Speaking on the same subject twenty years ago ("Base biology", 166), I argued that reducing the size of the jaws, observed in civilized human races, cannot be explained by the action natural selection of favorable variations, for none of those reductions, of which over millennia has developed a modern form jaws, could not be in every case so favorable for individual to contribute to the experience of his progeny, on the the basis that the reduction of the jaws entails the reduction of costs for the nutrition, and and reduces the severity, you need it to support. I don't left then without consideration, though would have a reason to do it, and two other possible reasons. You could argue that there is some the organic relationship between the increase of brain mass and a decrease in the size jaws doctrine camper on the front corner can be used for this proof. But this argument can easily be defeated by the indication of many examples of people with small jaws, and an equally small brain and the cases the existence of individuals known by the power of his mind and having the same time the jaw, not only not less, but even large vs medium sizes. If possible cause to recognize sexual selection, and against the latter can make an objection for assuming that even such a weak decrease of the jaws which may take place during separate generation, had an attractive effect on men, but other imperative choices in men were too numerous and important to not outweigh the above-mentioned one. As for choice of women, it hardly had any value for more early times women were kidnapped or bought, and in more later times they were given in marriage by their parents.
1 comment:
Speaking on the same subject twenty years ago ("Base
biology", 166), I argued that reducing the size of the jaws, observed in
civilized human races, cannot be explained by the action
natural selection of favorable variations, for none of those
reductions, of which over millennia has developed a modern form
jaws, could not be in every case so favorable for
individual to contribute to the experience of his progeny, on the
the basis that the reduction of the jaws entails the reduction of costs for the
nutrition, and and reduces the severity, you need it to support. I don't
left then without consideration, though would have a reason to do it, and two
other possible reasons. You could argue that there is some
the organic relationship between the increase of brain mass and a decrease in the size
jaws doctrine camper on the front corner can be used for this
proof. But this argument can easily be defeated by the indication of many
examples of people with small jaws, and an equally small brain and the cases
the existence of individuals known by the power of his mind and having the same
time the jaw, not only not less, but even large vs medium
sizes.
If possible cause to recognize sexual selection, and against
the latter can make an objection for assuming that even such
a weak decrease of the jaws which may take place during
separate generation, had an attractive effect on men, but
other imperative choices in men were too numerous and
important to not outweigh the above-mentioned one. As for
choice of women, it hardly had any value for more
early times women were kidnapped or bought, and in more later times
they were given in marriage by their parents.
Post a Comment