Yes, and "gradually" can be very relative. Saying that for any trait of consequence it must take millions, or even tens of thousands of years is absurd. When we evaluate the mankind as a single population, its proportion of traits has transformed *absurdly* over the past 100 years.

When evolutionary biologists talk about "fast evolution" they are talking about thousands of years. not a single generation.

Most of his argument is is involving the distributions of traits, not the adoption of entirely new traits.

He's not saying, "we can develop laser eyes in a hundred years"

he's saying, traits which already exist, can be dramatically altered in frequency by selective pressures

No but he is saying something equally stupid.

He's saying something which is demonstrably *true*

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491501300114

Only if you know nothing about evolution could you consider that to be "true".

This is the paper which he cites

The evolution of *new* traits, requires an extraordinarily long time. The change in the distribution of *existing* traits, can occur very quickly.

Yes OK a papaer by a couple of anthropologists who make drastic misunderstandings of evolution compounded by the deranged interpretation of someone who knows nothing about either subject.

AKA typical Faulk.

You're literally arguing against the proportion of traits being subject to the proportion of individuals in a population with those traits.

I hope you eventually realize how dumb that sounds.

Maybe someday.

This is basic bitch selective breeding shit. Of all the people in the world who are too dumb for animal husbandry, I didn't expect one to be a biologist.

I'm arguing the documented rates at which a trait, even under "fast evolution" even under "gene-culture co-evolution" can become dominant.

It would vary by trait and circumstance.

Yes and the metric for that is called 'drive' or 'meotic drive'. This is well studied. A quick look at that research would prove the premise impossible.

Except that it has happened.

In the fevered dreams of Ryan Faulk it happened. In the material world we inhabit it cannot happen.

Look at how dramatically the face of agriculture can change in a relatively shot period of time, or dog breeds. They have something in common, it's a consequence of aggressive deliberate human selection. Mankind is, itself, subject to human selection.

And we're not even necessarily talking about a specific population adopting new traits, but just changing the ratios of traits.

Do you understand selection pressure?

That's like saying, "there's already scottish terriers, let's make more of them"

you're acting is if this is something unfathomable

I'll take that as a "no"....

Apparently *you* don't understand fucking MATH.

No wonder the college system is in the shitter. Someone can legit go through 6 years and not understand this concept? I'm in awe. Goodnight, sir.

Oh the math is simple.

I did hear it takes kids 6 years these days so I cannot fault them for being slow....

Better call evolution guys, according to Jym, math is cancelled.

So let's overview selection pressure just to bring you up to speed. The example I gave earlier of lactase persistence. The survival benefit is **twice*** the caloric intake of those who do not have that adaptation. Regardless of laws or custom. Now compare that to medieval laws. Which may or may not catch the offender and may or may not remove them from the gene pool. Which has a stronger drive?

You have to evaluate the comparative advantage vs disadvantage. As well as the costs. How much more likely is someone to die before reproducing if they'e lactose intolerant? Is someone going to force you to drink nothing but milk for your entire adult life?

Or hey lets look at a shorter period of the same characteristic. Violent crime from 1994 to present (25 years) what is your rate of change and it *that* genetic?

And it is total life and reproductive opportunity remember starvation could remove you from the gene pool as recently as the last century.

Maybe some of it. But almost certainly not all of it. But then, if we're talking about specific regions which experienced dramatic demographic shifts from high violence populations, it's more likely that it was genetic.

So total calorie intake has been a consistent survival factor unlike the vaugaries of law.

For instance, taking 60,000 Somalis and putting them into a Midwestern town.

that calorie intake factor would have to presume the alternative from a specific food source is lethal starvation, or malnutrition to the point of primary or secondary infertility