In evolutionary terms women who didn't immediately fall in love with conquerors and gladly have their children were dead ends. Women who did, weren't. Place your bets on the behavior of women descended from that selective filter.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @PositivelyKatie @BeigeShiba
There was a filter that didn't let certain tendencies survive - hostility to conquering men was totally and completely wiped out Since then of course evolution continued but there's not a single filter weeding out any particular behavior so you get selection for different traits
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @PositivelyKatie @BeigeShiba
It's not one data point. It's *everywhere* where the ancient genome gets sequenced.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @PositivelyKatie @BeigeShiba
Now you sound like the IQ deniers. You don't need to find the specific genes for a behavior to identify a filter for it - humans have bred horses for speed without sequencing the horse genome.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
There's more science in IQ denial than in whatever ad hoc position you've invented for this conversation. What exactly is your position? That human ancestors aren't 2/3rds female? That there weren't many many total Y chromosome replacement events around 8k years ago? What?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.