[Sherman Logan]

“[the book discusses} circumstantial evidence that the genetic characteristics of the English lower class evolved between the 13th century and the 19th.”

I think I know what this involves.

Extensive analysis of birth rates over 1000 years of English history have shown that the nobility, gentry and merchants had a significantly higher surviving number of children than the serfs/peasants/artisans.

In the economy of the times, not all could maintain their parent's status. So the younger sons all took a step down.

Noble younger sons became gentry. Gentry younger sons became farmers. Merchant younger sons became artisans, etc.

Over many generations this resulted in the lower classes gradually being changed genetically to be closer to the upper classes, and this is sometimes used to explain the gradual emergence of England as a world power.

Sorry I don't have more detail on the thesis, but I think that's the gist of it.

Apparently this didn't apply to the same extent on the Continent, I'm unsure why.

[jocon307]

That makes sense, thanks for explaining it. Although you are right why would it not have occurred on the continent. But is that really “evolution”?

[RegulatorCountry]

In the economy of the times, not all could maintain their parent's status. So the younger sons all took a step down.

By law. Primogeniture law. Younger sons did not inherit, only the firstborn. This also drove many younger sons of minor nobility and merchants to the colonies. Many indentured themselves willingly. They had a word for doing this but can't recall it.