrarily chose r for Africans since they breed more and K for Eurasians since they breed less at this snapshot in time. Africans would be K selected since endemic disease is an agent of K selection, while cold winters are agents of r-selection, not K-selection! When introduced to a new environment you’ll need lots of children. That’s enough to discredit his theory.
Notice how Rushton didn’t talk about alpha-selection in his theory? The r/K continuum he used doesn’t exist either.
Notice how I didn’t say anything about his data? His theory and the application of an ecological model is what is wrong, his data is (largely) fine. The theory is wrong but the data isn’t. Is that not possible? Or does his theory have to be right and his data right?
So you said nothing at all because what you asked was addressed above.
When introduced to a new environment you’ll need lots of children.
Yes. And after some period of time the new environment stop being a new environment, and there you got K-selection occuring for Eurasians because of the lack of resources of Eurasia when compared to tropical Africa.
So you see, your little “response” to Rushton was debunked in 3 lines.
“And after some period of time the new environment stop being a new environment, and there you got K-selection occuring for Eurasians because of the lack of resources of Eurasia when compared to tropical Africa.”
This is conjecture with no basis in reality. See my response below. Oh, it’s just so easy to live in Africa, you can just laze around all day because the fruits just drop from the tree right onto your lap right? It’s so easy to live in Africa right? The fact of the matter is—and what you fail to grasp—is that cold weather acts in a density-independent way, meaning that adaptations to the cold improve survival in cold weather regardless of population density. Thusly, cold winters are agents of r-selection, not K.
In the case of Africans, endemic and infectious disease (which Rushton provides no citation for) is an agent of K-selection, not r. As I’ve said, Rushton looked at this snapshot and time ‘Oh, Africa has a higher TFR than Eurasia at this point in time. Oh, r/K theory! Let me arbitrarily place Africans at the r end of this imaginary continuum and place Eurasians at the K end. Intelligence nor rule-following are in the continuum proposed by Pianka (1970), and even though both traits can be selected for in temperate/cold/tropical environments, I’ll add them anyway, just cuz!’ That’s the reality of the matter. The fact that Pianka’s continuum is bullshit and r/K is no longer used by biologists and ecologists is the cherry on top.
This doesn’t even touch the fact that the ‘r/K continuum’ that Rushton used from Pianka (1970) doesn’t even exist and he gave no experimental rationale as to why he put X traits on r and Y traits on K!
Oh yea, it’s also worth noting that Rushton never replied to Anderson or Graves in print. When Rushton was emailed about it, he just spewed his data again without saying anything to Graves! That’s very telling. Rushton knew he was bullshitting and when faced with people who know what they’re talking about in regards to biology and ecology, he was shown to be an intellectual midget, misapplying ecological theory.
Furthermore, Rushton’s claims that Pleiosticine environments in regards to Africa are ‘less predictable’ while in Asia it is ‘highly predictably harsh’. Rushton, of course, didn’t realize what he was talking about when he talked about predictability. Rushton also characterizes to the locales so easily, when ecologists and other specialists have debated for decades on how to measure define and theorize about environmental variability? Yea, right. Rushton also didn’t give any rationale as to why he said that, which I’m sure you’ll say ‘that’s how it is today’, which is meaningless to evolutionary history, which Rushton was trying to explain!
If a Martian observed us Earthlings without prior knowledge of how we live and only has Pianka’s continuum as a reference, he’d state that cold winters would be agents of r-selection since mortality rates would be high due to cold winters.
You think you know what you’re talking about, but you really don’t.
“This is conjecture with no basis in reality. ”
So is what you said, can you demonstrate Eurasians are more r selected? Using their ancestral evolutionary environment as “evidence” of selection is not actual data on genotype.
“is that cold weather acts in a density-independent way, meaning that adaptations to the cold improve survival in cold weather regardless of population density. ”
No, r selection tends to occur in varying climates, Arctic and temperate zones are more variable than tropical and desert ones. It is dependent on population density relative to the carrying capacity of the environment. Meaning, in crowded areas K selection will be preferred. This effect is exaggerated in resource deprived areas, like colder environments.
Humans were already very social animals and lived in large groups millions of years before we left africa, It’s very possible that when Homo sapiens migrated to Eurasia, there were population booms(r selection) this coupled with increased competition from neanderthals and other species continued the selection for K genotypes. Or maybe Eurasians are “alpha selected” as you would put it.
You’re essentially being an environmental absolutist, just in the opposite direction of HBDers
There is no lack of resource in Eurasia. When Eurasia went through ice ages, Africa went through drought. Drought is an even bigger challenge as we can’t survive without drinking under tropical more than 24h.
But, ecological data to make any inference on r/K selection needs to be much more elaborate than cold/tropical. See that map above, it’s the worlds ecological regions. That’s only within those regions that ecologists can evaluate patterns of coping with density, predation, resources, disease…
“So is what you said, can you demonstrate Eurasians are more r selected? Using their ancestral evolutionary environment as “evidence” of selection is not actual data on genotype.”
Except if r/K selection were applicable to humans that’s how it would be. That is the evidence; their ancestral evolutionary environment. To see whether an organism is r- or K-selected, you must look at where the selection was hypothesized to have occurred. So looking at where the selection was hypothesized to have occurred (cold weather), and since that works in a density-independent fashion), that means if r/K did apply to humans then Mongoloids would be r-selected, not K as is the usual HBDer conjecture.
What do you mean ‘data on genotype’? Do you understand agents of selection?
“No, r selection tends to occur in varying climates, Arctic and temperate zones are more variable than tropical and desert ones. It is dependent on population density relative to the carrying capacity of the environment. Meaning, in crowded areas K selection will be preferred. This effect is exaggerated in resource deprived areas, like colder environments.”
My description of cold weather is how an ecologist would describe an organisms strategy when in cold weather environments. As I said, cold weather acts in a density-independent fashion irrespective of population density. When an organism enters a new location, such as one that’s cold, unpredictable and variable, then r-selection occurs. Agents of r-selection are drought, temperature extremes, and natural disasters. So as I said if an unibiased observer were to see Mongoloids in their ancestral habitat with no knowledge of humans and only Pianka’s continuum to go off of, he’d conclude that Mongoloids were r-selected, not K as Rushton conjectured
“It’s very possible that when Homo sapiens migrated to Eurasia, there were population booms(r selection) this coupled with increased competition from neanderthals and other species continued the selection for K genotypes. Or maybe Eurasians are “alpha selected” as you would put it.”
Alpha-selection, like K, can increase in high densities but can also increase in low ones as well. As I stated, alpha-selection is closer to K than to r. Eurasians would be r-selected, not alpha-selected, since cold weather is an agent of r-selection, not K as Rushton bullshitted. Though alpha-selection can occur in low-density populations as well (if this theory were applicable to humans which it’s not).
You see that Rushton just looked at his data and said ‘hmmmm…. Africans seem to be r-selected while Eurasians seem to be K-selected’, he literally arbitrarily placed the races on this bullshit ‘continuum’.
That doesn’t even touch on the fact that the continuum is bullshit and human races are not local populations.
“You’re essentially being an environmental absolutist, just in the opposite direction of HBDers”
Or I’m using r/K selection how it used to be used before it was discontinued by ecologists. If it were applicable to human populations, it would be the opposite of Rushton’s conjecture. Intelligence and rule-following as K traits? That’s bullshit because they can occur in r and K populations. Pianka also used no experimental rationale in his continuum; it’s cool to argue where the races would be on this imaginary continuum with no basis in reality, but the three races as described by Rushton are not local populations and thus r/K selection is not applicable to them. And if it were it would be the opposite of what Rushton conjectured.
I am being a realist, not an ‘environmental absolutist’.
To meLo,
Or maybe Eurasians are r-selected as we would expect from the theory. Lol, I mean what are you tryna make up for your worldview to still make sense.
You know that stuff on neanderthal competition, there are two things you must be aware of:
-Their numbers were very small
-Africans lived alongside archaic humans too and these, like homo sapiens idaltu were much closer to humans and likely more challenging competitors than neanderthals and denisovans.
Have you seen that paper that showed signs of more purifying selection in Africans and more genetic load in Eurasians, that’s one more signal that Africans experienced more evolutionary challenges if we want to include everything in the r/K continuum.
You’re essentially being an environmental absolutist
No, it’s an hereditarian paradigm. Just not in the way you’re used to.
To AfrSapiens:
“Africa went through drought. Drought is an even bigger challenge as we can’t survive without drinking under tropical more than 24h.”
True.
Africa also had/has many savannas and savannah-like environments, which are often seasonally quite dry and harsh—and not easy to survive (having regular substantial dry seasons, requiring particular survival practices related to provisioning food an water)
JM8, 2 points to keep in mind:
1)Primates have been living in Africa for tens of millions of years, so they had plenty of time to evolve a body and culture adapted to its challenges. By contrast surviving freezing Eurasia required the intelligence to learn new skills & adapt to an environment the human body is maladapted to
2) difficult environments can select for r or K depending on whether the difficulty is solved by high quality offspring or high quantity offspring. If the environment is difficult in very random unpredictable ways (drought, disease) than having quality children doesn’t help because even the smartest kids can catch a disease. Much better to have numerous low quality kids & hope one gets lucky
Yup, well savannas are almost uninhabited actually. And the few inhabitants are nomads.
To be perfectly clear, r/K selection does not apply to human races because human races are not local populations. But if they were then Eurasians would be r while Africans would be K as described above. There is no arguing this. This isn’t our opinion. This is a fact.
To PP:
“difficult environments can select for r or K depending on whether the difficulty is solved by high quality offspring or high quantity offspring. If the environment is difficult in very random unpredictable ways (drought, disease) than having quality children doesn’t help because even the smartest kids can catch a disease”
Dry seasons, unlike drought, are regular, and thus predictable.
And different survival methods and skills are required at each/different times of year for that reason.
Dry seasons can last half the year when very little grows, ; hunting tend to increases, and in preparation for which grain is stored in traditional granaries—in the case in farming peoples, like those of west Africa (some parts of East Africa have two shorter dry seasons per year).
which can be very hard to survive without preparation
The seasons requiring different survival methods at different times for hunter gathers .
Farming tribes must store their produce (usually grain) in traditional granaries in preparation for it (as is done in all over the savanna’s and seasonal woodland of West Africa—dry seasons lasting about half the year—and elsewhere).
“surviving freezing Eurasia required the intelligence to learn new skills & adapt to an environment the human body is maladapted to”
There are many drastically different climates in Africa. and many variations and microclimates even within the broader climates. Those places and subsistence niches in which earlier primates or early hominins could live were not necessarily the same ones (or as varied) as those that could be exploited by the more advanced homo sapiens—nor did the live the same way. Modern human subsistence and other living habits/needs—including diet, population/group sizes, biology, environmental range, etc…., were different from those of more primitive preceding primates and hominins that had lived ion the same continent.
They (both semi arid and temperate) necessitate regular preparation for survival, and/or the use of various different and innovative survival methods.
Homo Sapiens is likely to have originated from (or been affected at an early period, possibly crucial to its formation: various times between 200-70,000 bc) by semi-arid and at times extremely dry climates (when Africa was even—much— drier than it is today; ice ages in near-polar/temperate areas tended to correspond to droughts nearer the equator).
The traits that allowed sapiens to survive in these difficult climates (and that were developed there) likely were a contributor to the species’ success in colder (and other difficult) climates later on.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/drought-followed-by-brain-how-climate-change-spurred-evolution-of-human-intelligence-8884863.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008171121.htm
Also, to some (lesser) extent, droughts might be prepared for (somewhere drought have occurred enough be known of by natives—depending on the incidence of droughts in their range) by native tribes by developing/transmitting (in the collective body of survival practices) the knowledge of obtaining food in drier terrain, and water—or storing/conserving it for , as some Bushmen tribes do, in groups or trails of buried ostrich eggshells.
To Afrosapiens:
Savannas are not usually almost uninhabited. Or not the various savanna-like and semi arid regions—by which I mean mostly open semi arid/seasonally dry areas i.e the range of zones labeled in the climate map in the link below as: “semi-desert”, “steppe”, and “savanna grassland”, ” (and dry season forest, or, as described in the link, “woodland savanna” ) make up a large area of the continent (the savannah and Sahel regions of west Africa for examples, in which a great many West African ethnic groups live—all traditionally agricultural and some with quite numerous.
Grasslands and semi arid zones also occur in much of East and Southern Africa. (perhaps you referred to those in saying that the few inhabitants were nomads since in general East and South Africa have fewer people than West Africa and nomad and semi-nomads are more common there). Much of the the driest more northern sahel would likely less inhabited also
JM8, Africa does have a lot of diversity and cognitively demanding environments which is why human intelligence evolved there in the first place, but after 50 million years of primate evolution, humans had finally outgrew the motherland & were ready for even harder challenges.
No matter how much climates vary in sub-Saharan Africa, warm and hot weather dominates & so warm adapted Africans entering freezing Eurasia needed to survive with their minds since their bodies were built for heat
Yes different parts of Africa require different skills, but modern humans are a hybrid of peoples from all over sub-Sahara so by 50,000 years ago they had conquered the entire continent, except for those diseases & droughts that were so extreme, no amount of intelligence can save you.
No matter how smart you are, you can’t find water & food where none exists so those no longer select for intelligence
Recently 100 somolians died of a devestating drought. Those victims were smart enough to survive, they just got unlucky
By contrast in freezing Eurasia the challenges may have been so novel that perhaps many could not intellectually cope
Corrections/Edits:
“To Afrosapiens:
Savannas are not usually almost uninhabited. Or at least not all the various savanna-like and semi arid regions—by which I mean the range of mostly open semi arid/seasonally dry areas i.e the range of zones labeled in the climate map in the link below as: “semi-desert”, “steppe”, and “savanna grassland”, —”” (and dry season forest, or, as described in the link, “woodland savanna” ) make up a large area of the continent (the savannah and Sahel regions of west Africa for examples, in which a great many West African ethnic groups live—all traditionally agricultural, and some fairly numerous. But habitability varies between savannah zones, with those along rivers supporting more people. And course native crop strains (of things like millet, rice, and sorghum) are selectively bred for commonly occuring local conditions.”
Edit:
“…But habitability varies between savannah zones, with those along rivers likely to support more people—variations on soil quality, etc….”
When I say savanna I talk of places like the Maasai Mara and other typical safari areas. You’re right that the actual name for these places is steppe, not savanna.
Places like the northern parts of west Africa owe their current population to their arable soils. But they’d be very resource poor for hunter gatherers.
Sahel
By the way, welcome to South Africa
Afro,
“There is no lack of resource in Eurasia. ”
Yes there was.
“Or maybe Eurasians are r-selected as we would expect from the theory.”
You two have yet to demonstrate this.
“Drought is an even bigger challenge as we can’t survive without drinking under tropical more than 24h.”
Citation? I thought we could go 3 days without water?
“But, ecological data to make any inference on r/K selection needs to be much more elaborate than cold/tropical.”
So then why are you trying to do that now to Eurasians?
“Lol, I mean what are you tryna make up for your worldview to still make sense.”
Worldview? Please explain, what strawman are you attaching to me now?
“Their numbers were very small”
Your point? There were denisovans as well. And even without Ice age conditions, colder environments still have less available food and resources, which exasperates competition.
“Africans lived alongside archaic humans too”
Like who? Naledi(walking apes) and possibly homo erectus/heidelbergensis(running apes)? Homo sapiens Idaltu was the same species as us. Neanderthals were more intelligent than any of them.
“Have you seen that paper that showed signs of more purifying selection in Africans and more genetic load in Eurasians,”
I vaguely recall you mentioning that. Source?
RR,
“To see whether an organism is r- or K-selected, you must look at where the selection was hypothesized to have occurred. So looking at where the selection was hypothesized to have occurred”
Uhhh, no. If an Organism is K selected then it will express the required defining characteristics. Like slower maturation rates, lower fertility, longer lives, higher parental investment etc.
You’re doing the opposite of what rushton did. He noticed an empirically valid racial pattern that matched the r/K “spectrum”. What was incorrect was how he tried to tie the causation to an evolutionary one dependent on climatic variation extending 10’s of thousands of years ago. You corrected(or tried to) his ecological errors but have yet to establish any modern empirical reality that reflects this new model.
” As I said, cold weather acts in a density-independent fashion irrespective of population density. ”
How so? Why doesn’t population density have an effect in extreme environments?
“When an organism enters a new location, such as one that’s cold, unpredictable and variable, then r-selection occurs. Agents of r-selection are drought, temperature extremes, and natural disasters.”
Exactly, and Africa does have droughts and deserts as Afro loves to point out. Jm8 Showed that the entire continent of Africa is anything but stable.
“Eurasians would be r-selected, not alpha-selected, ”
I figured Eurasians would be Alpha selected because they live in high population densities AND there were less resources meaning, selection for aggression and territoriality would be prioritized.
“Intelligence ”
I believe intelligence was extrapolated because organisms with Higher parental investment and slower maturation rates tend to be more intelligent.
“Yes there was.”
Proof? How did Japanese Macaques survived without even the intelligence of Chimps?
http://www.will.chez-alice.fr/pdf/Schulp2014EcoEco.pdf
How do 100 million Europeans still regularly consume wild food?
“You two have yet to demonstrate this.”
We did: colonizing a new territory and climatic variability are agents of r-selection. Endemic disease (not to be confused with epidemic and pandemic) and stability are agents of K selection. One proof Africans were selected for K (efficiency) regarding disease, they evolved genetic resistance.
“Citation? I thought we could go 3 days without water?”
Lol, try that in Africa.
“So then why are you trying to do that now to Eurasians?”
I’m not, I’m just showing what would be the conclusion if I reasoned just like Rushton but applied the theory in the right direction.
“Worldview? Please explain, what strawman are you attaching to me now?”
None, just explaining why you argue over peripheral stuff when Rushton’s wrong on the core principles. You know, if I calculated stats starting with 2+2=5, all you’d have to do is saying 2+2=4 instead of asking if I controlled for this or that.
“Your point? There were denisovans as well. And even without Ice age conditions, colder environments still have less available food and resources, which exasperates competition.”
No.
“Like who? Naledi(walking apes) and possibly homo erectus/heidelbergensis(running apes)? Homo sapiens Idaltu was the same species as us. Neanderthals were more intelligent than any of them.
When anatomically, and even more so behaviorally modern humans supplanted their ancestors, they supplanted much smarter beings than Neanderthals. Let’s face it, neither Neanderthals or Denisovans were successful species compared to Erectus.
“I vaguely recall you mentioning that. Source?”
There you go buddy, http://www.pnas.org/content/113/4/E440.full
“Uhhh, no. If an Organism is K selected then it will express the required defining characteristics. Like slower maturation rates, lower fertility, longer lives, higher parental investment etc.”
Uhhh, yes. To make any inferences on evolutionary behavior AND what pressures occurred for whatever so-called adaptation is conjectured, the population needs to be studied where that selection was hypothesized to have occurred.
Let’s say that you’re studying a so-called K organism and it’s in a tropical environment. You wouldn’t be able to infer anything of its behavior in its ancestral environment, nor would you be able to hypothesize about any selection of traits since you don’t know how it was in the ancestral environment. Thus, studying populations not in their ancestral habitat makes no sense for the purposes that Rushton wanted.
“What was incorrect was how he tried to tie the causation to an evolutionary one dependent on climatic variation extending 10’s of thousands of years ago. You corrected(or tried to) his ecological errors but have yet to establish any modern empirical reality that reflects this new model.”
I never set out to establish a new empirical reality that reflects the new model; I only set out to falsify his use of r/K theory which was done. It’s covered above how you need to study populations in their ancestral habitat.
“How so? Why doesn’t population density have an effect in extreme environments?”
Its effect is not dependent on the number of individuals in the population, and earthquake killing everyone whether a pop is small or large is a good example.
“Exactly, and Africa does have droughts and deserts as Afro loves to point out. Jm8 Showed that the entire continent of Africa is anything but stable.”
Right. African populations (however many there are in Africa in each ecosystem) have to do a lot of different things to survive, so to reduce it to ‘Africa hot, Eurasia cold’ is an oversimplification and ‘simple models’ like Rushton et al like don’t make sense—especially in this context.
“I figured Eurasians would be Alpha selected because they live in high population densities AND there were less resources meaning, selection for aggression and territoriality would be prioritized.”
Temperature extremes (cold winter), r-selected. Though alpha-selection seems to be a driver for all human history.
And the discussion about this is dumb and a waste of time because human races are not local populations. r/K selection theory also never dealt with environmental predictability.
“I believe intelligence was extrapolated because organisms with Higher parental investment and slower maturation rates tend to be more intelligent.”
Well it can occur in both environments.
If I recall correctly, Rushton believes that skin color genes and IQ genes are pleiotropic. He assumed that skin color reduced in northern latitudes because it reduced aggression and there was then a trade-off between intelligence and fertility. However, there are only like 6 genes that control skin color—12 if you count between pops—and so that’s a horribly wrong hypothesis.
And it’s not even an r/K selection argument anyway. He only says that intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility—which is true but there is no reason to say that only ‘K’ selects for intelligence.
“Really the only valid point here. But even then, there are K selected creatures with smaller bodies, and East asians still live long lives.”
Pianka gave no rationale as to why he listed the traits he did in his continuum. Why discuss organisms in terms of ‘r and K traits’ when the paradigm is no longer in use anymore? It seems like a waste of time. Rushton arbitrarliy inserted intelligence and rule-following when they can be selected for in either environment—that’s a fact.
Afro,
“Proof? How did Japanese Macaques survived without even the intelligence of Chimps?”
By prioritizing other traits over intelligence. Plus, less energy toward brain and body size.
Also, they like to bathe in hot springs.
“How do 100 million Europeans still regularly consume wild food?”
Using intelligence to find it. If encephalization is occurring within Africa for millions of years and has proven to be an incredibly succesful adaptation then why stop? Especially if you’re migrating to a novel environment.
“We did”
No, you came up with a “just so” story with no real evidence. Where is the archaelogical evidence of Cro magnon man having traits associated with r selection?
Africa is not a stable Environment.
“Lol, try that in Africa.”
Again, citation or your point is invalid.
“You know, if I calculated stats starting with 2+2=5, all you’d have to do is saying 2+2=4 instead of asking if I controlled for this or that.”
Actually, you’d have to demonstrate that 2+3=5
“No.”
Yes, try again.
“neither Neanderthals or Denisovans were successful species compared to Erectus.”
They were still more intelligent.
“There you go buddy”
What’s the point of this? This just shows that Non Africans have higher concentrations of recessive but mostly neutral dna.
RR,
“To make any inferences on evolutionary behavior”
But you have yet to show that Eurasians have or had r selected behavior and traits in their ancestral environment, that’s my whole point.
“Thus, studying populations not in their ancestral habitat makes no sense”
That’s ridiculous, evolution keeps occurring. By your logic we cant make inferences on Eurasian Phenotype because their ancestral environment is Africa. Where do you draw this imaginary line? Again Rushton’s ecological explanation was incorrect, but you haven’t demonstrated your version is.
“and earthquake killing everyone whether a pop is small or large is a good example.”
Yes but the only real variability in northern climates is the seasons. After a while they become predictable
“African populations (however many there are in Africa in each ecosystem) have to do a lot of different things to survive”
So you think Eurasia is easy to survive?
“so to reduce it to ‘Africa hot, Eurasia cold’ is an oversimplification”
No shit, I’ve been saying that the entire time I’ve been on this site.
“r/K selection theory also never dealt with environmental predictability.”
LMAO yes it does, do you even read the shit you post?
“However, there are only like 6 genes that control skin color—12 if you count between pops”
So?
“Why discuss organisms in terms of ‘r and K traits’ when the paradigm is no longer in use anymore?”
Sorry you can’t decide when you want to count and then discount a theory just because it conflicts with your arguments axioms. We are debating over r/K selection theories application to humans, I was already under the impression that we were aware of how obsolete it actually is.
“But you have yet to show that Eurasians have or had r selected behavior and traits in their ancestral environment, that’s my whole point.”
It’s based on the main agent of selection. Rushton assumes cold winter and blizzards, etc to be agents of K-selection. I showed that since that it works in a density-independent fashion that it is an agent of r-selection, which is enough to prove my assertion.
“That’s ridiculous, evolution keeps occurring. By your logic we cant make inferences on Eurasian Phenotype because their ancestral environment is Africa. Where do you draw this imaginary line? Again Rushton’s ecological explanation was incorrect, but you haven’t demonstrated your version is.”
Rushton makes claim A about phenotype B in Caucasian population C in environment E. He must know what E was like to make inferences about how B arose in C to be able to assert claim A. He has not studied populations in E, so he, therefore, cannot make evolutionary explanations about B in C that occurred in E.
So that’s why Rushton is wrong, and I showed my assertion correct by stating that cold weather acts in a density-independent fashion—meaning it’s an agent of r-selection—thusly proving my claim. Rushton made claims about phenotypes that are adaptations to the cold. Thus, if Mongoloids have cold-weather adaptations in their phenotype, then cold weather is an agent of r-selection, proving it with the traits that Mongoloids have.
“Yes but the only real variability in northern climates is the seasons. After a while they become predictable”
Except those climates are agents of r-selection, not K.
“So you think Eurasia is easy to survive?”
Where did I say this? I provided evidence for my claim. I never said Eurasia is easy to survive.
“No shit, I’ve been saying that the entire time I’ve been on this site.”
Right. I agree now.
“LMAO yes it does, do you even read the shit you post?”
Excuse me, it never explicitly. dealt with predictability.
“So?”
Rushton thought that high intelligence and light skin are pleiotropic, when there are only 6 genes that control skin color, unless there are only 6 genes that are related to IQ and they so happen to be skin color genes too, which is not the case.
“Sorry you can’t decide when you want to count and then discount a theory just because it conflicts with your arguments axioms.”
Assuming my motivation.
“We are debating over r/K selection theories application to humans, I was already under the impression that we were aware of how obsolete it actually is.”
Right.
One more thing. Rushton says that Mongoloids have cold-adapted traits.So if Mongoloids have cold-adapted traits and cold-adapted traits are due to cold temperatures, then Mongoloids are r-selected, per Rushton’s own verbal theory.
“By prioritizing other traits over intelligence. Plus, less energy toward brain and body size.”
Doesn’t bring food.
“Also, they like to bathe in hot springs.”
Doesn’t bring food.
“Using intelligence to find it. If encephalization is occurring within Africa for millions of years and has proven to be an incredibly succesful adaptation then why stop? Especially if you’re migrating to a novel environment.”
You don’t get it, if 100 million Europeans can still eat wild food regularly now that we have significantly altered the environment, just imagine how it was no big deal when Europe was a place of wilderness and humans were just a few tens of thousands of individuals.
Also, show me the relationship between IQ and hunting-gathering skills. Show me the relationship between IQ and tool making, between IQ and shelter building, between IQ and beating up Neanderthals, between IQ and making fire.
If migrating out of Africa made humans any smarter, Eurasia would have replaced Africa as the place of human evolution from homo erectus on.
I have one correlation to show you as far as I’m concerned.
IQ variations across time, race, and nationality: an artifact of differences in literacy skills.
A body of data on IQ collected over 50 years has revealed that average population IQ varies across time, race, and nationality. An explanation for these differences may be that intelligence test performance requires literacy skills not present in all people to the same extent. In eight analyses, population mean full scale IQ and literacy scores yielded correlations ranging from .79 to .99. In cohort studies, significantly larger improvements in IQ occurred in the lower half of the IQ distribution, affecting the distribution variance and skewness in the predicted manner. In addition, three Verbal subscales on the WAIS show the largest Flynn effect sizes and all four Verbal subscales are among those showing the highest racial IQ differences. This pattern of findings supports the hypothesis that both secular and racial differences in intelligence test scores have an environmental explanation: secular and racial differences in IQ are an artifact of variation in literacy skills. These findings suggest that racial IQ distributions will converge if opportunities are equalized for different population groups to achieve the same high level of literacy skills. Social justice requires more effective implementation of policies and programs designed to eliminate inequities in IQ and literacy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20712152
“No, you came up with a “just so” story with no real evidence. Where is the archaelogical evidence of Cro magnon man having traits associated with r selection?”
So did Rushton. And why would I find evidence when I told you the model is obsolete and is nothing like a scientific rule? And I can ask you the same question, show me the evidence that Africans have traits associated with r-selection?
“Africa is not a stable Environment.”
Much more than temperate Eurasia. The seasons are longer, the temperatures don’t change much, only rainfall does vary significantly.
“Again, citation or your point is invalid.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-the-average/
Or you can also use your brain and the point will be valid.
“Actually, you’d have to demonstrate that 2+3=5”
No, if I make up a whole theory based on the idea that 2+2=5 all you have to say is 2+2=4 and the story ends here.
“Yes, try again.”
Source? You’re aware that natural selection isn’t a magical process, that genotypes don’t automatically react to every pressure and that there are competing evolutionary force to natural selection?
You know that a lot of animals eat the same foods as us, yet no scientist would ever think competing with birds for grain drove our evolution. That’s retarded.
“They were still more intelligent.”
Not even enough to kill them off or simply live in “so easy to survive in” Africa.
“What’s the point of this? This just shows that Non Africans have higher concentrations of recessive but mostly neutral dna.”
Have we read the same study? Eurasians have fitness reducing mutations that in Africa were swept away by purifying selection. The point of that is that natural selection was weaker out of Africa, in other words there was less survival of the fittest and individuals of lower genetic quality survived better.
RR,
“I showed that since that it works in a density-independent fashion that it is an agent of r-selection. I showed my assertion correct by stating that cold weather acts in a density-independent fashion Except those climates are agents of r-selection”
This is entirely false. Other users have already pointed out that Africa is not a climatically or environmentally stable region.
“No, it is well defined.”
This picture says nothing about cold environments being specifically density independent relative to hotter ones. In fact both continents have large amounts of variability but Africa is even bigger. Afro even showed pictures of snow covered South Africa and I shouldn’t have to cite Jm8’s entire comment to demonstrate how confused you must be to think ” if Mongoloids have cold-weather adaptations in their phenotype, then cold weather is an agent of r-selection” Is a logical statement.
“Where did I say this?
Right. I agree now.”
Right now, you’re the one doubting the ability it takes to survive in Africa.
“unless there are only 6 genes that are related to IQ and they so happen to be skin color genes too, which is not the case.”
Or maybe Those 6 or 12 genes are responsible for the variation between populations and not all of IQ as a whole, like how Blue eyes is heavily correlated to high IQ Recessive genes could have coupled increases in intelligence as a form of sexual selection. Something similar to what Peter frost had discussed before.
“Assuming my motivation.”
“Pianka gave no rationale as to why he listed the traits he did in his continuum. Why discuss organisms in terms of ‘r and K traits’ when the paradigm is no longer in use anymore?”
Why use it as a point in the first place then? shouldn’t the fact that this theory is obsolete in application be enough evidence against Rushton? Or is it really like your article insinuates, that this is a passive aggressive jab at Pumpkin and others. You and Afro’s solo articles were much better than this, low vocabulary, you could tell when you switched authors, and it had a very frustrated and angry tone.
“This is entirely false. Other users have already pointed out that Africa is not a climatically or environmentally stable region.”
My claim: Eurasians are r-selected. I inferred this from Rushton’s own verbal theory that they have cold adaptations. If they have cold adaptations then they are due to cold weather. Cold weather is an agent of r so if that is all true then they are r-selected if r/K selection were applicable to races. It’s very very simple. His claims are ‘the harsh Asian winter’, so you have that as well. That’s why I can say that. I am using Rushton’s words.
“if Mongoloids have cold-weather adaptations in their phenotype, then cold weather is an agent of r-selection” Is a logical statement.”
That is a logical argument.
“Or maybe Those 6 or 12 genes are responsible for the variation between populations and not all of IQ as a whole, like how Blue eyes is heavily correlated to high IQ Recessive genes could have coupled increases in intelligence as a form of sexual selection. Something similar to what Peter frost had discussed before.”
Baseless conjecture. Do you have a source? Source specifically for the genes and IQ.
“Why use it as a point in the first place then? shouldn’t the fact that this theory is obsolete in application be enough evidence against Rushton?”
Yes. As well as debunking a few more claims that are central to his thesis, mainly testosterone. SInce I showed his and Lynn’s claims were false, then his theory comes crashing down—so even if it did apply to humans then that one variable, where his thesis rests, wouldn’t be different and therefore it would still be falsified.
“Or is it really like your article insinuates, that this is a passive aggressive jab at Pumpkin and others. You and Afro’s solo articles were much better than this, low vocabulary, you could tell when you switched authors, and it had a very frustrated and angry tone.”
Who do you think wrote what? I’ll tell you if you’re right or not.
I think it’s well worded, though I did see a few mistakes that I didn’t catch. Care to show me some parts that back your assertion?
“Afro,
“Doesn’t bring food.”
What do you mean? They are very omnivorous but the food they eat isn’t high risk or high reward, so there is no need for large intelligence, they also have fur and bathe in hot springs to keep themselves warm in the winter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_macaque#Ecology
“You don’t get it”
No you don’t, it is actually much easier to take advantage of the natural environment now that we are not Hunter gatherers.
“Also, show me the relationship between IQ and hunting-gathering skills. Show me the relationship between IQ and tool making, between IQ and shelter building, between IQ and beating up Neanderthals, between IQ and making fire.”
IQ is a concept that is Correlated to Intelligence, Levels of intelligence are extrapolated from evidence of tools, shelters, fires, and brain sizes.
“If migrating out of Africa made humans any smarter, Eurasia would have replaced Africa as the place of human evolution from homo erectus on.”
No, if Migrating out of Africa increases intelligence in hominins then we would have seen an increase in brain size and tool complexity when homo erectus left and evolved into Neanderthal and denisovan. As anyone knows, neanderthals had more complex tools, clothing, shelters, and art than homo erectus.
“and I can ask you the same question, show me the evidence that Africans have traits associated with r-selection”
Higher fertility, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, less parental investment, faster maturation, Unpredictable environment, low density relative to carry capacity, etc.
“Or you can also use your brain and the point will be valid.”
That actually didn’t validate your point. Pus RR and I are going to have to return to our thermoregulation vs parasite control debate now if this is true.
“No, if I make up a whole theory based on the idea that 2+2=5 all you have to say is 2+2=4 and the story ends here.”
No lets say you have 5 rocks and Rushton comes up and says “you have 5 rocks because 2+2=5”, RR decides to chime in and says “no 2+2=4” if the story ends there then everyone is just as ignorant as they were to begin with. Nobody knows what equals 5, but I do.
“Source?”
Neanderthal extinction.
“That’s retarded.”
It’s retarded because it’s a fallacious comparison.
“Not even enough to kill them off or simply live in “so easy to survive in” Africa
You think it’s easy to survive in Africa?
“Eurasians have fitness reducing mutations that in Africa were swept away by purifying selection. ”
No the study said Eurasians have mostly Neutral recessive mutations that signify they are populations that bottlenecked from an OOA event.
RR
” if that is all true”
It’s not true, that’s why You’re wrong.
“That is a logical argument.”
Nope, other users and I have already proven that cold environments are not more density independent than hotter ones.
“Baseless conjecture.”
Duh, that was point.
“Yes.”
So you admit this entire post was pointless?
Who do you think wrote what? I’ll tell you if you’re right or not.
It sounded like Afro wrote the first half and then you wrote the second one.
“Care to show me some parts that back your assertion?”
Gladly.
Example of Low vocabulary below, and tone is hard to prove through text so I wont bother, but it just sounded like you were being very dogmatic and absolute with your reasoning out of frustration.
“It is erroneously assumed that living in colder temperatures is somehow ‘harder’ than it is in Africa.
However, this is an erroneous assumption
Finally, to get to the heart of the matter, Rushton’s erroneous attempt to apply r/K selection theory to the human races is an attempt at reviving the scala naturae concept proposed by Aristotle (Hodos, 2009). The scala naturae organizes living and non-living organisms on a scale from ‘highest’ to ‘lowest’. However, these assumptions are erroneous and have no place in evolutionary biology
This, of course, goes back to Rushton’s erroneous application of r/K selection theory to human races
human races are not local populations; since human races are not local populations then his application of r/K selection to humans is erroneous.”
“It’s not true, that’s why You’re wrong.”
Rushton says they have cold-adaptations (they do, higher body fat for instance), smaller body. So cold adaptations are due to cold weather which is r-selection. Which papers cited have you read?
“Nope, other users and I have already proven that cold environments are not more density independent than hotter ones.”
Density-independence—drought, flood, temperature extremes, flooding, entry into novel environment. Density-dependant—food supply, endemic infectious disease and predation. Stating that cold weather acts in a density-independent fashion, meaning, as I said previously, that adaptations to the cold improve survival in cold weather regardless of population density.
I’ve already said that droughts are r and would affect those in Africa, but endemic and infectious disease is an agent of K. The r/K model predicts that Africans would be K and Mongoloids would be r. This is because Africans had much more opportunity to reach their environmental carrying capacity while experiencing K-selected pressures, namely endemic disease (which Rushton provides no citation for).
“So you admit this entire post was pointless?”
‘This entire post’ meaning the comment or the article? The point is to correct a misconception (that is, cold winter being r and not K as is assumed), if it did apply then they would be r due to what I’ve been arguing above. If you meant the latter, then it was not pointless to write.
“It sounded like Afro wrote the first half and then you wrote the second one.”
He wrote paras 1 (the intro) and 4. I wrote the rest.
“Example of Low vocabulary below, and tone is hard to prove through text so I wont bother, but it just sounded like you were being very dogmatic and absolute with your reasoning out of frustration.”
Everything written was true. That’s what r/K was all about—an attempt to revive ‘progress’ in evolutionary biology and apply that ‘progress’ to human races.
“What do you mean? They are very omnivorous but the food they eat isn’t high risk or high reward, so there is no need for large intelligence, they also have fur and bathe in hot springs to keep themselves warm in the winter”
What tells you the ancestors of the Yamato didn’t eat the same foods as the macaques, or the macaques? Among the 213 foods that the macaques eat most must be edible famine foods.
And coping with temperature is not a problem when you have fire and know how to make warm clothes since generations. What you pretend selected Eurasians for higher intelligence must have selected Africans in snowy regions of Africa just as much.
“No you don’t, it is actually much easier to take advantage of the natural environment now that we are not Hunter gatherers.”
Lol, can you elaborate or even better, find sources?
“IQ is a concept that is Correlated to Intelligence, Levels of intelligence are extrapolated from evidence of tools, shelters, fires, and brain sizes.”
No IQ only correlates with other IQ tests, no proof it correlates with intelligence, let alone survival skills. Do you think Bronze age, Iron age and the Neolithic are also the result of rising genetic intelligence?
“No, if Migrating out of Africa increases intelligence in hominins then we would have seen an increase in brain size and tool complexity when homo erectus left and evolved into Neanderthal and denisovan. As anyone knows, neanderthals had more complex tools, clothing, shelters, and art than homo erectus.”
Erectus did not evolve into Neanderthals and Denisovans, it evolved into rhodensis and Neanderthals evolved into heidelbergensis, the Eurasian variety of rhodensis. There is no clear difference between the technology of Neanderthals and their direct ancestors, let alone proof that their technological advances were due to genetics.
“No lets say you have 5 rocks and Rushton comes up and says “you have 5 rocks because 2+2=5”, RR decides to chime in and says “no 2+2=4” if the story ends there then everyone is just as ignorant as they were to begin with. Nobody knows what equals 5, but I do.”
First you must be sure there are actually 5 rocks, and it seems Rushton’s data hides a couple more rocks. Secondly if there are 5 rocks, then it’s not because of 2+2 which equals four but because 2+3=5 and that’s a whole other theory and we don’t need to debate over the implications of 2+2.
“Neanderthal extinction.”
So now every time a species goes extinct, it’s because humans got smarter by competing with them? Source on beating Neanderthals making humans smarter
“It’s retarded because it’s a fallacious comparison.”
No, it’s retarded because it’s retarded.
“No the study said Eurasians have mostly Neutral recessive mutations that signify they are populations that bottlenecked from an OOA event.”
No they say Eurasians have deleterious mutations that spread as though they were neutral whereas these same mutations were selected against in Africa.
“Higher fertility, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, less parental investment, faster maturation, Unpredictable environment, low density relative to carry capacity, etc.”
All very unstable variables under strong environmental influences, most not even accurate nor showing worldwide patterns. Absolutely nothing to base a natural selection theory on. Menarchal age is higher in Africa, growth delays are more prevalent there, in many African cultures the sons never leave their parent’s households, Africa’s environment is not unpredicatble, natural disasters are less frequent, and you know nothing on population density relative to carrying capacity in any of Africa’s ecoregions.
Try to back your arguments with sources in your next reply.
RR,
“Which papers cited have you read?”
The same ones you did.
“regardless of population density.”
You said Cold weather is density independent because it is a temperature extreme, Africa has drought and temperature extreme’s just like Eurasia. Infectious diseases are an agent of K, but so is a limited food supply which is a bigger risk in Eurasia. I argue that Eurasia would have had more inter-specific competition on the intellectual level.
This means “The r/K model predicts that Africans would be K and Mongoloids would be r.” is an invalid statement.
“If you meant the latter, then it was not pointless to write.”
It was pointless because of it’s irrelevancy.
“He wrote paras 1 (the intro) and 4. ”
Ehhh I was kinda close.
Which of the papers did you read? That doesn’t answer my question. I read all of them (obviously). There seems to be confusion which is why I ask.
OK let’s get to the heart of the matter. Africa vs. Eurasia. If the populations described were local populations then Africans would deal with endemic disease (K), drought and food shortage (K) and predation (K) and drought (r). Eurasia is cold (r), food shortage (K), Africans experience the agents of K much more than r, seeing as Mongoloids were relatively new to the environment and Africans had X amount for years to reach carrying capacity (K).
No the statement is valid.
It’s not irrelevant if it’s pretty big on the right and the hbd sphere.
You weren’t really close. That’s besides the point.
Afro,
“What tells you the ancestors of the Yamato didn’t eat the same foods as the macaques, or the macaques?”
Lol, I’m sure you’d enjoy eating bark and soil. Tell me how long it takes you to eat all those insects, berries, and uncooked foods to get the same benefit I do from eating eating mammoth, reindeer and fish that I roasted over a fire.
“What you pretend selected Eurasians for higher intelligence must have selected Africans in snowy regions of Africa just as much.”
That’s not what i think selected for higher Eurasian intelligence. I’m not Pumpkin you moron, quit strawmanning me it’s pathetic.
“Lol, can you elaborate”
Of course you just need to use your brain, what’s easier to cultivate with, sticks and rocks or machinery and metal tools?
“No IQ only correlates with other IQ tests, no proof it correlates with intelligence, let alone survival skills.”
Sorry, IQ measures cognitive abilities that are well correlated with most aspects of cognition,There neurological evidence that our brains have a “g factor”
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004967
“Do you think Bronze age, Iron age and the Neolithic are also the result of rising genetic intelligence?”
Probably, only an idiot would think there isn’t a genetic component to intelligence and innovation.
“Erectus did not evolve into Neanderthals and Denisovans, it evolved into rhodensis and Neanderthals evolved into heidelbergensis,”
You’re stupid. Ergaster evolved into rhodensis, Erectus and heidelbergensis rhodensis, are arguably the same species, so yes erectus that migrated out of Africa eventually evolved into Neanderthals and Denisovans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
“There is no clear difference between the technology of Neanderthals and their direct ancestors”
Wrong again, Neanderthals had mousterian technology which considerably more complex than the acheulean industry,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousterian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean
“First you must be sure there are actually 5 rocks”
There are.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2876306/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1056.html
“So now every time a species goes extinct, it’s because humans got smarter by competing with them? ”
Obviously not. Seriously think about what you just said.
“No they say Eurasians have deleterious mutations that spread as though they were neutral whereas these same mutations were selected against in Africa.”
“The mutation load under a recessive model is not explained by inbreeding,
Interestingly, we see that the OOA RH values do not depend on their distance from Africa for predicted moderate-effect alleles , suggesting that the frequencies of moderate mutations have evolved mainly according to neutral demographic processes during the range expansion out of Africa. In contrast, for strongly deleterious variants (large and extreme GERP categories) we see a significant cline in RH (P = 0.01 and P = 1.12 × 10–6, respectively, which implies that purifying selection has also contributed to their evolution relative to demographic processes.
Although both moderate- and large-effect deleterious mutations have evolved under negative selection in Africa , many predicted moderate variants have evolved as if they were neutral in non-African populations. However, selection has remained a major force during the OOA expansion for strongly deleterious variants.”
RR,
“OK let’s get to the heart of the matter. ”
Great Idea.
Predation should be excluded from Africa because we have more or less been Apex predators since Erectus, and Predators are still a risk In Eurasia.. Secondly the food supply is less all year round compared to Africa, and In Europe 45,000 years ago population growth increased tremendously and coupled with new predators and Other hominin Competition adds more K pressures. Like I said Eurasians are probably more Alpha selected.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11102266
“It’s not irrelevant if it’s pretty big on the right and the hbd sphere.”
LOL yeah it is.
“You weren’t really close.”
I said Afro wrote the first part..
“Lol, I’m sure you’d enjoy eating bark and soil. Tell me how long it takes you to eat all those insects, berries, and uncooked foods to get the same benefit I do from eating eating mammoth, reindeer and fish that I roasted over a fire.”
213 wild foods man, stop playing with me. And please describe the diet of the first Japanese, since you know what it was like.
“That’s not what i think selected for higher Eurasian intelligence. I’m not Pumpkin you moron, quit strawmanning me it’s pathetic.”
JJ is never pathetic.
“Of course you just need to use your brain, what’s easier to cultivate with, sticks and rocks or machinery and metal tools?”
Does Tagalog language make a difference between wild foods and crops?
“Sorry, IQ measures cognitive abilities that are well correlated with most aspects of cognition,There neurological evidence that our brains have a “g factor””
Not a single mention of IQ in your paper.
“Probably, only an idiot would think there isn’t a genetic component to intelligence and innovation.”
Only an idiot would suspect genetic influence on such things without genetic evidence of any sort.
“You’re stupid. Ergaster evolved into rhodensis, Erectus and heidelbergensis rhodensis, are arguably the same species, so yes erectus that migrated out of Africa eventually evolved into Neanderthals and Denisovans.”
Ergaster is African Erectus, sweetheart. On heidelbergensis
Homo heidelbergensis – also Homo rhodesiensis – is an extinct species of the genus Homo that lived in Africa, Europe and western Asia between 600,000 and 200,000 years ago.
The skulls of this species share features with both Homo erectus and anatomically modern Homo sapiens; its brain was nearly as large as that of Homo sapiens.[1] Although the first discovery – a mandible – was made in 1907 near Heidelberg in Germany where it was described and named by Otto Schoetensack, the vast majority of H. heidelbergensis fossils been found after 1996.[2] The Sima de los Huesos cave at Atapuerca in northern Spain holds particularly rich layers of deposits and where excavations are still in progress.[3][4][5][6]
Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are all considered to have descended from Homo heidelbergensis[7][8] that appeared around 700,000 years ago in Africa. Fossils have been recovered in Ethiopia, Namibia and South Africa. Between 400,000 and 300,000 years ago a group of Homo heidelbergensis migrated into Europe and West Asia via yet unknown routes and eventually evolved into Neanderthals. Archaeological sites exist in Spain, Italy, France, England, Germany, Hungary and Greece.[9] Another Homo heidelbergensis group ventured eastwards into continental Asia, eventually developing into Denisovans. The African Homo heidelbergensis (Homo rhodesiensis) population evolved into Homo sapiens 300,000 to 200,000 years ago, then migrated into Europe and Asia in a second wave at some point between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago.[10][11][12][13][14]
The correct assignment of many fossils to a particular chronospecies is difficult and often controversies ensue among paleoanthropologists due to the absence of universally accepted dividing lines (autapomorphies) between Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals. Some researchers suggest that the finds associated to Homo heidelbergensis are mere variants of Homo erectus.[15][16][17]
Neanderthals used Acheulean tools for most of their history, Mousterian industry appears when they’re at their twighlight and has nothing revolutionary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_table_of_the_principal_old_world_prehistoric_cultures
On the traits you bring up,
Fertility: no relationship between race and fertility, countries overlap regardless of race and it’s all better explained by demographic transition
On maturation: it’s an American study, obesity is a huge confound here. African girls in Africa reach puberty much later
On population density: Lol, it’s population/km² it says nothing on population relative to carrying capacity, and it explains nothing about maturation and fertility.
On tree cover: Lmao, what’s your point? Heard of deforestation to make room for crops?
“Obviously not. Seriously think about what you just said.”
No, you quote my statement in full and bring the sources of your neanderthal competition increasing intelligence theory that I asked.
“Although both moderate- and large-effect deleterious mutations have evolved under negative selection in Africa , many predicted moderate variants have evolved as if they were neutral in non-African populations. However, selection has remained a major force during the OOA expansion for strongly deleterious variants.””
Yeah and there is many of those thousands of genes of very small effect each that HBDers love so much and that could have lowered Eurasian’s intelligence without the purifying selection that occurred on these almost neutral mutations among Africans.
“Predation should be excluded from Africa because we have more or less been Apex predators since Erectus, and Predators are still a risk In Eurasia.. Secondly the food supply is less all year round compared to Africa, and In Europe 45,000 years ago population growth increased tremendously and coupled with new predators and Other hominin Competition adds more K pressures. Like I said Eurasians are probably more Alpha selected.”
Population growth increasing tremendously is an r trait. New predators is a K trait. New environment, r trait. Africans had a longer time to reach carrying capacity K than Eurasians did. Rushton’s own interpretation implies Mongoloids had strong r pressures while Africans had strong K pressures. This is reality. Africans, more time in the environment to reach their carrying capacity (K) compared to Mongoloids who should have experienced strong r-selection. If you’ve really read the same papers that I did, you’d see that is the case.
“LOL yeah it is.”
LOL no it’s not. Because people believe it and push it as a reason for a cause of racial differences. It’s not true.
“I said Afro wrote the first part..”
You weren’t reallly right. I wrote like 80 percent of it.
One more thing. Don’t forget that I’ve falsified Lynn’s—and by proxy Rushton’s—testosterone argument. So if that is falsified (re blacks 19 percent higher testosterone) then Lynn’s conclusions and argument made from that study are void. The theory hinges on substantially higher levels of testosterone. This is false, I’ve falsified it countless times. If that is false, and that’s what the theory largely hinges on, then the claim is false. So if the claim is false then what attempts to prop up the theory is really its downfall.
I link to other articles definitively refuting their claims. If their claims on testosterone are false, the theory comes crashing down. Their claims are false, therefore the theory is wrong.
MeLo, I tried to find support for your Neanderthal competition theory and found nothing. Which had to be expected since I couldn’t dig into your ass. The closest thing I got is from one of your fellow chink scholars, and it’s laughable, really.
Hominin interbreeding and the evolution of human variation
Mitochondrial Eve confirms the “out of Africa” theory, but the evidence also supports interbreeding between Homo sapiens and other hominins: Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo heidelbergensis. This article explains how interbreeding between early H. sapiens and archaic hominins occurred. The availability of edible insects in East Asia aided the spread of the unaggressive, highly cooperative Neanderthals, who interbred with H. sapiens in Asia, resulting in a higher admixture of Neanderthal DNA in East Asian populations. Geographical variation in degree of interbreeding between H. sapiens and Neanderthals likely contributed to neurological and behavioral differences in modern humans. Similarly, people with Denisovan genetic admixture were better able to dwell in mountainous regions, allowing their genetic legacy to cross the Himalayas and persist in Southeast Asian and Oceanian H. sapiens. In the Sub-Saharan region, unaffected by Denisovan or Neanderthal interbreeding, H. sapiens interbred with H. heidelbergensis, because high humidity militated against fire-making and allowed the survival of these non-fire-making hominins.
Keywords: Neanderthal, Homo sapiens, Denisovan, Homo heidelbergensis, Hominin interbreeding
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947341/
Read the whole piece, it really is funny. But not as funny as your arguments and your homemade theory.
Afro,
“And please describe the diet of the first Japanese, since you know what it was like.”
Lmao, macaques don’t eat other large mammals you dumbass.
“JJ is never pathetic.”
Who the fuck is JJ?
“Does Tagalog language make a difference between wild foods and crops?”
See, at first i had no idea what you were even talking about, but now i realize you’re making a poor attempt at insulting a language that I don’t even know. Try harder. Does your Haitian language make it difficult to understand simple Anthropological concepts?
“Ergaster is African Erectus, sweetheart.”
No fucking duh.
“On heidelbergensis”
Yeah, i already said all that, the quote is just reiterating my point. How are you a lawyer with such poor reading comprehension?
“Neanderthals used Acheulean tools for most of their history, Mousterian industry appears when they’re at their twighlight and has nothing revolutionary.”
What distinguishes most Mousterian tools from earlier less complex forms is their use of the levallois technique, The upper acheulean industry did contain this and the time when Neanderthals created this invention is irrelevant as well, they obviously had the necessary intelligence.
“no relationship between race and fertility,”
Wrong overlapping variation has never been a an issue for the concept of race.
” obesity is a huge confound here”
So you admit that The polygenic study was better evidence, for my point? Otherwise you’re just a hypocrite, but everyone already knew that anyway.
“On population density: Lol, it’s population/km² it says nothing on population relative to carrying capacity”
Yet another sign of your verbal deficits. Population relative to carrying capacity is a determiner of r/K selection. I wasn’t defining Population density.
“No, you quote my statement in full and bring the sources of your neanderthal competition increasing intelligence theory that I asked.”
That’s not what i asked, if you don’t think some species are harder to compete with than others, then you’re an idiot.
“that could have lowered Eurasian’s intelligence”
Well while that would be incredibly exciting if true, the data does not support it.
“The availability of edible insects in East Asia aided the spread of the unaggressive, highly cooperative Neanderthals, who interbred with H. sapiens in Asia, ”
Neanderthals were not less aggressive or more cooperative, These are K traits anyway.
To PP:
“JM8, 2 points to keep in mind:
1)Primates have been living in Africa for tens of millions of years, so they had plenty of time to evolve a body and culture adapted to its challenges. By contrast surviving freezing Eurasia required the intelligence to learn new skills & adapt to an environment the human body is maladapted to”
Earlier primates do/did not really have culture (in any way comparable to humans)
Culture generally increased in complexity—with tool use etc—(in the hominin line) leading toward homo sapiens , as required to suit the
more demanding environments and (especially) environmental niches they occupied as compared to their more primitive ancestors.
“2) difficult environments can select for r or K depending on whether the difficulty is solved by high quality offspring or high quantity offspring. If the environment is difficult in very random unpredictable ways (drought, disease) than having quality children doesn’t help because even the smartest kids can catch a disease. Much better to have numerous low quality kids & hope one gets lucky”
Difficult conditions in Africa can both predictable (as the dry seasons, which occur for a regular duration yearly) and less predictable (extreme droughts), just as they can is colder Eurasia (winter), and less predictable in the case of more extreme cold periods (and regions). Whether (how much) a less regular event such as drought can be mitigated by planning depends on its duration, geographic extent and how extreme it is—and they vary in these ways. The same can also be true of cold climatic episodes
Just as with the more extreme droughts in Africa you mention, there were climate events in Eurasia (the worst of the cold episodes) that were too extreme to survive and could not be adapted to with intelligence. Large parts of Europe were depopulated during the ice age that occurred from part of the paleolithic to mesolithic (two main reffugia were northern Iberia and the Balkans, which recolonized much of Europe when temperatures dropped).
Edit:
“Whether (and how much) a less regular event such as drought can be at all mitigated by planning (and/or new skills, adaptations, etc) depends on its duration…..”
“Lmao, macaques don’t eat other large mammals you dumbass.”
Nah, don’t laugh and go ahead, show me you’re a scientist and give me a rigorous ecological description of ancient Japanese hunter-gatherers’ subsistance strategies.
“Who the fuck is JJ?”
It’s me…
“See, at first i had no idea what you were even talking about, but now i realize you’re making a poor attempt at insulting a language that I don’t even know. Try harder. Does your Haitian language make it difficult to understand simple Anthropological concepts?”
Yeah, sorry I went too far, I just thought you were being voluntarily impertinent so I told myself “ok, respect is on the dole, so let’s not give a shit” but that’s fine I have nothing against you or Filipinos. And I do perfectly understand anthropological concepts, what you didn’t understand however is that Europe is and has always been rich in wild foods to the point that 100 million Europeans can still regularly hunt and gather a huge variety of foods. What you said about agriculture is irrelevant.
Interpreting Homo ergaster inevitably leads to Homo erectus, particularly regarding the taxonomy issues that persist within the scientific community of classifying the two species and separating their two lineages—if indeed they represent two separate lineages rather than one.[4] Some palaeoanthropologists consider H. ergaster to be a variety of H. erectus, that is, the so-called African Homo erectus. Others call H. ergaster the direct ancestor of H. erectus, which then emigrated out of Africa into Eurasia and branched into a distinct species. Still others dispense with the specific epithet ergaster and make no such distinctions among fossils assigned to erectus.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster
“Yeah, i already said all that, the quote is just reiterating my point. How are you a lawyer with such poor reading comprehension?”
You actually got confused by an initial mistake I made, I noticed too late, my bad’ Nevermind, the point was that heidelbergensis/rhodensis aren’t homo erectus and Neanderthals/Denisovans don’t derive from Eurasian homo erectus.
“What distinguishes most Mousterian tools from earlier less complex forms is their use of the levallois technique, The upper acheulean industry did contain this and the time when Neanderthals created this invention is irrelevant as well, they obviously had the necessary intelligence.”
Lol, this Levallois technique isn’t revolutionary, there is no diversification of the materials used or anything that truly shows higher cognition. Simply sharper stone tools. Tell me honestly, if you saw someone do that would you think “This guy is a fucking genius!” or “Nice, I did better in kindergarten…)”.
Secondly, yes the timing matters because if a technological innovation doesn’t coincide with a change in anatomy, then cultural accumulation is more likely to be the cause than genetics. And separating those two factors is crucial if we want to make inferences on the conditions of selection that would support a genetic hypothesis.
“Wrong overlapping variation has never been a an issue for the concept of race.”
It is a huge issue because race is tied to natural selection (all HBD scenarios are natural selection fables). And the consequence of natural selection is low variation within groups and high variation between groups on a given trait. Blacks are about as blacks everywhere they are, at any moment in history. A racial phenotype needs to be stable and uniform across time and place, as it’s for dog breeds.
“So you admit that The polygenic study was better evidence, for my point? Otherwise you’re just a hypocrite, but everyone already knew that anyway.”
No, the reason why black girls in the US reach menarche earlier than white girls and African girls is that they have higher obesity rates than white girls and African girls, race explains none of the variance between the three groups, but it would explain all the variance in skin color or hair texture. It’s really simple to understand.
“Yet another sign of your verbal deficits. Population relative to carrying capacity is a determiner of r/K selection. I wasn’t defining Population density.”
Why did you show me a plain map of population density then? To make a stupid contrast with the map of tree cover? Well, forget that, it makes no sense, carrying capacity has nothing to do with how green an area appears on a satellite map.
“That’s not what i asked, if you don’t think some species are harder to compete with than others, then you’re an idiot.”
Man’s most deadly predators so far have been mosquitoes, and the diseased they carried left traces in our genome. What about the Neanderthal competition genes? And what other parts of our body evolved for better outcompeting Neanderthals? It can’t be just the brain. If it involved some fighting or hunting, the whole body was in the process. So go ahead, don’t be shy and show me all the evidence you got.
Let’s be honest, if humans really got smarter because of Neanderthals, they would have captured and domesticated them instead of letting them go extinct, that would have been the closest thing to a humanoid robot that ever existed.
“Well while that would be incredibly exciting if true, the data does not support it.”
Like most of what you say.
“Neanderthals were not less aggressive or more cooperative, These are K traits anyway.”
I don’t think this guy’s theory makes sense, but he’s been peer reviewed and published and he provides sources for his statements. What about you?
And no, such behavioral traits are not part of the r/K continuum. Ants would be r-selected yet they are very cooperative, bears are K selected in comparison, yet they ride solo.
Afro,
“show me you’re a scientist and give me a rigorous ecological description of ancient Japanese hunter-gatherers’ subsistance strategies.”
Why? What are you trying to prove exactly? IS it really so hard to grasp that different organism will express different phenotypes even in the same environment?
“It’s me…”
So why are you talking in 3rd person like some narcissistic douche?
“I have nothing against you or Filipinos.”
Well I’m glad you don’t, the only “wrong” thing I’ve done is disagree with you.
“what you didn’t understand however is that Europe is and has always been rich in wild foods to the point that 100 million Europeans can still regularly hunt and gather a huge variety of foods. ”
But what you don’t understand is that Tropical climates tend to have more food and that Europe was a lot colder 50,000 years ago.
“the point was that heidelbergensis/rhodensis aren’t homo erectus and Neanderthals/Denisovans don’t derive from Eurasian homo erectus.”
I’m aware, I was being lazy. And even if the direct ancestor is heidelbergensis, heidelbergensis descended from erectus. Neanderthals are a result of one of the first out of Africa expansions.
“Lol, this Levallois technique isn’t revolutionary”
Wrong again. Obviously it’s not revolutionary in the same way The theory of relativity is, or the theory of evolution, but The designers of Mousterian technology have been shown to have a preference of the material used, implying some level of self awareness, not only that but it is actually one of the most economically efficient knapping techniques ever made.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440313000253?via%3Dihub
” A total of 3957 flaking events were considered in our analyses, and we used six specific measures of economy to examine Levallois reduction across successive phases. Our analyses found that key assumptions of mathematical models suggesting that Levallois core morphology was driven by economic considerations (i.e. conservation of raw material when attempting to remove flakes with long cutting edges) can be upheld under the practical challenges of replicating Levallois-style reduction in stone. In supporting the notion that Levallois reduction has advantageous economic properties, our results emphasize the importance of considering why Levallois reduction did not emerge earlier in the archaeological record, and indeed, why even during the later Pleistocene the temporal and geographic distribution of Levallois technology varies.”
“then cultural accumulation is more likely to be the cause than genetics”
Implying a dichotomy when there is none. Anatomic evidence isn’t always reflective of genetic changes.
“Blacks are about as blacks everywhere they are, at any moment in history”
So because one trait is less variable means others won’t follow a different trend?
“race explains none of the variance between the three groups, but it would explain all the variance in skin color or hair texture. I”
Race is built on morphology, geography, and local familial genetics all of which are determinants of Obesity, disease resistance, environment, etc. Within the same environment Black girls are excessively more obese than white ones, which is probably due to poorer living conditions brought on upon by bad eugenics and cyclic. The brain is too plastic not to have epigenetic qualities.
“it makes no sense”
Makes perfect sense, not only is Africa less dense in population, it also harbors a lot more fauna and flora which equivalates to a higher amount of resources. Africa has a varible climate, a low density population with a high fertility rate, and a high infant mortality rate. By contrast Eurasia is a variable climate, with a limited number of flora and fauna with high population densities.
“Man’s most deadly predators so far have been mosquitoes, and the diseased they carried left traces in our genome.”
LOL no. War has a more devastating affect than any disease ever has, especially in modern times.
“What about the Neanderthal competition genes? And what other parts of our body evolved for better outcompeting Neanderthals? It can’t be just the brain. If it involved some fighting or hunting, the whole body was in the process. ”
Actually neanderthals left a mark in our genome too. The brain is directly responsible for your ability to hunt, athleticism comes second. In fact the coordination of your brain to your body is more important than the absolute endurance or strength of your muscles, Especially with the invention of things like the woomera or the bow and arrow. However it should be noted Cro magnon were not “delicate” they are noticeably less gracile than later(but still prehistoric) forms of Europeans.
“Let’s be honest, if humans really got smarter because of Neanderthals, they would have captured and domesticated them instead of letting them go extinct,”
You mean like how Europeans did to your Ancestors? Truthfully, I don’t think slavery was a thing back then. I could be wrong though.
“What about you?
Well first of all , as far as I’m aware there is no evidence suggesting Neanderthals were less aggressive. Produce the sources he cited for this assertion. Secondly while there is genetic evidence that we possibly varied in temperament, it could actually be the other way around, with Neanderthals be far more aggressive than us.
“Ants would be r-selected yet they are very cooperative”
The fact that Insects are even included in testable criteria is a red flag to how bullshit the theory was.
So why are you talking in 3rd person like some narcissistic douche?
JJ talks the way he wants to talk and he gives no fucks.
Let’s blend the Japanese macaque and European wild foods points together:
The increasing availability of DNA sequencing since the late 1990s has allowed estimates on Paleolithic effective population sizes.[2][3][4] Such models suggest a human effective population size of the order of 10,000 individuals for the Late Pleistocene. This includes only the breeding population that produced descendants over the long term, and the actual population may have been substantially larger (in the six digits).[5] Sherry et al. (1997) based on Alu elements estimated a roughly constant effective population size of the order of 18,000 individuals for the population of Homo ancestral to modern humans over the past one to two million years.[6] For the time of speciation of Homo sapiens, ca. 130,000 years ago, Sjödin et al. (2012) estimate an effective population size of the order of 10,000 to 30,000 individuals, and infer an actual “census population” of early Homo sapiens of roughly 100,000 to 300,000 individuals.[7] The authors also note that their model disfavours the assumption of an early (pre-Out-of-Africa) population bottleneck affecting all of Homo sapiens.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleodemography#Genetic_analysis
So let’s base the hypothesis on a high estimate of 300,000 humans beings in the late pleistocene. Let’s pretend Europe had 15% of the world’s population, so that’s 45,000 Europeans at that time. Europe is roughly 10 million km² large, and half of the continent was probably covered by ice sheets in the ice ages, so the effective area was about 5 million km². That means 111 km² for one human being, 11,111 km² for a tribe of 100, the size of Puerto Rico. In addition to humans, you one said that the Neanderthal/Human ratio was 1/9. So now we have a tribe of 100 humans and 11 Neanderthals living on a territory that’s as large as Jamaica. So let me ask you some questions.
1- Do you believe that finding wild foods would be a problem for humans living in Jamaica even if it was as cold as Siberia? Even if in the worst scenario, they would eat the same foods as the Japanese macaques or eat each others. You know their are alternatives to Mammoth meat such as fish, insects or cannibalism.
2- Do you believe that 100 humans and 11 neanderthals, even in the toughest times would have had no other choice but to fight to death ? And if yes, do you believe that one group outnumbers the other to such an extant that competition is totally unfair, no matter how skilled the smallest group is?
3- Do you think an average human would have ever met a Neanderthal during his lifetime?
Before you answer, and not because I want to influence you, I think that if you tell me yes finding food was an extraordinary challenge even in the worst climatic conditions, you are seriously underestimating human intelligence.
Also, regarding Neanderthal extinction. I guess most humans would have never met a Neanderthal during their lifetime. The very few times they met, they would have had peaceful interactions, but sometimes they wouldn’t and the Neanderthals would have been beaten up. And an accumulation of bad encounters would have reduced the Neanderthal population to a point that inbreeding became too strong and genetic defects as well as sterility too prevalent for the species to keep on living. I doubt the Neanderthals competed for resources in any way. Humans however could have deprived the Neanderthals to some extent since their subsistance strategies weren’t as diversified. That’s just my theory but it makes more sense than everything you said before.
Neanderthals are a result of one of the first out of Africa expansions.
That of Heidelbergensis who was not much less smart than Neanderthal.
Wrong again. Obviously it’s not revolutionary in the same way The theory of relativity is, or the theory of evolution, but The designers of Mousterian technology have been shown to have a preference of the material used, implying some level of self awareness, not only that but it is actually one of the most economically efficient knapping techniques ever made.
Except that when I search Levallois technique, I find out that in addition to not being revolutionary, it’s not even exclusive to Neanderthal. It’s found in Eurasia, and Africa. So you didn’t need to graduate from Neanderthal University to carve sharp stones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levallois_technique#Locations
While we’re speaking of tool-making, I guess this might interest you. Scientists scanned the brains of modern humans while making Acheulean tools:
http://theconversation.com/brain-imaging-modern-people-making-stone-age-tools-hints-at-evolution-of-human-intelligence-77231
Implying a dichotomy when there is none. Anatomic evidence isn’t always reflective of genetic changes.
Technological evidence even less so.
So because one trait is less variable means others won’t follow a different trend?
Yes, unless you can provide evidence of traits that underwent natural selection in a given population change across time and place without environmental influence.
Race is built on morphology, geography, and local familial genetics all of which are determinants of Obesity, disease resistance, environment, etc. Within the same environment Black girls are excessively more obese than white ones, which is probably due to poorer living conditions brought on upon by bad eugenics and cyclic. The brain is too plastic not to have epigenetic qualities.
I’m not sure you’re using epigenetic in the right way but never mind.
Same environment? How so? I guess you mean same country which is far from meaning same environment.
Bad eugenics? Or maybe Vishnu, or Santa Claus… Unless you have evidence of bad eugenics.
Makes perfect sense, not only is Africa less dense in population, it also harbors a lot more fauna and flora which equivalates to a higher amount of resources. Africa has a varible climate, a low density population with a high fertility rate, and a high infant mortality rate. By contrast Eurasia is a variable climate, with a limited number of flora and fauna with high population densities.
Bullshit, but say what you want, we both agree that r/K belongs in the trash bin so why bother disagreeing?
LOL no. War has a more devastating affect than any disease ever has, especially in modern times.
Before the 20th century certainly not, with WWI&2 and the genocides I can’t tell. But what I know is that almost all the pre-columbian population of the Americas was decimated by disease and the Black Death killed between 75 and 200 million people in Europe, Asia and North Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
Actually neanderthals left a mark in our genome too.
Yes they decreased your fitness, but don’t worry, their DNA is being selected against.
The brain is directly responsible for your ability to hunt, athleticism comes second.
Second third or last I don’t care, I want you to give me a source that states that one trait (whichever you want) was selected through competition with neanderthals. I don’t think I’m asking you a lot. You’re not a prophet, you’re the only person in the whole internet to push this theory so I’m not supposed to believe what you say when I don’t have a single good reason to.
You mean like how Europeans did to your Ancestors?
And yours:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spanish_Slavery_in_the_Philippines
Truthfully, I don’t think slavery was a thing back then. I could be wrong though.
It wouldn’t have been slavery since they were not human, it would have been domestication. And the next technological revolution was all about domesticating plants and animals, it was the neolithic. So why didn’t Eurasians make the great leap forwards right from the time their Neanderthal neighbors were causing them to become smarter?
Well first of all , as far as I’m aware there is no evidence suggesting Neanderthals were less aggressive. Produce the sources he cited for this assertion. Secondly while there is genetic evidence that we possibly varied in temperament, it could actually be the other way around, with Neanderthals be far more aggressive than us.
For the sources, they’re in the paper, and apply that principle to yourself. As for Neanderthal temperament, I don’t know, I live with one and I was raised by some they have a lot of human admixture though, but they seem normal to me. That 3% rule… Why do we even call them Neanderthals?
“The fact that Insects are even included in testable criteria is a red flag to how bullshit the theory was.”
It was supposed to apply to all living organisms, even plants and bacteria… And it was retarded in the sense that it was too binary, too black and white, all or nothing.
“JJ talks the way he wants to talk and he gives no fucks.”
You make me cringe.
“Let’s blend the Japanese macaque and European wild foods points together:”
Ok sure.
” Do you believe that finding wild foods would be a problem for humans living in Jamaica even if it was as cold as Siberia? ”
Yes I do, the when there is less flora and fauna there is a higher pressure on allocating resources.
“Even if in the worst scenario, they would eat the same foods as the Japanese macaques or eat each others. You know their are alternatives to Mammoth meat such as fish, insects or cannibalism.”
Yes but we cook our food, Fish was actually the biggest driver of competition between hominins when it came to food and cannibalism was actually not driven by hunger, it was very common after the Ice age.
http://www.evoanth.net/2016/09/27/cannibalism-occurred-ice-age-ended/
http://www.evoanth.net/2017/05/04/prehistoric-cannibalism-not-driven-hunger/
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19758.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27298470
“And if yes, do you believe that one group outnumbers the other to such an extant that competition is totally unfair, no matter how skilled the smallest group is?”
Not in the particular situation. Neanderthals were already the Apex predators of their regions and had 300,000 years worth of accumulated cultural knowledge to deal with Europe. Homo sapiens may have outnumbered them but we were newbies.
“Do you think an average human would have ever met a Neanderthal during his lifetime?”
Of course!
“Instead of moving short distances near the cave where they lived, they were walking for hundreds of kilometres quite often. We know that because we found various artefacts where the raw material comes from 100-200 kilometres away.
“The artefacts were also made of different materials from different regions. Some from the North-West, some from the North, some from the East.”
However in layer 10, which represents an earlier time period between 48-45,000 years ago, all the recovered stone artefacts were made using local raw material, which indicates that the high residential mobility came later.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248417301525
“That’s just my theory but it makes more sense than everything you said before.”
LMAO, Anytime you try and challenge my anthropological knowledge you just make yourself look stupid.
“it’s not even exclusive to Neanderthal.”
Your point? The mousterian and chatelperronian technology are clearly from Neanderthals.
“Technological evidence even less so.”
How so? Technology requires a base level intelligence to use.
“Yes, unless you can provide evidence of traits that underwent natural selection in a given population change across time and place without environmental influence.”
Yes, I think RR has posted evidence of such before, The cool thing about polygenic studies are that they can actually identify areas of selection. All evolution is influenced by the environment.
“I’m not sure you’re using epigenetic in the right way but never mind.”
I am.
“Bad eugenics? ”
Yes bad Eugenics, A rough environment can influence permanent Genetic changes. But you don’t really know what you argue for half the time.
“Bullshit, but say what you want”
Not bullshit I’ve demonstrated otherwise.
“we both agree that r/K belongs in the trash bin so why bother disagreeing?”
I’m with Pumpkin. The agents of selections are ill defined and too subjective. but the fact that animals vary in parental investment and maturation rates is a real phenomena.
“Yes they decreased your fitness”
Wrong again, but that’s not surprising
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160107140408.htm
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47474/title/Advantages-of-Neanderthal-DNA-in-the-Human-Genome/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309897909_Archaic_Hominin_Admixture_Facilitated_Adaptation_to_Out-of-Africa_Environments
“I want you to give me a source that states that one trait (whichever you want) was selected through competition with neanderthals.”
That’s not how debating works. I understand that you’re angry, but I can provide plenty of anatomic evidence that correlates with when we transitioned into Europe. Like our muscles and height getting bigger, our brain size and orbital sockets increasing, all of which are necessary adaptations for hunting, If neanderthals weren’t around we wouldn’t of had a reason to develop any of those traits, in fact you can see this is the case because not long after Neanderthal extinction our species gracility returns to levels found in Africa. It’s clear Cro magnon was “Alpha Selected”
You and RR are followers not leaders, you don’t try to create any hypothesis on your own, you only accept what has already been given to you.
“But what I know is that almost all the pre-columbian population of the Americas was decimated by disease and the Black Death killed between 75 and 200 million people in Europe, Asia and North Africa.”
Yeah, but what I know is that War influences, migration, death, and the living conditions of those involved. Chimps even have wars, we probably have been doing it for millions of years.
“And yours:”
The difference is that the slavery in your past bothers you, I could care less about the Philippines.
“It wouldn’t have been slavery since they were not human, it would have been domestication.”
I realize it can be a little subjective but me and most other scientists consider Anything with the word “homo” in front of it to be a human. Especially Neanderthals, who clearly had behavioral modernity, They probably would have had the same intelligence as sub saharan blacks.
“So why didn’t Eurasians make the great leap forwards right from the time their Neanderthal neighbors were causing them to become smarter?”
They already made a “great” leap forward, called the Upper paleolithic revolution.
“For the sources, they’re in the paper, and apply that principle to yourself.”
Sorry I’m too lazy, and since I haven’t heard anything recently I’ll assume he’s just speculating. since most of what he said is speculation too.
” Why do we even call them Neanderthals?”
I’ve never heard anyone calla white persona “neandertha”
I’ve called them snow niggers though.
“Like our muscles … getting bigger”
Source?
The results of our study support Gould’s (2002) contention in the sense that, contrary to the original scala naturae idea and the associated notion of progression towards greater complexity, there is effectively no general trend to increase the number of muscles at the nodes leading to hominoids and to modern humans. That is, with respect to the muscles in the regions we have investigated, although modern humans accumulated more evolutionary transitions than the other primates included in our cladistic study, these evolutionary transitions did not result in more muscles, or more muscle components (Diogo & Wood, 2011, 2012a,b; Diogo et al., 2013b).
http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTExMS9icnYuMTIxMjE=/10.1111%40brv.12121.pdf
Further, skeletal muscle needs 13 kcal per kilogram per day. So increased muscle mass (obviosuly, and no, I don’t need a damn study to tell me that more muscle means more kcal needed to fuel said muscle) means more kcal are needed for larger muscles.
We actually lost muscle mass and gained more fat in comparison to other primates. Babies are fat because that extra fat aids in brain growth (ie omega 3s).
I think I’ve shown you this cite before. There was marked body size reduction in the Levant some 400ky since erectus had to chase small game. Marked body size reduction, of course, means muscle as well.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028689
“height”
Source? I know that we became taller as we got adapted to bipedalism, but I’ve never read anything close to what you’re talking about.
Which muscles got bigger? Why? Source?
I’ve been looking for papers for a while now in regards to the evolution of human muscle, particularly a few hundred thousand years ago and spcifically on muscle size. I’ve not been able to locate any. Do you have refs? I have the knowledge to infer a lot of things, but that’s no good according to you, so do you have refs?
On another note, it just came out the other day that chimp muscle produces 1.35 times the force of human muscles. Chimps have twice the amount of fast twitch fibers we do but within fiber types, humans and chimps are similar.
Chimps also have longer muscle fibers than humans. Aaaaaand this lends credence to the ER hypothesis as well.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-chimpanzee-super-strength-human-muscle.html
Kinda unrelated, but it’s interesting.
Look, this conversation is completely pointless. Your arguments are 50% ad hominem, 50% unsubstantiated claims. I’m not wasting time on your nonsense. For the time being, have fun with your homegrown theories, believe in your delusions of scientific competence and keep on collecting endorsements from your imaginary fellow scientists. And maybe smoke less pot if you can’t handle it.
RR,
“contention in the sense that, contrary to the original scala naturae idea and the associated notion of progression towards greater complexity, there is effectively no general trend to increase the number of muscles at the nodes leading to hominoids and to modern humans. ”
I am not talking about whether evolution is progressive. It doesn’t really surprise me that Gould thinks a forward trend in the prevalence of particular traits is equivalent to cosigning Aristotle’s retarded philosophy.
“Marked body size reduction, of course, means muscle as well. Source? I know that we became taller as we got adapted to bipedalism, but I’ve never read anything close to what you’re talking about.
Which muscles got bigger? Why? Source? I’ve not been able to locate any. ”
I do not believe there is much literature on the muscle variances in ancient hominins. However there are anatomic correlates that are used to infer probable muscle mass. Brain size, height, bone size and density are what I’m using to infer this. Brain size and Height are positively correlated to muscle mass within a mammalian organism. Taller organisms need thicker bones to support their increased weight and physical prowess is a good predictor of cognitive health. My point wasn’t that our genus has progressively gotten stronger, but Cro magnon had a more robust skeleton,(early specimens are around 6 feet in height) and the largest brain case of any AMH due to a proportionately larger visual cortex. Grimaldi man may be a good example of a transition specimen around this time, being smaller in height and having a mix of Negroid and caucasoid features. The layer they are found at also happens to be right above a tropical ecosystem. Also around 26,000 and 7,000 years ago admixture caused a decrease in skeletal thickness and height and brain size. The reason this change occurred is because of a greater need in hunting ability until the extinction of the neanderthals, Despite the name the last glacial maximum was not colder than Neanderthal’s era and this also contributed to lower pressure for adaptation suited to big game hunting, you see the bow and arrow being invented in Europe around this time which as me and Jm8 have already discussed is more efficient for small game. As you’ve mentioned before larger amounts of Kcal equals more energy to power brains and muscle, Cro magnon had both and their Diets reflected this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105796/
https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2318-13-74
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8754/30cfb45c9adac220ec0a3adc04ab2900a67a.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3598509/
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/isez/azca/2007/00000050/F0020001/art00009
https://archive.org/stream/ancienttypesofma00keit#page/58/mode/2up
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep19457#results
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-011-1975-3
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/26/swarthy-blue-eyed-caveman-dna-tooth
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon#Assemblages_and_specimens
https://www.thoughtco.com/we-dont-call-them-cro-magnon-170738
Afro,
“50% unsubstantiated claims.”
Wrong, demonstrate or GTFO pussy.
“I am not talking about whether evolution is progressive. It doesn’t really surprise me that Gould thinks a forward trend in the prevalence of particular traits is equivalent to cosigning Aristotle’s retarded philosophy.”
It’s that it was implied elsewhere. I need to slog through The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I think it’s like 1300 pages, Gould wrote it right before he died.
“Brain size, height, bone size and density are what I’m using to infer this.”
I’m upset that soft tissue doesn’t fossilize. But I’m pretty positive that Neanderthals were stronger than us. They had a wider pelvis/hips and were probably endomorphic.
This paper says that Neanderthals “had high bone robusticity and may have had high bone density, given their heavy musculature. (A positive association between muscle mass and bone density has been observed repeatedly in modern humans.)”
http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAwNy9iZjAyNDM1NTE5/10.1007%40bf02435519.pdf
They do also say that it’s impossible to know whether or not they had higher or the same bone density than us.
Neanderthals also had a wider pelvis which means they had a lower center of gravity as well.
So I think the claim that Neanderthals were stronger is on solid ground.
“Brain size and Height are positively correlated to muscle mass within a mammalian organism. Taller organisms need thicker bones to support their increased weight and physical prowess is a good predictor of cognitive health.”
Yup.
“My point wasn’t that our genus has progressively gotten stronger, but Cro-magnon had a more robust skeleton,(early specimens are around 6 feet in height) and the largest brain case of any AMH due to a proportionately larger visual cortex. ”
He was probably stronger than us as well.
“As you’ve mentioned before larger amounts of Kcal equals more energy to power brains and muscle, Cro-magnon had both and their Diets reflected this.”
Any refs? Like a caloric/macro breakdown like in the study I linked above for erectus? I know the general things that Cro-Magnon ate, but it doesn’t really tell me anything other than diet quality.
Thanks for the refs on brain size/musculature but I knew that already.
Wrong, demonstrate or GTFO pussy
Poor melo, you don’t even realize.
Yes I do, the when there is less flora and fauna there is a higher pressure on allocating resources.
No, it just makes population density lower.
Yes but we cook our food
Irrelevant
Fish was actually the biggest driver of competition between hominins
Source?
cannibalism was actually not driven by hunger, it was very common after the Ice age.
Proof it wouldn’t have been the last option when times got real rough?
How so? Technology requires a base level intelligence to use.
Use your brain idiot, the main advantage of intelligence is that we don’t need to evolve new mutations to adapt to novelty.
Yes, I think RR has posted evidence of such before,
When?
The cool thing about polygenic studies are that they can actually identify areas of selection.
Genes of small effect are invisible to natural selection.
All evolution is influenced by the environment.
No, genetic drift and random mutation aren’t.
I am.
You surely ain’t.
Yes bad Eugenics, A rough environment can influence permanent Genetic changes.
Source?
Not bullshit I’ve demonstrated otherwise.
Lol, not at all.
I’m with Pumpkin. The agents of selections are ill defined and too subjective. but the fact that animals vary in parental investment and maturation rates is a real phenomena.
And?
Wrong again,
Right, first google search results with neanderthal+fitness
That’s not how debating works.
That’s how it works: claim+citation or hypothesis+empirical test
but I can provide plenty of anatomic evidence that correlates with when we transitioned into Europe.
RR addresses your bullshit.
You and RR are followers not leaders, you don’t try to create any hypothesis on your own, you only accept what has already been given to you.
You mean we ain’t talking out of our asses like you?
Yeah, but what I know is that War influences, migration, death, and the living conditions of those involved. Chimps even have wars, we probably have been doing it for millions of years
Source on natural selection caused by war?
The difference is that the slavery in your past bothers you
Source?
I realize it can be a little subjective but me and most other scientists…
LMAO. Delusional follower.
They probably would have had the same intelligence as sub saharan blacks.
Source?
Are you talking aboutthe first people to develop archery and rudimentary mathematics? The ones that transitioned to agriculture, animal husbandry, metal working etc? Lol, you’re delusional, your Neanderthals could hardly talk.
They already made a “great” leap forward, called the Upper paleolithic revolution.
Which was by no means exclusive to Eurasia.
Sorry I’m too lazy,
That’s an issue.
I haven’t heard anything recently I’ll assume he’s just speculating. since most of what he said is speculation too.
And what you say’s been empirically tested LMAO!
I’ve never heard anyone calla white persona “neandertha”
I did.
I’ve called them snow niggers though.
Never heard such a thing. It’s stupid anyway.
RR,
“I’m upset that soft tissue doesn’t fossilize.”
Me too, it would make Anthropology so much more Scientific.
“So I think the claim that Neanderthals were stronger is on solid ground.”
Definitely, one thing I wonder is if the strength Neanderthals possessed was simply a retainment of Archaic phenotype or an actual Adaptation for the increased cold.
“Like a caloric/macro breakdown like in the study I linked above for erectus?”
Well I’m not sure, but Cro magnon is the same species as us, they just ate bigger food, and had bigger bodies.
Afro
“No, it just makes population density lower.”
You’re wrong.
“Irrelevant”
RR said otherwise.
“Source?”
Already provided.
“Proof it wouldn’t have been the last option when times got real rough?”
Irrelevant. After the specific age we are discussing ended cannibalism was more prevalent
“That’s how it works”
No. The question you were asking was not the proper evidence I needed to provide. You don’t understand the discussion. This is extremely evident.
“the main advantage of intelligence is that we don’t need to evolve new mutations to adapt to novelty.”
Intelligence comes in levels of complexity, if you understood anything about the brain you would know that. Higher cognitions can handle higher processing. Duh. Only so much you can teach a dog.
“When?”
RR reposted them on Pumpkin’s new brain size correlation post.
“Source on natural selection caused by war?”
Source and how natural selection wasn’t influenced by war?
“Source?”
The way you try and use it as an insult, it’s kind of sad.
“LMAO. Delusional follower.”
Damn you’re saltier than french fries, aren’t you?
“Source?”
The fact that Africans have much smaller brains now, are living in poorer conditions because increased urbanization in other parts of the world.
“Which was by no means exclusive to Eurasia.”
Your point?
“And what you say’s been empirically tested”
Most of it has, yeah.
“It’s stupid anyway.”
Snow nigger offends them much more because you bring them down to level of what they secretly hate most.
“Me too, it would make Anthropology so much more Scientific.”
Yea. The AAA says that anthropology is not a science. This was pretty big in the news last year.
“Definitely, one thing I wonder is if the strength Neanderthals possessed was simply a retainment of Archaic phenotype or an actual Adaptation for the increased cold.”
My opinion is that it’s an adaptation that occurred for the cold. I’m currently writing an article on human cold adaptation. All you need to know is how a human’s physiology acts when it’s in a cold environment. The rest can be inferred. Their wider waist is one large reason why they’re stronger/more powerful than us. That’s a key to racial strength differences and I don’t need to tell you who has a wide pelvis and who has a narrow one. That will be covered soon as well.
“Well I’m not sure, but Cro magnon is the same species as us, they just ate bigger food, and had bigger bodies.”
This is a given, but I want to know more. I also don’t want to make a ‘just-so’ story so I want all of it to be backed by data.I’d assume they ate the same amount of kcal as Neanderthals, around 3360-4480 kcal a day to support foraging along with cold adaptations (most notably due to a faster metabolism in the cold).
http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTAwMi9hamhiLjEwMDcw/10.1002%40ajhb.10070.pdf
You’re wrong.
Carrying capacity determines population size, that’s basic ecology.
RR said otherwise.
RR (and I) think cooking food enabled brain enlargement starting from homo erectus. That’s irrelevant to homo-sapiens and Neanderthal’s coexistence and survival in Europe.
Already provided.
No.
Irrelevant. After the specific age we are discussing ended cannibalism was more prevalent
I don’t care.
No. The question you were asking was not the proper evidence I needed to provide. You don’t understand the discussion. This is extremely evident.
I perfectly understand that you’re unable to provide evidence for any of your claims. College is gonna be a tough experience for you, you’re not ready for the rigor of academic work.
Intelligence comes in levels of complexity, if you understood anything about the brain you would know that.
Lol, now meLo is a neurscientist. Humans already evolved cognitive adaptability in Africa and needed no more when they spread to other parts of the world.
RR reposted them on Pumpkin’s new brain size correlation post.
LMAO, Piffer’s retarded numerology. Please, play with the kids of your age.
Source and how natural selection wasn’t influenced by war?
Source on how natural selection wasn’t influenced by Santa Claus?
The way you try and use it as an insult, it’s kind of sad.
You angrily brought up African slavery when I dared to imagine the domestication of your beloved neanderthals.
Damn you’re saltier than french fries, aren’t you?
No, I have sympathy for you.
The fact that Africans have much smaller brains now
They don’t.
http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/jas/0000/22741-22741.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5101979/
because increased urbanization in other parts of the world.
Yeah, and neanderthals were highly urbanized as we all know.
Your point?
Use your brain.
Most of it has, yeah.
In your dreams
Snow nigger offends them much more because you bring them down to level of what they secretly hate most.
Am I supposed to care?
so much blah blah blah.
sad!
the chicoms had a phrase…”running dog”.
the french are germany’s running frogs.
SAD!
afro needs to make peace with john holmes.
he also needs to repudiate derrida and foucault.
he needs to admit german domination.
RR,
“The AAA says that anthropology is not a science.”
Unfortunately the AAA isn’t a real authority on what facts are. Cultural Anthropology is definitely not science, physical Anthro is. I’ve seen some argue argue that Historical science is actually more scientific
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/667/chapter/3807501/Common-cause-explanation-and-the-search-for-a
“The truth of the principle of the common cause rests upon a physically pervasive, time asymmetry of causation: In a nutshell, the present contains records of the past but not of the future. Viewed in this light historical scientists actually have an evidential advantage over classical experimentalists.
You do not currently have”
“My opinion is that it’s an adaptation that occurred for the cold”
I think a good way to find this out is if they became stronger or weaker after they came from Africa,
“The rest can be inferred. ”
Something I’ve been trying to explain to Afro, but he just want stop getting so emotional.
“so I want all of it to be backed by data.”
I wouldn’t assume that, they had different body proportions, and If Cro magnon is Considered the same species as us then wouldn’t it have the same daily Kcal intake?
Afro,
“that’s basic ecology.”
But you don’t understand basic ecology…..
“That’s irrelevant to homo-sapiens and Neanderthal’s coexistence and survival in Europe.”
That’s not what we were talking about dumbass, You asked my why monkeys in Japan don’t have brains as big as ours. You completely mischaracterized my view, and assumed I’m just another Cold winter proponent. Your emotional attachment is so incredibly obvious.
“No.”
Yup. Get over it.
“I don’t care.”
Well then your point is invalid.
“I perfectly understand that you’re unable to provide evidence for any of your claims.”
No, people with similar genetics live in similar groups, War takes intelligence, when one nation wars against another a good portion of the participants are wiped out. This is natural selection. I do not need a scientific study to confirm genetic selection because there are other pieces of evidence that correlate and allow me to infer conclusions. You are asking for one because you have no logical rebuttal. You’re basically just throwing a temper tantrum.
“Humans already evolved cognitive adaptability in Africa and needed no more when they spread to other parts of the world.”
irrelevant to my point, try again. You don’t even know what this debate is about anymore. LOL you’re a mess!
“LMAO, Piffer’s retarded numerology.”
Explain now how it is numerology or your statement is invalid.
“You angrily ”
Not angrily. The difference between my insults and yours is that yours stem from a lack of understanding and emotional investment. i just like fucking with you, because I know it works.
“I have sympathy for you.”
Honestly i’d worry about yourself bud.
“They don’t.”
They do. Archaic African sapiens have brain sizes around 1450-1500s. The links you posted go to about 1408 and are representative of just two populations.
“Yeah, and neanderthals were highly urbanized as we all know.”
Another cringe moment of you not getting the point.
“Am I supposed to care?”
It’s okay afro, I think Africa is harsh place. You’re just frustrated.
But you don’t understand basic ecology…..
You even less so.
That’s not what we were talking about dumbass, You asked my why monkeys in Japan don’t have brains as big as ours. You completely mischaracterized my view, and assumed I’m just another Cold winter proponent. Your emotional attachment is so incredibly obvious.
No, it’s not about the cold winter, it’s about your allegation that colder climates are resource poor. That’s the only reason why I asked you why Japanese macaques (or any species actually) manage to find things to eat and sustain a large population in a cold climate.
Yup. Get over it.
No meLo, I’m sorry but a link from your favorite blog is by no means a piece of evidence.
Well then your point is invalid.
Not at all, and by the way, your beloved neanderthals seem to have been avid cannibals. They likely caused their own extinction.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987708000157
do not need a scientific study to confirm genetic selection because there are other pieces of evidence that correlate and allow me to infer conclusions. You are asking for one because you have no logical rebuttal.
No, I ask you scientific studies because you’re not a scientist so I couldn’t care less about your inferences.
irrelevant to my point, try again. You don’t even know what this debate is about anymore. LOL you’re a mess!
Your point was irrelevant to begin with.
Explain now how it is numerology or your statement is invalid.
His GWAS hits weren’t related to IQ or any brain characteristic but to years of education. His sample only consists of whites, thus ignoring most of worldwide genetic variation, the (ridiculous) effects were likewise observed on whites only. He assumes polygenic selection on genes of very small effect which is impossible due to genetic drift, his method can’t predict individual IQ.
Not angrily. The difference between my insults and yours is that yours stem from a lack of understanding and emotional investment. i just like fucking with you, because I know it works.
No try again, I find your debating skills pathetic.
Honestly i’d worry about yourself bud.
Don’t worry for me, I have a carreer in Law, something you’ll never have in anything close to science.
They do. Archaic African sapiens have brain sizes around 1450-1500s. The links you posted go to about 1408 and are representative of just two populations.
Which are representative of a country of 190,000,000 inhabitants (Nigeria) and whose brain size is much higher than what Lynn attributes to Africans, and higher than what he attributes to every “race” but East Asians and arctic peoples. And you can find those populations unrepresentative the fact is that they shouldn’t exist according to your Neanderthal competition theory or the Pioneer Fund’s CWT.
Another cringe moment of you not getting the point.
Lol, if you knew how much I cringed when you brought up urbanization as deus ex machina
It’s okay afro, I think Africa is harsh place. You’re just frustrated.
Not really, don’t try to read my mind because you are pathetically failing. And I’ve spent really good times in (West) Africa, life there has some very good aspects, but the ignorant American that you are is clueless.
“it’s about your allegation that colder climates are resource poor.’
They are relative to tropical environments, this is a fact, but resource allocation is not the only selection pressure in an environment.
“I’m sorry but a link from your favorite blog is by no means a piece of evidence.”
Yes it is. The blog is literally about scientific studies, find the references and the supply a rebuttal or admit you’re wrong. I tend to link you articles instead of studies because I know you’ll have an easier time understanding it.
“your beloved neanderthals seem to have been avid cannibals. They likely caused their own extinction.”
Again, it becomes easy to figure your psychology when you make such transparent attempts at “offending me” You think I have some kind of emotional attachment to Neanderthals? Humans are cannibals too, a lot of animals are. If you really think they ate themselves to death you’re fucking retarded.
“I ask you scientific studies because you’re not a scientist so I couldn’t care less about your inferences.”
Well too bad. Your main premise is wrong, either accept mine or provide counter arguments.
“His GWAS hits weren’t related to IQ or any brain characteristic but to years of education. His sample only consists of whites, thus ignoring most of worldwide genetic variation, the (ridiculous) effects were likewise observed on whites only. He assumes polygenic selection on genes of very small effect which is impossible due to genetic drift, his method can’t predict individual IQ.”
I think you’re referring to my sources not RR’s.
“I find your debating skills pathetic.”
I don’t debate people who don’t know how to. One of the reasons I’m fucking with you.
“I have a carreer in Law”
Well of course afro, it’s easy when you don’t have to be right. Which is why You have a such poor arguing skills. You rely on fallacious verbosity because your profession doesn’t actually demand real pattern recognition.
“Which are representative of a country of 190,000,000 inhabitants”
It would actually be more accurate if the samples were spread across the entire continent, not one country.
“the fact is that they shouldn’t exist according to your Neanderthal competition theory”
God, more evidence of your emotional “logic”. Africans having normal brain sizes does not contradict my “Neanderthal competition theory”. Why don’t you just stop beingyou’re African yourself. It triggers you, you’re like a little fucking girl.
“urbanization as deus ex machina”
You can’t put hunter gatherers in an urbanized society and expect them be better off. You didn’t understand the causation. You’re too stupid.
“don’t try to read my mind”
Try? Dude, you really don’t understand how obvious you are to everyone do you?
“ignorant American”
Yeah, merica sucks now that trumps president, but honestly France is even more of a laughin stock. How does it feel that your own country would have abandoned you and gave you up to the Germans?
“Unfortunately the AAA isn’t a real authority on what facts are. Cultural Anthropology is definitely not science, physical Anthro is. I’ve seen some argue argue that Historical science is actually more scientific”
I like their statement change. It entertains me.I don’t really care about name games though, just thought I’d bring it up to see your reaction.
I think bioanthro is a science.
“I think a good way to find this out is if they became stronger or weaker after they came from Africa,”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/04/homo-neanderthalis-vs-homo-sapiens-sapiens-who-is-stronger-implications-for-racial-strength-differences/
They had cold-adaptations, a wider pelvis is better for heat retention. Most of the pelvis are retained ancestral traits except for the cross-sectional shape of the pubic ramus. Neanderthal males ate about 300 grams of protein a day, eating between 3300 and 4800 kcal per day (75 to 85 percent fat with the rest coming from protein). Large amounts of kcal and protein expanded their thorax to hold a larger liver as that’s where protein begins to be metabolized.
In the winter, the lowest amount of animal fat eaten was 74 percent, the rest coming from protein. It was also further thought that Neanderthals had larger clavicles than us but when not compared with humeral lengths, Neanderthals had similar clavicular size in comparison to us, which also implies a similar shoulder breadth. They were also 5 feet 5 inches (around 5 inches shorter than Europeans during post-WW II) so all things considered about their size, they had a lower center of gravity than we do.
When Homo sapiens got to Europe, they had narrow pelves and weren’t cold-adapted. Now think about racial differences in strength. Think of Europeans as the Neanderthals and Africans as Homo sapiens. Does it make sense as to why Eurasians are stronger now?
“I wouldn’t assume that, they had different body proportions, and If Cro magnon is Considered the same species as us then wouldn’t it have the same daily Kcal intake?”
It would vary across the seasons, but I think they would have eaten way more than we do, given that Neanderthals and erectus did as well.
“https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/04/homo-neanderthalis-vs-homo-sapiens-sapiens-who-is-stronger-implications-for-racial-strength-differences/”
But were they stronger than Heidelbergensis and erectus? Either way thanks for the link ima eat dinner and read it.
I would assume so. I’ll look into that soon. Morphology and anatomy are the tells.
RR
“Population growth increasing tremendously is an r trait.”
Yeah but what happens when the first population explosion subsides?
“New environment, r trait.”
But Africa is not one giant ecosystem.
“Because people believe it”
What people? You mean losers like Mugabe and Philo? You really think their opinions have an effect on this world?
“Yeah but what happens when the first population explosion subsides?”
Carrying capacity is hit (K). Though as Jm8 brought up, conditions would have been bad enough that no amount of higher intelligence would save you, which I’m aware that the same holds true for Africans. However I’m talking about Rushton’s theory. He says endemic and infectious disease. This is K.
All in all, I’ve stated my position here countless times, based off of Rushton’s own arguments on the traits of Mongoloids AND the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred (‘harsh Asian winters’).
“But Africa is not one giant ecosystem.”
I understand this. But the point is, if the three races Rushton describes are local populations, what I stated would be true, re endemic diseases K and cold temperature r.
“What people? You mean losers like Mugabe and Philo? You really think their opinions have an effect on this world?”
People on the right. I feel it needed to be said. It’s pushed a lot on the Right so after I came around to the reality of Rushton’s misapplication of r/K to the races I felt the need to write well researched piece on it to change the minds of others. Anything wrong with that?
‘arguments on the traits of Mongoloids”
I’m still not sure if Mongoloids would be r selected or not. Did they have high birth rates during the Ice age?
” endemic diseases K and cold temperature r.”
If endemic disease is all you have to lean on, then it’s really insignificant. Cold and hot temperatures are r.
“Anything wrong with that?”
Well honestly I don’t think you’ve changed many minds.
Well honestly I don’t think you’ve changed many minds.
Two things:
1- Most people didn’t grasp the main concepts of the theory, they acted like they did without making sure they did and it shows. Things like density dependence, variability and stuff are still blurry for some. They still stick to r/K as they know it from Rushton.
2- R/K has been falsified, so it’s hard to explain it without getting confused since too many examples wouldn’t fit in the paradigm.
“Tropical environments provide more evolutionary challenges than do the environments of temperate and cold lands.” – Why, and what are they?
Well Dobzhanksy also states immediately after that the challenges of the cold arise largely “from physical agencies” to which organisms responsible by “relatively simple physiological modifications.” He also says that the challenges of the tropics stem from “intricate mutual relationships among the inhabitants.”
The point is that intelligence can be selected for in any environment (temperate, cold, or tropical) and that it’s not an easy time to laze around in the sun all day because there is a bounty of food around to eat. Thats how an HBDer, Rushton, Lynn, Kanazawa et al characterize life in Africa thousands of years ago. Like it’s an easy time and so intelligence was selected against because there was no need for it due to the abundance of food and lack of predators. That’s an extremely simple way of looking at life and how organisms responds and reacts to the stimulus in their environment.
The “Eurasia cold so hard to live and Africa hot so easy life” canard from HBDers is an extremely simple way of lookin at things. And it comes down to the fact that Rushton reversed r and K selection and arbitrarily chose K for Eurasians and R for Africans. Watching videos and reading articles on r and K selection today I just laughed because people really have no idea how it’s really applied due to people’s misuse of the theory, and people don’t know that it’s not even in use anymore by biologists and ecologists.
I would think the main difference comes in the greatest challenges, which are the higher occurrence of infectious diseases at tropical climates versus the scarcer food resources at the cold areas.
The tropics are relatively richer in nutrients, and the perturbations are relatively more frequent because of the more rapidly occurring and constantly changing diseases. In comparison, cold climates are relatively more stable with a higher chance of surviving to adulthood, but there’s also a tougher competition for food.
I tend to compare things (including evolution-related ones) to complex nonlinear dynamic systems lately. When the environment is unstable, it’s like the strange attractors of the system are more erratic, so there’s a lower chance for a relatively stable phenotype to occur and get “fine tuned”, even though exceptional individuals surely occur, and in the case of genetically advantageous mutations (for example ones resulting in higher intelligence), the individuals will survive. However, because there’s a higher chance of child mortality, a strategy closer to the r-type has a higher chance to adapt.
From this article on “Ecological theory as a foundation to control pathogenic invasion in aquaculture” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4260705/ , 2014):
“According to the ecological theory of r/K selection (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967), which also applies to microbial communities (Andrews and Harris, 1986), an environment rich in nutrients per cell, low in competition and with frequent perturbations selects for microorganisms with a high capacity to exploit nutrients and increase in population size, termed fast-growing opportunistic r-strategists. Conversely, a stable environment where there are scarce resources per cell and hence high interspecific competition will select for slow-growing competition specialists—the K-strategists.”
“I would think the main difference comes in the greatest challenges, which are the higher occurrence of infectious diseases at tropical climates versus the scarcer food resources at the cold areas.”
So tropics=more food, cold=less food? Yes, infectious disease, which is an agent of K-selection, not r.
“The tropics are relatively richer in nutrients, and the perturbations are relatively more frequent because of the more rapidly occurring and constantly changing diseases.”
Which is an agent of K-selection.
“In comparison, cold climates are relatively more stable with a higher chance of surviving to adulthood, but there’s also a tougher competition for food.”
K-selection—and alpha-selection—select for competitive ability. However, cold winters are agents of r-selection not K. I don’t know how I can stress that point more. It’s critical to Rushton’s theory and he gets it wrong!
“even though exceptional individuals surely occur, and in the case of genetically advantageous mutations (for example ones resulting in higher intelligence), the individuals will survive.”
Intelligence can be selected for due to both r- K-selection. The same with rule-following. Those two variables were not on the continuum and Rushton just added them just cuz.
“However, because there’s a higher chance of child mortality, a strategy closer to the r-type has a higher chance to adapt.”
Which, if r/K theory were applicable to humans, Mongoloids would be r while Africans would be K.
This canard that life is ‘easy’ in Africa has no basis in reality. Life is easy nowehere and intelligence can be selected for in cold and tropical environments.
“From this article on “Ecological theory as a foundation to control pathogenic invasion in aquaculture””
And, as I have stated, endemic and infectious disease is an agent of K-selection. However, drought is also an agent of r-selection.
I don’t see how what I wrote contradicts with what Pianka put in Table 1 (on Page 3 in the pdf, originally p. 593) in the document you cited above: http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/epc/conservation/PDFs/HIPE/Pianka1970.pdf
Cold winters are “fairly constant and/or predictable: more certain” – K-selection
Infectious diseases are “variable and/or unpredictable: uncertain” – r-selection
“I don’t see how what I wrote contradicts with what Pianka put in Table 1 (on Page 3 in the pdf, originally p. 593) in the document you cited above”
Pianka gave no experimental rationale as to why he included each trait on his ‘continuum’. Pianka just labels life history traits as ‘r’ or ‘K’ without evidence that r- or K-selection are responsible for said traits. r and K are not adjectives.
“Cold winters are “fairly constant and/or predictable: more certain” – K-selection”
I’ve explained how cold winters are agents of r-selection. If an alien observed Mongoloids and had no prior knowledge of humans and only had knowledge of Pianka’s r/K continuum, it would assume that Mongoloids would be r-selected since cold weather acts in a density-independent fashion (notice the difference between K-selection?) and thusly it would conclude that Mongoloids were r-selected, not K.
“Infectious diseases are “variable and/or unpredictable: uncertain” – r-selection”
Infectious and endemic disease causes density-dependent mortality and are thus agents of K-selection.
It’d be best to read the citations provided in the article.
Well, if we were to find evidence for r-selection in East Asians we would notice:
-their smaller body size
-their explosive population growth. remember East Asia has been peopled for like 30k years yet almost has 2 billions inhabitants, Africa has been occupied for 200k years and the subsaharan part hasn’t yet reached the billion
-Their low sociability
-Their supposed conflict avoidance
I’m not writing that because I believe it, the r/K paradigm is obsolete. But if we had to hold on to it, it’d be very easy to find proof of more r-selection in Eurasia as the original theory predicts.
It’s not easier to find food in the tropics. Once again, if we were to stick to the r/K continuum we would highlight that the best examples of K selection (Apes, humans and Elephants) are all African species.
Yeah, I can see how it can be forced and twisted both ways, which means r/K selection is not well defined. What Afrosapiens says works really well for East Asians, not so well for Europids. I think it would help if we could at least get the original definitions/descriptions of r and K selection straight from MacArthur and Wilson.
Regarding humans being exclusively African species, it’s still under debate (and it came up on our forum not long ago as well: http://www.intelligentpeopleforum.com/threads/graecopithecus-the-first-human-was-european.59/).
Yeah, I can see how it can be forced and twisted both ways, which means r/K selection is not well defined. What Afrosapiens says works really well for East Asians, not so well for Europids. I think it would help if we could at least get the original definitions/descriptions of r and K selection straight from MacArthur and Wilson.
For the record Wilson praised Rushton’s theory as solid logically sound evolutionary reasoning and said it was only being attacked because of sensitivity around discussing race
Had rushton applied his same logic to a non-human species Wilson felt there would have been no criticism
Science can be politicized just as much as anything else
Yeah, I can see how it can be forced and twisted both ways, which means r/K selection is not well defined
It’s not well defined because r selected environments are environments that favour luck, not merit, and luck is hard to measure because by some definitions, luck is unexplained variance.
Rushton’s genius was looking at which races appeared to have the most r or K traits and then reasoned backwards that their ancestral environments must have selected for such, though Rushton’s r & K traits were somewhat arbitrary chosen and his data was low quality
Don’t dwell on a mandible. It tells little on what creature it actually belongs to, let alone the origins of that creature.
“For the record Wilson praised Rushton’s theory as solid logically sound evolutionary reasoning and said it was only being attacked because of sensitivity around discussing race”
That was my initial assumption, going by what I’ve read about Rushton so far.
“Don’t dwell on a mandible. It tells little on what creature it actually belongs to, let alone the origins of that creature.”
While the actual fossil and its possible origins are interesting as well, what I’m really interested in is why did polygenism and multiregional evolution virtually disappear from science? It seems like these theories weren’t actually debunked, more like the whole thing was labeled as racism and had to be forgotten.
Ruryse, my understanding is that multiregional evolution was debunked in the 1980s with the discovery of the mitochondrial Eve showing all modern humans are descended from a 200,000-year-old African. Time and time again, genetic data shows the deepest divergence in the modern human evolutionary tree is between Africans and non-Africans (or some say between bushmen and non-bushmen).
You’re right that anti-racists loved this because it proved, in their opinion, that we’re all Africans under the skin, however ironically, Rushton also loved it because to him it proved blacks were the most genetically primitive because they emerged first, almost the exact opposite of Coon who argued that blacks were the most primitive because they evolved last or the biblical view that Caucasoids were superior because they were created first in the Garden of Eden and all other races came later and were a degradation of God’s image.
“Yeah, I can see how it can be forced and twisted both ways, which means r/K selection is not well defined. What Afrosapiens says works really well for East Asians, not so well for Europids. I think it would help if we could at least get the original definitions/descriptions of r and K selection straight from MacArthur and Wilson.”
No, it is well defined. The confusion arises from Rushton’s misapplication of the theory.
“Regarding humans being exclusively African species, it’s still under debate (and it came up on our forum not long ago as well”
There is no ‘debate’ here. Only idealogues jump at that ‘finding’.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/27/to-the-alt-right-modern-man-did-not-begin-in-europe/
“That was my initial assumption, going by what I’ve read about Rushton so far.”
Wilson never said anything about his application of r/K to the human races, he only talked about the traits that Rushton talked about. Even then, his little blurb is meainingless to the data amassed here—which no one is really debating.
“While the actual fossil and its possible origins are interesting as well, what I’m really interested in is why did polygenism and multiregional evolution virtually disappear from science? It seems like these theories weren’t actually debunked, more like the whole thing was labeled as racism and had to be forgotten.”
Because it doesn’t make sense. The multiregional model is long dead. If I recall correctly, this assertion came from Coone. There is tons of evidence of an African origin of modern man:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/09/out-of-factfrica/
And it’ll take more than one little mandible and tooth to discredit the theory. Seeing the altright cream themselves over that ‘finding’ was so cringey. People jump at things that affirm their beliefs without digging deeper into it; only taking things on their face.
I can see how infectious diseases are density dependent, so going by the table you posted, it’s also K-strategy, just like limited food supply and the periodicity of cold winters (predictable environment). On the other hand, the higher occurring frequency of droughts and the overall higher climatic unpredictability in Africa would fall in the r-strategy.
What book is it from?
“I can see how infectious diseases are density dependent, so going by the table you posted, it’s also K-strategy, just like limited food supply and the periodicity of cold winters (predictable environment). On the other hand, the higher occurring frequency of droughts and the overall higher climatic unpredictability in Africa would fall in the r-strategy.”
There is nothing in the literature showing that arctic environments are more ‘predictable’ than tropical environments. I’s only the same people citing each other about it with no primary citation on this ‘predictability’ is provided, and the paper he does cite talking about ‘northern environments selecting for K traits’ makes no sense because traits aren’t ‘K’.
“What book is it from?”
http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/race-r-k-theory-rushton-anderson-canadian-psychology-1-1991.pdf
p 53
Afro
“-their smaller body size”
Really the only valid point here. But even then, there are K selected creatures with smaller bodies, and East asians still live long lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_tern
-their explosive population growth. remember East Asia has been peopled for like 30k years yet almost has 2 billions inhabitants, Africa has been occupied for 200k years and the subsaharan part hasn’t yet reached the billion”
Yeah but what you forgot to mention was that Africa has a much higher infant mortality rate which is an r selected trait, and large population size is an effect of K selection while faster population rate is r selection. At one point China and Some countries in Africa had equivalent birth rates, this is not the case anymore.
-Their low sociability
Incorrect. Extroverted =/= social ability or understanding.
“-Their supposed conflict avoidance”
?
“Yeah but what you forgot to mention was that Africa has a much higher infant mortality rate which is an r selected trait, and large population size is an effect of K selection while faster population rate is r selection. At one point China and Some countries in Africa had equivalent birth rates, this is not the case anymore.”
Proof infant mortality differed between the races before modern medicine? Same with life expectancy? Using modern data makes no sense, Rushton must find variables in populations that live in their ancestral environment, not in America or in industrialized societies.
And no, the data is not valid:
http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iq-race-brain-size-r-k-theory-rushton-gorey-personality-individual-differences-9-1995.pdf
afro is a living example of r selection.
when he can’t bang guys he bangs gals.
sad!
mug of pee really wants my dick. Sad!
“Rushton must find variables in populations that live in their ancestral environment”
To fit his explanation yes, but in reality Modern society does affect the genome, which is the kind of causation I am referring to. Differential K theory fits into modern racial discrepancies, like fertility, IQ, maturation rates etc. but it isn’t to do with their ancestral hunter gatherer environment, he just didn’t realize that. You on the other hand need to demonstrate that Mongoloids are r selected when they first migrated or you need to show that they are r selected now, and demonstrate the validity of the suggested pressures.
“Proof infant mortality differed between the races before modern medicine? Same with life expectancy?”
Well if you’re trying to correct for environment here is a study on american races.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db74.pdf
But the problem was there before modern medicine anyway.
“Despite the dramatic decline in infant and maternal mortality during the 20th century, challenges remain. Perhaps the greatest is the persistent difference in maternal and infant health among various racial/ethnic groups, particularly between black and white women and infants. Although overall rates have plummeted, black infants are more than twice as likely to die as white infants; this ratio has increased in recent decades. The higher risk for infant mortality among blacks compared with whites is attributed to higher LBW incidence and preterm births and to a higher risk for death among normal birthweight infants (greater than or equal to 5 lbs, 8 oz [greater than or equal to 2500 g]). During the first decades of the 20th century, black women were twice as likely to die of pregnancy-related complications as white women. Today, black women are more than three times as likely to die as white women. During the last few decades, the key reason for the decline in neonatal mortality has been the improved rates of survival among LBW babies, not the reduction in the incidence of LBW.”
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm
“But the problem was there before modern medicine anyway.”
Proof these differences existed between Nigerians, Austrians and Koreans in the 17th century?
“Differential K theory fits into modern racial discrepancies, like fertility, IQ, maturation rates etc. ”
No, IQ is not part of the continuum, and I advise you to at least click the links I provide and that show the data isn’t correct anyway.
“You on the other hand need to demonstrate that Mongoloids are r selected when they first migrated or you need to show that they are r selected now, and demonstrate the validity of the suggested pressures.”
No I need to demonstrate nothing, r/K is no longer in use among ecologists. It’s outdated, so why would I demonstrate something that I know is wrong??? I just listed traits that would support the paradigm if we tried to think withing its frame.
Thanks, I couldn’t open that link earlier today. So that’s Rushton’s own table. I’ve found this by MacArthur & Wilson “The Theory of Island Biogeography”, 1967: http://imgur.com/dLJVoV0
It makes the whole thing even more hazy.
The table is from Judith Anderson.
The first para backs my claim. The second para, are the climates in the Arctic ‘more uniform and moderate’, specifically Rushton’s ‘cold, harsh Asia’ claim?
‘Proof these differences existed between Nigerians, Austrians and Koreans”
Why those specific Ethnic groups? Besides the lack of East Asian data I did present you with more or less what you wanted.
“No, IQ is not part of the continuum,”
Differential k theory =/= r/K selection theory
The former is Rushton’s version
“I just listed traits that would support the paradigm if we tried to think withing its frame.”
Exactly, and you did a piss poor job.
“Why those specific Ethnic groups? Besides the lack of East Asian data I did present you with more or less what you wanted.”
Because ecologists compare local populations, not whole “races” that spread over different ecosystems. And no, you did not provide me evidence, you compared blacks and whites in America, which is neither’s ancestral environment and where obvious SES disparities are responsible for varying health outcomes.
“Differential k theory =/= r/K selection theory
The former is Rushton’s version”
And Rushton’s version is based on no ecological logic nor observation at all.
“Exactly, and you did a piss poor job.”
What else would you expect give that the theory is wrong?
“Because ecologists compare local populations, not whole “races” that spread over different ecosystems”
Yeah i know, I thought there might of been some arbitrary reason yo were picking Koreans over Chinese or something.
“which is neither’s ancestral environment and where obvious SES disparities are responsible for varying health outcomes.”
It doesn’t have to be an ancestral Environment they’re both in the same Environment. And SES disparities are possibly an Outcome of genetically inherited intellectual differences.
“What else would you expect give that the theory is wrong?”
I’d expect you to not even give a shit like a normal person.
“It doesn’t have to be an ancestral Environment they’re both in the same Environment. And SES disparities are possibly an Outcome of genetically inherited intellectual differences.”
Or maybe they’re caused by Santa Claus?
Or maybe you just need an African-American history lesson, in Tagalog.
And no, they don’t even live in the same environment. SES aside, blacks live more in the South-East, where whites have worse health than whites in other regions. So controlling for geography could possibly alter the disparities to some extent.
“I’d expect you to not even give a shit like a normal person.”
I’d expect you to understand it could be interesting to discuss a theory that makes no sense but is widely accepted among racists.
“The first para backs my claim.” – I would think so as well, unless we go even further north, where the differences between seasons get reduced. The ice cap climate, EF (and to a smaller extent, tundra climate, ET) are similarly stable as the hot desert climate, BWh. Semi-arid climates, BSh & BSk, (both can be found in Africa) do have winters. Then of course there’s the dichotomy of the monsoon, Am. My point is, I can come up with as much climatic variety regarding the tropics as I can for areas closer to the poles.
Then there’s the case of infectious diseases, something I incorrectly oversimplified in my initial assumptions, thinking only tropics get such epidemics. For example the flu is fine tuned for colder environment, we could say it’s K-selected (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080330203401.htm).
Goes to show that when it comes to nature, simplistic thinking doesn’t lead to correct conclusions. The devil is in the details, especially scaling.
Rurye,
The flu aint endemic, it’s epidemic (causing seasonal unpredictable mortality) and would be an agent of r-selection
Malaria is endemic (causing yearlong constant death toll) and is agent of K selection.
“The flu aint endemic…” – Why not? As far as I know, the terms “endemic” and “epidemic” aren’t opposites.
endemic (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endemic):
1
a : belonging or native to a particular people or country
b : characteristic of or prevalent in a particular field, area, or environment
2
: restricted or peculiar to a locality or region endemic diseases an endemic species
Certain influenza strains are endemic in humans, birds, swine, equine, canine etc. or the combination of those. We can also see how some of these strains survive better in cold areas and cold seasonal periods, so they are endemic in such environment.
epidemic (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epidemic):
1
: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time typhoid was epidemic
2
a : excessively prevalent
b : contagious
3
: characterized by very widespread growth or extent : of, relating to, or constituting an epidemic
Both malaria and influenza can cause epidemics.
You’d get things better with actual genetic definitions
The constant presence of diseases or infectious agents within a given geographic area or population group. It may also refer to the usual prevalence of a given disease with such area or group. It includes holoendemic and hyperendemic diseases. A holoendemic disease is one for which a high prevalent level of infection begins early in life and affects most of the child population, leading to a state of equilibrium such that the adult population shows evidence of the disease much less commonly than do children (malaria in many communities is a holoendemic disease). A hyperendemic disease is one that is constantly present at a high incidence and/or prevalence rate and affects all groups equally. (Last, A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 3d ed, p53, 78, 80)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh?term=Endemic+Diseases
In epidemiology, an infection is said to be endemic (from Greek ἐν en “in, within” and δῆμος demos “people”) in a population when that infection is maintained in the population without the need for external inputs. For example, chickenpox is endemic (steady state) in the UK, but malaria is not. Every year, there are a few cases of malaria reported in the UK, but these do not lead to sustained transmission in the population due to the lack of a suitable vector (mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles). While it might be common to say that AIDS is “endemic” in Africa, meaning found in an area, this is a use of the word in its etymological, rather than epidemiological, form. AIDS cases in Africa are increasing, so the disease is not in an endemic steady state. It is correct to call the spread of AIDS in Africa an epidemic.[citation needed]
For an infection that relies on person-to-person transmission to be endemic, each person who becomes infected with the disease must pass it on to one other person on average. Assuming a completely susceptible population, that means that the basic reproduction number (R0) of the infection must equal 1. In a population with some immune individuals, the basic reproduction number multiplied by the proportion of susceptible individuals in the population (S) must be 1. This takes account of the probability of each individual to whom the disease may be transmitted being susceptible to it, effectively discounting the immune sector of the population. So, for a disease to be in an endemic steady state it is: {\displaystyle R_{0}\times S=1} {\displaystyle R_{0}\times S=1}
In this way, the infection neither dies out nor does the number of infected people increase exponentially but the infection is said to be in an endemic steady state. An infection that starts as an epidemic will eventually either die out (with the possibility of it resurging in a theoretically predictable cyclical manner) or reach the endemic steady state, depending on a number of factors, including the virulence of the disease and its mode of transmission.
If a disease is in endemic steady state in a population, the relation above allows us to estimate the R0 (an important parameter) of a particular infection. This in turn can be fed into the mathematical model of an epidemic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_(epidemiology)
When a disease is prevalent in an area over long periods of time, it is considered to be endemic in that area. When the prevalence of disease is subject to wide fluctuations in time, it is considered to be epidemic during periods of high prevalence. Epidemics prevailing over wide geographic areas are called pandemics.
https://www.britannica.com/science/disease#ref525446
The difference is about constancy, malaria, yellow fever or sleeping sickness are always here in Africa and other tropical regions. Ebola was an epidemic. The flu is an epidemic in Europe, it’s only present in Europe.
Also, endemic disease is basically another form of predation, from pathogens instead of lions or tigers.
The so-called “exotic” diseases in the tropics have long been noted both by travelers, explorers, etc., as well as by physicians. One obvious reason is that the hot climate present during all the year and the larger volume of rains directly affect the formation of breeding grounds, the larger number and variety of natural reservoirs and animal diseases that can be transmitted to humans (zoonosis), the largest number of possible insect vectors of diseases. It is possible also that higher temperatures may favor the replication of pathogenic agents both inside and outside biological organisms. Socio-economic factors may be also in operation, since most of the poorest nations of the world are in the tropics. Tropical countries like Brazil, which have improved their socio-economic situation and invested in hygiene, public health and the combat of transmissible diseases have achieved dramatic results in relation to the elimination or decrease of many endemic tropical diseases in their territory.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_disease#Relation_of_climate_to_tropical_diseases
Malaria is endemic (causing yearlong constant death toll) and is agent of K selection.
bullshit.
You’re bullshit.
“You’d get things better with actual genetic definitions”
Epidemiological definitions
“The flu is an epidemic in Europe, it’s only present in Europe.”
Only present in winter.
afro is the biggest hack ever…like most french people. but he’s only 24…and gay.
malaria infection can’t be avoided by more parental care. it can’t be cured by more parental care. therefore it is a force of r-selection.
at this point i’m pretty sure afro is that most miserable of creatures…the black man with a small penis. he said he cried when jimmy called him a “nigger”.
sad!
if afro isn’t peepee he’s likely a gay jew with a fetish for black men.
“malaria infection can’t be avoided by more parental care. it can’t be cured by more parental care. therefore it is a force of r-selection.”
LMAO, of course you can, just by sheltering babies from mosquitoes you moron. Traditional medicines do a good job as well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC527695/
And no JJ never cries.
now afro is dumber than flushton.
who knew mosquitoes were the vector until the white man he’ped the black man afro-tard?
come out already afro.
all black men with IQs > 100 are gay.
you’re the norm.
Are you retarded ? Africans always shelter the young from mosquitoes, not even with disease in mind. Simply because it hurts and prevents babies from sleeping at night.
And no, Africans knew for long that disease prevalence increases in the rainy season when mosquitoes literally start filling the air.
“And no, they don’t even live in the same environment.”
So none of those examined were from the same region?
“I’d expect you to understand it could be interesting to discuss a theory that makes no sense but is widely accepted among racists.”
Does your fiance know you spend a good portion of your time arguing with random “racists” online?
Yes, well, she doesn’t know what I’m actually doing, I always have a billion tabs on the side but sometimes I show her what’s going on here. She laughs or cringes.
“So none of those examined were from the same region?”
Depends on the study’s design but aggregate national data in part reflects geographic disparities.
Are you retarded ? Africans always shelter the young from mosquitoes, not even with disease in mind.
afro just made that up.
sad!
swaddling clothes afro. not malaria prevention.
the injuns did the same for their papooses, yet no malaria in the great plains.
malaria is found everywhere. even in the arctic. but it’s worst in the tropics. worst place in the world is vanuatu. did these melanesians cover their chillens?
force of infant mortality especially but mortality in general is unavoidable = r-selecting.
force of mortality is avoidable = K-selected.
examples:
high parasite load = r (until recently the causes of infectious diseases were unknown and hygiene was practiced by none. european royalty bathe once a year…in milk.)
scarce resources or abundant resources which are difficult to exploit = K
danish crocodile tears.
So you guys think these (below) are not valid examples of endemic influenza?
http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1164/arrd.1962.85.1.9?journalCode=arrd
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/9/11-0338_article
Those are indeed more elaborate definitions, and they say the same thing with more words and in more detail that the Merriam-Webster did. Not sure how chewing these terms changes the fact that both kinds of environments have their locally typical (i.e. endemic) density-dependent infectious diseases.
Not really, your first link talks of 20 New Yorkers having flu due to an epidemic in Cleveland, the second talks of pigs. Malaria kills 600k people a year and affects even more, this is on a whole other scale and Malaria, along with all other tropical diseases is a constant yearlong threats.
If you go on vacation in Africa or Brazil, you have to take vaccines and treatments before you leave, any time during the year. Disease is always in the air.
I don’t doubt the high mortality of malaria. There’s an interesting part regarding our current topic though. It’s how malaria is spread by female Anopheles mosquitoes, while flu is based on person-to-person contamination. Because of that, malaria will affect the sparsest communities just as much, while flu depends on the host density of a given population. Thus, malaria is much less density dependent than influenza.
Nope, because it constantly maintains carrying capacity at low levels, hence poses more challenges to population growth.
And population growth is so precious when it comes to r-selection. The carrying capacity you mention is that of mosquitoes I assume? Since there’s practically no person-to-person transmission (unless masses of people start giving each other blood transfusion), the density dependence of malaria among humans is near zero. Malaria is definitely an r-agent, while the highly host density dependent influenza is definitely a K-agent.
You don’t get it,
K selection happens when a agents constantly limit population growth in a population. In other words, when the carrying capacity is fully employed. Agents that lower carrying capacity such as malaria which is a perpetual endemic disease, or predation are such factor. The organism evolves toward efficiency, since increasing population won’t improve survival, the population must maintain a stable population with individuals that are better prepared to face the challenges. Malaria has caused K selection for resistance which is an efficiency trait. Influenza did not, because it happens infrequently and a lot of people can survive just by chance instead of owing their survival to adaptations after generations of people being harrassed by an endemic disease.
r-selection occurs in vacuum, when population can grow forever without a constant pressure for efficiency. In such a scenario, organisms don’t need to genetically adapt, they just reproduce in large numbers and luck alone will tell who will survive an unpredictable event that leads to high mortality. But these disasters have the effect of lowering the population dramatically and preventing the species from occupying the ecosystem up to full carrying capacity, when evolution theoretically switches to K selection.
In short: k-selection occurs when the environment imposes constant pressures against population growth. r-selection occurs when no limits to population growth normally exist but unpredictable disasters prevent population from growing up to maximal carrying capacity.
Is that clear?
I don’t quite understand why you have given up on the density dependency aspect that was one of the main points of your argument until now. Now you are churning out straw man arguments on things I haven’t questioned to begin with. They don’t change the fact that malaria is widely density independent, and flu is highly density dependent, regardless of their actual deadliness.
When diseases present a constant danger, the quickest possible evolutionary response against it is to have more offsprings, which is r-strategy. The occurring genetic resistance comes later, and it’s indeed a K-type reaction.
Hence I said this whole thing cannot be handled in a simplistic way, because both kinds of human environments present both kind of agents and have examples of both kind of responses to them.
Density-dependence = coping with carrying capacity constraints
Malaria creates density dependence as it permanently decreases carrying capacity. It’s not about how a disease is transmitted, it’s about how it affects the daily liveability of a population and controls its growth rate. This is the theoretical frame. Then numerous incoherences have to be expected, this is the reason why the model is no longer in use. Too many species have strategies that fit neither r-, K- or Alpha-.
But if we want to discuss the hypothetical consequences of malaria vs. influenza in humans, malaria is definitely K-. Because you care more about your baby if you know he can die every day from a threat that’s always here and you’ll avoid having more kids until you think the first one is strong enough to survive.
You know it’s like living next to a highway, you’ll tell your kids everytime they go out to watch out for the dangerous road, then until the eldest is mature enough to understand, you might start allow the youngest to follow.
On the contrary, the flu is like a small dusty country road with one car once in a blue moon. You’ll let the kids play ball on it without a worry as you won’t think that they’ll get run over by a car as soon as they cross the door.
“Because you care more about your baby if you know he can die every day from a threat that’s always here and you’ll avoid having more kids until you think the first one is strong enough to survive.”
Logic would dictate so, wouldn’t it? Interestingly, reality is different: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Population_growth_rate_world_2013.svg
Doesn’t look like restraint from having more kids to me. It’s because logic is a product of people, and people are products of their genes. It seems like the majority of those genes, indicated by rapid population growth areas, evolved to keep reproducing at a high rate, in other words, towards r-selection.
Population growth rates are caused by decrease in mortality, not increase in fertility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg
To Ruryse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2016/04/changing-narrative-fertility-decline-africa/
Overall fertility declined compared to it’s original level, development issues could’ve effect the transition’s lag compared to other countries.
R selected Asia was Higher than Europe in the past.
The link,
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Madsen-Fig1.jpg:
^^^^^ This,
Current day fertility rates (as well as death rates) aren’t suitable for evolutionary inferences. Any fertility rate below the inter-generational replacement threshold of 2.1 would basically imply natural selection for extinction.
Pre-industrial fertility was in the 6-7 children per woman magnitude. And this hides large individual differences since a substantial minority of women died after only one or two pregnancies or became sterile because of infections.
For instance it is estimated that 60% of children died before sixteen in 17th century London, and the overall death rate was about 100/1000. Since the natural increase rate was close to 0, birth rates were probably in the vicinity of 100/1000 too.
Page 11
https://content.ucpress.edu/chapters/11633.ch01.pdf
in comparison, the highest death rate today are is found in South Africa 17/1000 and the highest birth rate is in Niger 45/1000.
You know, when it comes to reproductive traits, humans are only slightly more K-selected than chimpanzees. Their gestational length is 8 months, ours is 9 months. They reach puberty at 10, humans in developing countries reach it at 15-16, their life expectancy is 50 years, which is similar to hunter-gatherers and so on.
If some elements of the r/K paradigm are valid, my opinion is that humans are only more K-strategists because of larger body size and energy requirements, but I think the reproductive mechanisms and behaviors evolved and reached fixation quite early in hominin evolution. Maybe by the size of homo erectus, whose size was close to ours.
some turks and levantines look european too. but they’re a tiny minority.
dr oz and cenk uygur look non-european.
to me.
to afro they look european.
sad!
cenk uygur looks very ethnic/non-white
Dr. Oz looks whiter but still off
it’s hard to tell that you’re not a nymphomaniac.
but most northern injun women are nymphomaniacs.
eskimo women are the world’s biggest sluts. highest rate of syphilis in the world.
a burning desire to have me inside you.
it’s rough.
i’m not nympho. that’s your fantasy. First Nations women are not more slutty than any other race. That’s just your stupid racism talking.
and in fact dr oz’s mother was a european. specifically she was a caucasian.
jimmy’s amphetamine addiction reminds me.
there have been “studies”.
people who live in caves, deep down. their sleep-wake cycle is non-24. usually a little greater than 24. but they still maintain a cycle despite the absence of sun.
such people might accomplish a lot if they used amphetamine.
they have no cycle to which they must conform nor the annoying sun.
as i’ve said so many times.
smart people do not float to the top.
they must swim.
they are better swimmers should they choose swimming as a worthwhile endeavor.
but most of them don’t.
those who do are dumb or sociopaths.
9,000 penises!
morris berman describes them as “stupid people with high IQs”.
but, in fact, they’re just stupid. their high IQs aren’t.
oprah’s 9,000 penises routine proves she’s either STUPID or a SOCIOPATH.
No it proves she’s smart enough to know a little manipulation in the service of ratings while also saving kids from abuse is worth it
Your morality is so odd, mug of pee. On the one hand you defend hitler yet on the other you condemn almost anyone who pushes & strives for success as sociopathic
That’s because it’s edgy to defend Hitler while talking down conventionally successful people.
here’s my documentary recommendation for you peepee.
[video src="https://openload.co/f/nFWLp-QOF44/The.Lottery.of.Birth.2013.1080p.WEBRip.DD2.0.x264-monkee.mkv.mp4" /]
For the thousandth and last time:
No, surviving there is not easy. That’s why you actually find few people here.
China
It’s lush, but sorry kitty, China’s countryside (where people live) looks more like that:
In Jiangsu, one of the highest population density on earth.
China is very much like Europe.
It’s green has mountains and fields.
But Europe is fragmented like a fidget spinner.
china is like Kennedy half a dollar.
This effected Group selection.
China was unified in 221 BC
The last emperor of China was in 1911 AD
Rome never conquered northern Europe.
Rome was founded in 753 BC
Rome collapsed in 476 AD
Chinese empire lasted 2132 years
Roman Empire lasted 1229 years
Geography had allot to do with this.
Europe geography created many subcultures/ethnicities.
China was more like a monoculture (way fewer ethnic groups)
That is why Europeans and NE Asians as so different.
monoculture vs diverse ethnicities.
Social evolution followed in this line of difference.
Just to emphasize (monoculture vs multicultural)
Currently, 50 countries are in Europe.
China is only one big country.
That says something right there.
In Europe, multiple cultures interact with each other.
In China, it is one culture interacting with itself.
In the OCEAN personality model, Openness is about novelty seeking.
Europeans seek novelty because it is multicultural.
NE Asians are one culture so there is not that much novelty to seek.
This could be why they are said to lack creativity.
(Japan is also another monoculture)
(Japan is highly extroverted so they are stimulation seeking)
(This is why they have such high-quality Anime and Manga)
(And Japans spatial and visual intelligence is super high)
Does PP have the average spatial IQs for each East Asian group? It seems like the Japanese have the highest, yet they are most psychopathic of all the groups.
PP mentioned primitive Semitic traits among high IQ Jews. What about the Australoid element in East Asia that could affect the behavior of its inhabitants?
I heard that in Africa you can just laze around all day. Fruit just drops onto your lap from the trees and there is nothing to do there but be lazy, which is why intelligence got selected against. Because life is so easy. The canard that life is easy anywhere has no basis in reality.
I know, I know, it’s about life in Africa in comparison to cold temperatures up north. However, this too has no basis in reality because tropical environments are more challenging than colder/temperate ones.
That’s another strike against Rushton’s theory.
Lol, yeah, said by people who never went to Africa. For these ones I have this survival tips for the savannah.
http://africafreak.com/how-to-survive-in-the-african-savannah/
Sorry Kitty I couldn’t find anything for your survival trip in the Chinese countryside. But you’re from New Mexico, I know you’re fucking with me.
The low population density in Africa made it so social pressures were not that high. In Europe, social evolution was higher. And in NE Asia it was even higher. Africans socialized but not among the same range of contact tribes did in the other two populations.
Notice how east Asians should be r-selected with all the typhoons, volcanic eruptions, floods and earthquakes they get… My gosh.
Depends on where in Africa. Nigeria or Rwanda had higher densities than Mongolia and Finland, and more complex societies too.
People should stop talking of Africa like it’s a village
Africa’s ecoregions
“and more complex societies too.”
No they don’t
“Notice how east Asians should be r-selected with all the typhoons, volcanic eruptions, floods and earthquakes they get… My gosh.”
Notice with the large amount of ecological variation within Africa its no surprise Africans are so r selected.
Of course they do, they are sedentary to begin with, contrary to Mongols and Lapps.
On variability: sorry I couldn’t find a world map but let’s play a game anyway:
Find Hawaii and North Dakota on the map and imagine Africa’s ecosystems look more like Hawaii and China’s look more like North Dakota. Then try to figure out why the Chinese would be more r-selected if r/K was an actual scientific rule and if it was applicable to humans.
Or just tell me: are you just messing with JJ or do I need to explain things in Tagalog?
“Find Hawaii and North Dakota on the map and imagine Africa’s ecosystems look more like Hawaii and China’s look more like North Dakota.”
Did you really just compare China to Africa? Africa isn’t just one village you know!
Did you notice the “s” in ecosystems? That’s a common way to form a plural in English. I know Tagalog speakers struggle with plurals but it’s simple, we use them when talking about more than one unit.
“Did you notice the “s” in ecosystems”
Did you notice that i don’t care? Did you also notice that even if you were using the plural you were still generalizing as if they were one?
You don’t care? Then why are you arguing? The climates of Africa (or Hawaii) tend to be more stable than those of China and North Dakota, with less annual variation in temperature, and in precipitation. Do we agree?
just as malaria is r-selecting, so are cities. at one time in the early 19th c 1/3d of all deaths in western europe were from tb. life expectancy in london was much lower than in the countryside. since africa has been sparsely populated until recently it is conceivable that jigaboos are less r-selected than europeans, chinese, and indians so far as infectious disease is the sole determinant of selection strategery. the frequent famines of civilization, which never occur among savages, might be very K selecting.
at the same time the surplus of food that characterizes civilization most of the time may be r-selecting. that is, savages may have limited fertility due to their dependable but at the same time sparse diet for which they must exert themselves every day. africans have been farming for a long time, but they’ve been really bad at it hence no cities south of the sahel until the cape town.
This is for Race Realist:
Scott Baio’s phenotype isn’t exactly Southern Italian or European for that matter:
Armenoid, perhaps, Turkish or Georgian, even Central Asian — with a speck of Mongoloid. Strange to say the least.
And then you have Ray Romano, who could pass as Northern Indian, and someone from Afghanistan or Pakistan.
he likes like an alien.
where’s my picture of chaz bono?
Under your dick. You were jacking off to it.
Or this guy, Clemenza (Richard Castellano) in Godfather – not very Italian in appearance:
Southern Mongoloid/Australoid?
I’m sure if he was skinnier he would look different. He is ethnically italian, but I’m sure italians have north african dna in them.
“but I’m sure italians have north african dna in them.”
Barely any.
He eats only Chinese food in the Godfather movie.
There is no other dining scene for Clemenza.
Coppola was a genius.
Italians do have affinities with the rest of the Mediterranean, more than Swedes do. But genetic relatedness varries a lot based on which loci you study. Here is an example for Palestinians. There are loci on which they cluster more with Europeans that with neighboring Levantines.
http://thekeyofknowledge.net/General/DL/palestinians.pdf
humanities [sic] three main races…The three populations no longer inhabit the environment that the selection was hypothesized to have occurred [sic]…r-selection works in a density-independent way. Thusly, K-selection is expected to favor genotypes that persist at high densities (increasing K) whereas r-selection favors genotypes that increase more quickly at low densities [sic]
i have a feeling there’re going to be a lot more “[sic]”s.
if only RR’s mother hadn’t drunk so much chianti when she was pregnant.
sad!
Thus, cold temperatures would be an agent of r-selection, not K-selection as is commonly believed, whereas endemic disease would be an agent of K-selection.
sounds like jive to me. my intuition says it should be the exact opposite.
sounds like jive to me. my intuition says it should be the exact opposite.
Correct
this post is long, boring, and gay.
does RR have a black girlfriend or what?
my imitation of this post…
Hahaha! Brutal!
I have to admit, RR and Afro didn’t convince me…
“I have to admit, RR and Afro didn’t convince me…”
Why not? Let’s discuss this. What isn’t convincing about all of the evidence cited to the contrary of Rushton’s and Lynn’s assertions-? – especially their testosterone claim that the theory rests on which I have summarily dismantled.
novel environments (i.e., colder temperatures) are agents of r-selection
theoretically. and only initially. after a while this r may turn into K.
theoretically. and only initially. after a while this r may turn into K.
Correct, truthteller made the same point.
Novel environments select for intelligence which is a K trait because big brains are so expensive
Humans are more K than apes in part because we evolved in the novel envirinment of the open savannahs while apes stayed in the trees
Land animals are also more K than ocean life (on average) because land was a novel environment and oceans were the ancestral environment
novel environments are “agents of r-selection” only for animals which cannot adapt behaviorally.
RR and afro are such hacks it’s sad!
they’re almost as bad as flushton.
Read Anderson 1991. I’ve stated my position on Mongoloid r adaptations too many times.
does peepee understand why r-selection is operative in novel environments?
RR and afro don’t explain it.
the reason is that for a species which cannot adapt behaviorally, which must adapt genetically, the novel environment can be adapted to in two ways:
1. produce lots of offspring some of which will be more adapted than others. over time this means r-selection fades. but initially no member of the species is well adapted to the new environment. thus those which are most fecund will pass on their genes.
2. be lucky enough to have genes which are more fit than those of other members of the species from the beginning.
“does peepee understand why r-selection is operative in novel environments?
RR and afro don’t explain it.”
Reread the article. It was explained.
And my testosterone arguments decimates the theory.
“theoretically. and only initially. after a while this r may turn into K”
Right. However with the constant variations in temperature, ie density-independence, that’ll select for r traits. Rushton’s claim is Mongoloids have cold weather adaptation. Cold weather is an agent of r. Thus if Mongoloids have cold weather adaptations as Rushton claims then they are r selected. It’s very simple. I’m worried that people don’t understand this.
perhaps i should re-write this retarded post.
i agree that flushton was a hack and mental midget, but this post looks bad for his opponents.
How? Care to explain? You should write a better one then.
i was forwarded (one of) my great great…great grandfather’s will today.
it was from 1799 virginia.
george washington had no chillens.
how many did my great have?
11!
So what explains the large penis size of Africans?
easy.
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/The_Great_Black_Dick_Hoax
Haha, Shane Diesel, Lex Steele, and the men in my family are dispositive that there’s no hoax!
why are the men in your family sharing their penis size? disgusting!
steele’s dick is not that big. diesel’s looks bigger, because he’s short.
porn stars are a lot bigger than average usually, but they aren’t the biggest.
why?
because male porn stars are now required to be at least a little fit.
and the biggest dicks are at most semi-functional.
“Haha, Shane Diesel, Lex Steele, and the men in my family are dispositive that there’s no hoax!”
X has trait Y that is above average. Therefore that proves Z.
If that’s the case then the “I know X amount of black guys with IQ Y who do Z” is true.
It’s all a fraud
They use very small women ( 4’9- 5’2) and very small men
a normal penis on a small man looks more freakish
They also use a pumper to make it thicker
but there are black men with large penises
The problem for them is that many can not get a full erection
The most painful sex i ever had was with a man who was 8 inches in length and 7 inches in girth
I never spoke to him again after that night
The best sex i ever had was with a man who was bellow average in size
I’m not saying that as if i’m a small girl. I am 5’9 which is tall for a Swedish woman.
And what explains the small dicks of chimps?
I don’t know if blacks have bigger dicks, I’d like to think yes, and if yes, this might be an explanation:
Allen’s rule is a biological rule that says the limbs of an endotherm is either shorter in cold climates or longer in hot climates. Limb length affects the body’s surface area, which helps with thermoregulation. Shorter limbs help to conserve heat, while longer limbs help to dissipate heat.[10] Marshall T. Newman argues that this can be observed in Eskimo, who have shorter limbs than other people and are laterally built.[11]
Maybe penises follow Allen’s rule. Anyway, penis size ain’t part of r/K. And r/K is not a scientific rule.
if it were true that large penises served as air conditioning then one would expect melanisians, abos, and tropical injuns to have BSDs. do they? the same is the case if the truly absurd human penis size were the result of sexual selection. in the tropics penis size may have been obvious, because nudity was the norm.
or maybe it takes a long time to evolve, and thus tropical indigenes outside africa don’t have BSDs.
my guess is there’s a lot of variation within africa, but it is true that west africans in the americas dominate the extreme end of dick size. some of the dicks are fake, but enough of them are real to prove it. just google “huge cock”. there are white cocks and black cocks, but the biggest are black.
at the same time the little scientific evidence on this is that the black average is no more than 0.5″ greater than the white. girth is bigger too i expect.
whereas it is true that ne asians have teeny weenies.
sad!
All girls I had sex with thought it was not a legend. Not because all blacks have huge cocks but because they never get as small as seen in some white guys.
I’ve seen black dicks in the locker rooms and collective showers and I’d tend to agree. Never seen an Amazonian cock, it seems South Asians are not so well endowed. Don’t know about melanesians, australians & cie.
I’ve seen black dicks in the locker rooms and collective showers at the bathhouse, before i went into the dark room for anonymous sex.
Sports is a foreign word for mug of pee.
“So what explains the large penis size of Africans?”
What larger penises?
It is conjectured that higher levels of testosterone cause larger penises, and so since Africans supposedly have higher levels of testosterone (they don’t) then that’s why they have larger penises. I’ve shown Lynn’s assertion wrong that blacks have 19 percent higher testosterone than whites, so, therefore, it logically follows that the claim on penis size is wrong as well (which I also provided citations for).
but it doesn’t follow you stupid dago. all that follows is that the cause isn’t higher t.
not only does a larger member serve as air conditioning, a smaller one is less prone to frostbite.
They claim that higher testosterone causes a higher penis. They then claim that because blacks have higher testosterone then they have a larger penis. Both claims are false.
Sources? Mine are above.
but it doesn’t follow you stupid dago. all that follows is that the cause isn’t higher t.
Exactly, and Rushton never claimed the large black penis was caused by T afaik, (though it’s likely a small part of the cause) but rather he just used it as more evidence or r selection (and penis size was just one of a number sexual characteristics Rushton cited, including size of breasts and buttocks, scrotum and vagina size, deepness of voice, salience of muscles etc)
Meanwhile evidence continues to accumulate showing Rushton was right, as usual.
Even ancient African cave art proves Ruston was right:
And the differences he describes are extremely ancient.
And yes I’m well aware that the cave art is from bushmen, but Rushton considered bushmen black (though a very divergent form of black), and so did Jensen, and Cavalli-Sforza and many racial taxonomists before them.
“Even ancient African cave art proves Ruston was right:”
So blue eyes, light skin, small frames, neotenous faces are not forms of sexual selection? Also what do those pictures prove? that black women had big butts? No shit, and did you know that most cave art was done by women anyway.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131008-women-handprints-oldest-neolithic-cave-art/
So blue eyes, light skin, small frames, neotenous faces are not forms of sexual selection?
False equivalency. Blue eyes will get a woman flowers. A big butt will get her raped. Also a big butt is much more biologically expensive than the traits you named, suggesting more evolutionary investment in reproduction which is an r strategy.
Also what do those pictures prove? that black women had big butts? No shit,
“No shit” should be the reaction to most of Rushton’s claims but it seems even the most obvious ones require endless evidence. It also shows the differences Rushton describes are extremely ancient, though I don’t know the date of that cave art.
including size of breasts and buttocks, scrotum and vagina size, deepness of voice, salience of muscles etc
how are these r-selected?
r strategy = invest in having high quantity offspring at the expense of quality
K strategy = invest in having high quality offspring at the expense of quantity
So an r strategist would likely evolve bigger primary and secondary sexual characteristics so they could attract numerous mates and have as many kids as possible
japan has never been as cold as europe..
Lynn claimed Northeast Asia during the ice age was the coldest region of the earth inhabited by man, and the ability to see a white hair moving on the white snow, and the ability to memorize and rapidly navigate the vast snowy terrain before freezing to death, produced the World’s greatest spatial ability.
lynn pulled that out of his ass. at its greatest extent the polar ice cap didn’t even extent to chiner. japan is and was surrounded by water. europe at this time had water only in the mediterranean and atlantic south of normandy. therefore even during the ice age japan had a maritime climate like the aleutians and panhandle of alaska do today. the japs supposedly have smaller crania than ne chinese and koreans.
Well if East Asians evolved their huge brains despite not being the coldest, it’s even better for Rushton and Lynn because it implies their brain size was selected entirely for intelligence instead of at least partly through Allen’s/Bergmann’s rule.
if chiner’s population were concentrated much farther inland than it is today its climate would have been colder than that of western europe and most of eastern europe, but why would it be so concentrated? lynn is a mongoloid.
“Also a big butt is much more biologically expensive”
How so? Also, don’t you think a big butt is also good for Endurance running?
“Blue eyes will get a woman flowers. A big butt will get her raped. ”
Why did this have to be about rape?
“Also a big butt is much more biologically expensive”
How so?
Because the caloric requirements of increasing butt size vastly exceed those of changing eye colour
Also, don’t you think a big butt is also good for Endurance running?
You can always come up with ad hoc explanations for every trait, but Rushton has a single explanation for a large number of traits. Occam’s razor says Rushton’s right.
“Blue eyes will get a woman flowers. A big butt will get her raped. ”
Why did this have to be about rape?
The point is a large butt is more likely to lead to immediate sex (r strategy) while blue eyes are more likely to lead to a long-term relationship (K strategy)
so they could attract numerous mates and have as many kids as possible
but black women are not more attractive peepee.
They might not be more attractive than non-black women, but if among blacks, those with large sexual characteristics reproduced more (for whatever reason) then Rushton’s model is credible.
this is flushton bullshit. the steatopygia is like a camel’s hump. it stores fat. it’s not the peackcok’s tail.
Black men get extremely aroused over a huge ass:
To PP,
Well first of all, steatopygia, that condition specifically, is most frequent in Small framed low latitude peoples across the world, not just blacks in particular and little evidence shows black to have this trait as to the same extreme as Khoisan people.
A more prominent gluteal areas are supported, but that could muscular prominence rather than fat, which is usually distributed towards the trunk that extremities in blacks. That would then go back to Melo’s point on physical use, which would be consistent with differences found in their somatype for running.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2711246
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/25/racial-differences-in-somatype/
“And yes I’m well aware that the cave art is from bushmen, but Rushton considered bushmen black (though a very divergent form of black), and so did Jensen, and Cavalli-Sforza and many racial taxonomists before them.”
Correction, Rushton considered them black, C-Sforza consider them “African”, Jensen likewise merely demonstrated that the Bushmen’s closest relatively were Negroids, and Carleton S Coon provided the latest pre-genomic Macro-Race Model in which he seperated Khoisan from Blacks, which is vindicated by modern genetics.
Point is, they display a distance enough relationship (and liefstyle for that matter) to expect different cases of sexual selection.
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/05/racial-differences-in-vaginal.html
Rushton was also wrong on vaginal dimensions.
“The point is a large butt is more likely to lead to immediate sex (r strategy) while blue eyes are more likely to lead to a long-term relationship (K strategy).”
Yet Monogamy is found in populations with high Steatopygia, such as the Onge and Central African Pygmies, and Bushmen specifically.
https://books.google.com/books?id=8CoU6HUZ0RkC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Onge+islanders+monogamy&source=bl&ots=cqwn15Wves&sig=s_QiLuoqP2ohCKBKujq339JTsvg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7ibil1dvUAhVW22MKHUJoA0kQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Onge%20islanders%20monogamy&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ac0xLw0rEL0C&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=pygmies+monogamy+africa&source=bl&ots=FrkNUZ8sQU&sig=JGwUL2n7nQkaoPpzjuwr14sIMp0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5ysrM1dvUAhUBSmMKHVXnBzMQ6AEITzAG#v=onepage&q=pygmies%20monogamy%20africa&f=false
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/circulationaha/22/2/289.full.pdf
Bushmen do partial adopted multiple wives into their culture, but that has been attributed to outside influence.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Cj172bN3nr4C&pg=PT59&lpg=PT59&dq=bushmen+monogamy&source=bl&ots=rrqRf524Ls&sig=deWDV7XYedphRuE19RhSeqnpswU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV5tCB19vUAhVUVWMKHZPqDao4ChDoAQgzMAU#v=onepage&q=bushmen%20monogamy&f=false
Basic point, you would expect a culture of immediate sex fro exaggerated features to adapt to a multiple wives system.
Well first of all, steatopygia, that condition specifically, is most frequent in Small framed low latitude peoples across the world, not just blacks in particular and little evidence shows black to have this trait as to the same extreme as Khoisan people.
But blacks in general are thought to have larger butts. Bushmen are just an extreme example.
Correction, Rushton considered them black, C-Sforza consider them “African”, Jensen likewise merely demonstrated that the Bushmen’s closest relatively were Negroids,
All three men lumped them into the same group. Whether they called that group “black”, “African” or “Negroid” is just semantics. Jensen showed that they have their highest and only genetic loadings on “Negroids”; they did not genetically load on any other group.
and Carleton S Coon provided the latest pre-genomic Macro-Race Model in which he seperated Khoisan from Blacks,
All Coon demonstrated was that the sub-Saharan population can be subdivided into two main groups (congoids and capoids) but his decision to treat these as two separate macro-races as opposed to two subgroups of a single Negroid race was just personal preference on Coon’s part. No more scientific than his arbitrary decision to lump East Asians and Native Americans into a single Mongoloid macro-race.
which is vindicated by modern genetics.
So Cavali-Sfrorza’s data is now obsolete? And all some modern geneticists are claiming is that Bushmen and other sub-Saharans diverged a long time ago. Is there a time limit on how long two populations are separated before they stop being the same macro-race? Is it 1000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? A million years? Completely arbitrary. At least with defining species some taxonomists evoked the rule that you’re a separate species when you can no longer interbreed but since all modern humans can do that, by what objective consistent criteria are you declaring them a separate macro-race? If it’s just your personal preference, say so.
Rushton was also wrong on vaginal dimensions.
Don’t jump to conclusions based on one tiny study.
Yet Monogamy is found in populations with high Steatopygia, such as the Onge and Central African Pygmies, and Bushmen specifically.
Misleading. Here’s what others say:
Unlike a more cultured society, Bushmen marriage rituals are much more risqué and sexually-oriented than I originally imagined…Once a male or female has been initiated into manhood or womanhood through ceremony, they can partake in sexual intercourse…the intercourse is just like casual dating…It is also incredibly common that many marriages, specifically first marriages, do not last long…the people choose to participate in a vast majority of casual sex until they find a partner that suits them. However, this early practice of sexual intercourse could be one of the main reasons that HIV/AIDS is so prevalent in indigenous Africa. It could also account for the number of young mothers unable to determine the father of their children.
To PP,
“Lynn claimed Northeast Asia during the ice age was the coldest region of the earth inhabited by man,…”
Lynn’s source for the spatial ability selected for during this period?
As for the literature on “breast size”, could you be more specific? Because critical thinking would suggest that, given the use of mammary glands in investing parenting, large breast would be expected to be a K trait?
Does Rushton includes support of that among black women?
I would also be careful with the implication of penis size as well, because that would actually be a ultra-modern trait rather than a primitive one.
I would suggest doing this be “elaborating” on Rushton’s “single factor theory for many traits” and providing non-human examples of where this occurs.
I’ve read of Body size differences in R/K selection course, but not specifically sexual differences in anatomy, and though I could understand that being a given, is there evidence of consistent trends?
“But blacks in general are thought to have larger butts. Bushmen are just an extreme example.”
And I elaborated on that and distinguished from the type of “prominence” in the Khoisan.
“All three men lumped them into the same group. Whether they called that group “black”, “African” or “Negroid” is just semantics.”
No, it isn’t “semantics”. African=/= Negroid as I’ve demonstrated with West and East Africans and the actual branching history and genepool compsition of capoids versuds West African Negroids.
“Jensen showed that they have their highest and only genetic loadings on “Negroids”; they did not genetically load on any other group.”
That’s basically what I said, that doesn’t give enough detail however of the FULL relation which I’ve demonstrated was complex.
“All Coon demonstrated was that the sub-Saharan population can be subdivided into two main groups (congoids and capoids) but his decision to treat these as two separate macro-races as opposed to two subgroups of a single Negroid race was just personal preference on Coon’s part. No more scientific than his arbitrary decision to lump East Asians and Native Americans into a single Mongoloid macro-race.”
Proof that it was arbitrary? His distinction was justified by the observation of others who compared the two groups AND modern genetics as I said.
“So Cavali-Sfrorza’s data is now obsolete? And all some modern geneticists are claiming is that Bushmen and other sub-Saharans diverged a long time ago.”
1. CS used data that did not account for admixture and was merely showing genetic distance, which regardless still demonstrated my point of a complex relation.
2. You used a CS phylogeny that produced results of two studies that shows a different diveregence.
” Is there a time limit on how long two populations are separated before they stop being the same macro-race? Is it 1000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? A million years? Completely arbitrary.”
If you read the actually paper, read dates comparing divergence dates for blacks and Capoids, this doesn’t need to be said.
80k for black versus 260k for Capoids…when did whites split from asians again?
” At least with defining species some taxonomists evoked the rule that you’re a separate species when you can no longer interbreed but since all modern humans can do that, by what objective consistent criteria are you declaring them a separate macro-race? If it’s just your personal preference, say so.”
No, it’s not my personal preference. People in the past observed so, and now genetics confirms different different origins and dates of divergence of the groups.
You not reading/ not accepting the paper and similar resources the paper doesn’t change it.
“Rushton was also wrong on vaginal dimensions.
Don’t jump to conclusions based on one tiny study.”
Then what direct evidence exists to indicate otherwise to support Rushton?
“Unlike a more cultured society, Bushmen marriage rituals are much more risqué and sexually-oriented than I originally imagined…Once a male or female has been initiated into manhood or womanhood through ceremony, they can partake in sexual intercourse…the intercourse is just like casual dating…It is also incredibly common that many marriages, specifically first marriages, do not last long…the people choose to participate in a vast majority of casual sex until they find a partner that suits them. However, this early practice of sexual intercourse could be one of the main reasons that HIV/AIDS is so prevalent in indigenous Africa. It could also account for the number of young mothers unable to determine the father of their children.”
Lets reread this.
“the people choose to participate in a vast majority of casual sex until they find a partner that suits them.”
The goal being, consistent with what I said, is to find a suitable mate, not to reproduce.
Or course monogamy will be different in HG populations (in the case of divorces and wedlock), but how does this compare to a more polygamous relations or to other monogamous HG population I gave out because, as I said, Bushman have more polygamous elements in their culture.
This ritual is a “sorting nature”, not the sense of having multiple partners or competing with multiple males to accumulate other partners, which otherwise would be less expected in a culture that focuses on “immediate sex” to REPRODUCE as R selection would predict.
Phil78 all you’re saying is that had there been less admixture, bushmen would have been a separate macro-race given their ancient divergence
But there was substantial admixture.
More on Rushton’s “aptitude” on CS’s Data.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/open-thread-10312016/#comment-1632818
“he kept messing up basic stuff about genetic relationships between population groups. i corrected him. he said that he was relying on cavalli-sforza, and i said that (at the time) that work was 15 years old. he acted like he was a simple psychologist, what was he to know?
later he wrote the exact same stuff using the exact same false relationships.
rushton put a lot of controversial stuff out there. to have any credibility you have to dot your i’s. his obfuscation and lack of correction after i explained in detail strikes me as lying to the audience. but perhaps his audience wanted to be lied to.”
Also, the Phylogeny you usred that I commented on.
https://postimg.org/image/vyrb24hob/
And the rest of my info (which should produce a link to the thread where I produced a study that had similar results to the recent one I referenced).
The scientist who wrote that perhaps is not socially brilliant enough to realize rushton was likely ignoring him because rushton didn’t respect him.
That’s not to deny rushton had a political agenda unfortunately but this is hardly unique in science
The link.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/18/more-evidence-that-the-african-phenotype-is-extremely-old/comment-page-1/#comment-63055
“The scientist who wrote that perhaps is not socially brilliant enough to realize rushton was likely ignoring him because rushton didn’t respect him.
That’s not to deny rushton had a political agenda unfortunately but this is hardly unique in science.”
How is not using correct data/interpretations out of disrespect towards a scientist (who I might add is an actual geneticist) supposed to vindicate Rushton’s take on taxonomy?
What specifically was incorrect about Rushton’s interpretations according to the scientist?
Yo phil, you know that whatever Rushton says, monogamy/polygamy aren’t part of r/K
If it did, polygamy and attractiveness would be either K- or Alpha-selected because those two strategies stress competitive ability. R-selected organisms would instead mate at random, opportunistically, without caring about the apparent fitness of their partner.
And as you pointed out breast size would rather be a K-selected characteristic since breastfeeding is a fundamental parental investment trait. Penis size is a progressive trait… And so on, almost none of Rushton’s traits adds up.
Funny debate on “why black women have big butts”.
Actually, there is a much simpler explanation to this problem, which resides in heat. Women from cold region have fat all over the body while those whose ancestors evolved in warmer climates have it concentrated in the butt, and this to prevent their body from overheating. These latter also have longer limbs (Allen’s rule), so they need a more powerful buttock to move their long legs.
May be r-selection had some kind of influence but a very limited one since Nordic women still have the largest breasts
If it did, polygamy and attractiveness would be either K- or Alpha-selected because those two strategies stress competitive ability. R-selected organisms would instead mate at random, opportunistically, without caring about the apparent fitness of their partner.
And as you pointed out breast size would rather be a K-selected characteristic since breastfeeding is a fundamental parental investment trait. Penis size is a progressive trait… And so on, almost none of Rushton’s traits adds up.
Complete nonsense.
To PP,
“Phil78 all you’re saying is that had there been less admixture, bushmen would have been a separate macro-race given their ancient divergence
But there was substantial admixture.”
Not to the point that they recombine into “one” using West Africans and San. That’s like saying Blacks and whites are “one” due to Horners.
All it did was create a intermediate group, that being Bantus like the Tswana and Xhosa.
As for the scientist’s issue with Rushton, he was most likely referring to his Three race theory given the basic layout of the CS graphs you’ve given me.
Not to the point that they recombine into “one” using West Africans and San. That’s like saying Blacks and whites are “one” due to Horners.
All it did was create a intermediate group, that being Bantus like the Tswana and Xhosa.
But you rejected cavali-sforza’s bushman data because he didn’t adjust for admixture
But cavali-sforza presumably looked at the least mixed bushmen, not Tswana and Xhosa.
So are you saing ALL bushmen are intermediates?
“Yo phil, you know that whatever Rushton says, monogamy/polygamy aren’t part of r/K
If it did, polygamy and attractiveness would be either K- or Alpha-selected because those two strategies stress competitive ability. R-selected organisms would instead mate at random, opportunistically, without caring about the apparent fitness of their partner.”
I’m just speaking in terms of Rushton’s “R/K” dynamics, not actual R/K dynamics. In his, putting emphasis on life expectancy and parental investment, you would basically expect a more monogamous setting for K.
As for R, putting emphasis on more “brutish” traits and sexualized bodies, you would expect competitve polygamy.
In real life however I understand that it isn’t that simple.
Enlighten me truthteller…
Phil,
“In real life however I understand that it isn’t that simple.”
Well yeah, in real life nothing of this kind exists, and neither in the now disproved r/K paradigm.
So what is the empirical reality behind Rushton’s r/K? that’s the question.
To Afro,
My guess is towards differences in overall mating, say outbreeding or inbreeding and how their geography would influence that, or their precolonial lifestyles (say stage of development like Farming, Hunting, etc) that influence behavior and physiology and how they react to new ones.
Due to factors like resource allocation and diffusion, a climatic correlation would be expected with these factors. Direct natural selection in response to their environment impacting their selection patterns seem to simplistic for modern populations and what they’ve been through.
You’ll need to rephrase that buddy,
Sticking closer to reality, what influences reproductive behavior in humans is religion/beliefs systems. Economy matters: family formation doesn’t pose the same constraints in New York, Alabama, or the Amazon rainforest or during an economic boom vs. a recession. Family policy is important too, the reason why France has such a high fertility rate is because family benefits are generous and given to anyone, regardless of income. You don’t need to be poor to be paid to procreate and the middle and upper class keep reproducing at high levels by first world standards.
Wage employment and traditional subsistance also lead to different behaviors. The costs and benefits of having children play a role. In the west, having children is just about personal accomplishment, and female employment makes things even worse. For an African farmer, it’s an economic necessity, when you can’t buy a tractor, some cattle or hire someone, you need kids to do the work.
Same goes with polygamy, all traditional farming societies have been polygamous unless an organized religion taught otherwise. Because the more wives a farmer has, the more sons he will have to work the fields and care for him as he gets old.
As far as hunter-gatherers, I would speculate that they need less children and wives than agriculturalists because it takes longer to become an efficient hunter (and to a lesser extant, gatherer) and they’re not in an logic of wealth accumulation. So the costs of having kids might somewhat exceed the benefits, at least until early adolescence. Also, their is no need for genetic adaptation in terms of reproductive capacity since humans, as well as some other animals can deliberately commit infanticide when times get tough, that’s what the inuits did when food got scarce, they also killed elders by the way.
Reproductive behaviors are way too complex and changing in adaptation to varying circumstances to fit in a single theory like Rushton’s
Afro, and Phil
” but that could muscular prominence rather than fat, which is usually distributed towards the trunk that extremities in blacks.”
Something I’ve been wondering, do black women have fatter butts or stronger ones? I’ve also heard the stereotype that White women tend to have the biggest boobs.
“As far as hunter-gatherers, I would speculate that they need less children and wives than agriculturalists because it takes longer to become an efficient hunter (and to a lesser extant, gatherer) and they’re not in an logic of wealth accumulation.”
No, Agriculturalists have a wider variety of tools and techniques to memorize. Though I agree I don’t think Polygamy or monogamy is absolutely correlated to intelligence. In some aspects you would need to be more intelligent to understand the feelings and intellect of multiple wives than just one. Polygamy=/=promiscuity.
Blue eyes are lighter skins are also forms of competing sexual selection, except they actually have a positive correlation with intelligence.
White women have wider hips. However, anecdotally (can’t find studies at the moment) I do see a lot of bottom heavy black women, much more than white women. I’ll see if I can find studies later.
For instance, the Hottentot prove that fat storage is genetically mediated. Think if they eat less and move more they’ll lose that fat?
Of course what I’m speaking about has a ton to do with the food environment, i.e., obesogenic environments.
To PP,
“But you rejected cavali-sforza’s bushman data because he didn’t adjust for admixture
But cavali-sforza presumably looked at the least mixed bushmen, not Tswana and Xhosa.
So are you saing ALL bushmen are intermediates?”
I didn’t say the Bushman sample was Admixed, but the Bantu sample was because along with the San they also aligned to Nilotics before Nigerians, despite their ancestral population being a population similar them.
Anyone familiar with Bantu Genetics would know that’s the confounder.
This also explains why, in terms of the PCA plots, San were Distant from the Bantu. That sample likely used a better sample or was at certain variation % level.
To Afro
“You’ll need to rephrase that buddy,
Sticking closer to reality, what influences reproductive behavior in humans is religion/beliefs systems.”
Which would include customs on marriage within and outside family, one of my points.
” Economy matters: family formation doesn’t pose the same constraints in New York, Alabama, or the Amazon rainforest or during an economic boom vs. a recession.”
This falls under precolonial mode of life and reacting to new lifestyles, something I also brought up.
“Family policy is important too, the reason why France has such a high fertility rate is because family benefits are generous and given to anyone, regardless of income. You don’t need to be poor to be paid to procreate and the middle and upper class keep reproducing at high levels by first world standards.
Wage employment and traditional subsistance also lead to different behaviors. The costs and benefits of having children play a role. In the west, having children is just about personal accomplishment, and female employment makes things even worse. For an African farmer, it’s an economic necessity, when you can’t buy a tractor, some cattle or hire someone, you need kids to do the work.”
This again basically falls under my “mode of life” policy and responding to new ones.
“Same goes with polygamy, all traditional farming societies have been polygamous unless an organized religion taught otherwise. Because the more wives a farmer has, the more sons he will have to work the fields and care for him as he gets old.
As far as hunter-gatherers, I would speculate that they need less children and wives than agriculturalists because it takes longer to become an efficient hunter (and to a lesser extant, gatherer) and they’re not in an logic of wealth accumulation. So the costs of having kids might somewhat exceed the benefits, at least until early adolescence. Also, their is no need for genetic adaptation in terms of reproductive capacity since humans, as well as some other animals can deliberately commit infanticide when times get tough, that’s what the inuits did when food got scarce, they also killed elders by the way.
Reproductive behaviors are way too complex and changing in adaptation to varying circumstances to fit in a single theory like Rushton’s”
This all basically gets into the details of me general direction as a alternate theory, it’s just that I was speaking in an “ancient” basal cause of differences.
I didn’t mean merely genetic influence, but also in terms of the influence of transmitted ideas themselves having a longer term effect.
I didn’t say the Bushman sample was Admixed, but the Bantu sample was because along with the San they also aligned to Nilotics before Nigerians, despite their ancestral population being a population similar them.
But in Cavali-Sforza’s genetic distance tree, the San were close to all sub-Saharan Africans, not Bantu only:
If they diverged hundreds of thousands of years ago, San should have been on a completely different branch, further removed from other Africans than Australians are. So obviously there’s been enormous gene flow since the time when they “diverged”.
This also explains why, in terms of the PCA plots, San were Distant from the Bantu. That sample likely used a better sample or was at certain variation % level.
I think it was all the same samples. And they’re not that far away. They’re in the bottom right quadrant with all the other sub-Saharans. Basically Cavali-Sforza’s data supports a four race model: Negroids (including Capoids) in the bottom right. Caucasoids (including South Asians) in the top right. Mongoloids (including Native Americans) in the top left. And Australoids (including southeast Asians and pacific islanders) in the bottom left:
To Melo,
I’m unsure about fatter in terms of distribution due to my research showing that, though Blacks store fat more towards the back and lateral parts of the body than forward, the lowest point seems to be the low back than the glutes.
Profile wise the buttock are more prominent, however I can’t find a direct source pointing out the difference as one of muscle. There are ones that show in, absolute terms, Black women have a higher lean mass and have longer legs in proportion to their torso, and I’ve also read (but cant seem to find) more prominent lower muscle in blacks proportionately. If I could then it would be a given.
RR probably could be aware of such a source if it exist, but for now anecdotal and various indirect evidence would suggest that being likely.
Regarding breast, I’ve read of native african women being described, in their prime, to have conical but “firm” breast, European ones I believes described as rounder and perhaps softer. But that was quite old and merely an observation, not an actual measured conclusion as far as I know.
That would be consistent with what is found in lean mass, however.
“Something I’ve been wondering, do black women have fatter butts or stronger ones? I’ve also heard the stereotype that White women tend to have the biggest boobs.”
Well it depends on the girl, but a fit black girl with a nice round ass has a firm donk.
“No, Agriculturalists have a wider variety of tools and techniques to memorize. ”
There is a lot more simple, repetitive and safe tasks that a child can do on a farm than during a hunting party. On the other hand, hunter-gatherer kids can gather food with the women.
The difference is that agriculturalist have an accumulation mindset, more kids means more farmhands and more farm hands means the ability to cultivate more land. I doubt there are hunter gatherers who have 5 wives and 20 kids like it happens among traditional patriarchs.
“In some aspects you would need to be more intelligent to understand the feelings and intellect of multiple wives than just one. Polygamy=/=promiscuity.”
Well, the emotional part of polygamous marriages is poor, these are arranged unions, the man is usually a lot older than his wives and his first wife tends to be the master of the younger wives. And yes Polygamy is a stable living arrangement that has nothing to do with wild promiscuity.
“But in Cavali-Sforza’s genetic distance tree, the San were close to all sub-Saharan Africans, not Bantu only:”
Actually this is a different graph from what you originally gave me, which actually shows how unstable admixture makes the comparison.
They align with Ethiopians the closest, which Razib Khan believes had a San like ancestral component, that group itself being intermediate with other africans and blacks. Not particularly close to others negroids.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/07/closing-the-out-of-africa-migratory-loop/
“If they diverged hundreds of thousands of years ago, San should have been on a completely different branch, as far removed from other Africans as Australians are. So obviously there’s been enormous gene flow since the time when they “diverged”.
”
Geneflow with a paleoafrican group, but a different one from the San as the studies’ phylogeny demonstrated.
If you’ve read the study, or read my first comment regarding that, you would’ve understand how they were still in the same clade, but “Clade doesn’t equal race exactly.
“I think it was all the same samples. And they’re not that far away. They’re in the bottom right quadrant with all the other sub-Saharans.”
Yes, they are far away in the sense of not being simply an average subrace if you compare the relation of african subraces and the average relation of subrace in other groups, it clearly shows a different relationship.
Closest doesn’t “the same”.
” Basically Cavali-Sforza’s data supports a four race model: Negroids (including Capoids) in the bottom right. Caucasoids (including South Asians) in the top right. Mongoloids (including Native Americans) in the top left. And Australoids (including southeast Asians and pacific islanders) in the bottom left:”
Except this configuaration is based how the samples in the study ALONE influence eachother association, not necessarily and organized presentation of genetic distance.
I this is more reflective of “clades” Of Southeast asian, North Eurasian, and African rather than macro races, especially seeing how SE asians (modern ones) are not a interchangeable with australoid as they Australians and Malaysians people are a different as NE asians and West Eurasians if you look at the graph again.
As a matter of fact, you compare how far Australoids are from SE asians and compare the San to other Sub Saharans.
*Closest doesn’t mean” the same”.
“There is a lot more simple, repetitive and safe tasks that a child can do on a farm than during a hunting party.”
It depends on how old the children are. I;m sure kids were learning younger on the farm than they would have been hunting for the first time but I;m sure it would have varied.
“I doubt there are hunter gatherers who have 5 wives and 20 kids like it happens among traditional patriarchs.”
Why not though?
“Well, the emotional part of polygamous marriages is poor, these are arranged unions, the man is usually a lot older than his wives and his first wife tends to be the master of the younger wives. ”
I guess I’m talking about a more “idealized” version. of polygamy.
It depends on how old the children are. I;m sure kids were learning younger on the farm than they would have been hunting for the first time but I;m sure it would have varied.
I Africa I saw children doing farm work as young as 6. No one would think to bring a child that young in a hunt. It’s not even about learning skills, it’s mere physical ability. I would only initiate a child to hunting by age 9 and expect valuable contributions from him only by age 12/13.
Why not though?
Because agriculturalists and hunter gatherers have different attitudes toward property and the accumulation of it. Wives and children are property, and they’re useful for a farmer as servants and farm helps. I don’t see what use would a hunter gatherer make of 5 wives and 20 kids.
Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014%E2%80%93present)
this is for pill. danes and their non-danish lawyers behaving badly.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/534/a-not-so-simple-majority#play
Let’s try something else. Here are the 6 points at the end of the article. Choose one and lets discuss. I know people didn’t read it because they’re saying shit that was addressed in the article and would have been addressed if they read all the citations.
(i) he misapplied r/K selection in application to human races (Africans would be K, Mongoloids would be r; rule-following and intelligence can be selected for in either environment/with any of the agents of r- or K-selection),
(ii) he arbitrarily designated Africans as r and Mongoloids as K due to current demographic trends (the true application of r and K is described above, which Rushton showed no understanding of),
(iii) the races do not differ in levels of testosterone nor penis size,
(iv) testosterone does not cause prostate cancer nor does it cause crime, so even if there was a large difference between blacks and whites, it would not explain higher rates of PCa in blacks, nor would it explain higher rates of crime,
(v) the scala naturae is a long-dead concept no longer in use by evolutionary biologists, along with its cousin ‘evolutionary progress’, while r/K selection is the attempt at reviving both,
(vi) human races are not local populations; since human races are not local populations then his application of r/K selection to humans is erroneous.
Surely everyone knows that Rushton’s theory rests on his interpretation of Ross et al 1986. I’ve falsified it and pointed out the huge confounds. Therefor since there is no large difference as Rushton et al assert, the theory is then falsified. This is a fact
i’ve decided to become a black woman. the danish media tells me i can do this, and any who deny that i can are evil people.
after i have become a black woman i will bump tacos with peepee.
if peepee refuses to bupm tacos with me i will know she is trans-phobic and evil.
my taco will still look like a huge cock and balls though. trans-phobia is so insidious.
there. i’ve done it. i am now a black woman. i expect my pronoun to be respected from now on. and check your white privilege when you talk to me.
“i expect my pronoun to be respected from now on.”
You go girl. (snap snap)
Seriously, Mugabe, I have a friend who is transgender and I have been learning to call him her because she was born with ovaries and a penis. (she is a hermaphrodite) She has been taking estrogen and looks less ugly.
infectious disease is a greater problem in the tropics for reasons other than the level of development of tropical countries.
so it could be that prior to agriculture and civilization peoples living outside the tropics were less likely to die from infectious diseases and were thus more K selected.
but when did cities first arise? or forget cities. when did people start living in groups significantly larger than those of savages? when did the population density in europe, india, and chiner exceed that of black africa? maybe impossible to know. cities arose first about 6k bp.
so the greater r-selectedness of civilized peoples has been in operation for at most 6k years.
Utter nonsense, as usual.
you’re not very bright afro.
why no comments since last night peepee?
there is nothing but sense in the above, let alone utter non-sense.
afro’s reading comprehension is really bad, at least in english.
sambo,
an epidemic could never have spread in black africa prior to colonization.
the black death may have killed as much as 60% of europe’s people in only 7 years. that’s r-selection on steroids.
AIDS and ebola would never have been epidemics in africa prior to the white man.
AIDS and the urbanization of africa are synonymous.
afro is just plain “ignant”.
You’re not even making the difference between endemic and epidemic disease.
Endemic = constant = predictable = K selection
Epidemic = occasional = unpredictable = r selection.
As a result, a dozen of forms of genetic resistance for malaria now exist in humans (efficiency = K selection)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_resistance_to_malaria
Whereas no resistance exists for the flu or the plague, the population just rebounded by reproduction (productivity = r selection)
It is obvious that mug of pee knows nothing on the ecological logic of r/K.
Who are you talking to?
Mugabe does not know what RR wrote.
Reading most of his comments people are totally confused what is r and what is K.
I will repeat my comment bellow, here:
disease = K selected
outside the tropics tribes were r selected (little disease)
when cities happened more disease happened. They became K selected.
modern cities are r selected because they are cleaner with little disease.
I will repeat my comment bellow, here:
Please don’t
It was wrong the first time
Yes, you’re one of the rare commenters who understands that it’s all about carrying capacity constraints.
you’re a loser afro.
wordpress is a piece of shit peepee. switch to a non-shitty host.
————————
the black death was carried by fleas on rats. it was a parasite hosted by a parasite of a parasite.
malaria can’t be called an epidemic because mosquitoes are everywhere and have been everywhere forever in the black africa.
this alone is YUGE-ly r-selecting.
afro is just a heap of lies and excrement and closeted gay-ness.
malaria, worms, dengue, schisto, chagas, etc. etc. the number of such diseases outside the tropics is far smaller, lyme disease is one.
there’s even a tiny fish in the amazon which can swim into your urethra. there’s no hope for women. for men the only cure is to chop it off.
what did werner herzog say of the amazon?
Malaria is endemic and endemic disease is a K selection agent. You don’t understand.
Malaria is endemic and endemic disease is a K selection agent. You don’t understand.
the exact opposite of the truth.
predictable doesn’t mean avoidable afro.
Malaria has K-selected humans for mutations that made them resistant, instead of r-selecting them for being more fertile. Can your little brain assimilate that?
…genetic resistance for malaria…
PP – “Please don’t
It was wrong the first time”
Then is what I said true if you reverse everything I said?
Is Afro wrong also?
Afro – “Malaria is endemic and endemic disease is a K-selection agent. You don’t understand.”
I thought RR said Disease was K-selected?
And because black people live in jungles with lots of diseases?
RR said Europeans and NE Asians were mostly r selected in their environments?
What is K and r selection PP?
“…genetic resistance for malaria…”
Yes r/K is about natural selection.
When we say r-selected, we mean naturally selected for reproductive productivity
When we say K-selected, we mean naturally selected for efficiently adapting to carrying capacity constraints.
And natural selection acts on genes. Disease resistance is one of evolutionary strategy that leans toward K on the r/K continuum. If Inuits evolved fur to resist the cold, it would be K selection too.
It is not a social science theory, it is a biological one.
“carrying capacity” varies with behavior afro.
let’s be conservative. before 1800 and
before the age of 30, at least, the constraints are…
1. nutrition. can you grow, gather, or kill enough to survive AND produce live births AND feed your chillens until they too can grow, gather, or kill?
2. un-avoidable infectious disease and accidents.
Can your little brain assimilate that?
it’s clear at this point that afro doesn’t even know what r and K mean.
sad!
When we say K-selected, we mean naturally selected for efficiently adapting to carrying capacity constraints.
no!
“we mean” that parental care reduces infant mortality. and that fewer infants means more care can be given to each one.
here “infant” means, member of the species prior to reproductive maturity.
ian,
What effect does keeping your child clean and feed mean for intelligence section? What involvement in child care affections selection pressures?
““carrying capacity” varies with behavior afro.”
No, it varies with environmental characteristics. The carrying capacity of a desert is virtually 0, that of the North China plain is like 1000. Technology expands the carrying capacity if it increases food availability and lowers disease rates and any other cause of death.
But humans always occupy environments up to full carrying capacity and the annual rate of natural increase pre-industrial era was always near to 0/1000, that’s the norm for a K selected species.
i looked up the penis fish to assure my sodden brain was still functional.
i was assured.
Another account was documented by biologist George A. Boulenger from a Brazilian physician named Dr. Bach, who examined a man and several boys whose penises had been amputated…
The earliest published report of candiru attacking a human host comes from German biologist C. F. P. von Martius in 1829, who never actually observed it, but rather was told about it by the native people of the area, including that men would tie a ligature around their penis while going into the river to prevent this from happening.
behavioral adaptation!
In a realistic scenario, a species constantly facing such a threat would evolve fleeing or defensive instincts. But the human brain gives the ability to learn through trial and error and pass on knowledge.
disease = K selected
outside the tropics tribes were r selected (little disease)
when cities happened more disease happened. They became K selected.
modern cities are r selected because they are cleaner with little disease.
you’re confusing r and K.
Because RR said: disease = K selected
PP posted everything RR said on PP blog post above.
PP posted RR stuff because he disagrees with it?
This is how the situation would go if I was to ever meet Pumpkin Person.
Pumpkin: Ah Mikey Blayze. I’m surprised you actually showed up to this meeting. I’m surprised a piece of common trash could even make it this far.
Pumpkin thinks: *hmmm let me check my scouter*
*ping*
Pumpkin: Hmmm your IQ is only 120, a whole standard deviation below mine. Hahahahaha you puny insect, you could never stand up to my intellectual superiority.
*Mikey Blayze powers up*
Pumpkin: Wait what’s this!? His IQ is still the same but…my God! His T levels! They’re rising. 5,000 6,000 no it can’t be! It can’t!! They’re….They’re….They’re over 9 thousaaaaaannndddd!
This was the hardest I laughed all day. Thank you.
in actuarial parlance and in the UNIQUE case of humans…
r-selected =
the forces of mortality, especially of infant mortality, are for the most part un-avoidable…or rather are at the time un-avoidable, because their cause is unknown and nutrition makes little or no difference.
K-selected =
the forces of mortality ARE avoidable by changing behavior.
if afro thinks the inuit were afflicted with just as many infections as black africans 200 years ago he’s RETARDED.
BUGS HATE THE COLD!
in the inuit’s case the exception is syphilis, or so i have read. but this just supports the point. why? because syphilis’s host is humans. when the last syphilitic dies so does syphilis.
the most K-selected people on earth should be the inuit.
the most K-selected people on earth should be the inuit.
Which makes sense because they’re the biggest brained & most recently emerged
Large brains are a K trait because they require prolonged childhood & high parental care
but i really wonder if K has ever been a thing. i wonder if there is any such thing as K-selected.
that is, for almost all of human history i expect near 100% of the causes of death were unavoidable.
Even today death is negatively correlated with IQ. Low IQ people are more likely to die in car accidents
In arctic times i imagine low spatial IQ would have been deadly because you needed to find your way home before freezing, sew weathertight furs, make tools, build igloos, make fire, skin animals etc
so one can imagine an ancient inuit wouldn’t die from malaria but might die from falling into the freezing arctic ocean. and it could be such occurrences were not selective. that is, they happened to the smart inuit as much as the dumb inuit.
Complete bullshit:
A r-selected species frequently faces dramatic population drops due to random environmental hazards but reacts by increasing its reproductive power and the population rebounds until the next disaster.
r-selection: population grows exponentially without carrying capacity constraints. Organisms take over by increasing their reproductive power. And switch to K selection as they hit the malthusan limit. Brutal mass killing events frequently pull them back away from reaching carrying capacity.
Humans are typically K selected, population growth is stable and only reflects change in environmental carrying capacity
K-selection: population lives on carrying capacity equilibrium and almost never grows. Organisms takeover by individual efficiency (disease resistance, survival instincts, defensive features). The death rate is constant, population never exceeds carrying capacity.
Organisms takeover by individual efficiency (disease resistance, survival instincts, defensive features).
yes afro. if all members are equally fecund modulo chance then the population is, by default, K-selected.
drrr!
but if you’re in ancient africa and there’s a host of nasty diseases which as far as you know are from “spirits”, then you win the evolution game if you have more live births.
No, because no matter how many kids you have, and no matter how much the population grows, the disease is always here and at some point, only genetic resistance will increase the survival rate. And that’s K selection.
r-selection would cause more frequent and abundant ovulation, increased sperm production, smaller body size for energy to be spent on reproductive organs, shorter gestation, faster maturation, sex ratio that favors females, larger litter size, increased number of mammal glands and so on.
afro exemplifies the problem with the french education system.
he’s a qualified lawyer in a country with few lawyers.
what am i talking about?
france has no gen ed requirement.
so its lettered, like afro, can be stuck in high school when it comes to maths.
while at the same time, a french BSc in maths is equivalent to a masters in maths in the US.
france is actually the norm on this score i think.
Lol, whatever.
r/K is very simple. ignore the jive of afro and his consigliere.
they’re very easy to define in actuarial terms.
whether the environment favors r or K depends EXCLUSIVELY on…
the nature of the causes of infant mortality and to a lesser extent the causes of disability, infertility, death in child birth.
the cold winters theory is true to the extent that cold winters are correlated with a reduced the number of endemic infectious diseases.
ian smith – “the cold winters theory is true to the extent that cold winters are correlated with a reduced the number of endemic infectious diseases.”
RR calls that r selection, cold winter is r selected.
Pumpkin person posted RR article so what gives?
Cat i don’t agree with the article. I just posted it so readers could see both sides of the debate
Then what your view on the matter pumpkin?
Should you write a post about it?
It seems the only difference between you PP and RR is that you reverse r and K but you still agree on the selection mechanisms involved.
RR
r = mechanism x
K = mechanism y
PP
r = mechanism y
K = mechanism x
see what I mean?
RR says his papers from the 70 were misrepresented by Ruston.
That original papers of the original research says:
r = mechanism x
K = mechanism y
RR says that is what we should using as the model for population selection.
Because it was original it was misapplied in how human evolved by Ruston.
r/K is very simple. ignore the jive of afro and his consigliere.
they’re very easy to define in actuarial terms.
whether the environment favors r or K depends EXCLUSIVELY on…
the nature of the causes of infant mortality and to a lesser extent the causes of disability, infertility, death in child birth.
the cold winters theory is true to the extent that cold winters are correlated with a reduced the number of endemic infectious diseases.
Wrong.
aha!
i understand afro’s confusion.
it is TRUE that endemic diseases will be adapted to genetically over time whereas sporadic diseases are only adapted to if they kill everyone except the genetically immune.
but all the genetic adaptations to malaria are in general irrelevant.
malaria is still a yuge problem for africa. and until it’s cause was known no amount of parental care made any difference.
…its…
[redacted by pp, june 27, 2017]
initially “it’s” was right. then i changed what i’d written but forgot to change “it’s” to “its”.
but all the genetic adaptations to malaria are in general irrelevant.
malaria is still a yuge problem for africa. and until it’s cause was known no amount of parental care made any difference.
It is relevant, malaria is the reason why Europeans never had mass settlements in Africa, except in the Southern parts which are malaria free. The life expectancy of whites in tropical Africa before anti-malarial was extremely low.
malaria is still a yuge problem for africa. and until it’s cause was known no amount of parental care made any difference.
Yes parental care can help, sheltering from mosquitoes and traditional treatments are efficient techniques. Malaria is rarely deadly if you’re genetically resistant, it is extremely debilitating and frightening but the 600k persons that die each year from malaria now are nothing compared to the total number of infections. Modern treatments and prevention reduced the numbers but malaria was never as deadly as the plague.
…traditional treatments are efficient techniques…
i doubt it.
Modern treatments and prevention…
They are efficient, modern treatments are better because of appropriate dosage and administration practices. But modern treatments use molecules extracted from traditional herbs.
Malaria could be r or K selecting depending on whether the genetic adaptation to malaria is cheap or expensive. If malaria resistant people require more food to eat, more parenting to be raised, and more space to live, then they are K selected, but if they require no more resources than the average person, malaria is r selecting because it wouldn’t shift resources away from reproductive rates and towards individual survival, and may do the opposite.
afro’s other confusion is between r/K in general and r/K in humans.
if one is more charitable to flushton than he deserves one should say…
when flushton is talking about r/K he’s talking about behavioral adaptations, not genetic…unless the genetic adaptation is behavioral.
But Rushton is full of shit r/K belongs to biology, not psychology or sociology. The theory was built by observing species, not humans.
yes!
we agree that flushton is full of shit.
when flushton is talking about r/K he’s talking about behavioral adaptations, not genetic…unless the genetic adaptation is behavioral.
This is an important point because one of the tenets of r/K theory is that unpredictable environments are r selecting because there’s no point investing in genetic adaptations when the environment will rapidly change, so it’s much better to invest in having so many kids that at least one will be lucky enough to survive whatever happens. But humans have the unique genetic adaptation of intelligence, which gives us a rare ability to adapt to the unpredictable. So what is r selecting in beasts might be K selecting in man. Africa was extremely K selecting until we made the leap to behavioral modernity at which point cold climates arguably became more K selecting because we no longer needed luck to survive them.
“But humans have the unique genetic adaptation of intelligence, which gives us a rare ability to adapt to the unpredictable. ”
Seeing how the rest of you R/K selection dynamic hinges on this, what examples do you have of adapting to the “unpredictable” in early human history using our intelligence?
We certainly adapted to novel environments, but usually adapted to the climates which were longer terms conditions.
Also, by rushton’s standards of “unpredictability” in Africa, then in that case Africans would be more K.
Seeing how the rest of you R/K selection dynamic hinges on this, what examples do you have of adapting to the “unpredictable” in early human history using our intelligence?
I did a post answering that very question.
From your article.
“Massive droughts followed by massive wet periods followed by massive droughts. ”
That’s climatic changes, basically being a new set of trends, not sporadic occurrences.
From another site
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution
“This hypothesis calls attention to the variability observed in all environmental records and to the fact that the genus Homo was not limited to a single type of environment. Over the course of human evolution, human ancestors increased their ability to cope with changing habitats rather than specializing on a single type of environment. How did hominins evolve the ability to respond to shifting surroundings and new environmental conditions?”
Variability isn’t predictability, in other words this was adaptation to new climates all together and not temporary situations like droughts or diseases.
This broadens our range of environments to adapt to, but that’s a different concept that predictable pressures outlined in different environments in R/K theory.
This broadens our range of environments to adapt to, but that’s a different concept that predictable pressures outlined in different environments in R/K theory.
It’s the same concept in that dumb creatures must adopt an r strategy to survive unpredictability because it takes so long to genetically adapt to a sudden environmental change, that there’s no point genetically adapting to it at all. Just have lots of kids and hope one gets lucky.
What made humans unique is we could adapt to new environments rapidly because we have intelligence, which gave us behavioral plasticity and rapid cultural evolution. So the theory is that rapid climate change in Africa selected for this intelligence.
“It’s the same concept in that dumb creatures must adopt an r strategy to survive unpredictability because it takes so long to genetically adapt to a sudden environmental change, that there’s no point genetically adapting to it at all. Just have lots of kids and hope one gets lucky.
What made humans unique is we could adapt to new environments rapidly because we have intelligence, which gave us behavioral plasticity and rapid cultural evolution. So the theory is that rapid climate change in Africa selected for this intelligence.”
Except that I explained that variability is different from “predictability” due to these being the two are categorized as different pressure, What you are talking about is different climates, which are long term and predictable condition in of themselves.
Plus this theory DOES imply actual genetic selection
“Overall, the hominin fossil record and the environmental record show that hominins evolved during an environmentally variable time. Higher variability occurred as changes in seasonality produced large-scale environmental fluctuations over periods that often lasted tens of thousands of years. The variability selection hypothesis implies that human traits evolved over time because they enabled human ancestors to adjust to environmental uncertainty and change. The hypothesis addresses the matter of how, exactly, adaptability can evolve over time.”
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/climate-and-human-evolution/climate-effects-human-evolution
Except that I explained that variability is different from “predictability”
Yes, but you could argue unpredictability selected for intelligence because intelligence is very useful in adapting to novelty.
Plus this theory DOES imply actual genetic selection
Yes, but genetic selection for the ability to adapt, as opposed to genetic selection for a specific adaptation.
To, PP
Nice zinger, doesn’t address her credibility though or her competence.
Nice zinger, doesn’t address her credibility though or her competence
What has she contributed to the field?
“Yes, but you could argue unpredictability selected for intelligence because intelligence is very useful in adapting to novelty.”
Yet it wasn’t unpredictability that gave us our range, it was variability which is a different concept
“Yes, but genetic selection for the ability to adapt, as opposed to genetic selection for a specific adaptation.”
Replace the terms then you would be accurate, but that doesn’t correspond with Rushton’s actual R/K theory using them.
Using predictability, then Africans would be more K regardless.
Yet it wasn’t unpredictability that gave us our range, it was variability which is a different concept
They’re not mutually exclusive
Replace the terms then you would be accurate,
I’m accurate already
You asked about her evidence as an expert, not prominence in terms of breakthrough.
Pretty sure a Ph D in population ecology and investment in communicating scientific knowledge gives her relevance to provide commentary.
PhD indicates knowledge, not expertise
“PhD indicates knowledge, not expertise”
…….
http://www.yourdictionary.com/scientist
You’re going to have to be a little more specific.
BTW, what about Graves counters at Rushton?
Being able to coexist is different from being synonymous, especially when if you go by Rushton’s Standards it would not result in more K selected Eurasians based on predictability.
And no, you are not accurate since you apply a hypothesis that deals with a different selection pressure all together.
From Rushton’s book.
“Many critics have made the classic mistake (many ecologists do also) of confusing variable and unpredictable. Weizmann et al. (1990: 2) claimed that, because of their longer ancestry in stable tropical climates, blacks should be more JiT-selected than other human groups. Miller (1993) also suggested that the converse might be true, that arctic animals with variable winter cycles, would be r-selected. But, of course, they are not. Long-lived arctic mammals like polar bears, caribou, muskox, seals, and walruses are highly K-selected, as are Arctic people. The reason is that the Arctic environment is not only highly variable, but more importantly, is highly predictable as well. (More generally, data show that plants, lizards, and mammals become more K-selected with increasing elevation and latitude [Zammuto & Millar, 1985].)”
So by Rushton’s logic of how R/K works with unpredictability versus variability, you are wrong.
The arctic environment is predictable because you have the same seasons every year so you get used to the constant repetition. In ancestral Africa you might have a savannah for 20 years and then suddenly it becomes a lake, desert or a jungle.
You’re not seeing my point, and that is you are confused on how R/K defines what cause K selection in higher latitudes, which was not being more unpredictable.
With Africa being in turn more unpredictable, your thinking would suggest Africans being more K.
You’re not seeing my point, and that is you are confused on how R/K defines what cause K selection in higher latitudes, which was not being more unpredictable.
No, I totally see your point.
With Africa being in turn more unpredictable, your thinking would suggest Africans being more K.
The problem is I like two seemingly contradictory theories: Rushton who argued Africa’s unpredictability prevented the evolution of intelligence by causing r selection and Rick Potts who argued Africa’s unpredictability caused selection for intelligence by necessitating more adaptability.
:The problem is I like two contradictory theories: Rushton who argued Africa’s unpredictability prevented the evolution of intelligence by causing r selection and Rick Potts who argued Africa’s unpredictability cause selection for intelligence by necessitating more adaptability.”
Yes, that’s precisely the problem.
If Africa’s unpredictability stunted intelligence, then Man ought to have evolved in Eurasia via Neanderthals.
If Africa supported intelligence through it’s climatic variability as Potts shown (NOT unpredictability in terms of ecology) then Eurasian shouldn’t have been more K as they left Africa as you would state using your logic and what Rushton actually says on the topic.
That is, you would have to acknowledge the opposite contentions on what pressures select for what for your theory to make sense, not counting how R/K selection itself being rejected and your misuses of ecological terms.
I think when scientists say unpredictable environments are r selecting, what they really mean is luck dependent environments are r selecting. But unpredictable environments can be luck dependent or IQ dependent depending on who’s in them.
Back when average IQ was 50, the unpredictability of Africa may have selected for IQ because you needed an IQ of 80 to adapt to that unpredictability.
But once average IQ hit 80, almost everyone was smart enough to adapt to the unpredictability and so the deciding factor became luck (r selection).
By contrast in Eurasia, the challenges may have been so difficult that hardly any erectus were smart enough to solve them, so instead they were mostly selected for luck (r selection) or cold adapted body type (Neanderthals) or both. Only when average IQ in Africa hit 80+ were people smart enough to solve Eurasia’s problems using brain instead of brawn and luck, and only for these Out of Africa migrants did Eurasia become K selecting.
So for an environment to select for IQ (and by extension K), it must be at an optimum level of cognitive difficulty (not too easy and not too hard)
“I think when scientists say unpredictable environments are r selecting, what they really mean is luck dependent environments are r selecting. But unpredictable environments can be luck dependent or IQ dependent depending on who’s in them.”
Okay, what support do have of that distinction actually being rooted in ecological studies in terms of “predictability”?
“Back when average IQ was 50, the unpredictability of Africa may have selected for IQ because you needed an IQ of 80 to adapt to that unpredictability.
But once average IQ hit 80, almost everyone was smart enough to adapt to the unpredictability and so the deciding factor became luck (r selection).”
Not what Potts actually was showing, it was climatic variability as I said that expanded our versatility for different environments.
“By contrast in Eurasia, the challenges may have been so difficult that hardly any erectus were smart enough to solve them, so instead they were mostly selected for luck (r selection) or cold adapted body type (Neanderthals). Only when average IQ in Africa hit 80+ were people smart enough to solve Eurasia’s problems using brain instead of brawn and luck, and only then did Eurasia become K selected.”
You went from predictable to “challenging”. As Rushton stated in his R/K theory that actually mentions predictability, he demonstrated that higher latitudes were more predictable. So by what measure were they more challenging that they caused K selection a a certain IQ level?
At somepoint though a extreme climate like that would result in specialization, and unpredictable Africans will still accumulate towards being K.
Also, population densities and observations of nuclear families shows that Neanderthals weren’t R selected.
Not what Potts actually was showing, it was climatic variability as I said that expanded our versatility for different environments.
I agree 100%, except why can’t Africa’s variability also be described as unpredictability? Rushton certainly thought Africa was unpredictable even though as you noted, he distinguished between variability and unpredictability. But the two concepts are related. You can’t have unpredictability without at least some variability.
You went from predictable to “challenging”.
Because I think cognitively challenging is the relevant variable. An unpredictable environment can be luck dependent or IQ dependent depending on whether the creatures that lives there are smart enough to adapt to the particular unpredictability. Massive generalizations like predictable = K selecting are probably not very useful.
As Rushton stated in his R/K theory that actually mentions predictability, he demonstrated that higher latitudes were more predictable. So by what measure were they more challenging that they caused K selection a a certain IQ level?
I think evolutionary novelty is what causes cognitive challenge. More specifically, if we’re in an environment that our bodies and culture have not evolved to, we can respond either by evolving different bodies, evolving more IQ, or having so many kids that one will get lucky ( r selection). Now which strategy evolution favours depends on what is in our reach. If the amount of IQ required for an African body to survive in Eurasia is 90+, and Erectus only had an IQ around 55, it will be selected more for physical traits than cognitive traits, because the cognitive solution is so far beyond them.
But the Erectus that stayed in Africa also found themselves in environments their bodies and cultures weren’t built for (since the climate changed so frequently) but not to the same degree as Eurasian erectus who suddenly found himself cold after millions of years of heat. Because the cognitive requirements in Africa were within our genetic reach but the ones in Eurasia were not, evolution selected more for IQ in Africa and more for robust body build in Eurasia.
So ironically, the erectus that stayed in the less cognitively challenging environment evolved into a super smart species (modern humans) and because they did, when they entered the more cognitively challenging environment of Eurasia, the cognitive challenge was within genetic reach and thus they continued to evolve in the direction of IQ.
That’s just how I explain it to myself.
Also, population densities and observations of nuclear families shows that Neanderthals weren’t R selected.
Weren’t r selected compared to who and when?
Phil,
Preparing for what you can’t predict, what you don’t know can happen is impossible. The only way natural selection could select for adaptation to unpredictable events wouldn’t be intelligence but divination powers. When climate change in Africa drove the evolution of human intelligence, it selected for versatility but always under “K-selective” environments since tropical environments are always stable, whether they’re dry or wet. Highly variable seasonality is linked to high latitudes.
Climatic variability in high latitudes is not predictable in the sense that if you know winter’s cold and and summer’s hot, you never know how hot and how cold a season will be, nor how wet and how dry. If summer is too rainy, or winter too cold it will cause crop failure and famine or low plant growth which brutally reduces the availability of wild foods for hunter-gatherers. Environments rely on a fragile balance of climatic variables that are more easily disturbed out of the tropics.
On that topic, you might want to check those links
Little ice age (16th-19th) century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
List of famines, notice the frequency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
Famines, along with other kinds of disasters such as fires, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, epidemics… But the main reaction to the hazards of life was never innovation, technological development was extremely slow and random. The main reaction was religion/superstition which are cultural universals and have dominated human thought until the era of mass schooling.
You know, when your paleolithic Europeans were caught in a endless snow storm, they more likely sacrificed their lame nerds to their gods than tried to find ways to get warmer and prepare for the next disaster.
“I agree 100%, except why can’t Africa’s variability also be described as unpredictability? Rushton certainly thought Africa was unpredictable even though as you noted, he distinguished between variability and unpredictability. But the two concepts are related. You can’t have unpredictability without at least some variability.
You went from predictable to “challenging”.”
Because that is a different type of trait, a simple as that.
“Because I think cognitively challenging is the relevant variable. An unpredictable environment can be luck dependent or IQ dependent depending on whether the creatures that lives there are smart enough to adapt to the particular unpredictability. Massive generalizations like predictable = K selecting are probably not very useful.”
I again ask you to provide support for this.
“I think evolutionary novelty is what causes cognitive challenge. More specifically, if we’re in an environment that our bodies and culture have not evolved to, we can respond either by evolving different bodies, evolving more IQ, or having so many kids that one will get lucky ( r selection). Now which strategy evolution favours depends on what is in our reach. If the amount of IQ required for an African body to survive in Eurasia is 90+, and Erectus only had an IQ around 55, it will be selected more for physical traits than cognitive traits, because the cognitive solution is so far beyond them.”
And see where i explain specialization comes in regardless and and how that makes Africa more K regardless due to that.
“But the Erectus that stayed in Africa also found themselves in environments their bodies and cultures weren’t built for (since the climate changed so frequently) but not to the same degree as Eurasian erectus who suddenly found himself cold after millions of years of heat. Because the cognitive requirements in Africa were within our genetic reach but the ones in Eurasia were not, evolution selected more for IQ in Africa and more for robust body build in Eurasia.
So ironically, the erectus that stayed in the less cognitively challenging environment evolved into a super smart species (modern humans) and because they did, when they entered the more cognitively challenging environment of Eurasia, the cognitive challenge was within genetic reach and thus they continued to evolve in the direction of IQ.
That’s just how I explain it to myself.”
At some point, the stakes would have to be more or equally Challenging in Africa to plausibly reach an IQ to where they would adapt to the unpredictability. And as I said, that would thus result in specialization at some point for eurasians compared to Africans.
Also, Asian Erectus showed increase brain size which would effect plasticity, not favoring the idea that they relied on “luck” through numbers.
“Weren’t r selected compared to who and when?”
Compared to Humans, prior to human entering Eurasia.
Because that is a different type of trait, a simple as that.
But if you can’t clearly define the difference between unpredictability and variability, then it’s subjective.
Also, Asian Erectus showed increase brain size which would effect plasticity, not favoring the idea that they relied on “luck” through numbers.
Interesting. Are you saying Asian Erectus had a larger brain than African Erectus living at the same time? Did they have more complex tools also?
“Weren’t r selected compared to who and when?”
Compared to Humans, prior to human entering Eurasia.
Who had the larger brain prior to modern humans entering Eurasia? I know after entering Europe, modern humans had larger brains & better technology than Neanderthals but it’s crucial to know when they overtook them.
Do you believe cold climates selected for intelligence in a) modern humans b) other hominins that left Africa, c) both?
If the answer is both, the question becomes why didn’t the most intelligent hominin species (modern humans) evolve in the coldest region? Perhaps for the same reason the most intelligent modern human race did not evolve in the coldest region? Richard Lynn suggests the answer to the latter question is that arctic people lacked genetic variability because of their smaller populations. Perhaps that also explains why modern humans evolved in Africa, they may have had more genetic variability, despite less cognitive selection, just speculating.
To Afro,
No arguments from me, you basically get the difference between variability andthe type of traits that would be classified as predictability and how populations generally react to them.
“Phil78 do you reject r/K completely or just some of the specific details? Do you deny that there’s an evolutionary tradeoff between offspring quantity & offspring quality? Though defining quality is tricky.”
In general with animals I believe that there are differences in parental investment, litter, and how those factors influence natural selection, varying by certain ecological condition.
What I disagree with both R/K theory in humans and R/K selection theory in general is the inconsistency of what trends result in what kind of selection, which in turn is modified to LH theory.
In general with animals I believe that there are differences in parental investment, litter, and how those factors influence natural selection, varying by certain ecological condition.
And all Rushton was saying is that blacks evolved to invest more in litter size while East Asians evolved to invest more in survival rates. I feel like people are getting obsessed with all these micro-details and ignoring the big picture.
What I disagree with both R/K theory in humans and R/K selection theory in general is the inconsistency of what trends result in what kind of selection, which in turn is modified to LH theory.
The way I look at it is anything that selects for intelligence will generally be K selecting because big brains require fewer offspring, a longer life cycle and more parental care.
“And all Rushton was saying is that blacks evolved to invest more in litter size while East Asians evolved to invest more in survival rates. I feel like people are getting obsessed with all these micro-details and ignoring the big picture.”
And again, the argument was that R/K theory was used improperly to explain why.
“The way I look at it is anything that selects for intelligence will generally be K selecting because big brains require fewer offspring, a longer life cycle with more parental care.”
The way you look =/= How ecological work is done on populations.
And again, the argument was that R/K theory was used improperly to explain why.
Not according to the co-father of the theory itself. Even the critic Anderson mostly just stated that Rushton hadn’t proven his case, she didn’t expose any major errors afaik.
The way you look =/= How ecological work is done on populations.
But human races can’t be studied in exactly the same way as other animals can because they no longer all live in their ancestral environments and their ancestral environments have radically changed.
“But if you can’t clearly define the difference between unpredictability and variability, then it’s subjective.”
Potts theory, climatic shifts that lasted for major amounts of time.
Unpredictable events? Droughts and disease.
“Interesting. Are you saying Asian Erectus had a larger brain than African Erectus living at the same time? Did they have more complex tools also?”
I’m unaware of that, but the point is that physiological trend in of itself contradicts your suggestion.
“Who had the larger brain prior to modern humans entering Eurasia? I know after entering Europe, modern humans had larger brains & better technology than Neanderthals but it’s crucial to know when they overtook them.”
Humans had larger frontal cortexes due to dome shape forehead. Neanderthals were the ones with larger brain in absolute terms.
Regardless, they had smaller families and groups in general, not suggestive of R selection.
“Do you believe cold climates selected for intelligence in a) modern humans b) other hominins that left Africa, c) both?”
Melo already gave you a source on resource allocation meaning more than climate in influence human evolution, and I won;t repeat RR’s assertions
“If the answer is both, the question becomes why didn’t the most intelligent hominin species (modern humans) evolve in the coldest region? Perhaps for the same reason the most intelligent modern human race did not evolve in the coldest region? Richard Lynn suggests the answer to the latter question is that the coldest climates lacked genetic variability because of their smaller populations. Perhaps that also explains why modern humans evolved in Africa, they may have had more genetic variability, despite less cognitive selection, just speculating.”
Yet that doesn’t work if suggesting that they were more r selected compared to humans as a strategy if they would produce larger litters.
“But if you can’t clearly define the difference between unpredictability and variability, then it’s subjective.”
Potts theory, climatic shifts that lasted for major amounts of time.
Unpredictable events? Droughts and disease.
So you agree with Rushton that droughts and disease are unpredictable?
“Interesting. Are you saying Asian Erectus had a larger brain than African Erectus living at the same time? Did they have more complex tools also?”
I’m unaware of that, but the point is that physiological trend in of itself contradicts your suggestion.
Only if the trend was as fast or faster in Eurasia than it was in Africa, which we don’t seem to know.
“Who had the larger brain prior to modern humans entering Eurasia? I know after entering Europe, modern humans had larger brains & better technology than Neanderthals but it’s crucial to know when they overtook them.”
Humans had larger frontal cortexes due to dome shape forehead. Neanderthals were the ones with larger brain in absolute terms.
The modern humans in Europe at the same time as Neanderthals had larger absolute brain size than Neanderthals did according to John Hawks.
Regardless, they had smaller families and groups in general, not suggestive of R selection.
They may have had smaller families because of higher infant mortality though. But they might have been K selected. That would certainly support Rushton’s contention that the cold was K selecting.
“If the answer is both, the question becomes why didn’t the most intelligent hominin species (modern humans) evolve in the coldest region? Perhaps for the same reason the most intelligent modern human race did not evolve in the coldest region? Richard Lynn suggests the answer to the latter question is that the coldest climates lacked genetic variability because of their smaller populations. Perhaps that also explains why modern humans evolved in Africa, they may have had more genetic variability, despite less cognitive selection, just speculating.”
Yet that doesn’t work if suggesting that they were more r selected compared to humans as a strategy if they would produce larger litters.
All hominins were K selected. Eurasia may have been more K selecting but Africa’s population size may have given rise to genetic mutations that allowed them to leap ahead in IQ per Richard Klein’s theory.
“Not according to the co-father of the theory itself. Even the critic Anderson mostly just stated that Rushton hadn’t proven his case, she didn’t expose any major errors afaik.”
Yes, Anderson did point out errors in his application.
“Rushton’s next misuse of the theory is not discussing density-dependence and density-independence and how they relate to agents of selection and the r/K model. K-selection works in a density-dependent way while r-selection works in a density-independent way. Thusly, K-selection is expected to favor genotypes that persist at high densities (increasing K) whereas r-selection favors genotypes that increase more quickly at low densities (increasing r) (Anderson, 1991). Rushton also failed to speak about alpha-selection. Alpha-selection selection for competitive abilities and, like with K-selection, occurs at high population densities, but could also occur with low population densities. Alpha-selection, instead of favoring genotypes that increase at high densities “it favours genotypes that, owing to their negative effects on others, often reduce the growth rate and the maximum population size” (Anderson, 1991: 52).”
“But human races can’t be studied in exactly the same way as other animals can because they no longer all live in their ancestral environments and their ancestral environments have radically changed.”
Exactly! See the first paragraph of the article pointing that out. In real life, a reliable application of R/K theory on humans in terms of samples would by HG populations with limited geneflow from other populations.
These all confound they way Rushton applies R/K theory and what is actually observed in how fast those dynamics can be changed.
For instance, Genhorst’s link shows differences in life history speed merely between native and colonizing europeans due to new resources and such.
So given the nature of human interacting with their environment and their environment changing, the position of modern differences in population sexual maturation and litter being rooted in stone age differences is even less feasible.
Rushton’s next misuse of the theory is not discussing density-dependence and density-independence
Not mentioning every interpretation of the theory != misapplying it.
Rushton also failed to speak about alpha-selection.
No mentioning something != misapplication
Exactly! See the first paragraph of the article pointing that out. In real life, a reliable application of R/K theory on humans in terms of samples would by HG populations with limited geneflow from other populations.
By that standard virtually all human evolutionary theories are worthless.
For instance, Genhorst’s link shows differences in life history speed merely between native and colonizing europeans due to new resources and such.
Phenotypes are influenced by both genes AND environment; doesn’t mean scientists can’t posit for evolutionary explanations for phenotypic differences.
So given the nature of human interacting with their environment and their environment changing, the position of modern differences in population sexual maturation and litter being rooted in stone age differences is even less feasible.
We all know that environment can matter a lot, but most people assumed environment was the ONLY explanation for the group differences Rushton discussed. Rushton merely suggested that the totality of the data better fit an evolutionary pattern.
That’s not misapplying a theory, it’s simply forming a hypothesis that has not yet been proven.
“The article talks about tropics being more K selecting but Rushton rebutted that point in the very quote you cited. It can be argued from both sides.”
No, that was the point of Rushton being rebutted. I used that quote because you sporadically argue on what trends means what selection as of recently despite consistent support of Rushton.
My point was that you cited unpredictability in Africa being K, and I demonstrated by Rushton’s logic (your usual standard) that it would support the idea of K increasing in higher elevation then.
I was not arguing on the actual grounds of how R/K works in real life, as a matter of fact that’s only half of how Rushton’s Theory is debunked in terms of Use.
1. How the actual trends work in the Theory.
2. The weight of the theory on animals in general being rejected.
My point was that you cited unpredictability in Africa being K, and I demonstrated by Rushton’s logic (your usual standard) that it would support the idea of K increasing in higher elevation then.
Well I disagree with Rushton that predictability is a useful concept when it comes to r/K. I think luck dependency is a better metric and easier to define and measure.
* that it would not support K increasing.
Also, see the point in the article how Intelligence is is irrespective of K or R, the original R/K paper didn’t even support that and that was exclusively an addition made by Rushton.
I find it hard to believe no one before Rushton associated intelligence with K given the fact that large brains require more parental care, more energy to produce, a slower life cycle, etc. Even if Rushton did to choose that trait himself, it was an extremely logical choice.
“So you agree with Rushton that droughts and disease are unpredictable?”
Correction, mean disasters. Yet if you were to read Potts’ theory, that wasn’t what shaped our versatility.
“Only if the trend was as fast or faster in Eurasia than it was in Africa, which we don’t seem to know.”
No, your contention in of itself was how they would react to “R” due to their IQ, they had the variability as shown by their evolution.
“The modern humans in Europe at the same time as Neanderthals had larger absolute brain size than Neanderthals did according to John Hawks.”
Actually they were about Equal.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot-human-origins/neanderthals-larger-eyes-and-smaller-brains
“They may have had smaller families because of higher infant mortality though. But they might have been K selected. That would certainly support Rushton’s contention that the cold was K selecting.”
Yet which is it? At first you said that they were IQ demanding environments that, prior to sapiens at 80, preferred R selection strategies. This doesn;t work with what we observe in Erectus.
You then alternate to them being more K due to their commanding nature in the sense of Rushton.
“All hominins were K selected. Eurasia may have been more K selecting but Africa’s population size may have given rise to genetic mutations that allowed them to leap ahead in IQ per Richard Klein’s theory.”
Except I’ve explained that if Neanderthals were designed to have a high litter in an IQ selective environment then genetic variability would be an issue due to their population.
That rules out them being R going by the traditional and direct relationship of them being R like other animals are via the original work of R/K theory, which Rushton actually didn’t do correctly.
“Not mentioning every interpretation of the theory != misapplying it.”
No, not mentioning the fundamental descriptions.
“No mentioning something != misapplication”
Yes, it is.
“By that logic all human evolutionary theories are worthless.”
Worthless to make direct conclusions of modern populations, in this case in ecological terms.
“Phenotypes are influenced by both genes AND environment; doesn’t mean scientists can’t posit for evolutionary explanations for phenotypic differences.”
I’m talking about the stability of the phenotypes through time and enviromental changes, not how “genetic” they are.
.
“We all know that environment can matter a lot, but most people assumed environment was the ONLY explanation for the group differences Rushton discussed. Rushton merely suggested that the totality of the data better fit an evolutionary pattern.”
And we’ve gone over as of why his hypothesis, based on it’s grounded logic, doesn;t work.
“That’s not misapplying a theory, it’s simply forming a hypothesis that has not yet been proven.”
It is when you persistent misapply the original source.
Actually they were about Equal.
John Hawks said otherwise, but your source may have newer data.
Yet which is it?
That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
“All hominins were K selected. Eurasia may have been more K selecting but Africa’s population size may have given rise to genetic mutations that allowed them to leap ahead in IQ per Richard Klein’s theory.”
Except I’ve explained that if Neanderthals were designed to have a high litter in an IQ selective environment then genetic variability would be an issue due to their population.
Would NOT be an issue, I assume is what you meant. I don’t know whether they were r or K. I suggested they might be r but you’ve mentioned evidence that they were K. So if they were K, then lack of population size may help explain why they didn’t become as smart as modern humans.
“Not mentioning every interpretation of the theory != misapplying it.”
No, not mentioning the fundamental descriptions.
No the fundamental description is r are selected for high reproduction rates and K are selected for high survival rates.
“No mentioning something != misapplication”
Yes, it is.
E.O. Wilson disagrees with you.
“By that logic all human evolutionary theories are worthless.”
Worthless to make direct conclusions of modern populations, in this case in ecological terms.
hypothesis != conclusion
“Phenotypes are influenced by both genes AND environment; doesn’t mean scientists can’t posit for evolutionary explanations for phenotypic differences.”
I’m talking about the stability of the phenotypes through time and enviromental changes, not how “genetic” they are.
So scientists can’t propose evolutionary explanations for why men are taller than women because height changes with environment?
And we’ve gone over as of why his hypothesis, based on it’s grounded logic, doesn;t work.
Except E.O. Wilson says it does.
It is when you persistent misapply the original source.
Except the author of the original source says he applied it correctly.
“I find it hard to believe no one before Rushton associated intelligence with K given the fact that large brains require more parental care, more energy to produce, a slower life cycle, etc. Even if Rushton did to choose that trait himself, it was an extremely logical choice.”
Yet without reference regardless, which doesn’t help as his logic in explaining k and r populations was shoddy.
“Well I disagree with Rushton that predictability is a useful concept when it comes to r/K. I think luck dependency is a better metric and easier to define and measure.”
Hhhmmm…not showing up on google. Alright, question, how is it a “better” or easier” measure when it’s hasn;t even been validated.
So lets analyze it. You are talking about less predictable environments selecting Intelligence, okay, despite the actual forces in nature Potts describe being different in nature.
You then differentiate between predictability being K with erectus, but harsh and predictable ones being R in Erectus.
Now, going back on that, Erectus in Asia had more complex tools than erectus in Africa.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_4.htm
However, the next leap happened in Africa regardless…this is why understanding Potts in necessary as it shows Erectus in the Cold being specialized.
Thus it explains why Man came from Africa regardless, though not in the fashion of “luck” in eurasia.
So lets analyze it. You are talking about less predictable environments selecting Intelligence, okay, despite the actual forces in nature Potts describe being different in nature.
You then differentiate between predictability being K with erectus, but harsh and predictable ones being R in Erectus.
Yeah I admit my African erectus vs Asian erectus argument was pretty convoluted and I started arguing the opposite once you implied evidence that Asian erectus may have been smarter.
*unpredictability being K in erectus
“That’s what I’m trying to figure out.”
And I’m breaking it down.
“Would NOT be an issue, I assume is what you meant. I don’t know whether they were r or K. I suggested they might be r but you’ve mentioned evidence that they were K. So if they were K, then lack of population size may help explain why they didn’t become as smart as modern humans.”
Specifically it was because they were specialized rather than being R or K.
“No the fundamental description is r are selected for high reproduction rates and K are selected for high survival rates.”
I’m talking about how that would be determined, and it was misapplied.
“E.O. Wilson disagrees with you.”
And he commented on what, exactly, regarding Rushton;s work beyond what is said here?
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/25/e-o-wilson-on-rushtons-rk-theory-and-more-on-endemic-disease/
It seems that he was commenting more on the morals/logical ethnics of the paper rather than the accuracy.
“hypothesis != conclusion”
Yes, a hypothesis like this one trying to explain modern human behavior based on ancient ecological models is naturally making a conclusion on modern human behavior.
“So scientists can’t propose evolutionary explanations for why men are taller than women because height changes with environment?”
Your are talking about Sexual Dimorphism, a sexual property of a species’s physiology , compared to reproduction habits in the context of certain environments.
It’s been demonstrated to change in humans, so there is no reason to make anciently rooted hypothesis on modern behavior WITHOUT taking in consideration of confounds.
“Except E.O. Wilson says it does.
Except the author of the original source says he applied it correctly.”
Not with the actual context, were he elaborates on the ethnics of the paper rather than the methodology.
Specifically it was because they were specialized rather than being R or K.
Why were they more specialized and why did that prevent them from evolving into the smartest hominin?
I’m talking about how that would be determined, and it was misapplied.
No it wasn’t misapplied. Rushton found of pattern of physical and behavioral differences which seemed to roughly correlated with the r-K scale and so he invoked that model. Simple as that
And he commented on what, exactly, regarding Rushton;s work beyond what is said here?
E.O. Wilson said:
I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species – a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example – no one would have batted an eye. … when it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed
Solid evolutionary reasoning that is logically sound. You heard it straight from the co-father of the theory.
Yes, a hypothesis like this one trying to explain modern human behavior based on ancient ecological models is naturally making a conclusion on modern human behavior.
It’s a proposed explanation, but a hypothesis must then be tested. You can criticise Rushton for not doing enough to test his hypothesis but you’ve yet to validly criticise the hypothesis itself.
Your are talking about Sexual Dimorphism, a sexual property of a species’s physiology , compared to reproduction habits in the context of certain environments.
Both are phenotypes that can be influenced by the environment. Average height in developed countries has increased several inches in just the 20th century alone because of nutrition/disease reduction.
It’s been demonstrated to change in humans, so there is no reason to make anciently rooted hypothesis on modern behavior WITHOUT taking in consideration of confounds.
Height has also been demonstrated to change in humans, so has brain size for that matter. So no height theories, no brain size theories. What else should scientists never propose evolutionary explanations for? Body weight? That changes. Muscle mass? That changes too. Skin colour? People get darker in the summer so can’t suggest evolution influences that. HBD Chick’s clannishness? Not only does that change but it’s behavioral too. IQ? Again, changes and is behavioral. By your logic the entire field of evolutionary psychology is a misapplication of theory.
What you fail to appreciate is that Rushton’s work was merely being held to a much higher standard than that of other researchers because his hypothesis was politically incorrect.
“Yeah I admit my African erectus vs Asian erectus argument was pretty convoluted and I started arguing the opposite once you implied evidence that Asian erectus may have been smarter.”
In addition to This, I’ll summarized the pointlessness in debating this
1. R/K Theory itself is discredited in practical Ecological means. From Graves
http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTE3Ny8xNDY5OTYyMDAyMDAyMDAyNjI3/10.1177%401469962002002002627.pdf
“Pianka (1970) proposed a list of traits associated with the poles of the r- and Kcontinuum (Table 3) No experimental rationale was ever given for the assignment of these traits to either category, hence the use of the term ‘verbal theory’ in this article (after Mueller, 1988).”
“That is, they share common evolutionary histories, and
hence their genetic architecture could result from either selection or genetic drift. It is
therefore literally impossible to infer a particular adaptive hypothesis by the examination
of patterns of life history data alone (Reznick, 1985). ”
Consider this to support the basic position spawn by Reznick in rejection of the Theory’s influence of density dependency on reproductive habits in the actual article.
2. See my comment here comparing fertility rates at pre-industrial stages, after, amd reasons why that would explain growth trends seen today which aren’t necessarily indicative of differences in investment and litter size.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/24/rk-selection-theory-a-response-to-rushton-by-racerealist-and-afrosapiens/comment-page-1/#comment-64147
“Pianka (1970) proposed a list of traits associated with the poles of the r- and Kcontinuum (Table 3) No experimental rationale was ever given for the assignment of these traits to either category, hence the use of the term ‘verbal theory’ in this article (after Mueller, 1988).”
Not experimentally proven != wrong
“That is, they share common evolutionary histories, and
hence their genetic architecture could result from either selection or genetic drift. It is
therefore literally impossible to infer a particular adaptive hypothesis by the examination
of patterns of life history data alone (Reznick, 1985). ”
You could dismiss any evolutionary theory by saying a particular trait was caused by genetic drift not selection. The strength of Rushton’s theory was he looked at dozens of different traits, making it unlikely that random drift could produce such a consistent pattern across so many different variables.
2. See my comment here comparing fertility rates at pre-industrial stages, after, amd reasons why that would explain growth trends seen today which aren’t necessarily indicative of differences in investment and litter size.
Doesn’t explain racial differences found within the same time and place.
“Why were they more specialized and why did that prevent them from evolving into the smartest hominin?”
See Potts and you would’ve known by know.
“No it wasn’t misapplied. Rushton found of pattern of physical and behavioral differences which seemed to roughly correlated with the r-K scale and so he invoked that model. Simple as that”
What’s simple was that I’ve shown multiple reasons how he didn’t use it theory correctly in terms of what trends defined what outcome.
“E.O. Wilson said:
I think Phil is an honest and capable researcher. The basic reasoning by Rushton is solid evolutionary reasoning; that is, it is logically sound. If he had seen some apparent geographic variation for a non-human species – a species of sparrow or sparrow hawk, for example – no one would have batted an eye. … when it comes to [human] racial differences, especially in the inflamed situation in this country, special safeguards and conventions need to be developed”
Solid evolutionary reasoning that is logically sound. You heard it straight from the co-father of the theory.”
Except the evidence that his reasoning is based on is inconsistent within the evidence itself and his interpretation.
“It’s a proposed explanation, but a hypothesis must then be tested. You can criticise Rushton for not doing enough to test his hypothesis but you’ve yet to validly criticise the hypothesis itself.”
Yes, I did explain why his sources (of a discredited theory) and his interpretations being faulty in the making of his Hypothesis.
“Both are phenotypes that can be influenced by the environment. Average height in developed countries has increased several inches in just the 20th century alone because of nutrition.”
Average height of a population isn’t the same thing as relative height between Sexes. If both are in the same environment, a gap would still remain.
“Height has also been demonstrated to change in humans, so has brain size for that matter. So no height theories, no brain size theories.”
You mean theorizes that track how height changed through time due to changes in human populations genetically and environmentally like with Diet Change and geography?
Where was that longitudinal analysis in Rushton’s work accounting for diffusion in genes and lifestyle that confounds stone age reproduction??
” What else should scientists never propose evolutionary explanations for? Body weight? That changes. Muscle mass? That changes too. Skin colour? People get darker in the summer so can’t suggest evolution influences that. HBD Chick’s clannishness? Not only does that change but it’s behavioral too. IQ? Again, changes and is behavioral. By your logic the entire field of evolutionary theory is a misapplication of theory.”
No, because they acknowledge changes through time, not a set selection of behavior that remain unchanged since the stone age.
“What you fail to appreciate is that Rushton’s work was merely being held to a much higher standard that of other researchers because his hypothesis was politically incorrect.”
What you fail to realize is that is work is both dated, skewed, and replaced in ecological science.
What’s simple was that I’ve shown multiple reasons how he didn’t use it theory correctly in terms of what trends defined what outcome.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point
Except the evidence that his reasoning is based on is inconsistent within the evidence itself and his interpretation.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point too.
Yes, I did explain why his sources (of a discredited theory) and his interpretations being faulty in the making of his Hypothesis.
You merely pointed out the fact that he didn’t talk about all aspects of the r/K literature. That’s actually to his credit, because the part he ignored has been discredited anyway.
Average height of a population isn’t the same thing as relative height between Sexes. If both are in the same environment, a gap would still remain.
Rushton felt the same way about racial r/K traits. When blacks, Caucasoids, and East Asians are living in the same environment, gaps in r/K behavior and anatomy still remain.
No, because they acknowledge changes through time, not a set selection of behavior that remain unchanged since the stone age.
Most of human history occurred in the stone age. It’s logical to think its genetic legacy is still with us.
What you fail to realize is that is work is both dated, skewed, and replaced in ecological science.
Biologists still routinely refer to fast and slow life histories, they merely dropped the r/K nomenclature because the hypothesized selection agents, not the continuum itself, have been discredited.
*all around, not “both”
“We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point too.”
Ignore the literature at you leisure
“You merely pointed out the fact that he didn’t talk about all aspects of the r/K literature. That’s actually to his credit, because the part he ignored has been discredited anyway.”
1. I have shown he was inconsistent with the concept he used as well, no use of repeating what’s above you in an article to read.
2. The Whole theory was discreditted by that point as well.
“Rushton felt the same way about racial r/K traits. When blacks, Caucasoids, and East Asians were living in the same environment, gaps in r/K behavior and anatomy still remained.”
Except that’s not how the condition in LH speed works if you reread my example, or of you read the quote from the German article below on how that worked in regards to carry capacity.
Also, Rushton’s misuse of the theory, one discredited itself, weakens the nature of these observed differences being as ancient as he describes.
“Most of human history occurred in the stone age. It’s logical to think its genetic legacy is still with us.”
It is not logical, however, to use something as mutable as ecological behaviors based on various factors around carrying capacity to support ancient behaviors persisting into present as well as ignoring other major influences such as geneflow and diffusion.
“Biologists still routinely refer to fast and slow life histories, they merely dropped the r/K nomenclature because the hypothesized selective agents, not the continuum itself, have been discredited.”
And that in of itself requires an actual reanalyses of observed differences in behavior and anatomy, understanding of how life history speed’s role in that, and conclusions on the PRESENT state of human populations.
Ignore the literature at you leisure
The literature you’ve cited is either irrelevant to Rushton because it concerns aspects of r/K Rushton avoided, or it’s just nitpicking (holding Rushton to a far higher standard of rigor than other scientists meet)
1. I have shown he was inconsistent with the concept he used as well, no use of repeating what’s above you in an article to read.
You have nothing to repeat because your argument lacks substance.
2. The Whole theory was discreditted by that point as well.
No, the selection agents, which Rushton wisely avoided discussing or has been accused of reversing, are what have been discredited, leaving Rushton’s work unscathed.
Except that’s not how the condition in LH speed works if you reread my example, or of you read the quote from the German article below on how that worked in regards to carry capacity.
I’m not talking about how LH work, I’m talking about genetic differences caused by different ancient ancestral LH strategies showing up in modern American phenotypes where Rushton mostly observed them.
Also, Rushton’s misuse of the theory,
Again, you’ve failed to show he misused anything. You’ve merely cited critics who condemned him for not having rigorous enough proof or by failing to mention selection agents which have been discredited anyway.
It is not logical, however, to use something as mutable as ecological behaviors based on various factors around carrying capacity to support ancient behaviors persisting into present as well as ignoring other major influences such as geneflow and diffusion.
Ecological behaviors are phenotypically very mutable, but this is true of almost all HBD constructs. That doesn’t mean they’re genetically too mutable to have persisted from ancient times.
And that in of itself requires an actual reanalyses of observed differences in behavior and anatomy,
The main thing about r/K that’s been discredited are the selection agents, not the continuum itself, so while new research is always encouraged, it’s not ipso facto a discrediting of Rushton.
and conclusions on the PRESENT state of human populations.
No, scientists are free to explore ancient explanations for human traits, not present evolution only. You realize human traits like bipedalism evolved millions of years ago, not last week right? And amazingly it’s still with us!
“Not experimentally proven != wrong”
Which leads top of it’s practical and experimental inconsistencies.
“You could dismiss any evolutionary theory by saying a particular trait was caused by genetic drift not selection. The strength of Rushton’s theory was he looked at dozens of different traits, making it unlikely that random drift could produce such a consistent pattern across so many different variables.”
The Full quote, I was just using the last sentence referring to it’s looseness.
“Bonner (1965) presented a similar set of correlational hypotheses, and that table is
reproduced in Rushton (1995) as evidence for the validity of r- and K-selection. The
comparison of vertebrate and invertebrate life history features in this way is meaningless. Differences between taxa as widely separated as these are undoubtedly due to a number of causes. In addition, the statistical validity is compromised by the fact that these species are not independent observations (Harvey and Pagel, 1991; Garland and Carter, 1994; Leroi et al., 1994). That is, they share common evolutionary histories, and hence their genetic architecture could result from either selection or genetic drift. It is therefore literally impossible to infer a particular adaptive hypothesis by the examination of patterns of life history data alone (Reznick, 1985). A correct approach requires the genetic analysis of different genotypes or populations within a species. This point has
been made both in theory and with experiments, as in Templeton and Johnson (1982);
Reznick (1985); Mueller (1988); Rose et al. (1990); Roff (1992); Stearns (1992); Lauder et al. (1993); Garland and Carter (1994); Orzack and Sober (1994); and Leroi et al. (1994).”
“Doesn’t explain racial differences in the same time and place.”
Define “same place”, because these differences also vary by SES which differs by race in distribution as well as demographic history in interactions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4324554/
Not experimentally proven != wrong”
Which leads top of it’s practical and experimental inconsistencies.
The main experimental inconsistency is that selection pressures hypothesized to cause K selection sometimes cause r selection. In other words, the very parts of the theory that Rushton has been condemned for ignoring or reversing (selection pressures) are the parts that have been discredited, thus vindicating Rushton.
“Bonner (1965) presented a similar set of correlational hypotheses, and that table is
reproduced in Rushton (1995) as evidence for the validity of r- and K-selection. The
comparison of vertebrate and invertebrate life history features in this way is meaningless. Differences between taxa as widely separated as these are undoubtedly due to a number of causes.
If it’s so meaningless, how does Graves explain the correlation between the phenotypes shown in the graph?
In addition, the statistical validity is compromised by the fact that these species are not independent observations (Harvey and Pagel, 1991; Garland and Carter, 1994; Leroi et al., 1994). That is, they share common evolutionary histories, and hence their genetic architecture could result from either selection or genetic drift.
First he says it’s invalid because they are too distantly related (widely separated taxa), and then in the next sentence he says it’s invalid because they’re too closely related (common evolutionary histories). And by this logic we can’t look for any evolutionary patterns because ALL LIFE ON EARTH shares a common evolutionary history. So should Rushton have gone to other planets for each of the organism in his graph so that none of them would have shared an evolutionary history?
I respect Graves but sadly I suspect ethnic genetic interests are causing him to grasp at straws. Notice how the two critics of Rushton you’ve cited (a female scientist and a black scientist) come from groups Rushton has offended (his work on gender and racial brain size differences), but I’m sure you think they’re being 100% objective and have no political motives. Of course in fairness, Rushton had his own political biases.
Define “same place”, because these differences also vary by SES which differs by race in distribution as well as demographic history in interactions.
You could say the same about almost any HBD theory, and yet you’re an HBDer. That’s completely hypocritical.
Gregory Cochran called EO Wilson “mathematically incompetent” for whatever it’s worth. Particularly after EO tried to develop his “gay uncle” hypothesis for homosexuality. So maybe we should disregard EO’s opinion on r/K theory.
Of course, Mugabe calls Cochran “Cockring” and thinks his opinion doesn’t matter…
“The main experimental inconsistency is that selection pressures hypothesized to cause K selection sometimes cause r selection. In other words, the very parts of the theory that Rushton has been condemned for ignoring or reversing (selection pressures) are the parts that have been discredited, thus vindicating Rushton.”
No, seeing how Rushton’s idea was based in stone age roots wi[th little data to suggest this, and the mutablitiy of LH speeds, and his use of ignoring and reversing to begin with (which was incorrect to begin with in ecology) does not vindicate Rushton.
“Bonner (1965) presented a similar set of correlational hypotheses, and that table is
reproduced in Rushton (1995) as evidence for the validity of r- and K-selection. The
comparison of vertebrate and invertebrate life history features in this way is meaningless. Differences between taxa as widely separated as these are undoubtedly due to a number of causes.
“If it’s so meaningless, how does Graves explain the correlation between the phenotypes shown in the graph?”
See below
“In addition, the statistical validity is compromised by the fact that these species are not independent observations (Harvey and Pagel, 1991; Garland and Carter, 1994; Leroi et al., 1994). That is, they share common evolutionary histories, and hence their genetic architecture could result from either selection or genetic drift.”
“First he says it’s invalid because they are too distantly related (widely separated taxa), and then in the next sentence he says it’s invalid because they’re too closely related (common evolutionary histories). And by this logic we can’t look for any evolutionary patterns because ALL LIFE ON EARTH shares a common evolutionary history. So should Rushton have gone to other planets for each of the organism in his graph so that none of them would have shared an evolutionary history? I respect Graves but sadly I suspect ethnic genetic interests are causing him to grasp at straws. Notice how the two critics of Rushton you’ve cited (a female scientist and a black scientist) come from groups Rushton has offended (his work on gender and racial brain size differences), but I’m sure you think they’re being 100% objective and have no political motives. Of course in fairness, Rushton had his own political biases.”
Graves obviously mean that the the “different Taxa” were vertebrates and invertebrates. His comment on similar evolutionary histories, he was referring to the members within those respective groups. He’s saying that the differences Bonner made were unlikely caused by life history differences alone.
You’re reaching with your EGI bullshit.
“You could say the same about almost any HBD theory, and yet you’re an HBDer. That’s completely hypocritical.”
And who’s said that just because I believe in a genetic component for racial differences that I don’t also believe in complex environmental interactions? And who says I find all HBd theories credible?
You are in no place to call me a hypocrite when you don’t even know my standards.
“The literature you’ve cited is either irrelevant to Rushton because it concerns aspects of r/K Rushton avoided, or it’s just nitpicking (holding Rushton to a far higher standard of rigor than other scientists meet).”
So actually using a theory correctly, comprehensively, and in consideration of the confounds that would effect in the context of humans and their environments like gene flow or diffusion is putting him to a “high standard”?
Not to mention the work he used was well debunked by his time.
1. I have shown he was inconsistent with the concept he used as well, no use of repeating what’s above you in an article to read.
“You have nothing to repeat because your argument lacks substance.”
And I have retorted multiple times when you basically repeated that claim.
“No, the selection agents, which Rushton wisely avoided discussing or has been accused of reversing, are what have been discredited, leaving Rushton’s work unscathed.”
Rushton’s work was a Hypothesis that relied on R/K selection and pressures to explain an observation, with all that work torn apart at it;s foundation (R/K) all you have is an observation.
Rushton is not vindicated, especially in the sense of these behaviors being ancient legacies specifically given the nature of these types of behaviors understood in modern ecology.
“I’m not talking about how LH work, I’m talking about genetic differences caused by different ancient ancestral LH strategies showing up in modern American phenotypes where Rushton mostly observed them.”
You see, that’s the reason why Rushton isn’t supported as I said, his theory and how we currently understand LH continuum doesn’t prove that these differences are longitudinal. You need to now how LH works to actual make conclusion on LH
I provided a graph that shows this in the respect to population growth.
“Also, Rushton’s misuse of the theory,
Again, you’ve failed to show he misused anything. You’ve merely cited critics who condemned him for not having rigorous enough proof or by failing to mention selection agents which have been discredited anyway.”
Again, see the article above on how he misused what pressure caused what and his exclusion of details, those of which would need to be consider to use them correctly so despite you saying that’s trivial its not.
“Ecological behaviors are phenotypically very mutable, but this is true of almost all HBD constructs. That doesn’t mean they’re genetically too mutable to have persisted from ancient times.”
And even if they’re genetic that doesn’t mean that they have persisted as such since ancient times. that would require much more data which Rushton lacked, but data iI’ve shown casting doubt on that, see Wade as well.
“In Africa, population numbers were higher than in Australia, agriculture was quickly adopted and settled societies developed. From these gradually emerged more complex societies, including primitive states. But because of low population density, these primitive states did not enter the phase of political rivalry and sustained warfare from which empires emerged in Mesopotamia, the Yellow
River valley and, much later, in the Andean highlands. The population of Africa in 1500 was only 46 million. The soil being mostly poor, there were few agricultural surpluses and so no incentive to develop property rights. For lack of the wheel and navigable rivers, transport within Africa was difficult and trade was small scale. For lack of demographic pressure, African societies had little incentive to develop the skills that trade stimulates, to accumulate capital, to develop occupational
specialties or to generate modern societies. The phase of state and empire building had only just begun when it was cut short by European colonization.”
“The main ting about r/K that’s been discredited are the selection agents, not the continuum itself, so while new research is always encouraged, it’s not ipso facto a discrediting of Rushton.”
Given his reliance on debunked and misinterpreted Literature, it does discredits him.
“No, scientists are free to explore ancient explanations for human traits, not present evolution only. You realize human traits like bipedalism evolved millions of years ago, not last week right? And amazingly it’s still with us!”
My full quote.
“And that in of itself requires an actual reanalyses of observed differences in behavior and anatomy, understanding of how life history speed’s role in that, and conclusions on the PRESENT state of human populations.”
I used “present state” as to what scientist, like Rushton, are trying to explain. the rest was the criteria on how to do so.
Never gave constraints on what conclusion they can come to, but the literature I do provides show discontinuity in growth rate, population density, etc.
So actually using a theory correctly, comprehensively, and in consideration of the confounds that would effect in the context of humans and their environments like gene flow or diffusion is putting him to a “high standard”?
You haven’t demonstrated anything incorrect about how Rushton used the theory, and there are confounds in all HBD theories and yet you’re an HBDer.
Not to mention the work he used was well debunked by his time.
No the selection agents he was criticised for not mentioning were debunked. The actual r/K continuum has never been debunked.
1. I have shown he was inconsistent with the concept he used as well, no use of repeating what’s above you in an article to read.
No you didn’t
Rushton’s work was a Hypothesis that relied on R/K selection and pressures to explain an observation, with all that work torn apart at it;s foundation (R/K) all you have is an observation.
It’s not just an observation but a massive inference (60 different variables related to r/K follow the same racial pattern). It doesn’t matter if the density dependent/independent selection pressures were debunked because Rushton never invoked those. It merely means someone is going to have to come along and propose new selection pressures to explain r/K.
You see, that’s the reason why Rushton isn’t supported as I said, his theory and how we currently understand LH continuum doesn’t prove that these differences are longitudinal. You need to now how LH works to actual make conclusion on LH
Any complex genetic differences between races that took tens of thousands of years to evolve, are not likely to have un-evolved in recent times unless there’s been massive selection in the opposite direction
So maybe we should disregard EO’s opinion on r/K theory.
Well, there is something more obvious. Wilson’s theory was in the final stage of its agony when Rushton revived it to falsely apply it to human races. So Wilson went like “Hey guys, my theory is not dead! Some psychologist says it applies to human races, he’s a bit racist but no big deal, he’s a good guy and you wouldn’t say shit if he talked about dogs and cats”. Obviously, neither Wilson or anyone else ever explained exactly why Rushton did not misapply the theory. And the theory sank in spite of all those “prestigious” endorsements.., Sad story.
“You haven’t demonstrated anything incorrect about how Rushton used the theory, and there are confounds in all HBD theories and yet you’re an HBDer.”
1. Yes I have, and repeating that I haven’t doesn’t change anything.
2. Again, believing in a genetic component to racial differences mean what exactly in regards to how whether or not a HBD theory is shown to be faulty? That I should accept it without review?
And exactly what theories do you assume I even believe or how strongly I believe in them?
“No the selection agents he was criticised for not mentioning were debunked. The actual r/K continuum has never been debunked.”
Density dependency, which he didn’t use, wasn’t debunked but rather under mined by other factor in Life History. That is also the fundamental principle of r/k seldction, not considering that weakens his Hypothesis’ grounding on the theory.
“No you didn’t”
From article- “Africans, furthermore, have been in roughly the same environment since the OoA migration occurred (the Ice Age ‘ended’ about 11,700 ya, although we are still in an Ice Age since the planets caps still have ice), and so any assumptions about it being ‘harder’ for the ancestors of Eurasians to survive and pass on their genes is a baseless assumption. Tropical environments that provide more evolutionary challenges than temperate and cold lands whereas the migration that occurred Out of Africa introduced humans to novel environments. As described above, endemic disease is an agent of K-selection whereas migration to novel environments are agents of r-selection. Thus, cold temperatures would be an agent of r-selection, not K-selection as is commonly believed, whereas endemic disease would be an agent of K-selection.”
Perhaps uncomprehensive would be a better word for his logic.
“It’s not just an observation but a massive inference (60 different variables related to r/K follow the same racial pattern). ”
Variables that haven’t been experimental demonstrated as mentioned earlier. And functionally yes, those are still observations.
“It doesn’t matter if the density dependent/independent selection pressures were debunked because Rushton never invoked those. It merely means someone is going to have to come along and propose new selection pressures to explain r/K.”
It means Rushton’s logic and association of traits have even less meaning in his hypothesis in terms of how ancient they were in context to their environments if he didn’t assign them correctly and didn’t even use the actual factors relevant to the determination process.
“Any complex genetic differences between races that took tens of thousands of years to evolve, are not likely to have un-evolved in recent times unless there’s been massive selection in the opposite direction.”
They would be expected to change if gene flow, diffusion, and environmental change that also occurred in the last thousands of years that could change a trait of a previous era.
1. Yes I have, and repeating that I haven’t doesn’t change anything.
No you haven’t and repeating that you have doesn’t change anything.
And exactly what theories do you assume I even believe
I was under the impression you’re an HBDer & thus believed some HBD theories. The specific ones don’t matter, as they’re all vulnerable to the same criticisms you’ve made against Rushton’s.
That is also the fundamental principle of r/k seldction, not considering that weakens his Hypothesis’ grounding on the theory.
From article- “Africans, furthermore, have been in roughly the same environment since the OoA migration occurred (the Ice Age ‘ended’ about 11,700 ya, although we are still in an Ice Age since the planets caps still have ice), and so any assumptions about it being ‘harder’ for the ancestors of Eurasians to survive and pass on their genes is a baseless assumption.
non sequitur
Tropical environments that provide more evolutionary challenges than temperate and cold lands whereas the migration that occurred Out of Africa introduced humans to novel environments. As described above, endemic disease is an agent of K-selection whereas migration to novel environments are agents of r-selection.
The argument that endemic disease is K selecting is pretty weak, as others have noted. The argument that novel environments are r-selecting is weak too. When primates left the trees and evolved into humans, we entered the novel environment of the open savannah, and yet we became more K. Novel enviroments in higher organisms select for intelligence because you have to learn new things, which is a K trait, as I’ve explained before.
Variables that haven’t been experimental demonstrated as mentioned earlier. And functionally yes, those are still observations.
Most evolutionary hypotheses are not experimentally demonstrated. That’s not the standard.
It means Rushton’s logic and association of traits have even less meaning in his hypothesis in terms of how ancient they were in context to their environments if he didn’t assign them correctly and didn’t even use the actual factors relevant to the determination process.
He assigned the traits based on what was listed in the r/K literature and the factors he listed in determining how K a population was 1) when it emerged from the evolutionary tree, and 2) ice age selection for brain size, which causes a whole syndrome of K traits.
They would be expected to change if gene flow, diffusion, and environmental change that also occurred in the last thousands of years that could change a trait of a previous era.
The phenotype of the macro-races is ancient so it makes more sense to look at ancient factors.
“No you haven’t and repeating that you have doesn’t change anything.”
Ignoring the core principle of density dependency while applying R/K IS incorrect in of itself.
“I was under the impression you’re an HBDer. The specific ones don’t matter, as they’re all vulnerable to the same criticisms you’ve made against Rushton’s.”
Again that brought me to my next question I made after tht, how strongly do I believe in them? If They are shown to be debunked by coherent logic, then I won’t hold on to them.
“non sequitur”
I gave an example of how applying R/K closer to how it was originally used would provide a different conclusion of Rushton, with me clarifying the example.
It follows clearly.
“The argument that endemic disease is K selecting is pretty weak, as others have noted. The argument that novel environments are r-selecting is even weaker. When primates left the trees and evolved into humans, we entered the novel environment of the open savannah, and yet we became more K. Novel enviroments in higher organisms select for intelligence because you have to learn new things, which is a K trait, as I’ve explained before.”
1. Intelligence was never define originally as a K trait, the article cites how it could appear in either R or K, and this is an example of how you clearly don;t understand R/K selection due to your lack of understanding of density dependency, the actual factor that WASN”T debunked from the original Theory.
2. They became more K as a end result due to adapting the the carrying capacity, originally (by the logic of modern ecologists) they would’ve corresponded to a faster life history.
“Most evolutionary theories are not experimentally demonstrated. That’s not the standard.”
Yes it is, like domesticated animals being clearly observed to have more neotony (an actual experiment was done on foxes). Or, alternative, is justified by physcial evidence.
That was lacking in the original theory. Contradictory evidence between selection and traits have been however provided.
“In an excellent study of the impact of K-selection on the frequency of a specific allele (abnormal abdomen in Drosophila mercatorum), Templeton and Johnson (1982) showed that K-selected conditions (drought) actually increased the frequency of the abnormal abdomen allele. The abnormal abdomen allele was pleiotropically (one gene that impacts several characters) related to phenotypes that, from the classic definition, were r-selected. Hence, selection for K-conditions resulted in phenotypic correlations with r-predicted life history features. Pleiotropy thus makes it a necessity that you understand the genetic basis of the traits under selection before predicting the types of life histories that will evolve under certain ecological conditions. It is precisely our grasp of the genetic basis of human
life history that is missing, indicating that Rushton’s program is hopelessly untestable, as it is currently formulated.”
“He assigned the traits based on what was listed in the r/K literature and the factors he listed in determining how K a population was 1) when it emerged from the evolutionary tree, and 2) ice age selection for brain size, which causes a whole syndrome of K traits.”
And if you read my quote from the article it shows how much though he didn’t consider if he had used the theory correctly in determining R versus K selection in ancestral pasts.
If he was simply talking about natural selection on brain size at higher elevation in the stone age that’s one thing, tying it to R/K selection without full understanding how selection determines those traits and understand the actual pressures of those regions is another.
He may have reasoning for larger brains at elevation, but rooting it in stagnant natures based on ecological principles that is actually quite mutuable to resource and population conditions is faulty.
“The phenotype of the macro-races is ancient so it makes more sense to look at ancient factors.”
Okay, this is a non-sequitor. I never said ancient selection was unimportant, what i’m saying is using this paradigm shouldn’t ignore the factors in between 20,000 b.c to 2000 A.D as much as happen since then that could influence the very behaviors he claims to be influenced by ecological pressures.
Ignoring the core principle of density dependency while applying R/K IS incorrect in of itself.
Ignoring a core principal is not a misapplication. A misapplication would be claiming density independent selection is an agent for K when the reverse were true but that’s not what Rushton did. You can’t misapply something you don’t mention. At best you could claim Rushton’s application was not very sophisticated, but that’s different from Rushton being wrong or misunderstanding.
1. Intelligence was never define originally as a K trait,
But parental care was and everyone knows bigger brained animals provide more parental care and most of the K selected animals (primates, elephants) have bigger brains than most of the r selected ones (snakes, fish). I shouldn’t have to waste time explaining things that are common sense.
the article cites how it could appear in either R or K,
Anything could appear in r or K, but generally speaking big brains are K.
and this is an example of how you clearly don;t understand R/K selection due to your lack of understanding of density dependency
No it’s an example of you not understanding that you can’t claim Rushton misapplied a concept he didn’t apply at all.
Yes it is, like domesticated animals being clearly observed to have more neotony (an actual experiment was done on foxes). Or, alternative, is justified by physcial evidence.
r and K is simply a description. r organisms are those that invest more in reproduction and thus have better reproductive traits. K organisms are those that invest in parenting and thus have better parenting traits. You’re assuming the theory has a level of scientific rigour that it doesn’t actually have, and indeed one of the reasons it’s lost popularity is scientists struggled to test it.
It is precisely our grasp of the genetic basis of human life history that is missing, indicating that Rushton’s program is hopelessly untestable, as it is currently formulated.
Untestable != discredited. But it’s a valid criticism of Rushton that he didn’t put forward many testable hypotheses
If he was simply talking about natural selection on brain size at higher elevation in the stone age that’s one thing, tying it to R/K selection without full understanding how selection determines those traits and understand the actual pressures of those regions is another.
Selection for brain size is enough given that bigger brains trigger a cascade of K traits like slower life cycle, fewer offspring, more parental care, slower maturation, higher survival rates etc. By describing how brain size was selected, he was describing K selection by proxy and on top of that he showed that bigger brained races indeed had more of these classical K traits.
I never said ancient selection was unimportant, what i’m saying is using this paradigm shouldn’t ignore the factors in between 20,000 b.c to 2000 A.D as much as happen since then that could influence the very behaviors he claims to be influenced by ecological pressures.
If recent selection was so strong it would have produced new races, not the ancient macro-races Rushton describes
I’m sure you have lots of great rebuttals but we’ve discussed this to death, so this going to have to be the last word.
just to prove that, unlike afro, my ass is a vaccum out of which nothing can be pulled…
Humans are the only known natural reservoir for subspecies pallidum.[14] It is unable to survive more than a few days without a host. This is due to its small genome (1.14 Mbp) failing to encode the metabolic pathways necessary to make most of its macronutrients. It has a slow doubling time of greater than 30 hours.
that is, the host/carrying organism for syphilis is…humans.
to be fair to sambo it appears that biologists aren’t mathematicians.
they don’t define their terms precisely.
so K-selected might mean something different for afro.
idk.
as afro has alluded to…
r may just refer to any “non-equilibrium” selection regime.
K…”equilibrium”…
Wow, you’re starting to understand…
and you’re still not understanding.
“r/K” is polysemous.
flushton used it for street cred.
what he meant by r/K is the issue.
not what he should have meant.
The post is confronting Rushton’s r/K to the actual ecological science r/K.
It’s not polysemous since one of the two senses makes no sense.
flushton was trying to gain street cred, like all social “scientists”. but he used r/K in his own sense.
it is true as afro says that if r/K means equilibirum vs not, then…
the more recent the savagery of a people the more they have been K-selected. civilization has had wider swings in population than savagery has had…
i think.
flushton was trying to gain street cred, like all social “scientists”. but he used r/K in his own sense.
No he wasn’t using it in his own sense. E.O. Wilson, one of the co-authors of the original r/K theory praised Rushton’s theory as logically sound solid evolutionary reasoning so Rushton used it exactly as the co-father of the concept intended. The critics attacked Rushton because Rushton equated the tropics with r and cold climates with K, when historically biologists believed the opposite, citing mass winter kills of fish and sparrow. But what Rushton’s critics failed to grasp is that for humans, survival in the cold is much more correlated with the genotype than it is in animals that lack our behavioral plasticity.
K just referred to carrying capacity and r referred to maximal intrinsic rate of natural increase.
i’d like to see that.
but E O was from my mom’s neck of the woods.
ALABAMA.
how did he ever get that harvard professorship?
how did he ever get that harvard professorship?
By being so brilliant they had to forgive his prole roots.
so Rushton used it exactly as the co-father of the concept intended
does NOT follow!
The co-father of r/K thought Rushton’s theory (the application of r/K to race differences) was “solid evolutionary reasoning” and “logically sound”
peepee…
peepee!
there are lots of non-ptoles from alabama, BUT…
there is still a prejudice outside the south that all southerners are hicks who marry their cousins and fuck ned beatty in the ass.
i still expect ant-man to be more sympathetic to kevin macdonald and ilk…
because he’s from alabama.
have you read assange’s statement. only an aussie could say such…and be heard.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1spvqcj
So you are appealing to the cofather of an paradigm that was latter replaced by other selection factors?
Just defending Rushton against the claim that he misapplied r/K theory. Who knows the theory better than the men who created it? It’s their theory.
That comment alone doesn’t mean that he gave a detailed analysis of predictions and interpretation of R/K selection as other experts did when reviewing Rushton’s application.
Unless there was more to that comment than just his opinion, then it’s merely appealing to authority blindly, especially since the terminology was loosely used without consensus despite it’s common occurrence in 1970s biology.
That comment alone doesn’t mean that he gave a detailed analysis of predictions and interpretation of R/K selection as other experts did when reviewing Rushton’s application.
What other experts? The only experts are the co-authors of the theory and yes, he would have taken a detailed look at Rushton’s theory before putting his enormous credibility on the line endorsing the most important application of his work.
Unless there was more to that comment than just his opinion,
And what do you think all the criticism of Rushton is? Opinion, except by people not qualified to opine.
“What other experts? The only experts are the co-authors of the theory and yes, he would have taken a detailed look at Rushton’s theory before putting his enormous credibility on the line endorsing the most important application of his work.”
Experts being one knowledgeable of ecology, the ones who actually reviewed the theory and explain how it was misused as highlighted in this article (Anderson).
“And what do you think all the criticism of Rushton is? Opinion, except by people not qualified to opine.”
Again, see Anderson
Experts being one knowledgeable of ecology, the ones who actually reviewed the theory and explain how it was misused as highlighted in this article (Anderson).
I’m sure Judith Anderson is a nice lady but what has she accomplished in the field to warrant the title “expert”? Does she even have a Wikipedia page?
Her profile here.
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/citbc/abopeer-prof.html
Her work
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4600228
https://books.google.com/books?id=DmrSktMknggC&pg=PP5&lpg=PP5&dq=Judith+L+Anderson+reproduction&source=bl&ots=j_V48PYVfF&sig=BkYaPl937eyjlw62IyjsAXlx6Ag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4po_Lvt_UAhUH02MKHYJpBGUQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=Judith%20L%20Anderson%20reproduction&f=false
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02734054
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ401858
http://www.ehbonline.org/article/0162-3095(92)90033-Z/abstract
http://www.monitor2manage.com.au/userdata/downloads/p_/Anderson%20Conservation%20Ecology_%20Embracing%20uncertainty_%20The%20interface%20of%20Bayesian%20statistics%20and%20cognitive%20psychology..pdf
Sounds like just your average science professor. If she were famous enough to have a biography, it would be called:
Judith Anderson and other short stories.
Except that the city dwelling population was always a negligible fraction a civilization’s total population before industrial era.
yes!
that’s right.
i just hate to drone on and on…in one comment.
short and sweet or no one will read it!
you’re right!
at the same time overall population density made the black death possible in europe and im-possible in africa.
why such hostility afro?
i’m claiming (for the nonce) that over the last 6k years europeans, s asians, MENAs, and china people have been…
MORE r-selected than…
black africans inter alia.
No hostility.
I don’t even care who is r- and who is K- I’m just describing a theory and how it would apply to humans if it was valid and applicable to humans.
The terminology of r/K-selection was coined by the ecologists Robert MacArthur and E. O. Wilson in 1970[1] based on their work on island biogeography…
what do you say afro?
I say the theory was subsequently upgraded and after all attempts to make it fit universal patterns, it was abandoned.
as a black woman i find afro extremely offensive.
he should be banned for his insensitivity.
if my prose is un-recognizable, my handle always is.
it’s always the most “creative”.
The Ghost World of Liberals and Conservatives
neuropolitics.org
Your Brain Looks and Works Differently if You’re a Conservative
Human population density was not high until just recently. The ability to survive in high-density areas began when civilization arose. In that domain, aquasition of money became the best survival trait. Construction work was a way to acquire money. People that feel into education roles reproduce less but instructed their kids how to navigate city life. The educated were more likely to know other people who were educated. Corporations in the 1600’s began with these people. Laborers almost always had work. Especially since early corporations needed labor.
afro is also right that r/K was used originally for species not races, and humans are as K-selected a species as there is irrespective of race.
so r vs K within the species homo is like the foam atop a “rogue” wave.
Yes, and as I said above, we are only slightly more K-selected than Chimps. Much less than Elephants.
Much less than Elephants.
false. no species has a long an infancy as man, and only bowhead whales live longer among all mammals.
as a black woman i find afro’s ignorance extremely offensive. he makes all black women look stupid.
elephants also live in s and se asia afro. and their ice age counterparts lived in n america and siberia.
Don’t be offended darling…
The baby stage lasts from birth until the elephant has been weaned off its mother’s milk completely. This can be anywhere between 5 and 10 years of age. Being weaned means that the calf no longer drinks milk from its mother, but is able to live only on solid vegetation. For the first 3 to 5 years, most elephant calves are totally dependant on their mothers for their nutrition, hygiene, migration and health. This period is used to teach the young one all they will need to know about the herd and their environment in order to be able to survive alone. These lessons include the proper use of their trunk for feeding, drinking and bathing. The calf is born after a gestation period of almost 2 years (22 months). The first calves of the season are born about 2 months before the first rains, meaning that vegetation is soft and lush when they start to feed on it.
The adolescent stage extends from the time that the elephant has been weaned (5 to 10 years of age) until about 17 years old. It is during this stage that the elephants reach sexual maturity. This generally occurs anywhere between 8 and 13 years of age. They do not usually begin to mate at this adolescent stage. Adolescence is the time in which young elephants begin to break away from the main herd. Young bulls, in particular, tend to form smaller pods of peers, known as ‘bachelor pods’. Females are more likely to stick to the main matriarchal herd.
Adulthood starts at about 18 years of age, and the elephant has an average life expectancy of 70 years. Although sexually mature in their early teens, elephants generally only start to mate at about 20 years and stop bearing calves at about 50. Like humans, elephant cows experience something similar to menopause. Many of the age-related illnesses also bear strong resemblances to those of humans, including cardiovascular diseases and arthritis. During adulthood, many of the bulls tend to wonder from the main herd in search of new cows with whom to mate. The female elephants will remain with the matriarchal pod, sticking together and assisting one another with nursing and caring for calves.
http://www.elephantsforever.co.za/life-cycle.html
Elephants have the longest gestation period of all mammals, carrying their young for nearly two years before giving birth. Long developmental periods are common among highly intelligent animals. Since elephants are the largest living and biggest-brained land animal in the world, there’s a lot of developing for elephants to do in the womb.
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/12-animals-with-the-longest-gestation-period/elephants
false. no species has as long an infancy as man, and man is the second longest lived mammal behind only the bowhead whale.
now afro-tard is admitting that agriculture is r-selecting. so is slavery.
what a pathetic negress.
on top of this the archeological evidence is that farming reduced height and life expectancy. lowere life expectancy = r-selected. yet it produced more people.
German sociobiologist Eckart Voland thinks that the concept of r/K is valid, even when it comes to different human populations.
Also see this paper:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ajf/pdf/Ellis,%20Figueredo,%20Brumbach,%20&%20Schlomer%202009.pdf
“When high levels of extrinsic morbidity-mortality either increase total mortality
or disproportionately influence adult mortality, natural selection favors faster LH
strategies. However, in species in which juveniles, but not adults, suffer relatively
high levels of morbidity-mortality, the selection pressures change. In this context, the
evolution of LH strategies depends on the sensitivity of juvenile disability and death
to the resource-allocation decisions of parents and offspring. If incremental changes
in parental investment/offspring quality significantly reduce juvenile morbidity mortality,
then natural selection should favor slower LH strategies. But under
conditions in which juvenile disability and death are relatively insensitive to such
changes in parental investment/offspring quality, and refuge is obtained by achieving
adult size or status, natural selection tends to favor rapid juvenile growth and
development.”
okay, this awful prose aside: Ice=slow, tropic=fast.
Rushton makes sense to me, albeit in a very simplistic way, and a lot more when applied to humans. This article by “afrosapiens”/”racerealist” is mostly gibber-ish, hidden behind “academic style”.
“German sociobiologist Eckart Voland thinks that the concept of r/K is valid, even when it comes to different human populations.”
Read it for you.
“There is no firm support, however, for Pianka’s (1970) application of r-K
selection theory to the evolution of LH strategies (e.g., Promislow and Harvey 1990;
Reznick et al. 2002; Roff 2002). Nonetheless, some animals do show characteristics
of hypothetical r selection and are now generally referred to as displaying a fast LH
strategy, whereas other animals show characteristics of hypothetical K selection and
are now generally referred to as displaying a slow LH strategy. The criticism of
Pianka’s (1970) model is not that density-dependent selection is irrelevant to LH
variation, but rather that other selective pressures, such as age-specificity of
mortality and environmental variability, play a more fundamental role in structuring
the evolution of LH strategies. Consequently, the primary importance ascribed to
density-dependence effects has waned over time.”
Basically agreeing with the Article above with their citation of Reznick of Life History Theory replacing R/K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
Nowhere does the article disagree with the observations, but Rushton’s application of R/K to explain them.
The criticism of Pianka’s (1970) model is not that density-dependent selection is irrelevant to LH variation, but rather that other selective pressures, such as age-specificity of
mortality and environmental variability, play a more fundamental role in structuring the evolution of LH strategies.
But this is not a criticism of Rushton because he never mentioned density-dependent vs density-independent.
I’m not talking about criticism of Rushton, but validity of R/K applied to Humans and animals in general.
Phil78 do you reject r/K completely or just some of the specific details? Do you deny that there’s an evolutionary tradeoff between offspring quantity & offspring quality? Though defining quality is tricky.
Also PP,
That IS the theory Rushton mentioned, he just misapplied it.
That IS the theory Rushton mentioned, he just misapplied it.
What specifically about the theory did he misapply? Just give me one brief precise example.
See the article.
See the article.
The article talks about tropics being more K selecting but Rushton rebutted that point in the very quote you cited. It can be argued from both sides.
Rushton made sense? His simple model didn’t make sense because biological systems interacting almost equally complex environments aren’t ‘simple’.
We stayed that r/K was replaced. Try reading the citations provided, which I see no one who has commented has done so.
“Rushton makes sense to me, albeit in a very simplistic way, and a lot more when applied to humans. This article by “afrosapiens”/”racerealist” is mostly gibber-ish, hidden behind “academic style”.”
Gibberish. You see those 6 points at the end of the article? Choose one and lets discuss it.
Let’s discuss testosterone. Since I falsified Lynn’s—and by proxy Rushton’s—claims on gonadotropin levels and testosterone, that falsifies the theory since it largely rests on the supposed 19 percent higher testosterone that blacks have in comparison to whites. If you’re feeling froggy there, then leap. Because the falsification of that claim discredits the whole theory, and no one seems to want to discuss the garbage study Ross et al 1986. Wonder why…
I’m certain that you don’t understand a single word of the paper you quoted.
However, in species in which juveniles, but not adults, suffer relatively
high levels of morbidity-mortality, the selection pressures change. In this context, the
evolution of LH strategies depends on the sensitivity of juvenile disability and death
to the resource-allocation decisions of parents and offspring.
That’s what characterizes humans and tropical populations even more since endemic disease kills children much more than adults and is higher in the tropics.
But under
conditions in which juvenile disability and death are relatively insensitive to such
changes in parental investment/offspring quality, and refuge is obtained by achieving
adult size or status, natural selection tends to favor rapid juvenile growth and
development.
Tropical populations need to shield kids from disease, mosquitoes, predators, extreme heat… And so on. And parental investment does have an effect on it.
okay, this awful prose aside: Ice=slow, tropic=fast.
No.
Rushton makes sense to me
Kewl
This article by “afrosapiens”/”racerealist” is mostly gibber-ish, hidden behind “academic style”
Thank you, but the appropriate phrasing is “I don’t know the notions that this article deals with and I make no effort to understand better, because Rushton’s model is so simple and it aligns so much with my opinions so I won’t try to educate myself”.
Notice that nothing in the post is a speculation of mine or RR’s we basically just reflected the thoughts of Rushton’s reviewers who contrary to him are specialist ecologists.
Rushton’s model fits human reality. It’s simplistic (sub-races not included and so on, testosterone is lifestyle-dependant…) and is based on a lot of conjecture, but it’s still one of the better attempts to correlate human nature with behavioral biology (PUA, “human alpha male”, and so on is mostly garbage). Humans are not fruit flies, so applying simple animal ecology does not really work most of the time, since the human mind is way more complex. Humans might have simply switched to a certain behavior to face the environment, but not according to some rule but rather coincidence or something we don’t know. I know, most of you think that “biology” explains everything in the world, this may or not be true, but coming from our knowledge right now it doesn’t work. We can only describe, hardly explain.
Rushton’s model fits human reality.
Which reality?
It’s simplistic (sub-races not included and so on, testosterone is lifestyle-dependant…) [blah, blah, blah] but coming from our knowledge right now it doesn’t work.
The fact that you take me for a biologic determinist is proof that you don’t understand what we’re talking about. Come back when things are clearer in your head.
We can only describe, hardly explain.
Tell, Rushton. Well… it’s to late, I know.
“Rushton’s model fits human reality. It’s simplistic (sub-races not included and so on, testosterone is lifestyle-dependant…) and is based on a lot of conjecture, but it’s still one of the better attempts to correlate human nature with behavioral biology (PUA, “human alpha male”, and so on is mostly garbage).”
Which your articles replaces to explain the same observation, but with altered/new explanations.
“Humans are not fruit flies, so applying simple animal ecology does not really work most of the time, since the human mind is way more complex. Humans might have simply switched to a certain behavior to face the environment, but not according to some rule but rather coincidence or something we don’t know.”
But that’s exactly how Rushton was arguing, mislabeling what is R or K in animals to being R and K in Humans.
“I know, most of you think that “biology” explains everything in the world, this may or not be true, but coming from our knowledge right now it doesn’t work. We can only describe, hardly explain.”
Rushton’s entire position as a evolutionary scientist is enforcing the idea that, perhaps not all qualities, but near most of the fundamental ones in humans are based on a inconsistently explained theory of ecological populations.
By the way, does your “reality” acknowledges that?
Psychometrics and Life History Strategy: The Structure and Validity of the High K Strategy Scale
In this paper, we critically review the conceptualization and implementation of psychological measures of life history strategy associated with Differential K theory. The High K Strategy Scale (HKSS: Giosan, 2006) was distributed to a large British sample (n = 809) with the aim of assessing its factor structure and construct validity in relation to theoretically relevant life history variables: age of puberty, age of first sexual encounter, and number of sexual partners. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the HKSS in its current form did not show an adequate statistical fit to the data. Modifications to improve fit indicated four correlated factors (personal capital, environmental stability, environmental security, and social capital). Later puberty in women was positively associated with measures of the environment and personal capital. Among men, contrary to Differential K predictions but in line with female mate preferences, earlier sexual debut and more sexual partners were positively associated with more favorable environments and higher personal and social capital. We raise concerns about the use of psychometric indicators of lifestyle and personality as proxies for life history strategy when they have not been validated against objective measures derived from contemporary life history theory and when their status as causes, mediators, or correlates has not been investigated.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491401200115
another example of a market dominant minority.
my local convenience store is owned by lebanese trinidadians. they speak in a caribbean accent.
there are about 5,000 lebanese in t&t. they’re all christians.
according to the most recent Parts Unknown they are the power elite in t&t. but according the convenience store family everyone assumes lebanese trinidadians are rich, but there are plenty of poor. i was told this when i axed her about the redlegs. she’d never heard of them.
this despite t&t being 35% indian (where naipaul is from) and only 34% black. although douglas like nicki minaj would be considered black in the US.
t&t is like barbados, bahamas, and bermuda, a fairly rich caribbean island state. the difference is it’s much less black and barbados, bahamas, and bermuda have lots of europeans. t&t’s european and chinese population are very small, though larger than the lebanese population. i’d like to see figures.
how much do you get for posting this stuff from your homeland of haiti afro?
”But parental care was and everyone knows bigger brained animals provide more parental care”
This is related to the speed with which the brain understands and interacts with reality. The larger the brain, at priore, the greater the number of connections, the greater the amount of ” per capita ” information that needs to work. This makes the lifestyle slower. A slower, more dense brain in the internalization and working with environmental information will tend to act this way always, even and especially during the period when it takes care of the children, almost by osmosis.
PP,
What do you think of the percentage of twins by race *
Africans have the highest percentage, the East Asian to the lowest.
Extreme R species seems have always multiple sons per pregnancy.
It is important to analyze total fertility / and infant mortality before the demographic transition, to compare between breeds/races. I have the impression that the Inuits as well as the populations of cold areas are those that have the least total number of children among pre-civilization human populations. Climate can be a very important factor in explaining a greater tendency among them to have fewer children comparatively speaking, with other hunter-gatherers groups.
Human self-domestication may play a role in explaining why the avg-smaller East Asian stature [though this may be a feature of the founding effect of the pan-Mongolian trunk] as well as a smaller proportion of good-looking among them- Sexual selection].
It seems that there are three types of selection
Natural
sexual
Anthropomorphic
Natural: the natural environment selects you
Sexual: you select your partner based on your physical / sexual appearance
Anthropomorphic: the human environment selects you
Civilization is a new, anthropomorphic environment, and tends to select people based on their artificial requirements, namely ”intelligence TO adapt in this environment”.
Hunter-gatherers: natural selection
Periods of social / evolutionary transition or ” evolutionary transitions ”
African blacks would be in the transition phase between natural selection and sexual selection, the first process of sophistication of selective processes.
Caucasian whites would be in the transition phase between sexual selection and anthropomorphic selection [select the most nerdy types]
The East Asians would be in the “final” evolutionary or anthropomorphic transition phase, emphasizing the selection of traits that are in accordance with the human environment.
The Jews would also be more anthropomorphic [jews share many traits with east asians, cultural, behavioral and physical traits].
Perhaps one of the characteristics that make the human being more adaptable is because it is able to regulate the number of children, or strategy, without being forced / selected by the environment.
The East Asian minimalist features plus better health, seems to make them excellent to adapt to any environment.
Social Darwinism in East Asian countries has however avoided a complete process of anthropomorphism, which has happened in the West with the increase of mutants caused by relaxation of selection.
It is also important to note that ‘K’ and ” R ” strategies distribute irregularly between social classes, as well as ” evolutionary transitions ”, so that the richer classes tend to be more K-oriented Than the poorer classes and the ” poor ” of human civilizations are nothing more than the old hunter-gatherers who did not evolve into the most domesticated type.
afro vs santo.
who’s the gay-er commenter?
july 4th.
the day americans celebrate their prole-ness.