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

Taking 60K Somalis and putting them into a midwest town was clearly a mistake. I was talking about evolution not culture. Don't change the subject.

Are somalis genetically identical to the dutch descended natives?

It was malnutrition or lack of estrus historically. Again caloric intake has been a major concern for human populations up until very recently.

You'd probably be surprised how little calories is survivable. And how many sources there are in many environments.

Especially if you're not surrounded by a concrete jungle, and are supporting a relatively small population.

And yes, starvation was a big concern. But milk wasn't the only food source, nor was it free of costs.

Kek. If you studied you would know you are arguing against gene-culture co-evolution as lactase persistence is the best case for it.

What exactly *are* you arguing? I'm just making the case that lactase persistence isn't a universally critical point of survival. Because it isn't.

It is not universally critical it only occurred a few places. It is however the best case study for gene-culture co-evolution and hence provides a baseline for where we can theorize that such evolution has occured.

There's also, as far as I can tell, no aggressive selection mechanism for its *elimination*

Specifically lactase persistence only occurs in pastoral cultures.

What is the argument then? Is it based on how quickly the trait proliferated in pastoral cultures?

In order to evaluate how typical this is, and whether it represents the absolute range of the transformation/adoption of traits, we'd need some kind of metric of how much more often people who weren't lactose tolerant *died* before reproducing. Or their relative fertility and mortality rates.

Do we have those?

Faulk is theorizing gene-culture co-evolution. To validate that hypothesis we must consider meotic drive in that context. The case of lactase persistence is a very high drive over a very short period. Faulk's hypothesis meets **neither** of those standards.

Comparing a single food source to the entire economy? And you're saying that a single food source should win out as the more exceptional selective pressure?

Because that's what Faulk is arguing. That the economic pressures selected for people who were, shockingly, more effective at navigating market systems for their benefit. So, traits like delayed gratification, long term planning, and anticipating the demands of others, would be very useful, and the subset of the population who exhibited those traits would stand to benefit more significantly from virtually every industry involved in that market.

Even assuming that over this period of time, all that happened is that the distribution of traits moved from an aggregate which just barely couldn't sustain a decentral market economy, to one which just barely could, this would have a tremendous impact.

Furthermore taking into account the active role the church often played in condemning and discouraging certain activities.

Hell, even the aggressive policing against consanguinity among commoners certainly played a role.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8RBJV9J3vCc/maxresdefault.jpg