/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9975022
>dismisses the evidence because he doesn't like it
primates in particular have been experimentally observed using their cognitive abilities to exclude free riders in social groups, just as would be expected from that explanation.

>>9975028
>thinking that differential progeny survival based on parent cognitive ability isn't a factor in human evolution
actually read the paper next time instead of skimming the abstract
>To address the
question of whether and how these results could be extended to
other populations and other time periods it should first be emphasized
that the negative selection observed here is likely an
example of gene–environment interaction, that is, both the direction
of the effect and its magnitude could and would change
given a different socioeconomic environment (5, 34, 35). It is likely
that in any population where educational attainment is negatively
correlated with fertility the underlying genetic propensity would be
in decline, but the actual magnitude and characteristics of the
decline could vary substantially. Based purely on epidemiological/
demographical data, there were concerns about this sort of decline
in Great Britain more than eight decades ago (10). However, the
possibility that such a phenomenon could be temporary or transitional
was also raised (10, 29). Indeed, there might be a cyclical
element to this phenomenon, because it is only reasonable to assume
that alleles associated with greater educational attainment
must have been under positive selection at some time during the
evolutionary history of Homo sapiens.

>>9913699
>So you think homo erectus was just as smart as us, by that logic?
let me clarify: in MODERN humans.
homo erectus had a smaller brain with lower caloric demands and a vastly different lifestyle from homo sapiens. the shift to a more tool-intensive lifestyle with higher population density, dependence on large prey, and widespread use of fire provided strong selection for larger brains that could manage complex tasks (which were enabled by the consumption of cooked food).

>In fact there are plenty of explanations: colder climates, urban civilizations selecting for intelligence, etc.
why would colder climates select for larger brains than warmer climates?
and urban civilizations are about a thousand years old at that (depending on how you define "urban"). until quite recently, population structures were very similar in most parts of the world.

>comparing artificial selection to natural selection
they operate by entirely different mechanisms, you inbred chucklefuck. it's like comparing stream erosion to a water-jet cutter.

>muh IQ meme
will /pol/acks never get tired of their pet mythology?
I'm one of (((them))) by the way. and I'm a paleontologist with two actual degrees in this field.

>>9906464
>I don't understand basic geometry: the post
the earth's shadow and the moon are not moving in the same direction, retard.