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.
To a large extent, your survival is pre-destined.
OOA for short. It’s fun watching them scrabble to keep the narrative ‘we’re all African’.
“Fossils recovered from an old mine on a desolate mountain in Morocco have rocked one of the most enduring foundations of the human story: that Homo sapiens arose in a cradle of humankind in East Africa 200,000 years ago. Archaeologists unearthed the bones of at least five people at Jebel Irhoud, a former barite mine 100km west of Marrakesh, in excavations that lasted years. They knew the remains were old, but were stunned when dating tests revealed that a tooth and stone tools found with the bones were about 300,000 years old.
“My reaction was a big ‘wow’,” said Jean-Jacques Hublin, a senior scientist on the team at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. “I was expecting them to be old, but not that old.”
Hublin said the extreme age of the bones makes them the oldest known specimens of modern humans and poses a major challenge to the idea that the earliest members of our species evolved in a “Garden of Eden” in East Africa one hundred thousand years later.”
Yeah yeah, sequence the genome.
““This gives us a completely different picture of the evolution of our species. It goes much further back in time, but also the very process of evolution is different to what we thought,” Hublin told the Guardian. “It looks like our species was already present probably all over Africa by 300,000 years ago. If there was a Garden of Eden, it might have been the size of the continent.” [DS: were*]
Jebel Irhoud has thrown up puzzles for scientists since fossilised bones were first found at the site in the 1960s. Remains found in 1961 and 1962, and stone tools recovered with them, were attributed to Neanderthals and at first considered to be only 40,000 years old. At the time, a popular view held that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals. [genetics confirms this in all non-Africans] Today, the Neanderthals are considered a sister group [wtf is that in science] that lived alongside, and even bred with, our modern human ancestors.”
I love it when The Guardian repeats the science I’ve been saying for years. They’re still clutching at straws.
“Other fossils and genetic evidence all point to an African origin for modern humans.”
Or outright lying.
“The most striking difference was the shape of the braincase which was more elongated than that of humans today. It suggests, said Hublin, that the modern brain evolved in Homo sapiens and was not inherited from a predecessor.”
No it does not. That’s distinctive to Cro Magnon man. Stop lying. Test for the characteristic R1 haplogroup of Cro Magnon man.
“The tools they brought with them have been resharpened, resharpened, and resharpened again. They did not produce new tools on the spot.”
Obviously they stole them. So, probably not Cro Magnon.
They died in a mountain. A mine of materials. Therefore, they couldn’t make those tools.
“But he finds the theory compelling. “The idea is that early Homo sapiens dispersed around the continent and elements of human modernity appeared in different places,”
That’s called the multi-regional hypothesis (MRH) and all the forensic evidence of Neanderthals proves it definitively. That is also why they say every race was actually Homo Sapiens except for them btw, they don’t want to count it.
“and so different parts of Africa contributed to the emergence of what we call modern humans today,” he said.”
No, that’s literally the opposite. Africa wasn’t the centre. There was no centre. There was NO Eden, there was no singular unified group, that is a Victorian myth.
And also, how can ‘Africa’ be the centre, but also different parts of it >1? OOA is limited to one source!
““One of the big questions about the emergence of anatomically modern humans has been did our body plan evolve quickly or slowly. This find seems to suggest the latter.”
“It seems our faces became modern long before our skulls took on the shape they have today.””
That is physically impossible if you ask a neuroscientist. The skull forms around the brain. Hell, ask a forensic anthropologist, if you can hear the reply through the laughter.
“Does the new find imply there was more than one hominin lineage in Africa at this time? It really stirs the pot.”
-more than one
-but in Africa
….Pangea isn’t Africa.
“Lee Berger, whose team recently discovered the 300,000 year-old Homo naledi, an archaic-looking human relative, near the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage site outside Johannesburg, said dating the Jebel Irhoud bones was thrilling, but is unconvinced that modern humans lived all over Africa so long ago. “They’ve taken two data points and not drawn a line between them, but a giant map of Africa,” he said.”
Cookie for you, Lee. Salty delivery, I like it.
“adding that stone tools can move around in cave sediments and settle in layers of a different age.” John is right but fails to mention that has limits based on the soil composition.
“For me, claiming these remains are Homo sapiens stretches the meaning of that term a bit,” Shea added. “These humans who lived between 50,000-300,000 years ago are a morphologically diverse bunch. Whenever we find more than a couple of them from the same deposits, such as at Omo Kibish and Herto in Ethiopia or Skhul and Qafzeh in Israel, their morphology is all over the place both within and between samples.”
Better, so close to the r-word, or at least sub-species?
“It really does look like in Africa especially, but also globally, our evolution was characterised by numerous different species all living at the same time and possibly even in the same places.”
The cognitive dissonance is strong.
Couldn’t even make it a single logical sentence.
While, if you look at a link at the bottom of that very article:
They admit the African skull they claimed as sub-human is actually just African human, modern African.
People think I’m shitting them with how much race reality the Guardian admits but they don’t know it’s leaking out. Never attribute to malice….
“The Dmanisi fossils show that H erectus migrated as far as Asia soon after arising in Africa.”
trans. We found them in Asia and need to cover this up.
“The latest skull discovered in Dmanisi belonged to an adult male and was the largest of the haul. It had a long face and big, chunky teeth. But at just under 550 cubic centimetres, it also had the smallest braincase of all the individuals found at the site.”
“They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps.”
If those African skulls weren’t human, they were sub-human, some maintain this.
“Everything that lived at the time of the Dmanisi was probably just Homo erectus,” said Prof Zollikofer.”
Here’s the photo:
“If you found the Dmanisi skulls at isolated sites in Africa, some people would give them different species names. But one population can have all this variation. We are using five or six names, but they could all be from one lineage.”
So close to admitting it.
So damn close.
“Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree
accumulating a lot of branches,” said White. “The Dmanisi fossils give us a new yardstick, [no?] and when you apply that yardstick to the African fossils, a lot of that extra wood in the tree is dead wood. [your opinion is not proof] It’s arm-waving.”
Translated from academese: let’s lower the standard for Africa because it makes them look like chimps and not fully human.
Some are honestly skeptical of this proposition
“I think they will be proved right that some of those early African fossils can reasonably join a variable Homo erectus species,” said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. “But Africa is a huge continent with a deep record of the earliest stages of human evolution, [note: not the only record] and there certainly seems to have been species-level diversity there prior to two million years ago. So I still doubt that all of the ‘early Homo’ fossils can reasonably be lumped into an evolving Homo erectus lineage. We need similarly complete African fossils from two to 2.5m years ago to test that idea properly.”
trans. They’re modern, just fucking admit it.
“This is a fantastic and important discovery, but I don’t think the evidence they have lives up to this broad claim they are making. They say this falsifies that Australopithecus sediba is the ancestor of Homo. The very simple response is, no it doesn’t.”
Obviously, because they’ve already lost the breeding war to Palestine.
Only solution: even their numbers a little.
I wonder if warmongering varies by race. Probably. Hard to measure.
It certainly varies by species, so why not?
You know what this means: overall bloodlust rising. It isn’t contained.
War overall, biological. HBD fans go wild.
“I suppose I meant love as in respecting someone as a full person, but thinking about it, you obviously don’t need love for that, since you can respect (and should respect) the people you hate. You can despise someone and still treat them like another human being.
Respect is not something which should only be given to those you love, nor should loving someone make lacking that respect somehow acceptable.
I probably should have worded my response better. What I meant was that respect is the very baseline of human decency, and without that, it’s totally beyond belief to try and pair two characters up and imagine that there could ever be mutual healthy love there.
When you love a person you love that person for who they are, not for who you want them to be, or who you think you can make them. You do not control them. You cannot force them to do anything against their will. You respect their independence and autonomy.”
They just suppress it.
Articles like these are always PC, they’re trying to defend the ‘sex positive’ line.
At least it didn’t mention bonobos (red herring) on such a loaded question.
This comment is better than the article.
I disagree with the premise. If you look at Chimps… the females sleep around so that no one can be sure of paternity and they entire group will be invested in protecting the progeny. But in those societies males aren’t invested in parenting and they themselves sleep around.
However, human males have evolved to be invested in parenting. That’s why they develop biological changes such as increasing prolactin to help them bond with the child. The greater the paternal investment in rearing the offspring the greater the necessity to ensure paternity.
Any man irrationally terrified of cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing is flashing beta (anxious-avoidant attachment style) like a neon sign, why else would he think it’s possible that a woman would want to cheat on him?
[notable exception: rape]
Nature only has two options for that– either you become a lot bigger like male Gorillas so you can fight off other males to protect your harem or you invest in monogamy. If you compare humans to Gorillas we are lot less sexually dimorphic with only about a 10% difference compared to 50% difference. For monogamy, of course it makes sense that we have developed the biology to feel romantic love. When human males fall in love their testoterone actualy decreases and female testosterone increases. Making us more similar to each other. Both males and females feel jealousy at their mate with another person. Humans have actually evolved for monogamy compared to our closest relatives.
All true. Mate guarding is proof positive of monogamy in humans.
Why guard when you have others and don’t care?
Infidelity would lead to tribal ostracisation, the man would probably die a genetic death if he wasn’t bludgeoned to death by the genuine spouse (rightly, crime of passion) but the female would be left either with children and no provider or the children would remain behind without a carer and fall prey to a wolf or something, those remaining wouldn’t really care for the children.
Women have more to lose from cheating and the current law corrects this. Anyone in a committed relationship who cheats is scum anyway, who cares what happens to them?
Bring on antibiotic resistance.
OT: So-called ‘dread game’ actually attracts anxious women and makes them act out, not the secure ones who care. When you pull away, they let you. It keeps the crazies.
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.
The Ancient Romans had a contraceptive so successful they used it to extinction;
Silphium was an important species in prehistory, as evidenced by the Egyptians and KnossosMinoans developing a specific glyph to represent the silphium plant. It was used widely by most ancient Mediterranean cultures; the Romans considered it “worth its weight in denarii” (silver coins). Legend said that it was a gift from the god Apollo.
This philosopher Roosh is citing doesn’t know jack about the relevant subjects and to anyone with a brain it shows.
Another counter-example or few, explain these;
r/K Selection Theory and amygdala damage in neoliberals. Conspicuous by omission. http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory-2/
Liberal fertility rates. Covered spectacularly well here: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/expectations-and-reality-a-window-into-the-liberal-conservative-baby-gap/
Neoliberals are by no means the standard bearers of fertility, I believe he thinks this way due to urban living.
As for altruism, someone please force-read him: http://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572
The West is experiencing increasing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue
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 of environment. 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.
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v16/n5/full/nrn3918.html Latest research. Latest in a long line.
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.)
Corporal punishment used to root out the liars and the other genetic deformities (mental illness, serial killers, rapists etc). http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/politically-incorrect-paper-of-the-day-death-penalty-eugenics.html
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.
Roosh: People who believe in evolution victim-blame the organism when it acts outside the confines of evolution.
It’s almost like there’s a part of the brain recently-evolved which can suppress our baser instincts
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.
Evolution is an ongoing process. http://www.livescience.com/45685-human-evolution-not-over.html
Roosh has bought into the neolib frame that they are the end and future of the world.
Disappointing from a redpill. He’s trying to post-hoc rationalize his overt fertility clock.
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