I just wonder because my interpretation is far more rational than many things I read and its an interpretation of facts since we see a change in the physique of humans if looking back to the Mesolithic times and compare it with recent populations in Europe. Evolution never stops obviously, but the question is how strong the selective pressure is and if it leads to generalist-passive (progressive) or specialised-active adaptation with the former being more desirable and the later should be related to certain given environments. Concerning brain development my comment was not meant that way as I explain now.
The Lactase gene is an obvious adaptation to a specific socioeconomic regime (herders), but hardly related to other generally positive features, in fact I would compare it with resistance to malaria and pox, the advantage is clear.
It was necessary for herders being able to a keep a high standard even with generally reduced nutrition and to survive especially on the move, or in difficult times in general. Thats a good example for positive selection indeed. Did you read Howard Bloom? His book is partly speculative as well but still a great one and, if ignoring the "politically correct" crap very inspiring. Obviously its a standard example for recent (positive) evolution, I dont know if I mentioned it here on this board, but I mentioned it in one board myself as such an example, so I dont see why this should be contradicting?
and:
dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=raceclass&thread=1114320763&page=2I should have been more precise because if you read my comments in this and other threads I never said that no positive selection took place after the advent of the Neolithic revolution - in fact,
I always spoke about dependent sedentary farmer cultures in bigger agglomerations and didnt spoke about intelligence alone. As you might know I already commented certain features probably correlated with the new socioeconomic and selective regimes after the Neolithics. Keeping that in mind, where do you see an objectively false interpretation of the facts from my side? Thats a serious question.
Especially the spread of positive genes could have happened even faster after the Neolithic revolution (genetic sweep) but just under certain preconditions, namely high positive selective pressure (biological success of successful individuals AND groups), mobility (social and spacial) and advantageous cultural and socioeconomic trends.
The stronger reduction and infantilisation was in Europe no constant trend, even after the introduction of agriculture, in fact we can see a forward and backward in some regions, associated with migrations, changing conditions and associated selective regimes. The final, feudal society with its limitations for farmers and proven negative trends (plagues, hunger, dependence etc., all I mentioned) seems to have effects like I described it.
I always spoke about sedentary-dependent farmers, not mobile farmer warriors in a combined economy with sufficient nutrition (especially "guaranteed" proteins) and no one sided "working specialisation" and herder-warriors. Obviously, before the rise of states, we can see various waves of advanced groups expanding as a group into other areas, both prehistorically and historically.
The final point is, even that general degeneration does take place wouldnt have to mean that no positive trends could occur as well. F.e. you could have a population with a lower and lower physical and mental ability on average but with an improvement if its about the childbirth - even an advantage positive for other groups as well though the overall characteristics are not desirable.
I asked you some time ago how you want to explain the reduction (not just gracilisation, refinement!) other than by the factors I mentioned in various threads, same goes for brachycephalisation.
I can practically prove, and you know it too, that self-domestication and sedentary lifestyle is associated with broad headed brachycephalisation (Dinariomorphism seems to be correlated to herders in higher areas) as well to plagues. Distribution mostly in inland and areas of retreat, generally in poorer areas, study about possible correlation between plague resistance and brachycephalisation. Originally posted by QVP, compare with the vulnerabilty of leptomorphic body types if its about tuberculosis.
That the average brainsize was bigger in Mesolithic Europe than in modern Europe should be known nevertheless, even if innovations took place - what was the case as I said above and for the reasons mentioned above...
Some simple facts about contraselection in feudal medieval times:
There was limited social and spacial mobility, there are proven cases even to the 19th early 20th century of especially rich farmers killing children because they wanted to keep the soil together whereas poorer farmers raised often more children at the edge, but nevertheless.
The negative effect of celibacy should be clear, which was taking away some of the best elements of the population of this, out of a successful reproductive circle, for a long time some of the few chances of farmer children for social success but for the price of losing biologically.
Another fact is that mercenaries, again some of the best elements of the population joined, had high chances of dying, getting wounded, or even if successful dying finally childless or with less children than a farmer.
The positive sieving to the cities is also known, usually people which go in the cities were being described as being taller, longer headed and more often leptomorphic than the average population (compare with results if looking at early immigrants from Europe to America and their respective average of the ethnic group at home) but again, cities had lower birthrates on average.
In the cities certain plagues were very common, again we know that certain variants (f.e. leptomorphics) are more vulnerable if its about certain diseases (f.e. tuberculosis) which is again a specific trend.
Etc.
If there are specific failures of mine I would be glad if you correct or discuss them...