When I was growing up everything was nice and simple. Australopithecus evolved into Homo Habilis who evolved into Homo Erectus and about 200,000 years ago, Homo Erectus evolved into Anatomically Modern Humans who evolved into Behaviorally Modern Humans by the Upper Paleolitic. The End.
Stephen Jay Gould famously stated:
There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain.
Or to quote Karl Marx: “Man creates himself”
Even people like J.P. Rushton who believed in racial differences in intelligence believed they were ancient differences that predated the Holocence.
I love Gould’s idea of evolutionary stagnation because it allows us to study cultural evolution holding genetics constant. Even though Gould rejected the idea of man as the evolutionary pinnacle, he nonetheless agreed that we had reached a point where we transcended the laws of nature. Cultural evolution had replaced biological evolution. We no longer had to adapt genetically because we had the intelligence to adapt behaviorally.
Unfortunately, a new crop of discoveries are challenging this beautiful notion. These scientists see culture not as a replacement for genetic evolution, but as something that accelerates it.
Brian Mattmiller writes in 2007:
…a team led by UW–Madison anthropologist John Hawks estimates that positive selection just in the past 5,000 years alone — around the period of the Stone Age — has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period of human evolution. Many of the new genetic adjustments are occurring around changes in the human diet brought on by the advent of agriculture, and resistance to epidemic diseases that became major killers after the growth of human civilizations…
…The findings may lead to a very broad rethinking of human evolution, Hawks says, especially in the view that modern culture has essentially relaxed the need for physical genetic changes in humans to improve survival. Adds Hawks: “We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals.”
Gould must be spinning in his grave over that last quote.
Hover Steven Hsu writes:
Roughly speaking, modern humans differ from chimpanzees with probability 0.01 at a particular base in the genome, from neanderthals with probability 0.003, and from each other with probability 0.001 (this final number varies by about 15% depending on ancestral population).
So if random members of different different races only differ by 0.00085 to 0.00115, and if random humans differ from random Neanderthals by 0.003, how is it even mathematically possible for people 5000 years ago to be closer to Neanderthals when modern races split long before 5000 years ago? Indeed the split between Africans and non-Africans occured about 70,000 years ago and splits within Africa may be as old as 250,000 years.
But perhaps Steve Hsu is talking about the total genome while Hawks is only talking about the part of the genome that experienced adaptive selection. But it begs the question, if people 5000 years ago were more similar to Neanderthals in such important ways, then were they even people? By definition, shouldn’t members of our species be more similar to us than they are to members of another species?
Further confusing the issue, recent headlines claim human evolution is slowing down, at least if mutation rate is any proxy:
Over the past million years or so, the human mutation rate has been slowing down so that significantly fewer new mutations now occur in humans per year than in our closest primate relatives. This is the conclusion of researchers from Aarhus University, Denmark, and Copenhagen Zoo in a new study in which they have found new mutations in chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, and compared these with corresponding studies in humans.
[Correction July 11, 2020: a previous version of this article incorrectly dated Stephen Jay Gould’s quote. Thank you commenter RR for pointing out the error]
Pumpkin Person 
These quotes from Full House will have you appreciate (I hope) Gould’s argument.
But human cultural change is an entirely distinct process operating under radically different principals that do allow for the strong possibility of a driven trend for what we may legitamately call “progress” (at least in a technological sense, whether or not the changes ultimately do us any good in a practical or moral way). In this sense, I deeply regret that common usage refers to the history of our artifacts and social orginizations as “cultural evolution.” Using the same term—evolution—for both natural and cultural history obfuscates far more than it enlightens. Of course, some aspects of the two phenomena must be similar, for all processes of genealogically constrained historical change must share some features in common. But the differences far outweigh the similarities in this case. Unfortunately, when we speak of “cultural evolution,” we unwittingly imply that this process shares essential similarity with the phenomenon most widely described by the same name—natural, or Darwinian, change. The common designation of “evolution” then leads to one of the most frequent and portentious errors in our analysis of human life and history—the overly reductionist assumption that the Darwinian natural paradigm will fully encompass our social and technological history as well. I do wish that the term “cultural evolution” would drop from use. Why not speak of something more neutral and descriptive—“cultural change,” for example? (Gould, 1996: 219-220)
The most impressive contrast between natural evolution and cultural evolution lies embedded in the major fact of our history. We have no evidence that the modal form of human bodies or brains has changed at all in the past 100,000 years—a standard phenomenon of stasis for successful and widespread species, and not (as popularly misconceived) an odd exception to an expectation of continuous and progressive change. The Cro-Magnon people who painted the caves of the Lascaux and Altamira some fifteen thousand years ago are us—and one look at the incredible richness and beauty of this work convinces us, in the most immediate and visceral way, that Picasso held no edge in mental sophistication over these ancestors with identical brains. And yet, fifteen thousand years ago no human social grouping had produced anything that would conform with our standard definition of civilization. No society had yet invented agriculture; none had built permanent cities. Everything that we have accomplished in the unmeasurable geological moment of the last ten thousand years—from the origin of agriculture to the Sears building in Chicago, the entire panoply of human civilization for better or for worse—has been built upon the capacities of an unaltered brain. Clearly, cultural change can vastly outstrip the maximal rate of natural Darwinian evolution. (Gould, 1996: 220)
This is one of my favorite books ever—along with Monad to Man: The Concept of Evolutionary Progress in Evolutionary Biology. Those two are definitely in my top ten.
Thanks for the quotes. His views are fascinating & I’m inclined to agree with him about cromagnon man at least
In my reading of these quotes (and his book as a whole), since we have the same brains as our ancestors up to 100kya, what explains the differences between us and them is our culture. The part about Cro-Magnon makes my brain hurt—it’s amazing.
100 kya is pushing it, but he’s usually quoted as saying 40 kya (cro-magnon times) and that appears to largely hold up:
https://www.businessinsider.com/human-brains-may-only-be-40000-years-old-scientists-say-2018-1#:~:text=The%20modern%20human%20brain%20may%20only%20be%2040%2C000%20years%20old%2C%20scientists%20say&text=Homo%20sapiens%20have%20been%20around,40%2C000%20years%20ago%2C%20researchers%20say.
you either have the killer instinct or you don’t. — bobby fischer
a natural born killer is UN-believably sexy to women…as long as they have no fear that he will kill her.
Interesting that he measures evolutionary change by the “modal form”. As opposed to the mean or median
Yea talking of the mode and not the mean or median is a main theme of the book. I’m hazy on that since it’s been a while since I’ve read it. I’ll skim through it later.
^^^ RR is demonstrating his intellectual domination of this blog.
Thanks but I’m nothing special.
The first quote is extremely verborragic. What he mean??
So Gould believed the word evolution has just one meaning??
Gould believed that evolution is NOT progressive, but since cultural change IS progressive, he regrets having called it cultural evolution because he’s afraid it will mislead people into thinking biological evolution must be progressive too. But since I believe BOTH are progressive, I have no problem with the terminology.
“Gould believed that evolution is NOT progressive”
Seriously? People holding such beliefs might just be the greatest self fulfilling profecy of all time.
Summarizing: evolution “always means natural. Replace this word for change for culture” Gould.
Bear in mind individual and not just collective // avg “changes” (evolution) in human brain.
take your extremely low IQ comments back to your own blog rr.
… Hahaha
Ironic isn’t it? Haha.
The retard is so delusional.
Many of human inventions are based on realistic idea “we” have chosen intelligence /mind over excellent health/body. Weapons, agriculture, clothes, glasses, electricity… most technological improvement is to save humans from direct contact with dangers in nature for our safety or to hide some pleiotropic emerged disadvantage as in the case of increasing intelligence + spending more time awake at the night (problems of sight). Instead select a better sight “humans” invented glasses to compensate. And next step is artificial intelligence which seems an intermediary step for transhumanism. Instead a fragile and complex organic body a progressively synthetic body. Religion is also an invention in which humans don’t need to be truly mature to face hyperreality (atheism, existential melancholy) every time even i’m optimistic is possible purify religion from its toxicities preserving the core dogmas of eternity and god for the next decades or millenia while It’s important to think how massively reduce these schizomorphic genes because they have caused many problems for centuries.
I’m a proponent of Charles Murray idea that we’re getting split into two groups: the elite and the underclass. It’s certainly slowing down, stagnating, and reversing for the underclass and accelerating for the elite.
If you haven’t read “The Time Machine” by H.G. Wells, it’s pretty good.
This is pretty interesting…
Also I call my 9 y/o cousin (much to his annoyance) big head since he has an occiput the size softball (which if compared to other parts of the cranium just looks gigantic.
This BS was refuted by Conley.
Well the mutation rate was slowing down but probably because of a precipitous drop in child mortality it mightve sped up in the last hundred years.
Also assortative mating and artificial selection (sexual selection) is a lot more predominant now than it may have been in the past.
Considering all the factors involved I’d say its speeding up at least from a time of the last few centuries.
The latest article on Peter Frosts blog “Evo and Proud” shows the selection pressures and how theyve influenced the genome of individuals in a society.
So from my observations all these facets of evolution have made it possible to see an increase in evolutionary pressures on the human population.
Biological regulation limits the optimization of perception that can be achieved. And the hierarchical capacity is limited as well the controls calculation power.
Math has no physical limits only the constraints of pure relationships. Code can truly be optimized to operate in parallelism to grant true optimization beyond biology.
Chemical intelligence should surpass IQ 200. But if the bell-curve is followed no IQ is bellow 1 and no IQ is above 200. 100 is always the average.
Ive been mentioned I have a g between 135 and 145 (or at least that was my genetic capacity).
As far as the distribution of IQ goes im sure 200+ is chemically possible, a retraction from my earlier belief that IQ would be limited to a maximum of 160ish.
However I would say that pure g may only be able to reach 165 or 170.
So in this instance I differentiate IQ scores and g. g is more grounded and IQ can be escalated through speed and other factors.
“However I would say that pure g may only be able to reach 165 or 170.”
What do you think of this, pp?
Well my reasoning is that fluid g happens to have a ceiling at 170 but crystallized g (learning and acquiring knowledge) is rather limitless.
Fluid g would require a certain amount of information or pieces of info to manipulate something that might have some inherent limitations.
That was the interpretation I was going for when I wrote that.
Human evolution is going backward, if that is even possible. *smdh* 😶
Yes…
#GoOutAndBeNormal #GoOutAndStayNormal 😎
“he nonetheless agreed that we had reached a point where we transcended the laws of nature.”
I don’t understand why you’re using misleading language like this (actually I do but whatever). Niche construction is not exclusive to humans.
“Indeed the split between Africans and non-Africans occurred about 70,000 years ago”
And here you’re conflating the split between africans and non-africans with the split of negroid and other races. The dominant African phenotype is very recent via the bantu expansion.
“But perhaps Steve Hsu is talking about the total genome while Hawks is only talking about the part of the genome that experienced adaptive selection. ”
I think that’s exactly what is happening. As Steve is writes: “Certain regions in the genome, known as HARs (Human Accelerated Regions) are conserved in mammals such as mice, dogs, chimpanzees, even neanderthals, but show rapid recent changes in humans.
Also, holy shit his comment section is so nice compared to this one that’s overrun with stupidity form Philo and Mugabe.
I think RR finally banned Mugabe. I’m not allowed to troll him anymore apparently.
“But it begs the question, if people 5000 years ago were more similar to Neanderthals in such important ways, then were they even people?”
John hawks is talking about the explosion in genetic differences occurring from positive selection around the time of the OOA event. A decreasing mutation rate in modern times does not conflict with this, so you shouldn’t be confused by that. Not sure why you think it is.
“he nonetheless agreed that we had reached a point where we transcended the laws of nature.”
I don’t understand why you’re using misleading language like this (actually I do but whatever). Niche construction is not exclusive to humans.
But only humans have an extended phenotype that constantly reinvents itself.
“Indeed the split between Africans and non-Africans occurred about 70,000 years ago”
And here you’re conflating the split between africans and non-africans with the split of negroid and other races. The dominant African phenotype is very recent via the bantu expansion.
No I was merely saying that the common ancestor of Blacks & Whites predates people who lived 5000 years ago, and if such people were so genetically different, we’d expect Blacks and whites to be much more different than DNA tests show them to be. I disagree with you on the antiquity of the African phenotype, but that’s a separate issue.
“But it begs the question, if people 5000 years ago were more similar to Neanderthals in such important ways, then were they even people?”
John hawks is talking about the explosion in genetic differences occurring from positive selection around the time of the OOA event. A decreasing mutation rate in modern times does not conflict with this, so you shouldn’t be confused by that. Not sure why you think it is.
He’s talking more about an post-agriculture acceleration in adaptive evolution. He seems to be saying that people 5000 years ago were closer to Neanderthals than to us on adaptive traits and if that’s true, it makes membership in our species seem meaningless and arbitrary.
“and if such people were so genetically different, we’d expect Blacks and whites to be much more different than DNA tests show them to be.”
That’s not necessarily true.
“He’s talking more about an post-agriculture acceleration in adaptive evolution. He seems to be saying that people 5000 years ago were closer to Neanderthals than to us on adaptive traits and if that’s true, it makes membership in our species seem meaningless and arbitrary.”
You’re right my bad.
Speciation isn’t determined by genetic variation on adaptive traits, just genetic ancestry in general. Even then, biological categorization is inherently arbitrary and meaningless. Hence, why there always seems to be such logical confliction regarding the subject
so how do we know when we’ve become a new species?
The most common concept used is the BSC
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/tree-of-life/a/species-speciation
That definition works spatially but not temporally. That is every generation of people will always be able to reproduce with the next generation, so at no point will anyone be able to say “We’re the first members of a new species!”
Yeah, like I said. Biological categorization is inherently arbitrary.
That’s why idealism is stupid.
Don’t tell Mugabe though.
“and if such people were so genetically different, we’d expect Blacks and whites to be much more different than DNA tests show them to be.”
That’s not necessarily true.
Whites today are more similar to their ancestors 5000 years ago than they are to blacks today (who they shared an ancestor with 70,000 years ago) and if whites are radically different on adaptive traits than they were 5000 years ago, they must be even more radically different from blacks, unless blacks and whites experienced convergent adaptive evolution in the last 5000 years.
Melo what do you think of phylogenetic species concepts.
” they must be even more radically different from blacks, unless blacks and whites experienced convergent adaptive evolution in the last 5000 years.”
I’m not really sure what your point is Pumpkin? How does this prove Behaviorally modern humans weren’t the same species as Modern humans?
Also I should mention, that you can’t ever point out a time when the first member of a species appears, that’s not how evolution actually works.
Elegance has nothing to do with the validity of a theory you moron quit repeating garbage like this:
When I was growing up everything was nice and simple. Australopithecus evolved into Homo Habilis who evolved into Homo Erectus and about 200,000 years ago, Homo Erectus evolved into Anatomically Modern Humans who evolved into Behaviorally Modern Humans by the Upper Paleolitic.”
” they must be even more radically different from blacks, unless blacks and whites experienced convergent adaptive evolution in the last 5000 years.”
I’m not really sure what your point is Pumpkin? How does this prove Behaviorally modern humans weren’t the same species as Modern humans?
All I’m saying is that depending on how you define species, one could argue that people today are a different species from people 5000 years ago. That’s because by definition, members of a species are supposed to be more like each-other than they are to a different species yet if Hawks is right, by some very important measure (adaptive genome) people 5000 years ago were more like Neanderthals & thus should be lumped in with them, not us.
Also I should mention, that you can’t ever point out a time when the first member of a species appears, that’s not how evolution actually works.
Then why did you recently state “It’s a fact that Homo sapiens have been around for at least 200,000 years?” A species can’t have an age if it doesn’t have a birth date dumb-dumb.
Elegance has nothing to do with the validity of a theory you moron quit repeating garbage like this
I was simply reminiscing about a simpler time. Let’s not get sidetracked by a debate over Occam’s Razor.
…idealism is stupid, because biological categorization is inherently arbitrary…
why do you let melo comment? he makes everyone dumber.
LOL. Mugabe doesn’t understand simple concepts.
melo what do you think of bohmian mechanics and godel’s incompleteness theorem?
what do you think of adolph reed and walter been michaels?
Idealism is what differentiates humans from nonhuman beings.
An older population can be more behaviorally//cognitively complex than a comparatively recent. Remember, evolution is the same as progression. It can happen forward, backward or weirdward.
“yet if Hawks is right, by some very important measure (adaptive genome) people 5000 years ago were more like Neanderthals”
By one part of the genome. So your assertion is actually baseless.
“A species can’t have an age if it doesn’t have a birth date dumb-dumb.”
This right here is why you’re a moron. The ONLY thing that Mugabe has ever been correct about is that words aren’t things. Species has utility in the endeavor of simplifying the cascading complexity that is biological variation. So while I can’t point to a singular individual and say “look there is the first homo sapiens!” It’s intuitively reasonable to say that the differences between homo sapiens and homo erectus are enough to delineate them as separate species.
“yet if Hawks is right, by some very important measure (adaptive genome) people 5000 years ago were more like Neanderthals”
By one part of the genome. So your assertion is actually baseless.
Some would say the most important part since it’s the part natural selection acted on.
“A species can’t have an age if it doesn’t have a birth date dumb-dumb.”
This right here is why you’re a moron. The ONLY thing that Mugabe has ever been correct about is that words aren’t things. Species has utility in the endeavor of simplifying the cascading complexity that is biological variation. So while I can’t point to a singular individual and say “look there is the first homo sapiens!” It’s intuitively reasonable to say that the differences between homo sapiens and homo erectus are enough to delineate them as separate species.
Anything you could say I’ve thought of it twice. Even if species is an arbitrary category, that category still has boundaries in space and time. For example baby boomers are an entirely arbitrary category but we can still point to the first and last boomers. And if Gould’s punctuated equilibrium is correct, the boundary between species becomes a lot less arbitrary.
yes but, if you are a starfish and rr is a goldfish why should i have any qualms about gassing you?
this is a SERIOUS question!
as much as one may hate his parents and grandparents and his race…loving others is always gonna be FAKE.
unless the other is a dog…who’s been with man from the get go and deserves RESPECT!
my dead, decaying body, spits in your face.
“Anything you could say I’ve thought of it twice. Even if species is an arbitrary category, that category still has boundaries in space and time. For example baby boomers are an entirely arbitrary category but we can still point to the first and last boomers.”
LOL, right. First I think I should point out that the subjective nature of biological categorizations is not why you can’t point to an end and a beginning of a species. It’s because evolution is gradual.
Secondly, because baby boomers are an arbitrary category even choosing when one is a baby boomer and when one isn’t is also arbitrary.
Also, I don’t think you actually even understand Gould’s concept of punctuated equilibrium.
LOL, right. First I think I should point out that the subjective nature of biological categorizations is not why you can’t point to an end and a beginning of a species. It’s because evolution is gradual.
which is why I’ve invoked punctuated equilibrium dumb-dumb.
Which is why I know you don’t understand what punctuated equilibrium is. You think it’s the opposite of gradualism.
I explain what I think in my newest article.
Lol ok.
punctuated equilibrium is always contrasted with phyletic gradualism so not sure what you’re blathering on about.
Punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism moron.
The fact that you think that’s even worth saying shows you’re the moron. It’s not gradual on the geological scale which is how evolution is measured. No one ever claimed a fish gave birth to a human.
Again missing the point and forgetting what the argument is about because you’re an idiot.
You can’t point to a beginning and end of a species because evolution is gradual. We’re not talking about the whether it’s gradual on a geologic time scale. Meaning punctuated equilibrium doesn’t save you.
Now I see why you have a GED instead of a normal high school diploma like everyone else. The species starts when evolutionary stasis starts.
Holy fuck you’re dumb.
“Stasis” is on a geologic timescale. That term when used in reference to punctuated equilibrium is not synonymous with complacency.
Furthermore, you must of miss the part In 7th grade biology when they went over the conditions necessary for evolution to stop and how virtually impossible they were.
Hahaha you’re adorable when you pretend to have a triple digit IQ
Look up stabilizing selection
I know what stabilizing selection is.
Now explain how it’s relevant at all to the argument at hand. You can’t.
A new species starts when stasis follows geologically rapid change. Stabilizing selection is how stasis is maintained
…..stabilizing selection does not act upon all traits of an organism. “Stasis” isn’t actual stasis. Evolution literally never stops. There would have to be no climatic variability, no population dynamism, no mutation rate, and the population would have to be homogenous.
Why’d that have to be explained to you?
Rebutting you is too easy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
That doesn’t rebut me.
LOL it even says:
Living fossils exhibit stasis over geologically long time scales. Popular literature may wrongly claim that a “living fossil” has undergone no significant evolution since fossil times, with practically no molecular evolution or morphological changes. Scientific investigations have repeatedly discredited such claims.
They’ve changed dramatically in the part of the genome that doesn’t affect observable traits but by definition they’ve preserved an ancient phenotype. So it comes down to how you define evolutionary change. Punctuated equilibrium is looking at changes in the fossil record not the molecular clock
melo and rr would read The Wasteland and then ban elliot from publishing.
ps, rr is so dumb he can’t ban me, because he can’t recognize my writing style.
I wonder if Mugabe could sound any gayer ?
Wasteland is a very good collection.
rr’s comment section with the exception of me is 100% pure shit just like his brain.
Phenotypical changes could be related to dna variaty diminution rather than mutations spreading.
Imagine a population purely endogamous were only the top 20% in height, men and women, could marry and they should have 10 children on average so that the population keeps stable.
In 7 generations, I guess the evolution of height would be crazy but the dna would have lost in variety.
That wouldnt keep it stable though it would advance the average height of each generation with each generation having a larger mean height.
This would be analogous to our selection for skin color and other phenotypic changes weve observed due in large part to the progression of evolution.
That’s what I have written loaded. Stable is the number of people. My point is you can get a very strong evolution with no mutations nor new dna intake, and on the contrary a diminution of’the dna variety
Ok thanks for clarifying Bruno!
Rr is too intelligent to comment here. He needs to be restrained.
Ehy are you so smart rr? Is it your middle class background?
I’m not sure Im even able to understand what RR is saying anymore. There really is an intellectual gulf opening up now between everyone else and RR. RR remember my comments on magic negroes when they give you the nobel prize.
“I’m not sure Im even able to understand what RR is saying anymore. ”
That’s because you’re an idiot LOL.
Why are east asians good at math. It doesn’t make much sense considering most of them lived agricultural peasent lives until 50 years ago. Actually, hundreds of millions still do. What is going on there.
I always thought math thinking was a more evolved ‘behaviorial trait’ because otherwise its kind of useless outside civilisation or in primitive civilisation.
malcolm gladwell actually explains china people’s excellence at math by their form of agriculture. he claims china people farmers were busy all year round, whereas european farmers basically just spent the whole winter drunk. so his theory is china people are better at math because more inured to lots of boring work. his own dad is an englishman and mathematician.
I guess having to build water infrastructure for a huge country and a huge population requires spatial skills wich are very good first for engineering, architecture and Computer science and Surgery and … at an extreme level math.
I believe math is the most abstract field related to science and it has 2 entry points at the highest level : spatial and verbal. But 130 spatial is good enough for math. Pure spatial would be more 160. That’s why except jews, all math wizz people are spatial.
Then asian are not very good at creativity. That’s why they don’t have many fields medal. Probably their civilisation has been taming them too much. Just the opposite of the Jews .
I meant pure verbal (meaning with low spatial <125) is 160.
East asians peaked earlier than europeans until now. With the possibility to engineering intelligence…
I think Asians have low creativity because of their hormonal profile. Jews are highly sensitive to dopamine and epinephrine im assuming so they can use their chemical profiles to their advantage.
Sources…
Japanese has proved to be very creative…
Many of positive about jews (may) is attributed to jewish propaganda than to facts. In the end of day, jews ON AVG may score higher on psychoticism which as Rushton and Eynseck said is predictive to creativity.
Melo what do you think of Max Boots comments that russians are putting bounties on american soldiers heads to afghani fighters. Do you believe it?
I’m not even sure what the point of that would be.
although it isn’t entirely far-fetched, russiagate happened so it wouldn’t be surprising if this did too.
“russiagate happened so it wouldn’t be surprising if this did too.”
Idiot.
That’s how I know I’m a genius
Of course its true President Trump was briefed on it but didnt gaf. What a terrible human being…!
not a trump supporter, but it’s bullshit:
Any trump supporter is
Inborn retarded
Or foxfactnews brainwashed (anyway idiocratic)
What i said, trump government project have only one vaguely positive thing, control immigration. The rest about economy, environment, society, is full of shit.
gladwell’s theory is bullshit because winter in korea and northern china is worse than in western europe and has been for a long time…
and koreans and japs are boozers. just not as big as the world champion master drinkers, the europeans.
i was wondering…it could be that filipinos are actually much more distant from europeas than native americans. some pure native americans look more european than any filipino. and it’s got nothing to do with skin color. i’m talking facial skeleton.
but 10,000 years ago winters in western europe were a lot worse than those in korea and northern china.
yeah my own experience/subjective impression is confirmed by the map:
so really europeans stick to north africans, middle easterners, south asians, north east asians, and native americans and form a giant ball of gue that filipino women (and men) want inside them.
yeah my own experience/subjective impression is confirmed by the map:
so really europeans stick to north africans, middle easterners, south asians, north east asians, and native americans and form a giant ball of gue that filipino women (and men) want inside them./
but gladwell makes an important point about EtOH and humans…
1. EtOH is a source of calories that doesn’t spoil. that is, farmers could avoid starving during the winter by making beer, wine, spirits. and if it’s concentrated it doesn’t spoil…forever…you can drink port from boats that never made it to port 300 years ago.
2. the negative health effects of EtOH are easily neutralized with periodic abstinence, but impossible to neutralize if winter lasts a decade or more.
Melo do to like RPGs? If you do, when you get your Switch get the Xenoblade Definitive Edition. The story is really good (as all Xeno games are (and the battle system is really fun. Xenoblade 2 is a solid game too.
Surprised you two like games. I’m playing Gears 5, Resident Evil Resistance and the odd few games of FIFA. Nice little rotating sequence.
I haven’t played Gears in years. When I don’t play RPGs I okay Civilization V.
melo do you like doing things that repel women?
This shows Mugabe’s age.
He still thinks video games are for the unpopular or whatever you call it.
Yes I do. I’ll check it out.
Persona 5 is pretty chill and I’m sitting here jizzing in my pants for cyberpunk and eldenring.
Omg PP is such a hypocrite. He wont even let me use the word in the context its supposed to be used. What a dumbass.
???
Oops. You posted it but I guess it occurred simultaneously to when I was checking the comments so I only saw Santos.
A recommendation would be to put have moderated comment notifications or something.
Anyways I apologize Pumpkin. I thought you were censoring my use of the word “Jews.”
You are indeed a good man! God bless!
yeah like the most savage amazonian looks more like a european than the average filipino.
this is sad.
100% unmixed!
the facial skeleton is “conserved”. and rr has full blown AIDS…
if a detective wants to know the race of a victim he can order a dna test…if dna is recoverable…or he can ask a forensic anthropologist = skull person.
maybe if there were actually a lot of data on “decapitated” corpses it would be possible to tell…but when i took p-anthro the line was it wasn’t.
conserved? are you saying the Caucasoid skull evolved before the Mongoloid one?
I noticed that in Howell’s clustering of human skulls, Native Americans clustered with Caucasoids. David Reich has since discovered a ghost race that contributed a lot of DNA to both whites and Native Americans. That might help explain it.
Uh..Yeah that’s because Filipinos are mongoloid dumbass.
What are you even trying to say?
It is funny though, that boy kind of looks like me. I have 3 other siblings who are also mixed and everyone says I look whiter than them.
Maybe it’s because I was raised y the white side of my family?
a PREDICTION of hegel’s absolute idealism is that…
the course of history continues even with the war lost. and i believe that the problems have remained the same, and that the second world war is by no means over.
this means that…
there are no great movements or moments in history that are sort of…meh, forget it. it’s gay….
BUT this is exactly what the historical treatment of nazism has been…
it has been BLAMED on DEPLORABLES.
it has NOT been brought into the AUFHEBUNG.
So far, all mentioned changes belong to biological micro-evolution, not to the biological evolution of Sapiens. All living people on Earth people are still the same species – Homo Sapiens. So called “cultural evolution” did not make us different species either – we still are the same Homo Sapiens. With that, I think, we are discussing here this question “Is human biological micro-evolution speeding up or slowing down?”. That is a very different question than “Is human evolution speeding up or slowing down?”
Interesting point. So micro-evolution could accelerate while evolution stagnates, because major evolutionary change is by definition macro. Would a change in IQ be micro or macro?
There is a scientific article pointing out at a fresh example of the ongoing evolution of humans – https://www.newsweek.com/human-evolution-weird-anatomical-feature-1537486.
“Researchers found that there has been an increase in the existence of the “median artery” in humans since the late 19th century.” The original study was published in the Journal of Anatomy – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.13224.
The median artery is located in the forearm. The median artery is a blood vessel that develops in growing human fetuses but usually disappears in adult humans. Scientists found that the existence of the medium artery in the adult population increased from around 10% “in people born in the mid-1880s to around 30 percent by the end of the 20th century.”
That is what scholars called “a microevolutionary change”. We, humans, did not change much to be named a new species, but small changes occur.
But all these little changes add up. According to a 2007 paper selection increased a hundred fold in the last 10,000 years. That means the last 10,000 years was like a million years of selection.
On the other hand a Yale professor is skeptical (see final paragraph):
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/12/human-evolution-speeding
The first modern IQ tests were developed in 1904. I’m not aware of research articles linking possible changes in human IQ in the last 116 years to human biological micro-evolution. Maybe I missed something.
Some scientists speculate about genetic IQ changes in the last 10,000 years or even the past century, but there’s no strong evidence.
Greg Cochran argues that natural selection in Europe increased the IQs of Ashkenazi Jews by 10 points in the last 800 years or so.
Even if there are written IQ tests results before 1904, then they should be adjusted to the modern IQ technique. That is a challenge by itself.
If no such results were published before 1904, then we have a bigger problem. IQ test results are an outcome of some person’s mental efforts. If those results were not recorded, then it is impossible to know what they are. Even if we would have the perfect technology to scan human brains and get information about what was this person thinking during an IQ test, – that would not help us. Brains are not bones. Brains of dead people disintegrate.
That means not just 10 thousand years of IQ results but even one already passed generation of people could not provide us any results of their IQ tests.