Gregory Cochran and Razib Khan: The Speed of Human Evolution

[Heraclitus]

A old talk on Bloggingheads.tv I missed with a few interesting points.

Gregory’s latest book, “The 10,000 Year Explosion” (11:28)
How long have humans been smart enough to think of farming? (04:32)
Did the invention of helmets change our skulls? (06:23)
How survivors of the Black Plague were doubly lucky (03:08)
Disease: ultimate weapon of the European invader (08:56)
The hidden connection between language and milk-drinking (21:57)

[Felch]

Razib is kind of an annoying interviewer. It would have been better if it were just a video lecture by Cochran. Still kind of cool stuff about the advantages of lactose tolerance and world domination.

[Al B. Sure!]

Razib Khan? What is he? Pashtun? Isn't he an inferior species with a genetic mean IQ of 80 or so, Hera?

[C0ckney]

Razib is kind of an annoying interviewer. It would have been better if it were just a video lecture by Cochran. Still kind of cool stuff about the advantages of lactose tolerance and world domination.

isn't he just. the amount of times i wanted to say "shut up you little plurk and let the man speak!".

interesting stuff though.

[Snotty]

Ive only just started watching, but it seems a bit half arsed already. A decent boundary mic costs a tenner, it can sit in front of you with no hassles and you dont look like a plonker on a tiny webcam stream

[giblets]

Razib Khan? What is he? Pashtun? Isn't he an inferior species with a genetic mean IQ of 80 or so, Hera?

Why even post if you're not going to contribute?

[Al B. Sure!]

Why even post if you're not going to contribute?

Have you ever contributed EVER, gribbler? You never post more than a single sentence at a time.

[giblets]

Have you ever contributed EVER, gribbler? You never post more than a single sentence at a time.

Sorry but that's a non sequitur. It's also factually incorrect.

[Snotty]

I would like to think Im fairly impartial gribbler, and since it has been noted your replies are often short, I have noticed a kernal of truth in the accusation

[giblets]

Yeah, but I often use more than one sentence. And I have no idea why Alby thinks that proves I never contribute. Maybe he can't discern quality, so he thinks you're supposed to put as many words on the screen as possible.

[Heraclitus]

gribbler's comments are usually short but they often do contribute and are usually quite intellectually honest and I say that as someone with whom he has had bitter disagreements.

[Heraclitus]

Razib Khan? What is he? Pashtun? Isn't he an inferior species with a genetic mean IQ of 80 or so, Hera?

Obvious troll on your part Alby but I feel I need to respond.

Why would Pashtun's have IQ in the low 80s? Anyway he is not Pashtun, he is genetucally basically Gujarati with significant East Asian admixture.

And even if for some reason the average IQ of his population of origin was that low, what would this have to do with anything? I've often linked to him here on Apolyton, his science articles and blog posts are good, though I agree that to someone who is not used to seeing him talk (the Elizer Yudkowsky talk is another good one with him) he can come off as annoying. I clearly think he is someone worth reading and is both intelligent and informed on many subjects I'm interested in.

[Berzerker]

I fell asleep listening, missed the last 15 min or so

but the vid didn't keep pausing on me - thx Hera, feel free to link more (I like stuff about human origins, etc)

They said aborigines' skulls are ~2x thicker than "ours" - some have a myth about the dream time of their ancestors in which they describe themselves as primitives - primeval humans - among God's first people who then left the land of the creator (not positive about that last part ). Its possible archaic or even anatomically modern humans ran into homo erectus in Indonesia ~75 kya before entering Australia and interbred. Some of the older skeletons from down under are built heavier, and the Hobbits of Flores look even more ancient - very small cranial capacity, almost chimp like - and they lived recently.

I dont get it, what "pressure" resulted in "us" while the people we supposedly evolved from didn't evolve much in other parts of the world?

[Heraclitus]

They said aborigines' skulls are ~2x thicker than "ours" - some have a myth about the dream time of their ancestors in which they describe themselves as primitives - primeval humans - among God's first people who then left the land of the creator (not positive about that last part ). Its possible archaic or even anatomically modern humans ran into homo erectus in Indonesia ~75 kya before entering Australia and interbred. Some of the older skeletons from down under are built heavier, and the Hobbits of Flores look even more ancient - very small cranial capacity, almost chimp like - and they lived recently.

Didn't they also stated that like 10% of Europeans had brow ridges about 3000 years ago? A explanation for differences in skull thickness could have nothing to do with Archaic admixture (thought its very probably Aboriginals have Denisovan admixture due to their relation with the Melanesias) but a whole lot with the fact Australian Aboriginals never invented or used helmets (the possible effect of which they talk on for 6:23).

Also there is some speculation that Denisova admixture may be a Asiatic Erectus population, what little fossil evidence was found speaks slightly against this (the teeth are a bit unusual), but it is within the range of variation.

I dont get it, what "pressure" resulted in "us" while the people we supposedly evolved from didn't evolve much in other parts of the world?

I don't think anyone claims that hunter gatherers of today are culturally or anthropologically similar to the hunter gatherers of old especially since they are limited to marginal quality lands and they are probably also better at it. I don't see a reason why this would be genetically true either. So its inaccurate to say "didn't evolve much". The so called "archaic" features one might see are not archaic at all since in that environment they are probably adaptive.

However perhaps if one has a small isolated population under the exact same selective pressure as the rest the rate of new adaptive mutations would be higher in the bigger one.

[Barnabas]

If I understood correctly, the issue with Australian natives is that they became isolated a long long time ago, so, little competition and little genetic diversity kept them relatively unchanged.

They did not have to face the glaciation, which seems to have been something major that determined the way into which caucasians and mongoloids adapted.

If I recall correctly, in the Americas, you can also find ancient skulls with brow ridges, and the debate was, were these people a different group that got extinct? or are they the ancestors of modern natives who just got more gracile?

It looks like agriculture is linked with gracilization. If I recall correctly the only amerindians with brow ridges were those of the southernmost tip of Argentina and Chile, very primitive hunter gatherers.