4 ms·

This is the kind of argument I am criticizing; "its possible based on our vague understanding of the evolutionary background and selection that this behavior is

This is the kind of argument I am criticizing; "its possible based on our vague understanding of the evolutionary background and selection that this behavior is adaptive, therefore my speculation that this behavior is genetic and the product of evolution is correct."

Retric 11y ago
That's not what I said. I said there was enough time, not that anything actually happened. Thus evolution did not teach anything to anyone about guns is not a supported statement. Also, a preference for guns may or may not be there. But, males having more accurate spatial reasoning due to ranged weapons, or hunting, and or fighting seems likely. The obvious alternatives are men developed better spatial reasoning due to very widespread cultural factors seems suspicious. Or women scarified spacial reasoning for some competing features. Anyway, the important thing is not to debate this stuff it's to actually test it. Until then it's all just hot air.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  Based on my understanding of genetics this reasoning is very unattractive. 500 generations is the blink of an eye in genetic terms, certainly not enough to establish a pervasive biological truth that splits the whole species across gender lines; maybe you could drive a single variant to global fixation in that time, certainly not a whole host of them. We also know nothing about how strong the selection in question might be. We know nothing, in fact, to suggest that evolution is "likely" other than our own gut feeling that it must be. As for testing, that would be great. But it turns out that proving anything about human evolution is very hard, because most of the evidence is lost.
  - Retric 11y ago
    For clarity, 500 generations is easily enough for some things to shift frequency, but I agree it would be fast for a mutation to go global. However, thrown weapons are on the order of ~20,000+ generations which is plenty of time for mutation and adaptation. As to testing, I suspect we are going to get good at decoding and editing human DNA fairly soon which is going to have a lot to say about these debates. This stuff is either there or not, when and how it showed up (or not) is a separate issue. EX: Domestic cattle are also around 500 generations old and lactose tolerance has been spreading. http://www.foodbeast.com/news/map-of-milk-consumption-lactose-intolerance-around-the-world/ http://www.foodbeast.com/news/map-of-milk-consumption-lactos... lactose tolerance: 96% in Sweden, 10% in China.
    - soperj 11y ago
      They believe the haast eagle evolved from the little eagle diverging just 700 000 years ago. That's going from one of the smallest eagles(0.8kgs) to the largest (11.5-14kgs) in under a million years.
    - astazangasta 11y ago
      >when and how it showed up (or not) is a separate issue. I don't think new data will help. We know the changes in the human lineage; even if we knew their functional meaning, we cannot conclude whether they are adaptive or not; fixed alleles reveal little about their fixation time, etc.
- Excavator 11y ago
  More accurate spatial reasoning could also be due to the need to navigate a complex environment, such as during hunting. It could also be due to males having larger brains.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Or to break out of the survival aspects, dance may have been important from an evolutionary standpoint. IMO, the point is there are reasonable priors to actually start testing. Some of these tests may be fairly simple. Do male baby's throw more things than female baby's?
RodericDay 11y ago
Noam Chomsky was concise on this point: > "You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it." Cordelia Fine also does a great breakdown of all of these "monkey does this, therefore women shopping men guns" arguments. The nurture side of the debate has its "no nature" clowns, but the caricature by the top-level post is completely uncalled for in this context.
- Retric 11y ago
  That's not an actual counter argument. You can say men are associated with blue for purely cultural reasons, because _ A: It's a 'just so' story which we can make about anything. B: very recently they where associated with red and pink was considered a less intense version of red. The B is an actual reasonable argument, where A has zero predictive power.

Retric 11y ago

That's not what I said. I said there was enough time, not that anything actually happened. Thus evolution did not teach anything to anyone about guns is not a supported statement. Also, a preference for guns may or may not be there. But, males having more accurate spatial reasoning due to ranged weapons, or hunting, and or fighting seems likely. The obvious alternatives are men developed better spatial reasoning due to very widespread cultural factors seems suspicious. Or women scarified spacial reasoning for some competing features. Anyway, the important thing is not to debate this stuff it's to actually test it. Until then it's all just hot air.

astazangasta 11y ago
Based on my understanding of genetics this reasoning is very unattractive. 500 generations is the blink of an eye in genetic terms, certainly not enough to establish a pervasive biological truth that splits the whole species across gender lines; maybe you could drive a single variant to global fixation in that time, certainly not a whole host of them. We also know nothing about how strong the selection in question might be. We know nothing, in fact, to suggest that evolution is "likely" other than our own gut feeling that it must be. As for testing, that would be great. But it turns out that proving anything about human evolution is very hard, because most of the evidence is lost.
- Retric 11y ago
  For clarity, 500 generations is easily enough for some things to shift frequency, but I agree it would be fast for a mutation to go global. However, thrown weapons are on the order of ~20,000+ generations which is plenty of time for mutation and adaptation. As to testing, I suspect we are going to get good at decoding and editing human DNA fairly soon which is going to have a lot to say about these debates. This stuff is either there or not, when and how it showed up (or not) is a separate issue. EX: Domestic cattle are also around 500 generations old and lactose tolerance has been spreading. http://www.foodbeast.com/news/map-of-milk-consumption-lactose-intolerance-around-the-world/ http://www.foodbeast.com/news/map-of-milk-consumption-lactos... lactose tolerance: 96% in Sweden, 10% in China.
  - soperj 11y ago
    They believe the haast eagle evolved from the little eagle diverging just 700 000 years ago. That's going from one of the smallest eagles(0.8kgs) to the largest (11.5-14kgs) in under a million years.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    >when and how it showed up (or not) is a separate issue. I don't think new data will help. We know the changes in the human lineage; even if we knew their functional meaning, we cannot conclude whether they are adaptive or not; fixed alleles reveal little about their fixation time, etc.
Excavator 11y ago
More accurate spatial reasoning could also be due to the need to navigate a complex environment, such as during hunting. It could also be due to males having larger brains.
- Retric 11y ago
  Or to break out of the survival aspects, dance may have been important from an evolutionary standpoint. IMO, the point is there are reasonable priors to actually start testing. Some of these tests may be fairly simple. Do male baby's throw more things than female baby's?

RodericDay 11y ago

Noam Chomsky was concise on this point: > "You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it." Cordelia Fine also does a great breakdown of all of these "monkey does this, therefore women shopping men guns" arguments. The nurture side of the debate has its "no nature" clowns, but the caricature by the top-level post is completely uncalled for in this context.

Retric 11y ago
That's not an actual counter argument. You can say men are associated with blue for purely cultural reasons, because _ A: It's a 'just so' story which we can make about anything. B: very recently they where associated with red and pink was considered a less intense version of red. The B is an actual reasonable argument, where A has zero predictive power.