Some argue that before they were replaced, Neandertals had cultural capabilities similar to modern humans, while others argue that these similarities only appear once modern humans came into contact with Neandertals.
Better than ‘humans’ of the time, clearly.
“Lissoirs like these are a great tool for working leather, so much so that 50 thousand years after Neandertals made these, I was able to purchase a new one on the Internet from a site selling tools for traditional crafts,” says Soressi. “It shows that this tool was so efficient that it had been maintained through time with almost no change. It might be one or perhaps even the only heritage from Neandertal times that our society is still using today.”
They know we non-Africans have their genes, they hope we don’t know.
Maybe human genius is just higher percentages of Neanderthal. It would explain NW Europe’s incredible ingenuity and science, even compared to other Whites.
Haven’t you wondered why they want your DNA? (Before whites die out, ofc).
And the companies privately researching never find/report Neanderthal DNA, unlike real geneticists?
You know how they acted like this is a vague finding?
Left until right at the end, where only nerds read:
The results place the Pech-de-l’Azé I bone tool to approximately 50 thousand years ago.
This is well before the best evidence of modern humans in Western Europe, and it is much older than any other examples of sophisticated bone tool technologies.
In many of the countries that fought in the World Wars, there was a sudden increase in the number of boys born afterwards. The year after World War I ended, an extra two boys were born for every 100 girls in the UK, compared to the year before the war started. The gene, which Mr Gellatly has described in his research, could explain why this happened.
As the odds were in favour of men with more sons seeing a son return from the war, those sons were more likely to father boys themselves because they inherited that tendency from their fathers. In contrast, men with more daughters may have lost their only sons in the war and those sons would have been more likely to father girls. This would explain why the men that survived the war were more likely to have male children, which resulted in the boy-baby boom.
In most countries, for as long as records have been kept, more boys than girls have been born. In the UK and US, for example, there are currently about 105 males born for every 100 females.
It is well-documented that more males die in childhood and before they are old enough to have children.
That is prior to competition, crime, psychiatric issues including self-loathing and desire to never reproduce, as well as the sexual selection of women for a suitable man.
Externalities like the economy, racial wars, anti-natal culture notwithstanding.
The female genome is more stable, two Xs will do that. It contains more data too, the Y is smaller.
Women must be more stable biologically as the (genetic) carrier sex, another reason against female drafting. If some men die, they clearly recover (and as proven here, come back better) but when a race loses its women, it goes extinct.
So in the same way that the gene may cause more boys to be born after wars, it may also cause more boys to be born each year.
The fitter male lines are self-replacing. This is why all adult men should have been drafted. The reward of winning a war should be reproducing into your society’s future, to reward the cowards who remained behind is an insult to the brave K-types of the sex.
This is the red-pill. Men evolved to be expendable to one another in the protection of their shared racial germline.
Cowards know they’re cannon fodder. They betray their fellow man (intra-racial Brotherhood is the only acceptable collectivism). It reminds me of the Little Red Hen, and what man would want a coward in their ranks, that’s treason waiting to happen?
Or as we call them, cucks.
Behold, the back-up genetic programme: the self-culling cannon fodder.
Remarkable that genetic dead-ends appreciate the importance of marriage enough to insult all married couples as inferior (rationalization).
Also, demographic decline virtue signalling (- you can’t out-breed Asia, war is inevitable).
Asia*: highest population density, territorial expansive, fastest growing religion (Islam).
Trump could shit gold and it’s still inevitable.
More than r-selection, perhaps a feature of it.
If you’re stupid like Asians and murder your girls (glaring at India and China) then you cull the female-preferred genes among men, slowly killing your racial future because there won’t be enough carrier women to go around and the ‘problem’ will only get worse. There is no culling effect equivalent to war in women except socialist policy.
There’s your ‘war against women’. Affirmative Action for unfit male genes collapses both their group and the fit men of their race who were weak enough to allow it to happen. If every man is entitled to 1 waifu thanks to socialist compulsion (and all men, all women forced to marry by law**) but five infant boys survive due to medical technology…. 100-105=-5
Socialism’s birth policies are as dysgenic as their economics that punish effort.
This is why men shouldn’t decide who gets to breed with laws, women evolved for that task.
Socialism cannot replace sexual selection. What the internet considers it is not, reproduction is required.
A war will be mandatory if the leftover men have any hope of reproduction, by conquest and rape …..and ‘immigration’. The neocolonialism as BPS explained, of buying up properties in another homeland (r-migration for resources).
*As previously covered, most money to purchase is loaned by the Chinese Communist government. They are the true buyers overseas. Ban foreigners from literally buying your country. It’s a matter of national security. That includes the Putin-banished Russians’ blood money in London keeping the gasping death rattle of a real estate bubble alive. I’d extend this to the compulsory purchase of properties made by shell corps overseas, with unexplained funds (anti-corruption law) or belonging to dual passport holders who refuse to drop the other one (loyalty to another nation).
The concrete used in protected property basements is doomed to collapse. Like the postmodern glass monstrosities, they all crumble eventually, that’s why huge basements aren’t built in English soil. Rainy, flood-prone soil. Next to the biggest river incoming to the landmass.
And we get frequent earthquakes, of the sort that causes cracks in… concrete.
It’s a capital city so traffic causes tremors too – including planes.
Every heinous skyscraper you ever see will be self-destructing. Rich tower or council estate.
I’m literally the first person to look this up. Engineers study ENTROPY.
This error is old as Babel. We don’t need to lift a finger, ugly postmodern structures are already crumbling.
They’ll go the way of wooden castles.
Shad viewers? Anyone?
If only the Nazis had simply purchased American land, we’d be speaking German.
They’re still going to shoot you by the way. They need to outnumber you, fill University places then government positions first. If they have the land, all that’s needed are executions.
**Reducing citizens to breeding sows for the government, thanks, socialism!
Socialism is hence r-select and among other issues, assumes all men can be provider husbands, all women are fertile and all citizens are heterosexual. Socialism is doomed to fail by virtue of mathematics and basic biology.
Human populations living during the Holocene underwent considerable microevolutionary change. It has been theorized that the transition of Holocene populations into agrarianism and urbanization brought about culture-gene co-evolution that favored via directional selection genetic variants associated with higher general cognitive ability (GCA).
aka the people who didn’t eat their seed crop lived to tell about it
To examine whether GCA might have risen during the Holocene, we compare a sample of 99 ancient Eurasian
genomes (ranging from 4.56 to 1.21 kyr BP) with a sample of 503 modern European genomes
told ya so
You wouldn’t need to keep distinguishing it if they were synonymous.
(Fst = 0.013), using three different cognitive polygenic scores (130 SNP, 9 SNP and 11 SNP). Significant differences favoring the modern genomes were found for all three polygenic scores (odds ratios = 0.92, p = 001; .81, p = 037; and .81, p = .02 respectively). These polygenic scores also outperformed the majority of scores assembled from random
evolution is directed to fitness, quelle surprise
SNPs generated via a Monte Carlo model (between 76.4% and 84.6%). Furthermore, an indication of increasing positive allele count over 3.25 kyr was found using a subsample of 66 ancient genomes (r = 0.22, pone-tailed = .04). These observations are consistent with the expectation that GCA rose during the Holocene.
LOOK AT THE VISIBLE GENETIC EVIDENCE OF EUGENIC SELECTION
LET’S EUGENICALLY APPLY THIS TO INCREASE THE FITNESS OF THE WIDER SOCIETY BY ENGINEERING
but don’t call it eugenics.
If you don’t actually use the word ‘eugenics’, it’s all fine.
Okay let’s say one line about this logically.
If you ignore the eugenics thing, and apply this to absolutely everyone, the baseline drops again and it becomes meaningless as a positive selection factor, so pushing the ‘it’ll help everyone!’ rationale would literally never work; you’re simply moving the average with no heed to negative consequences, further, the other innate factors (all billions of them) would in fact, become more prominent by comparison, as one genetic factor was removed from the equation and they moved up the effect size ranking.
Another case of bigoted statistics, I know.
Quantifiers ruin all the liberals’ fun.
You can’t have it both ways, and I address both parties who contend this.
To the feminists, if you believe the sexes are physically equal, you should be drafted. Not other women, which is cowardly dodging, just you personally. If you think it should be All Women On Principle excepting your Special Snowflake self: Your likely-subconscious attempt to get the social competition killed off doesn’t fool anyone.
To the male supremacists (new MGTOW mainly), who say that their precisely evolved differences make them generally superior in all features (does not happen in biology, as opposed to function-specialized and different), that’s exactly why women aren’t drafted. We didn’t evolve like you did, we evolved for childrearing. As new fathers experience a short-term testosterone drop, women have this comparative docility sustained and innate, to keep the children alive.
Both groups need to stick to their mouthed principles.
Either individual women are dense enough to think a lithe 5’5″ actress can beat up 5 Marines in unarmed combat, in which case they’d make great cannon fodder. You Go Girl!
OR the men, who may grow their physique into that Marine model (whereas women are fixed, they’re just lazy), will accept that their physical advantages come at the cost of a conditional duty. Don’t like it? Move to another country, Pajama Boy.
Footnote: Military support roles are fine in my book. There are fine women in the military but generally they operate best in these, otherwise you get the men watching her back instead of anything else and when they’re taken prisoner the torture takes the form of gang rape. More, more severe injuries, including war trauma, suggest the psychological response to stress differs too. Women are used to getting hormonal to deal with it.
““Women, you aren’t of equal value if you can’t do all the things that men do.” These words seem to be echoing in the ears of many American women. Some, including Amber Smith, have taken them to their logical conclusion—namely that, if equality frees women to do everything that men can do, it also obligates women to do everything that men must do. Therefore, women are not truly equal, Smith argues, until they are equally conscriptable into military service and equally at risk, should they meet the combat standards, of dying on the battlefield.”
Some women are so jealous of others, they’ll happily send you to die painfully on a battlefield so they can slut around with your husbands while you’re gone.
By that logic, we should urinate standing up. Because everything men do is innately superior.
In both cases, it’s an over-represented minority of whores being pushed for drama in media.
Men learn to cheat from porn. And the absence of fathers.
Women learn to cheat from TV and films. And the absence of fathers.
Both sexes are subject to cultural brainwashing. It encourages us to sin, in other words. Do whatever is worst for us.
About 25% of each sex sounds about right, and those people are cheating within the group, with each other. The norm is for everyone else with a conscience.
Both sexes can be broken when it comes to pair bonding aka monogamy.
The sperm competition thing is a vestige of our monkey cousins, same as rape conception rates. Naturalistic fallacy.
Sperm actually competes with itself. You don’t need samples from two or more men for this to occur.
Women aren’t biologically programmed to be sluts, that’s a misread on a gross level, an excuse to absolve them of responsibility, just like men aren’t biologically programmed to be promiscuous either. Humans have agency and choice. It is a CHOICE. There is a dual mating strategy in humans, but the monogamous people greatly outnumber them (3:1 at most), so if we’re programmed to be anything, it’s monogamous, and the rest of our biology (long gestation time, one fetus at a time, large brains, long growth period) supports this. If anything, the promiscuous people are evolutionary throwbacks, as low-IQ people are to high-IQ in a modern society because they’ve yet to all die off, when in the state of nature, they’d have died come the first winter.
Sluts don’t have many friends. Male or female. Naturally, they’re exposed to predation or starvation. They’re less successful elsewhere in life due to the high time preference and unpopularity.
This may be natural, to them, but it’s not adaptive. Quite the opposite.
50 shades is the mommy porn of middle aged women, it’s like saying men who watch porn don’t fancy real women. It’s a supernormal stimuli, it has no bearing on this question. It’s like asking Dickens what his favourite app was.
He’s dangerously close to the retarded muh fitness test alpha male genes BS. The words are correct but in that order they are illogical. That isn’t what they mean. The manosphere concept is a deliberate misread to sound smart (but it’s science) and feel better about themselves, like the charisma equivalent of fat acceptance.
Oh dear, he’s dumb. Women have far, FAR lower libido than men. It’s this thing called testosterone. The feminists are faking, as studies have been flagging up. They can’t fuck like a man.
The arousal patterns are physical protection. They have nothing to do with attraction, as brains scan show. They’re rape protection because, little known fact, rape can make a woman infertile. The internal damage can cause scarring and it’s genetic death, THAT’s why women lubricate in response to practically anything, it’s in the same realm as evolved protection by blinking in front of a light, the knee hammer test and your fingertips wrinkling in water. It doesn’t mean anything, people read into it because it involves sexual parts.
Or to put it in a male context, if you get a random boner while you happen to be looking at a man, are you gay?
No. No you are not.
Most young people don’t want casual sex, they want pair bonding and use sex as a socially acceptable means of securing it. Men too. This is why journalists shouldn’t cover science. Interview an expert.
Women desire physically stronger men when fertile because they are fertile AKA in danger and in need of protection. From rape. It doesn’t need to be sexual but if they want to reproduce of course it would be. They can seek out the protection of male family members too. It’s an instinct of self-preservation, to hide behind the biggest male, the sexual aspect is reflected in the overall stronger frame of men, not some BS about strong sperm.
Lying about evobio results buys into the feminist frame. They use the excuse “but sex is natural” while they steal your husband. Those bitches. They say marriage is about love, as a convenient excuse to divorce by saying “I fell out of love”. They lie.
Cheating is a dealbreaker because it betrays an inability to pair bond, the whole thing was one way from the loyal participant’s end. They were cheated in this way more, and that’s worse.
Why is he talking about tribes like that? Sure, in Africa. The ones that remained 3rd World shit holes until some explorers came along recently. Africa is a Matriarchy. In African tribes they still behaved like slutty monkeys. In Europe though, around the Ice Age? Monogamy. People even buried together. So hold the fucking phone right there.
Thankfully, most of the world isn’t Africa. But most of the global population is. Because they’re sluts.
Most tribes were advanced, they evolved into us. They buried their dead and cooked food. The few tribes we base our idea of a tribe on? Those are the low-IQ subgroup, not the iconic examplar. Best way to describe;
He’s arguing for a return to standards. Marriage is that standard, it keeps both parties happy with an exchange that fulfills their needs. The way to argue it, isn’t to lie for a cheap laugh.
p.s. Tbf, if men had no choice over their dicks as the ‘we’re supposed to sleep around’ crowd say, every woman would pass the boner test no matter how ugly (no disgust response) and ED wouldn’t exist.
Dogs can control who they jump, birds request permission. Human man has no excuse. Rapists are the lowest quality men because so inferior are they to the competition, they must force it to have any chance of passing on their genes. The brain can suppress the lusts that fog the mind, this is a sign of a healthy mind that doesn’t binge eat or sit around all day, habituated in childhood this self-control parenting leads to delay of gratification, an ability that predicts life success. Frontal lobe – evolution. Makes us human. When under-developed, the compulsions function like addictions, and the patient is, for all intents and purposes, subhuman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypofrontality
e.g. effect on ADHD/ADD
“By adulthood, most of the symptoms have lessened or the individual has managed to control for the symptoms through other means.”
Because the frontal lobe has fully matured by this stage (and it no longer functions as an excuse in adults btw).
….The Endogenous personality offers the possibility (but there is no guarantee) of a ‘breakthrough’ – a novel solution to a potentially-fatal social problem – e.g. the prospect of annihilation by the environment or another group unless there is a breakthrough; some new technology, some unifying art or religion, some way of extracting more resources per unit area, some new weapon or defense…..
I highly recommend this. You won’t see dating the same way again. One of those topics everyone has a passing interest in.
Selection pressures on mate preference in humans. How do we seek novelty?
Wit, intelligence, kindness, and fitness – the sort of things most people wonder about when applying evolution to humans.
“If these quirks influenced the sexual choices that shaped the mind’s evolution, then the mind could be viewed as an entertainment system that appeals to the psychological preferences of other minds. Just as some books become best-sellers for their contents rather than their covers, our ancestors attracted mates by displaying interesting minds, not just shapely bodies and resonant voices. Our minds may have evolved as sexual ornaments, but ornamentation is not limited to a superficial appeal to the senses. As far as sexual selection is concerned, creativity can be ornamental. Consciousness itself may be ornamental.” Chapter 5, Ornamental Genius
This is so wrong I’m not going to bother attempting a full breakdown, it would be a book. Suffice to say, this is why evolutionary psychology exists, but sure, ask a philosopher on a subject they have zero qualification for. What about the Calhoun experiments, which his site has documented? He must be either joking or too stupid to see the connections.
Clue is in the name, Natural Selection, the 19th century term, applies in a State of Nature, an 18th century term that Darwin was referencing. A state of man, as in The State, will change variables e.g. land resources (housing), cost of living/unemployment/benefits, mate availability (cultural). Each culture reinforces a different reproductive strategy: Europe (white-majority) has future-time orientation (reinforced by cross-cultural studies of time perception), we reach an equilibrium with the amount of resources we have (now economy, used to be sheer territory for agrarian usage). We avoid tragedy of the commons, and genetic (racial) homogeneity allowed us to cooperate with our kin into prosperity (most of our history, Christianity was a useful meme for this). Low time preference.
He seems to think humans should be this constantly replenishing organism like a virus (let’s leave 8 children per woman in Africa, huh?) but we used to have those numbers because few would survive to adulthood. Technology and crucially, MEDICINE, have allowed us to invest more as parents (Trivers) to compete in a high-IQ demanding society. Quality of children is vital in the First World. As long as we don’t mess up the Malthusian trap by say, letting in African ‘boat people’ en masse or destroying the successful host culture until it breaks, the developed world will be stable.
Has he even read On Origin? Descent of Man? Natural Selection? Nope. He’s going by what school taught him, how redpill…..
Another point I need to make;
Female animals DO use drug contraceptives or otherwise control their estrus (hidden in humans) all the time, e.g.
Those neoliberals and SJWs are already genetic dead-ends. Reproduction is a genetic arms race. They have lost. Anti-natal policies will do that. When evolutionary pressures come back into play (they always do: war, famine, epidemic, etc. all the old favourites) what will happen? The victor experiences a ‘Baby Boom’. When those selection pressures occur, on an infinite timescale it becomes a question of WHEN, what do you think happens to the human mind? Do you assume it just stays the same in your infinite wisdom of grosser biology?
Everyone is nice when resources are plentiful (Hence I reff’d r/K), it’s the ‘fat and happy’ stereotype of the glut (yes, that’s what that is). When resources become scarce, fight or flight become a reality. The nicest sweetest kindest neoliberals with a heart of gold would gut the granny next door if they were starving, the mindset is totally different, primal and beyond conscious control.
Many people seem to believe that we human beings never arose from nature the way every other living thing did, that we are somehow “beyond,” removed from, nature. But this is a very unfortunate – even a tragic – misconception. Like all other living things, our ancestors were sculpted by Darwinian evolution to survive, reproduce, and thrive within a certain kind ofenvironment. And when we live in environments, such as modern cities, that are drastically different from the environments that we’re biologically adapted for, we become subject to various “evolutionary mismatch” effects that can be extremely detrimental to our physical and emotional health.
Research in animals and humans has revealed some of the structural, functional and molecular changes in the brain that underlie the effects of stress on social behaviour. Findings in this emerging field will have implications both for the clinic and for society.
European history, for instance, is filled with instances of shipwrecked crews and passengers who resorted to cannibalism—even if it meant murdering someone. But, those who were rescued, including the ships’ officers, never had charges pressed against them, as long as they assured the courts that a lottery had been held to determine who would die for the sake of the larger group
The classic example being: if you were in a plane crash would you eat the dead if it meant you could live?
Everyone’s answer is yes if they’re honest and self-aware.
When the axe is to the grindstone, your “fairweather friends” will leave. Humans doling out charity means nothing when they aren’t hard up themselves. If they can afford to give, what is the value? It becomes another trinket and status signalling shows us this, a vapid ploy from arrogance. This is a part of the Bible people misinterpret, it recognised this biological reality.
The people who eschew children would generally make bad parents (no instinct for example) and they choose to spend those resources on themselves, the ultimate in short-sightedness as children are the original pension (they look after you when you can’t work, maybe you babysit the grandchildren, a model older than the State and found in other primates). As it is, since the Sexual Revolution, pro-feminist anti-natal generations have encouraged the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_trap and have only themselves to blame when there aren’t enough tax-paying kiddies to pay their Social Security and other pie-in-the-sky social projects. (Boomers: You failed as humans, you failed to have enough kids to carry things on. It’s basic and you failed. Nothing else matters if there’s nobody to hand the baton to before you die.)
If evolution was in effect, it would have been impossible for the “veneer” of civilization to develop.
Civilization developed from pockets of successful tribes, we know it’s possible because we’re here, doofus. Humans are social animals, and one theory of intelligence is that it developed to enhance our ability to lie. Deception keeps civilized society afloat (white lies).
There is no veneer specifically made for humans.
Humans have a thick cerebral cortex. Birds? Not so much.
The stories of man can’t help but include a puppet master that is controlling all our behavior. Before it was god, now it’s genes.
The brain’s prefrontal cortex is thought to be the seat of cognitive control, working as a kind of filter that keeps irrelevant thoughts, perceptions and memories from interfering with a task at hand. Now, researchers have shown that inhibiting this filter can boost performance for tasks in which unfiltered, creative thoughts present an advantage.
Any concept based in evolution is unfalsifiable if you demand a fucking time machine before you believe anything. Good methodology in evopsych rules this out.
“Evolutionary psychology” is an approach and a set of theories, not a single hypothesis, so no single experiment can falsify it, just as no single experiment can falsify the theory of evolution or the connectionist (neural network) approach to cognition. But particular hypotheses can be individually tested, such as the ones on the relation of symmetry to beauty or the relation of logical cognition to social contracts, and tests of these are the day-to-day activity of evolutionary psychology. Journals such as Evolution and Human Behavior are not filled with speculative articles; they contain experiments, survey data, meta-analyses, and so on, hashing out particular hypotheses. And as I mentioned above, over the long run the approach called evolutionary psychology could be found unhelpful if all of its specific hypotheses are individually falsified.
They aren’t. They’re fodder for other subjects like genetics and neurology.
Yes, you wasted years of your life running after skanks and no decent wife material would touch you with a bargepole. You made that choice and must live with it (player burnout). You sneered at beta males off having kids. That door is probably closed to you now, in triple digits. #RedpillRegret