the "need" is for people to actually understand population genetics and the process of evolution leading to intense social cooperation in the human species. when that happens, people, maybe especially moderns, are shocked by the irrelevance of individuals to ancient evolution.
to oversimplify, individuals don't "evolve", but kinship groups (gene pools) do.
the "need" is for people to actually understand population genetics and the process of evolution leading to intense social cooperation in the human species. when that happens, people, maybe especially moderns, are shocked by the irrelevance of individuals to ancient evolution.
to oversimplify, individuals don't "evolve", but kinship groups (gene pools) do.
Thanks again for an excellent link. Frost is correct. He makes an excellent summary.
I've read so much stuff over 50 years I probably forgot more than I can remember.
Peter Richerson's web page showing his publications is now a mess, presumably because he is retired and UC Davis no longer helps him maintain it, but it used to be good.
Other people in the "Dual Inheritance" theory camp have written about it, maybe Samuel Bowles (Santa Fe Institute) or one of his collaborators?
web search: "population genetics" - the wikipedia result is pretty good
the "need" is for people to actually understand population genetics and the process of evolution leading to intense social cooperation in the human species. when that happens, people, maybe especially moderns, are shocked by the irrelevance of individuals to ancient evolution.
to oversimplify, individuals don't "evolve", but kinship groups (gene pools) do.
Do you have a suggested reference for an educated layman to better understand population genetics? Something not TOO deep? :-)
I just now added 4 books by Michael Tomasello to my "buy in the future" list.
And following 6jgu1ioxph's link above led me to Peter Frost's definition of HBD: https://web.archive.org/web/20211203072346/https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/01/sometimes-consensus-is-phony.html
Does that sound like the right track to you?
Thanks again for an excellent link. Frost is correct. He makes an excellent summary.
I've read so much stuff over 50 years I probably forgot more than I can remember.
Peter Richerson's web page showing his publications is now a mess, presumably because he is retired and UC Davis no longer helps him maintain it, but it used to be good.
Other people in the "Dual Inheritance" theory camp have written about it, maybe Samuel Bowles (Santa Fe Institute) or one of his collaborators?
web search: "population genetics" - the wikipedia result is pretty good
I'll post a substack note with a quote from darwin that you might find interesting.