12th - 18th Century Europe's war on murder resulted in positive genetic change in Europeans

This OP was created in response to a PM received which read as such, "(https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi263) Shows that there may be certain traits of passing down criminal susceptibility, but it is not certain or even likely for this to happen, so a mass killing of violent individuals would not accomplish this via evolution". 

This quote was in direct response to the studies I'm about to provide, and since the person in the PM said that I hadn't refuted anything he said, I decided to bring the discussion to the forums. In this OP, I will show that 'criminal susceptibility' in the European genepool was heavily reduced due to the 'war on murder'.

In short, the Catholic church started to change its tune on criminality around the 12th Century, and thus things like the death penalty began to become existent in Europe. Harpending and Frost (2015) showed that somewhere between 1-2% of each generation's male population was executed for violent crime. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300114 .

Over 30 generations (assuming each is approximately 25 years), you are eliminating each generation's most violent criminals, and hence their genes which made them violent. Moreover, these violent genes set left the gene pool, and the gene pool reshuffled for the next generation *without* that most violent gene set being a part of it. Over time, this meant that the extreme end violent genetic clusters became less and less.

Thus, in effect, removing the most violent 0.5-1% of the population's most violent genes, results in removing about 45% of the violent genes altogether (since the effect is compounded, not a singular generational removal of 22.5%). Thus, the PM quote saying that this is a "mass killing" is misaligned with this phenomenon, because it was not a singular "mass killing", but rather killings that compounded over time to produce a far different effect.

Note that the AIC government source the PM cites was produced in 2003, well before the existence of this 2015 data. Thus, at the time of publication, it is entirely possible that the AIC was correct in its conclusions, at the time of publication.

None of your sources provided the existence of a so-called, "Violence gene" in fact they went on to speculate exactly what caused this drop of violence and what made it specifically seemingly "inheritable". Not only this, but they do not actually rebuke my own source which it seems you have failed to actually read or at all respond to. Yes those who are from criminal families may have a slightly higher susceptibility to criminal inducing behavior, sometimes but that does not at all correlate to a "violence gene"

This is a strawman because I said "violent genes", not "violence gene".

Do you believe genetics don't influence behaviour?

The study you provided said that there was no current evidence to suggest that a gene, or a small number of genes, are accountable for criminal behaviour. It was published in 2003. Since then, in 2015, we have my study which shows a severe drop in criminality as the worst criminals are killed in each generation. Did you understand this time?

Furthermore, since you didn't understand the OP, I never argued that a singular gene or "small number" of genes causes criminality. I argued that a number of genes were eradicated from the genepool, as the criminals were ended. That number of genes could be a medium, large or gigantic amount -- it isn't specified.

Let me ask you a question, which specific behavioral traits cause one to be more or less violent?

Can you please respond to my post directed at you before you pivot?