Geoffrey MillerVerified account

you don't need brand *new* adaptations to arise in order to call evolution. you can just have changes in frequencies of genes/traits. here's a possible example:https://twitter.com/hbdchick/status/978991629485789184?s=21 …

Granted, but this is often what people take it to mean when people speak of recent evolution. Case in point: evo psychologists claim “modern skulls house a stone Aged mind”—> people say “naw, there’s evidence of recent genetic evolution.” Which is irrelevant to the claim.

It's not irrelevant. The "stone aged mind" claim is likely false or misleading (although some mismatch is probably true). And the idea that the mind/brain of people of European ancestry is the same as the mind/brain of, say, the Hadza is remarkably implausible.

I couldn’t disagree more strenuously. Just because a mind is stone aged doesn’t mean it’s mismatched. It depends on how developmental programs are designed.

I'm not sure what you are strenuously disagreeing about, so it's hard to comment : ) Do you think that all human populations have the same mind/brain? I find that radically implausible, and most evidence contradicts it.The stone aged mind is senseless unless we operationalize it

All it means is that there have been no new, qualitatively distinct adaptations constructed to solve new adaptive problems in the past 100k years. Yes, until demonstrated otherwise, I do think extant hunter-gatherers have the mind/brains w/ same basic design as WEIRD people

I think the evidence against that is rather strong. Furthermore, it makes virtually no evolutionary sense. Why wouldn’t brain/mind change just like skin color to environmental challenges?

What evidence? There isn’t even a specific hypothesis under evaluation re: a new adaptation that evolved in response to a novel adaptive problem. Let alone evidence for one.