The paper makes a number of key points. First off, morphological traits (MT) and life history traits (LHT) are essential for assisting researchers and the general public in understanding how the environment and genetics influence certain qualities. Second, in animals, the MT is more heritable than the LHT (Gavrus-Ion 322). Thirdly, the paper contends that the LHT has lower heritability values than the MT since the LHT is directly correlated with fitness and the number of children (Gavrus-Ion 326). The article also makes the case that while the additive genetic variation is similar in LHT and morphological, the environmental variables exhibit a higher variance in fitness-related traits. The article uses several pieces of evidence to support the argument. It relies on facts and judgment. On the population facts of inhabitants of specific periods. The judgment also forms another important part of the evidence used in the article. The authors make judgment considering the data they have on hand and reported information. For, instance, they compare the death records and the church records to make their decision.
The authors mainly rely on secondary data to make their judgment. They should have engaged primarily sources as conducting surveys to determine the issues they intended to clarify. It is evident that they were using reported information. They should have at least engaged some of the searchers to ask more about the errors in the research if there were any. Additionally, the literature review of the article relies on the research of aloud samples there might be a possible distortion of the results or errors.
The questions I have after reading the article include:
Did the researchers visit the sites they reported to have used data from?
Did they engage the people they were using their data either through emails, phone class or interviews?
In making their judgment, did they consider data or information form present-day research?
Work cited
Gavrus‐Ion, Alina, et al. “Measuring fitness heritability: Life history traits versus morphological traits in humans.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 164.2 (2017): 321-330.
