Might this not just mean it changed direction, faced with an environment where strength size and intelligence were all now less reproductively important than resistance to disease?
Might this not just mean it changed direction, faced with an environment where strength size and intelligence were all now less reproductively important than resistance to disease?
If you mean that there was no such decrease, then that contradicts what I’ve read.
I do not mean that. I assumed MixedNuts was parodying the people I was referring to that don’t understand Darwinian evolution (but think they do), since his argument makes the same kind of error (“directional”, teleological evolution) I was lamenting.
But it did! Look at the decrease in height, weight, and bone and dental health just after agriculture took off.
Might this not just mean it changed direction, faced with an environment where strength size and intelligence were all now less reproductively important than resistance to disease?
I’m pretty sure MixedNuts was joking.
If you mean that there was no such decrease, then that contradicts what I’ve read.
I think they mean MixedNuts drew the opposite conclusion to the one his referenced facts support.
I do not mean that. I assumed MixedNuts was parodying the people I was referring to that don’t understand Darwinian evolution (but think they do), since his argument makes the same kind of error (“directional”, teleological evolution) I was lamenting.