8.11.Conflict 6: Analysis and Explanation
Analysis and Explanation
The Homogenization of West Eurasia by Expansion and Hybridization
- We see physically modern humans ~300k years ago in east africa, and limited migration out of africa.
- We see basal humans emerge out of africa ~100k years ago and expand to australia – physically modern humans, but not socially, cognitively, or archelogically (tools) human.
- We see basal Eurasians out of africa ~65000 BC – culturally modern humans.
- We see the neolithic Revolution around ~50000 BC.
- We see basal East Asians split off and emerge about ~45000 BC.
- We see proto Early European Farmers split from Western Hunter Gatherers about ~43000 BC.
- We see proto Early European Farmers split from Caucasian hunter gatherers around ~23000 BC.
- We see Ancient North Eurasians emerge ~22000 BC
- We see the Latest Interglacial (the ice ages end) about ….. BC.
- we see the the Young Dryas Cooling, lasting about 1300 years begin in about ….. BC, thru ….. BC.
- We see Hunter Gatherer Temple Religion in Anatolia ~10,000bc.
- And we see the agrarian age emerge in west-anatoliaa and north mesopotamia ~9000bc.
- We see what we refer to as ‘proto-white’ people, emerge ~8000 BC out of four groups.
- We see agrarian expansion west in to europe and east out of Iran ~6500 bc.
- And we see warfare organized) in the present sense emerge ~6000 bc.
- We see what we refer to as modern europeans emerge around ~2500 BC with the aryan invasion.
- We see western eurasians (south, east, north, and west) reach today’s relative distribution (“Caucasians”) by ~2000 years BC, resulting in “a four fold decrease” in racial differences from the four neolithic populations.
- We see the aryan invasion results (as in north america in the 1500-1700’s) in the finnic, russian, baltic, scandinavian, germanic, italo-celtic, bands across europe, and a cline of their genetic dominance from east to west.
Until the agrarian age, the four major races of eurasia were as divergent as todays europeans and east asians:
- A cline of west to east european hunter gatherers almost merging with northern stepp herders.
- A cline of northern steppe to south Anatolian-european agrarians.
- A cline of north to south levantines (proto semites).
- And a cline of Central Armenian to Eastern Proto Iranics.
After the agrarian age, and the migration and trade that results from it, we see admixture, with the greatest admixture in europe, less in anatolia-iran, and least in the levant. However, despite the admixture by the agrarian and indo european expansions, three of the four original groups remain, despite our relative integration, with the hunter gatherers assimilated (exterminated).
Disambiguation of Human Generations
The Genus Homo refers to all human species including those extinct.
The Emergence of Archaic Human Varieties ….
The Emergence of Homo Erectus (2M years ago to 100,000 years ago)
The Emergence of Antecessor to Early Modern Humans (500,000 years ago)
The Emergence of Early Modern Humans (300,000 years ago)
The Emergence of Homo Sapiens “Corporis” (anatomically modern humans) 130,000 years ago.
The Emergence of Homo Sapiens Northern Dispersal (130,000 – 100,000 years ago)
The Emergence of Homo Sapiens “??????”, Southern (coastal) Dispersal (70,000-50,000 years ago)
The Emergence of Homo Sapiens Africa, Homo Sapiens Eurasia, Homo Sapiens Asia this dispersal.
The Emergence of Homo Sapiens “Socialis” (behaviorally modern humans) 50,000 years ago,
The Emergence of Homo Sapiens “Agricola” (Agricultural Humans)
The Emergence of Homo Sapiens “Empirica” (Greece)
The Emergence of Homo Sapiens “Scientifica” (Europe)
The Primary Cause of Adaptation: Climate
( … )
Today’s populations are the result of two rapid expansions that demonstrate technology is more influential than natural selection: the agrarian expansions in Eurasia and China, followed by the IE expansion in Eurasia.
These two expansions homogenized by hybridization (racialized) what had been a far higher number of racially distinct human groups.
The history of the evolution of mankind is the incremental acceleration of adaptability due to periodic stresses. While we don’t study it, climactic stresses in Africa alone during the past five million years were challenging.
So it is better to describe individual and group intelligence as the rate of individual and group adaptability, and group strategy, metaphysics(paradigm), mythology, tradition, and method of argument as regulating our adaptability to our group ability.
Unfortunately, group strategy can enhance of limit group adaptability, and can advance it (european) or regress it (Islam).
By using the model (paradigm) of adaptability to relate human biological, social, cognitive, and linguistic processes, we create commensurability across domains and produce a universal understanding of human behavior – thus assisting us in demonstrating that the entire human spectrum of tools (biological, social, cognitive, linguistic AND informational) is not only ‘relative’ but absolutely non-neutral.
Degree of and Rate of Adaptation
Human Biological Speciation
(Speciation can occur in just a few generations, but speciation sufficient to prevent reproduction takes millions of years, and there are many examples where speciation doesn’t prevent reproduction such as jackals and wolves. )
generalists that can later specialize
Rapidity of migration, adaptability to environments, and hybridization defeat speciation.
Universal reproductive preferences: Neoteny. Symmetry health, Proportionality, health White Skin Youth, Light Hair youth, Blue Eyes youth, Height esp long legs, but in competition for preference for petite women youth)
The ability to digest milk sugar, the ability to digest grains.
Diet, immunity and pigmentation
Human Strategic Speciation
Human Cognitive Speciation
Why Humans Don’t Speciate
If sexual creatures avoid mates with strange or unusual characteristics, in the process called koinophilia, then mutations that affect the external appearance of their carriers will seldom be passed on to the next and subsequent generations. They will therefore seldom be tested by natural selection. Evolution is, therefore, effectively halted or slowed down considerably. The only mutations that can accumulate in a population are ones that have no noticeable effect on the outward appearance and functionality of their bearers (i.e., they are “silent” or “neutral mutations”, which can be, and are, used to trace the relatedness and age of populations and species.)
This implies that evolution can only occur when mutant mates cannot be avoided, as a result of a severe scarcity of potential mates. This is most likely to occur in small, isolated communities. These occur most commonly on small islands, in remote valleys, lakes, river systems, or caves, or during the aftermath of a mass extinction. Under these circumstances, not only is the choice of mates severely restricted but population bottlenecks, founder effects, genetic drift and inbreeding cause rapid, random changes in the isolated population’s genetic composition. Furthermore, hybridization with a related species trapped in the same isolate might introduce additional genetic changes. If an isolated population such as this survives its genetic upheavals, and subsequently expands into an unoccupied niche, or into a niche in which it has an advantage over its competitors, a new species, or subspecies, will have come in being. In geological terms this will be an abrupt event. A resumption of avoiding mutant mates will, thereafter, result, once again, in evolutionary stagnation.
Human Civilizations Reflect Our Genetic Origins????
Means of Adaptation
- Physical: Morphological (Major) and Phenotypical (minor),
- Biological: Organs, cells, chemistry
- Institutional (esp trust)
- “Truthful” Knowledge
what led to the evolution of advanced intelligence in Homo sapiens was a drastic reduction of the aggressive drive. This change separated us from other species of monkeys and primates, where this aggression is still in plain sight, and eventually lead to the development of quintessential human traits such as empathy, social cognition and culture. This theory has received strong support from studies of animal domestication where selective breeding for tameness has, in only a few generations, led to the emergence of impressive “humanlike” abilities. Tamed foxes, for example, exhibit advanced forms of social communication (following pointing gestures), pedomorphic physical features (childlike faces, floppy ears) and even rudimentary forms of theory of mind (eye contact seeking, gaze following). Evidence also comes from the field of ethology (which is the study of animal behavior, focused on observing species in their natural habitat rather than in controlled laboratory settings) where it has been found that animals with a gentle and relaxed manner of interacting with each other – like for example stumptailed macaques, orangutans and bonobos – have more advanced socio-cognitive abilities than those found among the more aggressive chimpanzees and baboons. It is hypothesized that these abilities derive from a selection against aggression.
On a mechanistic level these changes are believed to be the result of a systemic downregulation of the sympathetic nervous system (the fight-or-flight reflex). Hence, tamed foxes show a reduced adrenal gland size and have an up to fivefold reduction in both basal and stress-induced blood cortisol levels. Similarly, domesticated rats and guinea pigs have both reduced adrenal gland size and reduced blood corticosterone levels. It seems as though the neoteny of domesticated animals significantly prolongs the immaturity of their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system (which is otherwise only immature for a short period when they are pups/kittens) and this opens up a larger “socialization window” during which they can learn to interact with their caretakers in a more relaxed way.
This downregulation of sympathetic nervous system reactivity is also believed to be accompanied by a compensatory increase in a number of opposing organs and systems. Although these are not as well specified various candidates for such “organs” have been proposed: the parasympathetic system as a whole, the septal area over the amygdala, the oxytocin system, the endogenous opioids and various forms of quiescent immobilization which antagonize the fight-or-flight reflex.
We have cannot yet identify genes determining intelligence, and those we find (thousands) appear to have tiny effect.
That differences in cognitive adaptability or the distribution of it (memory vs adaptability vs prediction-innovation vs agency) appear to leave little or no evidence in the fossil record other than minor variation in the volume of the braincase.
We have definite archeological evidence in the record of the evolution of tools and processes.
We have definite biological evidence in the record of differences in gestation rate, maturity rate, depth of maturity, and self-regulation (neoteny) – which is the direction of investigation that would help us understand intelligence.
We have definite biological evidence in isolated populations that the earliest people out of africa have the lowest cognitive rate of adaptation, and those people in highest stress environments (colder) the highest.
And we have a definite recent record in the size of class distributions across human groups.
And agrarianism obscured this evolution and it and possibly reversed it – which is my suspicion. And that only those groups that converted to manorialism (Rome, Germanic Europe, China) continued it. Agrarianism homogenized populations significantly, and limited evolution, in exchange for providing calories that allowed us a division of labor, specialization, and the application of our adaptation to the production of ‘tools, processes, and ideas’.
What it would imply is that the great filter is rather obvious: that any species that develops a division of labor and the returns on it that allow continuous adaptation into niches (division of labor) – and especially any group that develops democracy rather than ‘paternalism’, and does not continue natural selection, will devolve. We can see genetic devolution in the west in just 150 years. We can see genetic devolution in islam and everything it touces. Islam(judaism christianity) is the most desirable falsehood other than drugs.
Explanation: The Direction of Evolution: Rate of Adaptability Purchased by Neoteny
add: result of directional selection taking place over the past 15,000 years
Selection: Neoteny (also called juvenilization), refers to the delaying or slowing of the physiological development of an organism. Progenesis (also called paedogenesis) refers to the acceleration of sexual development. Together both neoteny and progenesis result in paedomorphism (or paedomorphosis): the retention in adults of traits previously seen only in the young.
Neoteny in humans refers to the slowing or delaying of body development, compared to other primates, resulting in features such as a large head, a flat face, and relatively short arms, as well as longer cognitive and self regulatory development. Conversely, neotenic development is complex and allows fine regulation because humans also have relatively large noses and long legs, both peramorphic (not neotenic) traits.
The evolutionary story of human evolution is predominantly retaining to adulthood the originally juvenile features of our ancestors by greater prolongation of childhood and retardation of maturity.
These neotenic changes have been brought about by sexual selection in human evolution
Rate of gestation, rate of maturity, rate of longevity, personality (uninhibited or rather agency, depth of voice, same for social adjustment (flexibiity), sociability (low asian, high black), Orientals most reproductively restrained, blacks the least. Social organizatio. Crime. Intelligence. Lowest black (-15), middle white, higher asian (+5). Cranial Capacity and Weight. Hispanics are between blacks and whites. Brain decline later in asians later.
(j) my suspicion is that steppe and tundra life is extremely difficult physically, socially, and psychologically, limiting populations, but it has a very low disease gradient, and it’s relatively easy to obtain food, so it’s a very good cauldron to cook evolution. Africa and the Levant (dry, high disease gradient), north Eurasia (cold steppe, tundra, forest), european (mild weather forests and rivers), SE Asia (hot monsoon weather forests), and the south pacific (islands) are very different environments.
Selection: Sexual Selection. These neotenic changes have been brought about by sexual selection in human evolution.
The evolutionary story of human evolution is predominantly retaining to adulthood the originally juvenile features of our ancestors by greater prolongation of childhood and retardation of maturity.
Differences in ability are neotenic and neurological. They may be nothing more than neoteny facilitating differential neurological growth.
This model, which invokes sexual selection, is proposed by Geoffrey Miller who argues that human intelligence is unnecessarily sophisticated for the needs of hunter-gatherers to survive. He argues that the manifestations of intelligence such as language, music and art did not evolve because of their utilitarian value to the survival of ancient hominids. Rather, intelligence may have been a fitness indicator. Hominids would have been chosen for greater intelligence as an indicator of healthy genes and a Fisherian runaway positive feedback loop of sexual selection would have led to the evolution of human intelligence in a relatively short period.
In many species, only males have impressive secondary sexual characteristics such as ornaments and show-off behavior, but sexual selection is also thought to be able to act on females as well in at least partially monogamous species. With complete monogamy, there is assortative mating for sexually selected traits. This means that less attractive individuals will find other less attractive individuals to mate with. If attractive traits are good fitness indicators, this means that sexual selection increases the genetic load of the offspring of unattractive individuals. Without sexual selection, an unattractive individual might find a superior mate with few deleterious mutations, and have healthy children that are likely to survive. With sexual selection, an unattractive individual is more likely to have access only to an inferior mate who is likely to pass on many deleterious mutations to their joint offspring, who are then less likely to survive.
Sexual selection is often thought to be a likely explanation for other female-specific human traits, for example breasts and buttocks far larger in proportion to total body size than those found in related species of ape. It is often assumed that if breasts and buttocks of such large size were necessary for functions such as suckling infants, they would be found in other species. That human female breasts (typical mammalian breast tissue is small) are found sexually attractive by many men is in agreement with sexual selection acting on human females secondary sexual characteristics.
Sexual selection for intelligence and judging ability can act on indicators of success, such as highly visible displays of wealth. Growing human brains require more nutrition than brains of related species of ape. It is possible that for females to successfully judge male intelligence, they must be intelligent themselves. This could explain why despite the absence of clear differences in intelligence between males and females on average, there are clear differences between male and female propensities to display their intelligence in ostentatious forms.
This absence of difference is now known to exist at the middle of distributions. Average intelligence doesn’t differ much between genders, but because female selection is restricted more towards males at the top end of male-male hierarchies or those increasingly above average in physical attractiveness, male trait distributions often have longer tails; that is to say the lowest and highest intelligences (and many more traits) in male populations extend further out into the lowest and highest values of the distribution than for female traits. This is because it paid to be a highly variable male, as average males would have consistently low opportunity, but variable males had a chance of falling on the preferred side of the trait distribution.
a strong correlation of 0.68 between racial IQ and cold-winter environments. There is an even stronger correlation of 0.92 between IQ and lightness of skin color, which developed in northern latitudes.
Selection by Female Direction. From what I can ‘guess’ from the record, females innovate in neotenic expression along the calcium-melanin channel which appears to have a dramatic effect on rates of reproduction (the time at which a woman appears desirable and fertile). And males innovate in the adaptive expression along the cognitive specialization channel – which as far as I know evolved from throwing spears (or throwing anything). And males either inherit neoteny from females or self domesticate along the testosterone channel since ‘bullying’ has to be kept at an equilibrium where there is sufficient aggression and dominance expression to maintain the competitive ability for the family, clan, tribe, without creating unmanageable internal conflict. My suspicion is that neoteny is a purely female specialization since women (unfortunately) do not select men for it, and therefore women maintain an equilibrium of their neoteny versus demonstrated male dominance, limiting of outsiders outside female social superpredation (control).
Selection: Female Direction: Females innovate in neotenic expression along the calcium-melanin channel which appears to have a dramatic effect on rates of reproduction (the time at which a woman appears desirable and fertile). Males males innovate in the adaptive expression along the cognitive specialization channel – which as far as I know evolved from throwing spears (or throwing anything). Males either inherit neoteny from females or self domesticate along the testosterone channel since ‘bullying’ has to be kept at an equilibrium where there is sufficient aggression and dominance expression to maintain the competitive ability for the family, clan, tribe, without creating unmanageable internal conflict. My suspicion is that neoteny is a purely female specialization since women (unfortunately) do not select men for it, and therefore women maintain an equilibrium of their neoteny versus demonstrated male dominance, limiting of outsiders outside female social superpredation (control).
Gestation: Gestational length is shorter in Black and Asian women compared with white European women and that fetal maturation may occur earlier.The median gestational age at delivery was 39 weeks in Blacks and Asians and 40 weeks in white Europeans. Black women with normal body mass index (BMI) (18.5–24.9 kg/m2) had increased odds of preterm delivery (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.56, adjusted for deprivation and BMI) compared with white Europeans. The OR of preterm delivery was also increased in Asians compared with white Europeans (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.56, adjusted for single unsupported status and smoking). Meconium stained amniotic fluid, which is a sign of fetal maturity, was statistically significantly more frequent in preterm Black and Asian infants and term Black infants compared with white European infants.
Rate of Maturity: Non-Hispanic black girls and boys mature early, but US children completed their sexual development at approximately the same ages
This is my current understanding of the evolutionary process and the differences in the sexes, races, subraces, groups, and classes.
The favorable traits: Height, Light Skin, Blue Eyes, Blonde Hair, Sociability, Agency, Milk, and Grain tolerance end up in Europeans thus advertising more pedomorphism than is extant – maintaining medium maturity without sexual neoteny as in east Asia. In other words, these traits advertise neoteny without requiring excessive neoteny at the sacrifice we see in east asians.
Despite the fact that these traits evolved in different places in different groups.
[ chart of testosterone is false ]
East Asians overplayed neoteny. Africans, Austronesians (impulsivity) and Semites underplayed neoteny (aggression). Europeans collected highly desirable features abandoning primitive rapid maturity, deep morphology, and lack of agency (Africa) without sacrificing reproductive desirability (east Asians), or carrying reproductive undesirability to extremes (Australians).
In other words, Europeans selected for symbolic neoteny without significant suppression of sexual maturity. Thus creating a balance between impulsive and rapidly maturing Africans, and calm slowly maturing east Asians.
It’s like the three little bears: “this one is just right”.
But while those factors produce a sexual market value, with the sweet spots in Indian brahmins and northern Europeans along the west to east cline, the quality of life of a people is largely produced NOT by those features, by CLASS selection. In other words: domestication (neoteny). So neoteny can be achieved by any of the races and subraces with time – not much time really. A few centuries at most.
If the group has the will for it.
“Tech beats genes.” Physical, political-social, and conceptual-informational.
The economics of life forms: A billion heartbeats. Metabolic rate – every incremental increase in tissue must use less energy. “A gram of mouse is runs at higher rates (energetic) than a gram of human”. Meaning that the rate of metabolism doesn’t keep up with scale. Ratio of brain to body. Ratio of cell size to body. Extraordinarily large, expensive, brains that is a tremendously energetic load to carry. Human brains (appear to) run more energetically (“hotter”) than other mammals – we are an outlier. We have higher energy metabolism, synaptic activity, and synaptic activity: neuronal. The downside of running hot is (doing more), just as muscles produce …. (cramps), vulnerability to oxidative stress: oxidants (byproducts, waste), that damage proteins, lipids, DNA and cells. The potential for oxidative stress is huge, especially given how long we live. The total glucose consumption is three times that of rhesus monkeys. But our neurons, which don’t reproduce, have to keep working that hard for all our lives and survive without replacement. (Alzheimer’s). There are no Alzheimers in non human primates. A hot brain can ‘burn up’. (Please run and drink water). So humans decrease in white matter (transport) even if not in grey matter(calculation). White matter increases until our midlife (40’s) and then decreases. There isn’t much evidence of cognitive decline until after age 60. So there is a difference between structural decline and cognitive decline, because of ‘cognitive reserve’ (plasticity).
Neoteny both Permits and requires the distribution of labor over variations in productive lifespan.
Social Exchange (Reciprocity) is a vital adaptation that evolved in social species and has become exceptionally specialized in humans. This adaption will develop by natural selection when two parties can make themselves better off than they were before by exchanging things one party values less for things the other party values for more. However, selection will only pressure social exchange when both parties are receiving mutual benefits from their relative situation; if one party cheats the other by receiving a benefit while the other is harmed, then selection will stop. Consequently, the existence of cheaters—those who fail to deliver fair benefits—threatens the evolution of exchange. Using evolutionary game theory, it has been shown that adaptations for social exchange can be favored and stably maintained by natural selection, but only if they include design features that enable them to detect cheaters, and cause them to channel future exchanges to reciprocators and away from cheaters. Thus, humans use social contracts to lay the benefits and losses each party will be receiving (if you accept benefit B from me, then you must satisfy my requirement R). Humans have evolved an advanced cheater detection system, equipped with proprietary problem-solving strategies that evolved to match the recurrent features of their corresponding problem domains. Not only do humans need to determine that the contract was violated, but also if the violation was intentionally done. Therefore, systems are specialized to detect contract violations that imply intentional cheating.
One problem with the hypothesis that specific punishment for intentional deception could coevolve with intelligence is the fact that selective punishment of individuals with certain characteristics selects against the characteristics in question. For example, if only individuals capable of remembering what they had agreed to were punished for breaking agreements, evolution would have selected against the ability to remember what one had agreed to. Though this becomes a superficial argument after considering the balancing positive selection for the ability to successfully ‘make ones case’. Intelligence predicts the number of arguments one can make when taking either side of a debate. Humans who could get away with behaviours that exploited within and without-group cooperation, getting more while giving less, would overcome this.
As far as I know, intelligence is (like everything else) almost entirely genetic. It’s early development biased. It’s controlled by a large number of REGULATORY rather than small number of protein-producing genes. The difference is purely neuronal. Of the neuronal difference its largely hippocampal and frontal. So a lot of things must go right for exceptional intelligence, and anything can go wrong.
As far as I know nothing else is required of the paleolithic revolution (cognitively modern humans) other than an increase in IQ from the 50-60 (childlike but dangerous) range to the 70-80 range (unpleasant and hostile) to the 80-100 range (most of humanity), to the 100+ range (the people that make abstractions).
As far as I know, the difference will not appear in changes in morphology.
As far as I know cranial volume does appear in morphology and IQ.
As far as I know just like spine and brain volume, developmental IQ is the result of selection for neoteny (slowing development).
As far as I know the races reproduce, mature, and have gestation rates that reflect this.
As far as I know aboriginals isolated after the ice age increase in water levels have mid 60IQ’s
As far as I know IQ roughtly translates to latitude – but I can’t yet determine if this is an agrarian or pre-agrarian manifestation.
As far as I know everyone would have just GUESSED this prior to the second world war, and pseudoscience has tried desperately to suppress the obvious that science is not confirming.
The african, neandertal, Denisovan evolutionary distribution is no different from the african, west eurasian, east asian evolutionary distribution. And it’s extraordinarily likely that the same distribution persisted throughout hominid history. The difference is that eurasia is an east-west distribution, and africa a north-south distribution, so as the climate varied, proto-humans could migrate with the climate, and african climate would adapt to the world climate. Once out of africa, the trend continued except it continued into cold. Cold is interesting because it decreases the disease gradient, decreases competitors, and predators, but preserves if not increases food availability since animals that survive the cold have the same benefits from it as humans. In other words, as soon as you can compete with the cold, its easier to compete with the cold than it is to compete with disease, competitors, and predators.
I know genetics have solved the Anthony-Renfrew debate, but any half-decent economist would have explained rather easily that IE had to evolve on the Eurasian Steppe, not in Anatolia. Or as Mainer’s say “Ya c’-hn’t get they-yah (evolve that) from hee-yah.” Always despised Renfrew as an anti aryanist for ideological reasons. Honestly, steppe life must have been pretty cool. In some ways, it still is.
Evolution by Exhausting The Hierarchy of Adaptability
Here is how to understand human evolution (if you don’t know already) Many followers do.
0) Vision increases your range of awareness of threat AND opportunity.
1) Access to standing and running gets you greater defense and greater range, and greater access to foods.
2) Access to better foods lets you swap brain size for digestion size.
3) Better food, smaller digestion and bigger brains, lets you narrow pelvis and run longer and faster at lower energy cost.
4) Walking and Running are ‘cheap’ and free up your hands to carry tools, weapons, and resources increasing your range, safety, and food opportunity.
5) Losing your fur lets you dissipate heat faster, so that you can run down rather than fight increasingly rewarding game.
6) Having achieved physical imitations, Increasing your cognitive metabolism is all that can improve from there. The physical evolution of (skeletal) modern humans doesn’t appear in skeletal remains.
7) METABOLISM depends a great deal on heat dissipation, and climate affects heat dissipation, as such IQ differences generally reflect ancestral cognitive metabolism in increasingly cold vs increasingly hot temperatures.
8) Since we’re cooperative creatures, and cooperation is an unsubstitutable good, the only improvement you can make after cognitive metabolic improvement is decreasing in friction (increase in efficiency) meaning selective reproduction for ability and selective culling of lacking ability)
10). Communication distributes computation decreasing demand for memory retention and increasing demand for adaptation.
11). The only way to improve communication is a system of measurement.
12) the only way to improve a system of measurement is parsimony, consistency, correspondence, and coherence. Ie: “P”.
All of those show up in the archeological record in skeletal remains. But that doesn’t explain the difference between the three waves out of Africa, or Africa itself.
What doesn’t show up on the record?
Great apes have an average IQ of 25, and corresponds to a 2.5 year old european – although visual memory in apes and social cognition in humans excel in opposite directions. Humans at this level have an extreme intellectual disability and are unable to self-care.
The average IQ of bushmen is estimated at 55, and corresponds to the mental age of a European of about 8 years. The average cranial capacity of Bushmen is 1250 cubic centimeters. This is at the bottom end of mild intellectual disability. These people can self-care and learn very basic skills.
The average IQ of Australian aborigines is the low 60s and they’re the oldest surviving isolated anatomically modern humans. This corresponds to the mental age of an 11-year-old European. it’s possible to learn basic life and survival skills and live independently.
Average African IQ (if we throw out the extreme bottom) is in the low seventies ~71. 70 is the beginning of ‘intellectual disability’. So there is ‘nothing wrong’ with africans.
There is a gap here in the 75-85 range. It’s important to understand that people in this range cannot serve in the military as there are absolutely no functions that they can perform without greater risk to materials, self, and others. Why this gap exists is something I’d like to understand.
The band across North Africa, the Levant, Iran, Pakistan (which is the group I don’t know how to name, and call ‘iranics’, but others call south eurasians has an IQ of about 85. Same for native Americans. This appears to be the ‘normal’ basal eurasian human IQ, absent climate ‘selection pressure’. This is also the ‘problematic’ spectrum where people are both aware of their limitations, frustrated by them, and able to plan and execute crimes. I use the term the ‘evil 80’s’.
SE Asia (which should include part of southern india) comes in at around 90. (same with turkey but it’s due to european admixture).
Next is Europe outside of the southeast at 100, and east Asia at 105. But both Europe and east Asia have undergone political ‘natural selection’ under various forms of manorialism (and aristocracy).
I can and others have, think of explanations for northern IQ advantages other than political selection, but I don’t think any are necessary.
The Brain: The three outer layers of the brain are called the supragranular layers, and they increase in thickness from the lower to the higher animals. Mr. Fuerle reports that the supragranular layers are 15 percent thinner in blacks than in whites.
Evolution operates within a limited framework at a given point in time. In other words, the adaptations that a species can develop are not infinite and are defined by what has already taken place in the evolutionary timeline of a species. Given the immense anatomical and structural complexity of the brain, its evolution (and the congruent evolution of human intelligence), can only be reorganized in a finite number of ways. The majority of said changes occur either in terms of size or in terms of developmental timeframes.
Larger size. More developed cortex. More Folds, More neurons, and the demands of Language, demands of coalition forming, deception, and reciprocal altruism (accounting of reciprocity)
Examples of Cranial Capacity and Intelligence (Adaptability)
East Asians ~1416/105 (very high variability in the data)
… (Burma, thailand, indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia) ~87
Hybridized Asian Europeans
… Latin Americans: 79-92 : 86
… Native Americans: ???, 69-94 : 86
… Europeans ~1369, 87-105 : 99
… European Americans ??, 96-109 : 101
… American-British Ashkenazim 107-115
… Ashekanizim 103
… Sephardim 91
… Unhybridized Arabs 86
Hybridized Turkic-Europeans 90
South Asians (The Islamic World of north africa, sw asia, india)
… N Africans: ???, 77-91 : 86
… SW Asians: ???, 85 (83-84)
… S Asians (Indians): ???, 77-96 : 84 (82)
Sub Saharan Africans ~1282, 59-89 : 67
… outbred in carribean: 60-80 : 71
… outbred in usa: 77-93 : 85
… outbred in Britain: 73-94 : 86
Aboriginals in Africa and Australia
… Bushmen: ~1250, 48-62 : 55
… Pygmies: ???, ??-?? : ~52?
… Aborigines ~1199, 53-74 : 62
Neanderthals: 1,500–1,740 cm3 (92–106 cu in) (bigger brains)
Homo erectus; 850 – 1100 cm3
Australopithecus anamensis; 365-370 cm3
Australopithecus afarensis; 438 cm3
Australopithecus africanus 452 cm3
Paranthropus boisei 521 cm3
Paranthropus robustus 530 cm3
Gorillas: 340–752 cm3 (20.7–45.9 cu in)
Orangutans: 275–500 cm3 (16.8–30.5 cu in)
Chimpanzees: 275–500 cm3 (16.8–30.5 cu in)
The Origin of White People
Selection: Pro-Social Behavior (Self Domestication)
One reason that made scientists claim that humans are self-domesticated lied within our behavior: modern humans are docile and tolerant, like domesticated species, our cooperative abilities and pro-social behaviour are key features of our modern cognition,” says Cedric Boeckx. “The second reason is that modern humans, when compared to Neanderthals, present a more gracile phenotype that resembles the one seen in domesticates when compared to their wild-type cousins,” added the expert.
To identify signs of a self-domestication process in humans, researchers made a list of genes associated with domestication features in humans, out of the comparison with the genome in Neanderthals and Denisovans, extinct human species. Then, they compared this list to the genome from some domesticated animals and their wild relatives, for instance, dogs compared to wolves, and cattle compared to wisents.
Results showed that this overlap was only relevant between domesticated species and humans. “Those modern humans’ selected genes under selection may prove central to a relevant process of domestication, given that these interactions may provide significant data on relevant phenotypic traits,” said Boeckx.
compared the genomes among other great apes. “We found that chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas do not show a significant overlap of genes under positive selection with domesticates. Therefore, it seems there is a ‘special’ intersection between humans and domesticated species, and we take this to be evidence for self-domestication.
Note that Pygmies are normal in height until puberty, at which point they fail to grow quickly like people of other races
Selection: Gracile Form
the australopithecines arose around 4 million years ago and diverged into robust (also called Paranthropus) and gracile branches, one of which (possibly A. garhi) probably went on to become ancestors of the genus Homo.
Selection: Skin color.
Apes are white. Early Man traded heat dissipation by the combination of gracile form and hair diminution for dark skin as a defense against solar radiation and its effects on natal biochemistry. This ape, relatively recently deceased, is not an albino, but merely a chimp that developed a skin disease that caused the loss of his hair (fur). Upon leaving the high solar radiation of Africa, humans reverted to natural coloring: light skin, in exchange for increasing vitamin D production with less skin exposure.
Skin pigmentation is determined by a number of genes that regulate the expression of melanin (eumelanin and phenomelanin). Melanin protects against the spectrum of UV radiation: UV-A, UV-B and UV-C. UV-C radiation is stopped by the atmosphere (ozone layer). UV-B penetrates the outer layer of the skin (epidermis) and causes Vitamin D production. Vitamin D is necessary for calcium absorbtion, especially for maintaining bones and serving the immune system – most obviously leading to Rickets, and as a byproduct produces pelvic changes that prevent birth of children. UV-A penetrates deep into the skin, and is extremely to cells, cell processes, chemistry, and dna – in particular, the chemistry of Folates. Folates serve many functions, including the formation of the very early nervous system in the first few weeks of gestation. Any UV-A interference with folates produces severe birth defects. So we need UV-B and need to avoid UV-A. Thankfully oily fish provide vitamin The Sami eat reindeer that eat lichen, metabolize it, and transfer vitamin D to the humans.. Inuit people have evolved high sensitivity to pigmentation, by getting UV-A from reflection off of the ice, and vitamin D from marine mammals and fish.
In 1978, NASA launched the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, which was able to measure the ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth’s surface. Jablonski and Chaplin took the spectrometer’s global ultraviolet measurements and compared them with published data on skin color in indigenous populations from more than 50 countries. There was an unmistakable correlation: The weaker the ultraviolet light, the fairer the skin. Rogers et al. (2004) performed an examination of the variation in MC1R nucleotide sequences for people of different ancestry and compared the sequences of chimpanzees and humans from various regions of the Earth. Rogers concluded that, at the time of the evolutionary separation of chimpanzees and humans, the common ancestors of all humans had light skin that was covered by dark hair. Additionally, our closest extant relative, the chimpanzee, has light skin covered by thick body hair. Over time human hair disappeared to allow better heat dissipation through sweating and the skin tone grew darker to increase the epidermal permeability barrier and protect from folate depletion due to the increased exposure to sunlight. When humans started to migrate away from the tropics, there was less-intense sunlight, partly due to clothing to protect against cold weather. Under these conditions there was less photodestruction of folate, and so the evolutionary pressure stopping lighter-skinned gene variants from surviving was reduced. In addition, lighter skin is able to generate more vitamin D (cholecalciferol) than darker skin, so it would have represented a health benefit in reduced sunlight if there were limited sources of vitamin D. The genetic mutations leading to light skin may have experienced selective pressure due to the adoption of farming and settlement in northern latitudes.
Anthropologist Peter Frost has proposed that sexual selection was responsible for the evolution of pigmentary traits of women in Northern and Eastern European populations. He contends that the diversity of hair and eye color in Northeast European populations originated as a consequence of intense female intrasexual competition, and is an adaptation for reproductive success in women
Humans in the equatorial latitudes must and do remain dark. Humans in the middle latitudes (south of 40 degrees) can tan (vary pigmentation). Humans in northern latitudes may all but lose the ability to tan (vary pigmentation). And some in extreme north latitudes have evolved extreme abilities to produce tanning.
In hominids, the parts of the body not covered with hair, like the face and the back of the hands, start out pale in infants and turn darker as the skin is increasingly exposed to sun. As hominids, all human babies are born pale, regardless of what their adult color, and melanin production does not peak until after puberty. Human skin color fades with age, and over the age of thirty our skin experiences a decrease in melanin-producing cells of about 10% to 20% per decade as melanocyte stem cells gradually die.
In other words, light skin color is neotenic: an indication of youth. As such it signals fertility. It’s this signal of fertility that drives sexual preference and rates of reproduction. The genes that regulate melanin expression vary across human populations, and are present in all three primary (continental) races. Europeans possess all three genes that limit production of melanin, limit the precursor to melanin, and limit the transport of precursors to melanine, and this combiation is fixed (universally saturated) in the european population. Africans and Asia skin tone is regulated by different genes, and both groups have a broader range of skin tone than europeans.
Selection: Sexual Dimorphism. Females are generally lighter than males. The most likely driver of skin color difference is female demand for vitamin D production during pregnancy and nursing. Vitamin D is necessary for the absorbtion of calcium rom the diet. Pregnancy genereates a 400% increase in biolgical demand for calcium which is otherwise supplied from embrittlement of the mother’s bones and infant birth defects. Steppe herder life and lactase tolerance evolved with stepp herder life dramatically increase calcium availability. Repeating: Light skin is neotenic.
Selection: Blue eyes evolved from a single mutation, about 8000bc, in a woman, on the black sea. Eye color expression is polygenic (many genes) but the mutation prevented the expression of melanin (brown) in the eyes. Eyes are least responsive to cognitive manipulation. (The window to the soul). Light eyes communication more information (trust vs risk) than dark.
Selection: Red hair. Red has far more of the pigment pheomelanin than it has of the dark pigment eumelanin.
Selection: Blonde Hair: The novel trait of blonde hair from the ANE population. Blonde hair is surprisingly regulated by a one letter change in DNA. But like most coloration, affects the expression of melanin (eumelanin). Black, brown, and Blonde hair are determined primarily by the genes that regulate this expression.
Selection Signaling: If we can adapt by it – we do. If we can signal by it – we do.