I don’t follow. I’m asking whether a discipline within science is demonstrating

I don’t follow.
I’m asking whether a discipline within science is demonstrating a bias as a means of overcorrection for previous errors, by way of virtue signaling that they ‘got the message’ and in doing so claiming many of us didn’t presume gene flow previously anyway, given the plasticity of human(male) reproductive adaptation.

It doesn’t change the basic question of whether there were four or five major isolation and speciation events each incrementally (quite large really) exchanging aggression for agency and cooperation, and apparently, group average intelligence as a consequence.

This is the meaningful question that we struggle with in the postwar revolt against the Darwinian explanation for all observed phenomena in the universe: evolutionary computation by marginal decreases in random trial and error.

The present crisis, at its origin, is between the feminine presumption of marginal indifference, and the masculine presumption of marginal difference, and the rather dramatic differences in group behavior because of those differences, depending upon the density and proximity of groups. And the resulting formal and informal institutions necessary for each group.