Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Peter Frost's avatar

This kind of study is catnip for me! Just a few observations:

1. You should send a PDF to Mihai G. Netea, mihai.netea@radboudumc.nl and Yang Li, Yang.Li@helmholtz-hzi.de They found the same apparent increase in cognitive ability in post-Neolithic Europeans, while minimizing their finding:

"Although we see an increase in PRS for cognitive functions over time this does not necessarily translate to an evolutionary pressure towards an increasing intelligence. What this means is that there is an increase in allelic frequencies for alleles that positively impact multiple different measures of cognition but only to a limited extent in relation with the heritability of these traits."

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2022.833190/full

2. If mean cognitive ability increased among Europeans from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic, how do you explain the decrease in cranial size during the same period? see:

Hawks, J. (2011). Selection for smaller brains in Holocene human evolution. arXiv:1102.5604 [q-bio.PE]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5604

My explanation is that the cranial decrease was simply due to a decrease in mental storage of spatiotemporal data (due to the abandonment of hunting over large expanses of territory). We don't see this decrease in tropical humans who had hunted over smaller expanses. Do you have any other explanations?

3. "However, selection didn't seem to be stronger in England than in other places." If I understand correctly, the "other places" were other parts of northwestern Europe. Am I correct? Cognitive evolution in Clark's model was driven by the expansion of the middle class after c 1200 AD, and this was a phenomenon throughout northwestern Europe.

4. It's difficult to disentangle demographic replacement effects from selection effects. The estimate of 40 to 98% replacement of European hunter-gatherers by Anatolian farmers should thus be viewed with caution. The methodology assumes that demographic replacement explains all of the genetic change across the time boundary between hunter-gatherers and farmers. In reality, some of it was due to:

- founder effects, i.e., hunter-gatherers who adopted farming were a tiny percentage of all hunter-gatherers, hence the founder effects were considerable. This genetic change was random, but a certain percentage of it would have matched the genetic characteristics of Anatolian farmers.

- selection effects, i.e., hunter-gatherers who adopted farming were now adapting to the same regime of natural selection as that of Anatolian farmers. Hence there was some convergent evolution.

5. Cold winters theory doesn't really apply, since we're looking at the post-Paleolithic time window. Cognitive evolution during that period was driven much more by the demands of social complexification.

Expand full comment
Grundvilk's avatar

Really interesting plots. Best-fit trends are one thing -- but what do you make of the clear increases in variance that have occurred for all interpreted attributes over time? Is it just bigger sample size responsible for showing this increase in attribute range -- or is the central tendency of the genetics just increasingly decaying due to some kind of unspecified stress or stresses? Also, it occurs to me that this sort of interpretative enterprise is tautologically limited by the modern nature/preconceptions/assumptions of those doing the look-see, just like Big Tech's attempts at constructing AI are limited by the preferences and biases and assumptions of the AI programmers; i.e., hunter-gatherer 'intelligence' is not necessarily the same thing as the later observers' 'intelligence'. There is, no argument, that there was a structural discontinuity of some sort taking place during the Neolithic Revolution.

Expand full comment
25 more comments...

No posts