Sep 02, 2016 10:59pm
As far as I know:
1) In the past 30k and certainly in the past 10K years, the driving force in selection has not been mutation, but ‘group domestication’. There are environmental selection pressures ( dairy, wheat, disease resistance) sure. But the primary difference has been, just like domesticated animals, domestication of mankind using the same techniques: maturity.
2) the primary change that has caused the major differences between the groups has been (a) rate of sexual maturity (b) degree of sexual maturity, (c) sexual dimorphism. Ergo, the primary differences are in endocrine expression. And from the data I’ve seen it’s pretty obvious that the majority of the difference in maturity has been testosterone levels.
3) the secondary major change has been how aggressively some groups domesticated their members (east asia, western europe), or how groups have been unable to domesticate their members (africa and the middle east).
4) of the mutations that do occur, these appear to be relatively minor trade-offs that are related to these differences (speed vs endurance).
So as far as I now, evolution by mutation, has been trivial compared to evolution by domestication. This inverts the multi-level selection argument: most genetic mutation and drift is ‘noise’ and domestication has been the primary influence (culture), with the secondary influence being territory.
The genome stores ‘options’ which we seem to express. I am not sure there is much of a case to be made for terribly meaningful genetic variation.
In my work (which seems to have pleasantly shocked the Africans), as far as I can tell, the major differences between regional groups is how successful they have been at eliminating the underclasses and redistributing reproduction upwards.
Unfortunately, it’s impolitic. But it is what it is.
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
