the Nature paper is empirically spot-on and theoretically obsolete at the same time it reflects a pre-1990s dogmatic belief in extrapolationist macroevolution.

the Nature paper is empirically spot-on and theoretically obsolete at the same time it reflects a pre-1990s dogmatic belief in extrapolationist macroevolution. It treats high heritability + polygenic additive variance as if that somehow proves the Modern Synthesis was right about everything It never once mentions developmental constraint, niche construction, active rGE as a macroevolutionary ratchet, cultural-genetic co-evolution, or any of the other mechanisms that the post-2000 literature now recognizes as necessary for understanding why human g exploded in the last million years YMMV