No, sorry, you misunderstand; what you claimed is that there have been changes in height *due to* the genetic contribution, i.e. changes in gene frequency. I think we agree on what you're claiming here, I just don't believe you
-
-
Replying to @vjpsyverson @Mad_Science_Guy and
I’ll try to clear up what I’ve been saying many times over. People have gotten taller over time. Part of that—especially recently—has been due to nutrition. But also part of that is choosing taller mates, which is what the study I sent you shows.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RafFaithfull @Mad_Science_Guy and
OK, so nutrition accounts for that post-1800 spike. Cool. We agree on that. So, then: What *actual increase in height* are you claiming is caused by sexual selection? And what is your evidence that it *actually does* result from changes in gene frequency, i.e. evolution?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vjpsyverson @Mad_Science_Guy and1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @RafFaithfull @Mad_Science_Guy and
ok, that's kinda interesting, but wtf does it have to do with what we're talking about?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vjpsyverson @Mad_Science_Guy and
And yes, under the Merrill Webster definition sexual selection with consent chooses and disallows certain people to reproduce with other people. The link is just about sexual selection and height. This isn’t connected to one that had the conclusion you didn’t buy
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RafFaithfull @Mad_Science_Guy and
It's just about sexual *behavior*, though, not about sexual selection (in the sense that causes actual evolutionary changes in a population)
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @vjpsyverson @Mad_Science_Guy and
Current day sexual choice is part of the study of sexual selection. I’ll avoid three replies and give you some training wheels on this one. Imagine circles laid on each other, one bigger than the the other. The bigger one is is sexual selection and the smaller is sexual choice
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RafFaithfull @Mad_Science_Guy and
That is...not what those words mean in any scientific context I'm familiar with. Are you making up your own jargon here?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vjpsyverson @RafFaithfull and
This is MRA/HBD jargon and is derived from their extreme - even for the evo-psych world - belief that *nothing* about sexuality is culturally contingent and it's all strictly determined by selfish genes
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"Genetics" is a religion to them, like if you actually try to push back on the idea that any major element of culture is genetically determined - that it could easily have happened differently - then you're the religious brainwashed one ("blank-slateism")
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.