For topics unrelated to my 4 latest articles, please post in this thread. Please post about any topic at all.
However comments related to my 4 latest articles should be posted in their comment sections:
More evidence that intelligence is the ability to adapt
The antiquity of the three main races
Pumpkin Person 
Oy vey pp looks like some good pieces! I’ll check them out later and maybe reply to some.
Hey William. I was arguing with some alt-righters last night. This one guy said to some other guy “you have 50 on years of European genes.”
I said source? And cited Razib’s Our Magnificent Bastard Race post. He brings up neanderthals. He really thought that Eurasians are neanderthal before homo sapiens. Then he says Europeans go back 100 k years. These people man. They have no idea of new research. Then he says the Kalash share phenotypes with Europeans and neanderthals, even after I showed him they are closer to South Asians. He brought up pig dna for some odd reason but it had nothing to do with it.
Pushing the multiregional hypothesis when it’s long discredited. Hilarious. They don’t even genetics!!
One thing I never understood was Neanderthal-ology.
It was like what Egyptology is to afrocentrists to Whites.
Because Neanderthals had bigger brains, and we’re part neanderthal, it shows our smartness?
Why not just look at the actual Cranial Capacity data?
I don’t even get it.
Neanderthals were wiped out around 40 K years ago, apparently just after homo sapiens (I’m not sure if the ancestors of modern Europeans, or others), began to arrive.
Is it true that NE Asians (very big brained people) have Neanderthal DNA?
PP says ‘it was too tough for the Neanderthals to survive in NE Asia’, but I’ve heard otherwise elsewhere.
PP is wrong.
http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2013/02/04/genetics.112.148213.short
Of course they could survive there. They survived northern Europe.
East Asians have 20 percent more neanderthal dna on average compared to Europeans.
homo erectus survived in ne asia with a tiny brain.
peking man:
Jensen specifically wrote in his 1998 book that there were no H Erectus in Northeast Asia, probably because the climate was beyond their survival skills.
Hey, dookie, have you seen Stefan Molyneux’s youtube playlist of interviews he’s done with psychometricians, geneticists etc. on IQ race and crime?
On the other hand, can you take a look at that and review it, P.P.? He’s interviewed peoole who haven’t been interviewed in video format before, like the biosocial criminologists and Turkheimer
I did see bits and pieces of his interviews on youtube. I’ll try to view more if I get time.
The Gottfredson interview was outstanding. I loved seeing Beaver too.
jensen was mistaken or lying.
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/humanevolutionnotes-110708112848-phpapp02/95/human-evolution-notes-43-728.jpg?cb=1310124624
Mugabe you are right.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2.htm
PP, please read books by evolutionary biologists on evolution!
Neanderthals became more primitive in culture and in the size of their frontal lobes (in short they evolved backwards upon leaving africa) with time. Even as the wheather became harsher. Swanscombe skull is indistinguitable from a modern homo sapien sapien skull , and he was the direct ancestor of the neanderthals. Both the denosivans and the neanderthals are the only hominids to ever evolve outside of africa..and both did so by becoming more primitive…hmmm Homo erectus encounterd harsher (cold) conditions outside africa AT THE SAME TIME. But only those homo erectus populations in africa evolved further into us.
It is clear that climates change with region and as you approach a regein the areas climate you are in gets more like the approached regions climate. So the “logic” that Homo erectus was not intelligent enough to survive outside of africa because it was too cold is flawed. There were parts that aproached the cold parts that were perfect in temperature for allowing this type of evolution (cold intelligence) to kick in …but it didnt. Thats why it has to be wrong (cold increased intelligence in humans theory)
“Thats why it has to be wrong (cold increased intelligence in humans theory)”
You’re horribly wrong.
Take two genetically similar populations in both phenotype and genotype. Put one in Africa during the glacial maximum and the other in Siberia in northern Europe. In 5k years, will one of those populations have higher g than the other? Will one of those populations be dumber relative to the other?
If you say no you are fooling yourself.
“Take two genetically similar populations in both phenotype and genotype. Put one in Africa during the glacial maximum and the other in Siberia in northern Europe. In 5k years, will one of those populations have higher g than the other? Will one of those populations be dumber relative to the other?”
I’m sorry race realist but I have to agree with chikoka. If you take neanderthals(cold adapted hominids) and AMH(tropical adapted hominids) It’s easy to see that the tropical species was more intelligent. Now The cold can select for bigger brains(bergmans principle) but that is still an inferior method of encephalization compared to a social arms race plus climatic shifts that Homo sapiens in africa was facing.
I’m sorry race realist but I have to agree with chikoka. If you take neanderthals(cold adapted hominids) and AMH(tropical adapted hominids) It’s easy to see that the tropical species was more intelligent.
When AMH first left Africa 100,000 years ago, we got our asses kicked by Neanderthals. It was only when we challenged them again, after tens of thousands of years of living in Eurasia that we beat them
Now The cold can select for bigger brains(bergmans principle)
The cold does not select for bigger brains, rather the heat selects AGAINST big heads. The cold does however select for intelligence with increased brain size being a spandrel (to borrow Mugabe’s term).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
“When AMH first left Africa 100,000 years ago, we got our asses kicked by Neanderthals. It was only when we challenged them again, after tens of thousands of years of living in Eurasia that we beat them”
Lmao no, we had sex with them and then out competed them in resources, until eventually most of their relatively deleterious genes weeded out. Neanderthals were without a doubt less intelligent that the first anatomically modern humans.
“The cold does not select for bigger brains, rather the heat selects AGAINST big heads. The cold does however select for intelligence with increased brain size being a spandrel (to borrow Mugabe’s term).”
The cold selects for bigger size in general that’s why it also selects for bigger brains. What you said is almost nonsensical, if heat selects against big brains because of overheating than shouldnt the cold provide a positive selection for bigger crania?
Lmao no, we had sex with them and then out competed them in resources, until eventually most of their relatively deleterious genes weeded out. Neanderthals were without a doubt less intelligent that the first anatomically modern humans.
The first modern humans to leave Africa 110,000 years ago were unable to compete with Neanderthals. It was only after modern humans left Africa a second time, 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, that we were able to compete with Neanderthals EVENTUALLY.
The cold selects for bigger size in general that’s why it also selects for bigger brains. What you said is almost nonsensical, if heat selects against big brains because of overheating than shouldnt the cold provide a positive selection for bigger crania?
No environment directly selects for big crania, because they are a liability. They place a huge strain on the musculo-skeletal system, are a massive target for an enemies club or missile, consume an enormous amount of energy, & force us to evolve ridiculously huge hips just to give birth which slow down are running or walking.
No environment would select for a big crania. They are a disadvantage everywhere, but in a war climate, they are a SUPER disadvantage because in addition to all their other problems, they also cause the head to overheat like a light bulb, killing you of heat stroke.
The ONLY reason why evolution ever favours big heads is because they increase intelligence, and intelligence is such a HUGE advantage, that it overrides all the liabilities big heads bring.
“The first modern humans to leave Africa 110,000 years ago were unable to compete with Neanderthals. It was only after modern humans left Africa a second time, 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, that we were able to compete with Neanderthals EVENTUALLY.”
That isn’t true where are you getting that pumpkin? Neanderthals were in the middle east too, that’s when we began interbreeding with them. According to this new study Homo sapiens actually reached southern europe and china about 80,000 to 90,000 years ago. Australoid divergence is 50,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#Europe
http://www.sapiens.org/evolution/early-human-migration/
“No environment directly selects for big crania, because they are a liability. They place a huge strain on the musculo-skeletal system, are a massive target for an enemies club or missile, consume an enormous amount of energy, & force us to evolve ridiculously huge hips just to give birth which slow down are running or walking.
No environment would select for a big crania. They are a disadvantage everywhere, but in a war climate, they are a SUPER disadvantage because in addition to all their other problems, they also cause the head to overheat like a light bulb, killing you of heat stroke.
The ONLY reason why evolution ever favours big heads is because they increase intelligence, and intelligence is such a HUGE advantage, that it overrides all the liabilities big heads bring.”
You said it yourself it’s advantages override the liabilities but our genus was unique in the fact that all it really ever had was it’s intelligence. All environments will select for it, especially since our Genus had already been encephalizing against all odds in Africa.
The hell? unmoderate my comment PP
“The first modern humans to leave Africa 110,000 years ago were unable to compete with Neanderthals. It was only after modern humans left Africa a second time, 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, that we were able to compete with Neanderthals EVENTUALLY.”
Even if this is true…neanderthals that spent 200 000 years more than homo sapiens who left africa 50 000 years ago , and homo sapiens who left Africa 110 000 years ago and spent 60 000 more years in a colder environment also than homo sapiens that left Africa 50 000 years ago, BOTH could not compete with those homo sapiens who had left africa said 50 000 years ago and who had lived in a tropical environment the longest and who at the time had smaller cranial size than either two…..hmmm
Even if this is true…neanderthals that spent 200 000 years more than homo sapiens who left africa 50 000 years ago , and homo sapiens who left Africa 110 000 years ago and spent 60 000 more years in a colder environment also than homo sapiens that left Africa 50 000 years ago, BOTH could not compete with those homo sapiens who had left africa said 50 000 years ago and who had lived in a tropical environment the longest and who at the time had smaller cranial size than either two…..hmmm
Good point. Cold climate alone is not sufficient to evolve high IQ, otherwise arctic people would be the highest IQ race. As Lynn noted, you also need a large population size which allows high IQ genetic mutations to occur. The population in Africa was almost certainly much larger than the Neanderthal population in Eurasia, so high IQ mutations occurred in Africa, and once humans left Africa, the cold climate probably aggressively selected for those mutations, allowing modern humans to become smarter than Neanderthals (who had cold selection pressures, but no high IQ mutations to select, given their low population)
RaceRealist You cant just say “some hominids lived in a cold environment, and some in a warm one” and call that a proof of anything.
“RaceRealist You cant just say “some hominids lived in a cold environment, and some in a warm one” and call that a proof of anything”
There is a lot of data to show that colder temperatures select for higher g. See kanazawa 2009. What I said was a thought experiment. Would those who lived in a colder environment have higher g? Yes or no.
Colder regions have less plant, animals and micro organisms species than in tropical regions. Seena difficult to adapt to the very cold regions than in tropical ones. Every place is difficult to adapt as well we are all the same, but some are more equal than others.
If you transplant a entire non adapted human tribe to live in cold to this colder regions and to do the same thing with a entirely non adapted human tribe to the tropical heat I have the opinion that the mortality rates among the first hypothetically unlucky tribe will be higher than among the second.
Most Africans are adapted to the tropical regions and not to the savannah environment based on demographic density in African continent (or I’m talking garbage).
Colder climate in my opinion is not the best to increase or develop intelligence but tempered climate with many annual challenges.
If Africans are the most genetically diverse the tribes who live in colder areas and without recent admixture will be the least genetically diverse??
That’s very amusing that you would guess I was black from all the things I’ve written here. Very amusing. Out of curiosity, what would lead you to that conclusion?
Also, melo is arguing from racial identity, not logic.
Genetics/Family>hormonal profile>ideology/illusion>logic/IQ.
Have I cracked it?
That’s very amusing that you would guess I was black from all the things I’ve written here. Very amusing. Out of curiosity, what would lead you to that conclusion?
Not sure who you’re directing the question at, but I seem to recall some of the commenters saying you were black months ago. That’s why I guessed you were black.
Though more recently one of the commenters stated you are Blasian.
Maybe long geographical isolation make Neanderthals vulnerable to the tropical diseases.
Too much cold limitate creativity because very cold inhibit high risk behaviors.
Maybe bigger brains among neurotypicals are correlated with consciousness and not exactly with higher IQ.
Tropical environments have everyday risks maybe it select for short term strategies than long term (to prepare to the winter).
And short term strategies are more practical than abstract.
Or I’m just saying idiotism 😘
“That’s very amusing that you would guess I was black from all the things I’ve written here. Very amusing. Out of curiosity, what would lead you to that conclusion?”
I swore the first time you and me argued that you said you were black. Others said the same so I assumed it was true. If not then what are you, white?
“Also, melo is arguing from racial identity, not logic.”
I am mixed race, I have every race in me except negroid(unfortunately) I have no ethnic interest in defending blacks so your unsubstantiated assertion is a moot point. Now I guess I do have an EGI towards race mixing because I am mix raced but you’re fooling yourself if you think that cuck attitude so prevalent in white nationalists is anything but illogically pathetic. If you are seriously against a high IQ black and a high IQ white breeding YOU are the illogical one driven by EGI not me. It’s interesting because it’s also quite unfalsifiable “oh you only think that because of EGI, move along you’re wrong” I have no allegiance to any race, they are all equally worthless. I am lucky in the sense that I am less driven by my EGI than others are. In fact I would argue EGI is more based on phenotypic resemblance than genotypic.
“Genetics/Family>hormonal profile>ideology/illusion>logic/IQ.
Have I cracked it?”
No, Ideology/illusion is derived from the other factors, Logic is simply the cognitive dissonance.
PP please pick up Svante Paabo’s book on Neanderthals.
Race realist wrote-There is a lot of data to show that colder temperatures select for higher g. See kanazawa 2009. What I said was a thought experiment. Would those who lived in a colder environment have higher g? Yes or no.
In answering a question you consider evidence. I gave sugestions WHY those living in a cold environment wont be more intelligent…instead of you giving evidence you simply re asked the question.
MY answer is no
The evidence i gave was that all hominids that were exposed to a cold environment are extinct and their material culture became simple as they went through this cold environment.
Your answer is yes
Contrast that whith your reasoning; because a cold environment selects for intelligence.
Thats not reasoning..thats a simple statement.
I never said that H. Erectus was not intelligent enough to survive outside of Africa.
“But only those homo erectus populations in africa evolved further into us.”
Because they had the ability to create fire. They cooked. They extracted more nutrients out of the food by grinding plants down. When Man went into Siberia and Northern Europe, higher intelligence was selected for. K-selected populations are more intelligent. Why? Because of colder temperatures. That is a cause of higher g in Eurasian populations.
Because they had the ability to create fire. They cooked. They extracted more nutrients out of the food by grinding plants down.
Why did they get this ability when they lived in tropical africa and the others lived in cold europe? They were exactly the same at the point they departed.
” When Man went into Siberia and Northern Europe, higher intelligence was selected for. K-selected populations are more intelligent. Why? Because of colder temperatures.”
You cant just say “they were more intelligent because of colder temperature” and use that as any type of reasoning. There IS reasoning (though i find it flawed), so why dont you say it?but if you are not going to use it then i am also going to make a post that says
“place two homind groups in two different envcironments, one in a mountain and one in a valley”which one will select for higher g?Its obvious its the one in the valey.
Thats what it looks like when you omit the reasoning in your statements.
A better version of you reasoning here 🙂
================
““place two homind groups in two different envcironments, one in a mountain and one in a valley”which one will select for higher g?Its obvious its the one in the valey.
*thats because of living in a valley.*
===============
What are you to make of that? its like saying;
*thats becuase of colder temperatures.*
“Because they had the ability to create fire. They cooked. They extracted more nutrients out of the food by grinding plants down. When Man went into Siberia and Northern Europe, higher intelligence was selected for. K-selected populations are more intelligent. Why? Because of colder temperatures. That is a cause of higher g in Eurasian populations.”
I thought homo ergaster(africa) was smarter than homo erectus(asia)?
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2.htm
PP wrote “Neanderthals (who had cold selection pressures, but no high IQ mutations to select, given their low population)”
But evolution happens faster when populations are small.
https://www.boundless.com/biology/textbooks/boundless-biology-textbook/the-evolution-of-populations-19/population-genetics-131/genetic-drift-531-11736/
quote-Small populations are more susceptible genetic drift than large populations, whose larger numbers can buffer the population against chance events.
Exactly.The whole High population= High mutation rate is such bullshit and obviously a ploy by HBDers to force fit their ridiculously absurd “cold winter theory” with the data.
East asians arent more evolved. They are more selected for. Purposefully . Than the other races.
Because the notion of “more evolved” is stupid. No way to quantify it. Natural selection selects for advantageous alleles for that environment. Thinking one is more evolved than another is stupid and has not basis in evolutionary biology.
Well yes any sort of difference in IQ between races would’ve come from natural selection if you go far enough back (if you believe the cold winter theory).
and/or sexual selection….
No.
They were selected for over thousands of years through a very harsh criminal justice system that wiped out whole families of the criminal, gave vry harsh punishment and gave resources to nerds basically. Read unz essay on the topic.
That is why mongolians dominate sumo or are fairly larger for example. It also explaons why south asians fill up it and engineering lecture halls despite being much poorer than blacks and hispanics (and they are, look at your local it department…they aint princeling babies…darker skin).
Large centralised states have exosted in these regions much longer than europe.
In chinas case almost going back to ancient eygpt.
Get a ruler out and draw timelines. Europe is pretty recent.
Mesopotamia and the middle east is historic too. Now that one is much more a mystery. They are not autists. Probably the opposite. But that being said the middle east has had a lot less stability than east asia and south asia. As far as im aware beyond alexander and the brtitish, large chunks of india were left alone for thousands of years.
Evolution doesnt happen in a vacuum with human beings.
Hello meso american. What is your name. Would you like chickenpox?
You got a link for the Unz essay philosopher?
Melo
http://www.unz.com/pfrost/western-europe-state-formation-and-genetic-pacification-3/
Outstanding discussion as well.
between the 5th and 11th centuries, genetic pacification was impeded by the nature of law enforcement, the beliefs in a man’s right to settle personal disputes as he saw fit, and the Church’s opposition to the death penalty.
The impediments on genetic pacification began to dissolve by the 11th century when the Church and State decided that the wicked should be punished so that the good may live in peace. By the late Middle Ages, Courts were imposing the death penalty on .5 to 1 percent of men each generation, with just as many dying at the scene of the crime or in prison awaiting trial.
The murder rate plummeted between the 14th and 20th centuries. Most murders during that time were committed due to jealousy, intoxication or stress. The decline is attributed to longer punishments and the effects of cultural conditioning, but may also be caused by the new cultural environment selecting against propensities for violence.
I theorize that due to the culling of .5 to 1 percent of the violent European men up to the late Middle Ages is the cause of the people with ‘no fight in them’, so to speak. By culling the part of the population that has propensities for violence, you’re only left with those with low testosterone, therefore, less propensity to act when situations arise (such as Cologne). Due to the culling of part of the violent population, this caused the murder rate to drop from the 14th to 20th centuries, as well as leaving most that were left, unable to act under certain circumstances.
Clearly, without the culling of those individuals with a propensity for violence, we are left with what we have in Europe today: men with no heart, no fight in them to protect their women against invading peoples. But there are more reasons for this other than genetic pacification.
Yes very good observaion realist.
Centralised states are anti androgens.
But also nootropics.
I doubt that was consistent world wide.
It’s an interesting idea but the way they try to justify their cuck/ anti miscegnation ideology is quite dispicable
“men with no heart, no fight in them to protect their women against invading peoples.”
I lol’d so damn hard XD
“But there are more reasons for this other than genetic pacification.”
Ya like maybe white people don’t care about interracial sex as much as Alt reichers would like to think. Jeez I swear sometimes they get so full of themselves with their victimization complexes.
You realise melo that without the invention of “racism” in the 1940s and continual pressure by jews in media and hollywood and education, most white people would care a lot about interracial sex as evidenced in australia or other white countries with no jews.
Just a thought.
As a black man, shouldn’t you be thanking Jews for making whites so much less racist? 🙂
Just a thought.
pumpkin has a point.
“You realise melo that without the invention of “racism” in the 1940s and continual pressure by jews in media and hollywood and education, most white people would care a lot about interracial sex”
Why? Their recessive genes? What kind of insecure prick takes race mixing so seriously?
“as evidenced in australia or other white countries with no jews.”
Specifically what evidence?
It’s not so much Jews making whites less racist. It’s the innate pathological altruism of Northwest Europeans that jayman and hbd chick like to say ‘makes them special’.
Trust me. Southern Europeans are much more racist (whatever that means). Right JS?
If someone can explain in detail why they think I’m black I will be delighted.
The alternative hypothesis has a 3 year old video on race and agriculture. It’s hilarious! He doesn’t know anything about nutrition science. I rebutted it here check it out.
PP, what do you think about Gary Johnson? On one hand, he was just as successful as Trump considering his middle-class background and he wound up becoming a millionaire, owner of one of the largest companies in New Mexico, governor of New Mexico, Libertarian candidate, and a very well rounded individual.
Also, what do you think of libertarians? Are they just amoral conservatives with low iqs that don’t know when the government should or shouldn’t intervene?
Don’t know enough about Gary Johnson, but I think libertarians are high IQ nerdy types who are sometimes a little too autistic to correctly predict human behavior, and thus underestimate the need for certain labour laws. But I like libertarians a lot. I think their ideas are really cool in theory, but perhaps not always in practice.
Showing off his social intelligence here (watch 0:30 – 1:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s
he was trying to illustrate a point;
‘even if I spoke with my tongue out at the debate, I’d stll rise in the polls’…..
Clinton= the NeoCon Obama (not good)
Trump= Has some interesting ideas but has no idea how to go about them and OBVIOUSLY does not have the temperament.
Johnson= Wants to decentralize/cronyize the Fed making our low interest/low risk/low growth/low inflation economy continue. Also wants to cut the Federal Government budget by like 43% or something crazy.
Jill Stein= https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/18/pumpkin-person-endorses-jill-stein-for-president-of-the-united-states/#comment-32189
All in all, I think that the only way to go is Clinton. Trump is obviously not stable at all (NOT propaganda, autists), Johnson and Stein are whack jobs. Clinton at least has the ability to appreciate her place in history, has connections, and could try to do well.
If not at least she won’t mess up everything like the other three.
Clinton is the only psychopath youve mentioned
To paraphrase buffet, you want 3 things when looking for an employye – comptence, intelligence and integrity.
The last thing you wabt is someone intelligent competent but has no integrity.. the other 2 you can work around.
At least george hw bush was a incompetent peadophile or bush junior was able to override cheney, another psychopath, on occasion.
Now cheney is an interesting case study.
“the philosopher” is…
obviously…
only the second white commenter with an IQ > 130. afrosapiens and swank (if he was black) were > 130 too.
…
i’d be interested in a dummies version of his terms…
“schizo”, “autistic”, “high t”, etc.
even though i think i know what he means…
the biggest motherfuckers ever have all been WHITE guys…right?
that’s why i don’t get how there aren’t more white linebackers.
second white commenter
Second NON-white, you mean
fucking RACISSSSS
i’m white.
he’s white.
that’s it!
if “the philosopher” is a black guy then he’s a british black guy…
which is more white than a white canadian.
hockey? seriously?
he knows the difference between his local bank and the central bank…
inter alia.
btw…
hows that GBP/CAD working out?
idk…but GBP/USD you’ve lost 10%!
CWB.TO is WINNING!
…
commenters in order of sophistication/subtlety/IQ…
1. ME
2. swanknasty, afrospiens, “the philosopher”…
let’s do it!
oops i forgot to post this…
if “the philosopher” is a black guy then he’s a british black guy…
which is more white than a white canadian.
hockey? seriously?
he knows the difference between his local bank and the central bank…
inter alia.
btw…
hows that GBP/CAD working out?
idk…but GBP/USD you’ve lost 10%!
CWB.TO is WINNING!
…
commenters in order of sophistication/subtlety/IQ…
1. ME
2. swanknasty, afrospiens, “the philosopher”…
let’s do it!
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I picture The Philosopher as the high IQ black HBD villain played by Samuel L Jackson in Unbreakable
it’s gonna happen…
and what an EPIC “loss of face”…(that’s CHINK language!)
GBP/USD = 1.0000
…
get SERIOUS!
Gary johnson’s lack of seriousness betrays the other aspect of libertarian followers.
They are pretty immature in their understanding of human dynamics.
Johnson lost his mind with a reporter when immigration came up because BORDERS ARE WAYYYCISM. OK?!! THEY JUST ARE><. WHAT ARE YOU, STUPID or SOmthinG.
In his puerile mind he believes the 3rd world is that way because they lack "institutions", "education", "private property rights" and other autisitic development economics drivle. (It always begged the question…why didn't they develop those…)
It never occurs to Johnson that much of East and Southeast Asia doesn't have many of these things either.
It would never occur to a man that sticks his tongue out as a joke during one of his very rare chances to impress people that the border situation would suddenly be more serious if his housing area was rezoned for affirmative housing from Kinshasa or Lahore or if he was suddenly banned from using yo soy coolies on his construction sites.
"Although Johnson worked to reduce overall state spending, in his first term, he raised education spending by nearly a third.[27] When drop-out rates and test scores showed little improvement, Johnson changed his tactics and began advocating school vouchers—a key issue in budget battles of his second term as governor"….no verbal intelligence. Can't figure out the problem with kids in New Mexico is the genetic predispositions of the kids in New Mexico. Maybe he should give them a capital gains tax cut while he's at it or relax derivative OTC margin clearing requirements.
"The children of our state have too long been stifled in their learnings for the mathematics by the GOVERMENT forcing them to calculate margins and show their answers to regulators. Many people consider this BULLYMENT."
Maybe we can send all New Mexichans to Cambridge and put all the Cambridge toffs in New Mexico with the same facilities and teachers and MS DOS computers. I've often wondered whether a controlled experiment like this would convince people to stop beliebling in the Blank State.
No of course not.
Then the searchlight would glare on 'implicit bias against Mexicans'.
At that point amygdala reassignment surgery would be proposed for unbelibeliers.
Hello Everyone! I'm Johnny Sychopant. I'm amygdala neutral. If I stop working for 5 minutes my masters will replace me with a yo soy drone.
Levels of “sophistication ”
Sounds so gay!!!!
Clever sillies recognize and praise one each other…
Levels of sophistication correlates positively with pseudo or flamboyant smartness.
“You don’t need to have any shame about your race”
Pumpkin what would you estimate the IQ of this individual to be, He built wind turbine from scratch yet was dirt poor in africa he did this all by reading books at a library
William Kamkwamba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kamkwamba
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13962559_1307873152557574_3441051717459968788_n.png?oh=15bbaf9b44300261a1a37bcde8ec7dee&oe=58AB33FF
Speaking on which. Thats a very good research topic. Namely why middle easterners are very schizo despite a long history of large cebtralised states (with the therefore necessary crimjnal juatice system and extractor encouragement of resource production).
Jews and Muslims have a very legalistic approach to religions. However, the ludicrous contents in the Talmud, is crazier, if not, more sadistic, than anything found in the Qur’an.
And maybe Pumpkin could attribute the high IQ of Ashkenazim, because of their Talmudic studies. Every Jewish male since the middle ages, was supposed to study it, regardless of class and background.
Firstly are you aware that no civilisation has ever been invented in drought free europe. That civilisation was a gift offered by the middle easterners after the same gave you agriculture. Before we move to the obvious point you will raise (that they are also caucasians [rightly so]) i would like to point out that present day reality is a snapshot of eternalness. That if we lived in the days of the sumerians in mesopotamia..all that you have said about blacks would be equally applicable to all of europe.
Then we stand back and revisit the caucasianness of the sumerians. This forum is infested with logic so i ask you t follow me.
You say blacks never made a civilisation because they couldnt. So we might say that when blacks and whites split there was no civilation yet so this common ancestor couldnt and that since the caucasians subsequently built one there must have been genetic changes they went through that allowed this.
Examine this reasonings douppelleganger .The sumerians obviously have some genes they do not share with the europeans. I point to the difference in complexion, any way the two have lived in different climates for at least 10 000 years judging by the fossil record (cro magnon man ..etc etc).
So why now do you rush , after the previous reasoning, to say that even thought the common ancestors of both the dark skinned caucasians and the white caucasians was able to form a civilisation when he didnt . By symmetry the sumerians also went through genetic changes that facilitated this developement that they do not share with the white caucasians.
Not even pointing out that when you have a group of people ,the caucasians ,stretching from scandavia all the way to southern india, that form a population more than 10 times the population of blacks..what a strange thing it must be to ask why they progress more than 10 times as fast? You guys did develope bayesian probability.
Then on the flip side we ask; how come the sumerians did it but the blacks (and the europeans) couldnt. Again we look to the “Grand Excuse” that europeans use but how what a mystery that it doesnt apply to blacks.
All civilisations that were original (not founded on colonialism) can be listed. Egypt, sumeria, india, china , the north americans and the south americans. Well the excuse is based on a study of their simmilarities. first i will address the old world. All of them were invented in simmilar conditions; a river running through a desert.
Why a river and why a desert? A river to guarantee crops, plenty crops that left populations with lots of free time after the harvest to engange in other things. A desert to guarantee protection from outside raiders seeking to reep where they did not sow and force the river dwellers to retsart.
The Excuse points out that there is no river running through a desert anywhere in europe. But of course though this be true aalso in black africa , we cant be justifying black “ignorance’ and “stupidity” like that.
The new world had different conditions that served the same purpose. The olmecs lived in tjhe waist of the americas with only one front to defend , with a river again and lots of dependable rain. The Incas lived on the peruvian shore with a virtually imprenetable mountain range to the east , and an ocean to the west. Also..lots of rain.
Enough about excuses..didnt the blacks evolve in “laid back africa” while the whites lived in an environment that forced them to think more? Well we examine earlier efforts by “sincere” archeologists.
It seemed as though early man was definately african. but when he became erectus he moved over the world. Cold environment proponents convinced of their own rcorrectness then postulated that mankind evolved every where at once from erectus populations in different lands. When it seemed that the first fully human skull (swanscombe man , and others) was from europe 200 000 years ago they were faced with a dillema. Should they say all humans are descendat of this man o r only them ..relagating the other races to developing after. they chose the latter…europeans developed first into humans before everyone else.
Then there was a troubling phenomena..as they found more skulls later (the descendants of swanscombe) they noticed that while the first had modern features..the later had more and more primitive features. These humans became more and more primitive with time , almost as if they wree trying to get back to the homo erectus stage. All the while enduring the coldest environments..yea ..two ice ages.These people became known as the neanderthals.
Then on top of this paradox came another …populations more advanced were found contemporary and earlier than swanscombe with more advanced feature …(?) in a tropical environment (?).
Nothing to fear though..these scientist would explain this riddle.
They were again face d with a dillema..Should they say all humans are descendant of these african men or only the africans evolved into humans first relagating the other races to developing afetr. We what do you know…they chose the former .”WHAT HYPOCRITES”.
Then the scientist sighed and said to themselves ..we might as well do a proper job. A new moderntheory that explained everything discoverd. That tropical climate man was a social creature. That intellingence is shown in the very human act of sharing.That it was crucial for the african to know what would happen if he offended the alpha male, two days afer he had last eaten, while the hunters had been frustrated with a kill and the day was almost through.
Can you see it? A social being was forced to think in terms of *many* variables in order to exist as a group. That only a full blown politician could survive and earn many mates to breed with and so pass on his genes.
In Africa populations had always been greater than elsewhere so these conditions were more cut throat. All this while the other nations were forced to let all breed in order to maintain numbers for the hunts.
Then i would also like to throw a cheap shot at you. dont you know that all human populations except africans have a “descent” amount of neanderthal and homo erectus genes in them? This from the contact the proto diaspora made with the “people” they met.
How we are answered to the question of why the two most intelligent creatures after humans are from africa.
before writing such obnoxiously long posts, you should write obnoxious short posts.
otherwise no one will read it.
let’s see if i can do this…i’ve filled my tank…BIG TIME!
peepee’s funny.
she thinks “peepee” is abuse…
no.
it’s a metaphor…for THE GROUP to which peepee belongs.
…
i killed my dog on sunday.
an injection of pentobarbital.
i dug his grave….
it was raining, but the earth was so dry…it took 90 minutes to dig it.
i had to cut through some of the red roots…of a sequoia.
…
there are no words.
words are shit.
it’s only the thousand yard stare.
…
sorry to hear about…
sorry for your loss…
my condolences…
FUCK YOU!
YOU FUCKING SHEEP!
IF I COULD PRESS A BUTTON, I’D KILL YOU.
killed my dog on sunday.
an injection of pentobarbital.
i dug his grave….
it was raining, but the earth was so dry…it took 90 minutes to dig it.
i had to cut through some of the red roots…of a sequoia.
We relate best to those with similar intelligence, so I’m not surprised your best friend was a dog.
…
there are no words.
Not with a verbal IQ as low as yours.
my verbal IQ is at least 50 points higher than yours marsha.
i expect such nonsense from a whore.
I am saddened to hear that; Jorge.
Mugabe said a high density of stupidity. Amaze me how people still believe he is a genius.
Very angry when the Nobels were announced this year.
The boy that invented the clock in Texas wasn’t picked for chemistry or physics or seance sciences or the even the coveted peace prize.
Unbelievable systemic racism there.
We need to encourage all young Muslim boys who have a right to live anywhere in the world to take up science and not the quran. As we know, human beings can download and run anything on their hardware like Gary Johnson says. Gary Johnson is a trained human computer scientist like all libertarians.
Also the president of columbia won the prize even before the peace agreement was ratified. Just like Obama won the Nobel before he took office, I guess the symbology of endorsing peace is too important for peace to happen.
A final shoutout to mah Juden bro Robert Zimmerman who won the Nobel Prize in Music. To be fair I think much of musical lyrics are just modern poetry. Too bad it opens the door to Busta Rhymes winning the prize now.
That’ll be awkward. JL Borges gets stiffed for 20 years because he’s fascist and Lo Lo Stevo from Kinshasa gets the prize for “pointing out in a poetic manner the innocence of black men that get shot while reading Charles Dickens in their borrowed cars”.
ILLUSION
The eco prize was credible. Contract theory is pretty niche and not well researched. Notice how all the Eco prizes are going to boring technical topics though.
Nobody wants to touch Piketty or give the Nobel to Soros or Taleb who actually had to put their theories into action. Economics polarises more than peace.
Maybe they should give a nobel to a cuckold economist in the Peterson, Brugel or Heritage for “demonstrating beyond all possible doubt that immigration and free trade are good for native workers no matter what anyone says because they are dumb racists and if you don’t like it move to China where they will definitely let you take their jobs, take benefits and molest their women, legally, without any qualms” OO CUCKLE DOODLE DOOOO>
_
Saw Rotschild Economist had an article out last week making it clear we don’t appreciate the gains from immigration not because we haven’t seen any in 30 years, but because we want not to have seen them in 30 years. You see?
If 80% of the jet setter class lap this stuff up, I could only conclude they score <20 VCI on the WAIS IV. I imagine some of these companies boards could have rubber chickens in the chairs and it would be an improvement for shareholders.
Also really angry #Nobelsowhite didn’t trend. I was on twitter all day banging that righteous drum.
They should aportion at least half the Nobels to blacks for being black. Like the Oscars, or political positions, or advertising models or googles list of great scientists or roles in white shoe firms like McKinsey which I would know nothing about because I am not qualified enough to be black.
I just knew the one black guy was there for all the low T directors to say “we ain’t WAYYCIST MR JEW. REALLY I PROMISE. PINKY SWEAR. PLEASE DONT HURT ME.
What did I see in Kinshasa¿
I may live another 50 years.
And I will never be able to expunge my mind of Kinshasa.
Even if I could somehow unsee, I would merely figure it out again.
So you see, I was once like many of you.
peepee needs to wipe her ass.
The conclusion then becomes inescapable that the genome of these giant viruses originated from an ancestral cellular genome (thus endowed of a translation apparatus, with all 20 aminoacyl tRNA synthetases) from which today’s Megaviridae derived by a number of lineage specific genome reduction events, a scenario akin to the one followed by all parasitic organisms.
there are two types of people in the world…
1. those who are italian.
2. those who wish they were italian.
same as it ever was…
“1. those who are italian.
2. those who wish they were italian.”
No truer words have ever been spoken.
Santoculto “chimp out” in response to RR in 3….2….1….
Will, in my experience it’s true. I live in New Jersey and I see tons of it. It’s annoying as hell man.
Plus the women, the food, family life. Italian women are the most beautiful in the world. My personal favorite:
I know a woman who looks exactly like her. She is gorgeous.
It does appear that Italian women are seen as beautiful to a lot of non-Italian people, more so than women of one ethnicity would be seen so by their non-Ethnics.
Are you from North Jersey or South Jersey, RR?
Phili and South Jersey also have lots of Italians.
I have family from Neptune, NJ, iirc; Irish.
Neptune has ahem turned dark.
I’m from the North. The Jersey Shore has to be my most hated thing ever. It makes me look bad in two ways. I wouldn’t doubt if a Nose were behind it to be honest.
A lot of Italians settled near Ellis Island, ie Jersey City and New York City among smaller suburbs in the area.
CFR: ‘thinktank’ at the heart of globalism, open borders and deregulated fin markets.
Who Controls the Council on Foreign Relations? (2009 edition)
President:
Richard N. Haass(Jew)
Board of Directors:
Carla A. Hills(Jew) – Co-Chairman; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company
Robert E. Rubin(Jew) – Co-Chairman; Former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
Richard E. Salomon(Jew) – Vice Chairman; Managing Partner, East End Advisors, LLC
Richard N. Haass(Jew) – President, Council on Foreign Relations
Peter Ackerman(Jew) – Rockport Capital, Inc.
Fouad Ajami(Arab) – M. Khadduri Prof. of Middle Eastern Studies, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Madeleine K. Albright(Jew) – Principal, The Albright Group LLC
Charlene Barshefsky(Jew) – Senior International Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Henry S. Bienen(Jew) – President, Northwestern University
Alan S. Blinder(Jew) – Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University
Tom Brokaw(White European) – NBC News
Sylvia Mathews Burwell(White European) – President, Global Development Program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Frank J. Caufield(Jew) – Co-Founder, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Kenneth M. Duberstein(Jew) – Chairman and CEO, The Duberstein Group, Inc.
Richard N. Foster(White European) – Managing Partner, Millbrook Management Group LLC
Stephen Friedman(Jew) – Chairman, Stone Point Capital
Ann M. Fudge(Black) – Chairman and CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands
Maurice R. Greenberg(Jew) – Honorary Vice Chairman; Chairman & CEO, C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.
J. Tomilson Hill(Jew) – Vice Chairman, The Blackstone Group
Alberto Ibargüen(Jew) – President & Chief Executive Officer, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Shirley Ann Jackson(Black) – President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Henry R. Kravis(Jew) – Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Jami Miscik(White European) – Vice-Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr.(Jew) – Distinguished Service Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Ronald L. Olson(White European) – Senior Partner, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP
James W. Owens(White European) – Chairman & CEO, Caterpillar Inc.
Colin L. Powell(Mulatto) – United States Army (Ret.)
David M. Rubenstein(Jew) – Cofounder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group
George E. Rupp(White European) – President and CEO, International Rescue Committee
Joan E. Spero(Jew) – President, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
Vin Weber(White European) – CEO and Managing Partner, Clark & Weinstock
Christine Todd Whitman(White European) – President, The Whitman Strategy Group
Fareed Zakaria(Jew wife: Paula Throckmorton) – Editor, Newsweek International
The magic of verbal intelligence.
US Jewish Population 1%, CFR board members and spouses 60%.
I was wondering why a shark like Henry Kravis of all people suddenly has been splooging diversity junk all over my feed. He got the Memo.
no!
the jewish advantage in verbal IQ doesn’t even come close to explaining facts like the above.
What do you guys think of this.
With a greater genetic variation, there are more likely to be found deviants. High IQ people are deviants.
Were the black population as large as the east asian then the most deviant people would be found in the black people, including the highest IQ individual regardless of average IQ. Because presumably the lowest IQ deviant would also belong to the black population.
One could say the species (probably a bacetria) with the highest genetic variability should then have the highest IQ using this logic. But ALL asian genes are to be found in african populations , just the frequency is different…meaning those things that an asian does an africa has the genes to do…gene variability means there is a potential for there to exist an african who can do it better, i.e the limit of asian gene expression is lower than the limit of african gene expression.
It’s more complicated than to say that bacteria then should have the highest IQ.
There are some race-exclusive alleles for instance in brain size and function. You can tell one’s race by looking at their brain. Why is that?
A possibility for an <em<individual African to do bigger than an individual East Asian? Of course, no one denies that. But we talk about average group differences.
Race realist said-There are some race-exclusive alleles for instance in brain size and function. You can tell one’s race by looking at their brain. Why is that?
because of averages. All the genes for the different parts of the brain are the same , but the hormones? that affect the size of each are produced in different amounts. The genes for these hormones are the same also and their range of deviation is determined by gene variability. So all i said still stands because it then becomes simmilar to height. Taller people dont have a new gene for hieght.
Frequency and intensity or mutations are different genes. The basis are the same probably because east Asians and blacks start from the same species or population basis. East Asians may be treated as a mutated African blacks based on out of Africa hypothesis. The greater the presence of recessive and or new mutations the greater will be the number of selective events. Or not.
Well genetic diversity and phenotypic diversity are two different things. Just because blacks should supposedly have higher levels of IQ mutations does not mean they will be properly expressed through the population.
Africa is huge with many different ethnic groups. Of course you need a big population for higher IQ alleles to be selected for, but other factors are involved.
so untill we have a way to determine from the factors forwad to the IQ and not backwards from the IQ and then trying to explain it we cant really say anything
The phenomenon that i am describing happens because the bell curves of east Asians and Africans are shaped differently. So the average can be less while the range is greater in the African population.
The phenomenon that i am describing happens because the bell curves of east Asians and Africans are shaped differently. So the average can be less while the range is greater in the African population..
“The phenomenon that i am describing happens because the bell curves of east Asians and Africans are shaped differently.”
No evidence for this.
“The phenomenon that i am describing happens because the bell curves of east Asians and Africans are shaped differently.”
There is no evidence for this.
race realist-“The phenomenon that i am describing happens because the bell curves of east Asians and Africans are shaped differently.”
No evidence for this.
its a direct result of having more genetic variability. It flattens the top and widens the sides. Variability means varying and varying in anything more means that the range (various values) is greater.
East Asians are more genetically diverse than Europeans??
Many times deviants depend on their epicenters. If average or epicenter IQ is lower so even a greater % of deviants “higher IQ” people on logic will be subordinated to their epicenter or average if deviants are mutations from their majority.
So black African may have greater % of “higher IQ” deviants but
This deviants are more genetically recessive ( regression to the mean) than a less deviants for example Jews
This deviants will be likely to have lower average deviant scores, for example, avg IQ 130 for a population with avg IQ scores around 80 and avg IQ 170 for a population with avg IQ scores around 100
And, what has done European Caucasians undoubtedly impressive is not just so called “intelligence” via IQ but creativity. A very few individuals with greater creativity potential in the right place in the right time and generally the level of organization of certain society often reduce the luck factor.
santo wrote-So black African may have greater % of “higher IQ” deviants
even more than others because they out gen expression the others
Usually among Caucasians seems at least deviants such atheists for example who are a minority for example in USA, tend to have u shape bell curve as well men bell curve, but even Africans, generalizing, happen this u shape bell curve because their lower average IQ this higher percent of higher IQ desviant types by this logic is likely that they will have comparatively lower desviant IQ I’m contrast with other groups. For example again ashkenazis. If the average IQ of ashkenazis is 110 and even they have a u inverted shape or typical bell curve distribution because their higher averages they will be higher % of absolute IQ outliers than a u shaped bell curve distribution of other group with lower average IQ. Or not. Just speculations.
And I emphasize what make Europeans impressive is not just their higher IQ’s but the presence of such rare highly creative people and in the right place in the right time.
If someone understand my second comment. It’s a cognitive test too. 😚
Mein last commt 😱
Why do you assume Africans have greater variability when they are the least ‘evolved’?
Think of a Venn diagram.
At the centre is Africans and the other races merge and extend, sharing perimeters here and there as they migrate further away in further circles around.
There are actually some genes the Africans never developed for example in relation to lactose tolerance (something settled farming civilisations develop) and genes to ward off certain types of genetic diseases, or say, slanty eyes to deal with ice age migration.
They also never really developed the genes for neuro disorders like autism (and hence the genes to build a modern calculator).
Why on earth, if you accept this conjecture, would you assume Africans have developed the genes for greater quant IQ in an environment that requires brute strength, athleticism and brutality?
You assume the genes in the current African population ‘scale up (and down)’ and can be mixed and matched with IQ genes in other races. When in fact, all we know for sure genetically about intelligence is that it is based on symphonies of genes acting in a manner to provide different types of intelligence, such as verbal, spatial…musical.
I would have a hunch that if we bred another billion of blacks (which will happen in the next 80 years), none will win any hard science nobel without affirmative action or being mixed race.
But don’t take it from me. Take it from all the great black mathematicians and physicists of the last 5000 years.
I believe according to emoto logic one black De Grasse Tyson makes me wrong. So you got me.
Or maybe De Grasse Tyson has some white ancestry and isn’t as smart as other (asian) astrophysicists of his academic rank.
I heard India had a similar population but at least they discovered mathematics 3000 years before the Africans who’ve been around maybe 500k years longer in a Homo Sapien form.
By the way, I assume you’re african with this poor abstract thinking?
Hahaha.
In our better moments, we reflect that we cannot all be good at everything, as Nature has ordained.
You won’t need to worry about an Asian threatening you guys in the 100 metre or a nightclub.
no philosopher i’m always amazed by how smart i sound, reading comments of mine years old.
paranoia is of two types:
1. suspicion, cynicism…this is rational…always assume the worst.
2. a firm belief in some particular/peculiar/impossible matter of fact…this is schizo.
#1 characterizes the high IQ.
#2 characterizes the low IQ.
if one always assumes the worst about people:
1. he’ll be right half the time.
2. the other half he’ll find out that the people concerned were even worse than the worst he could imagine.
“I’m always amazed by how smart I sound, reading comments of mine years old”
Poor soul.
“if one always assumes the worst about people:
1. he’ll be right half the time.
2. the other half he’ll find out that the people concerned were even worse than the worst he could imagine.”
So I see you too have vacationed in Kinshasa? Do Tell.
Why do you assume Africans have greater variability when they are the least ‘evolved’?
Think of a Venn diagram.
At the centre is Africans and the other races merge and extend, sharing perimeters here and there as they migrate further away in further circles around.
There are actually some genes the Africans never developed for example in relation to lactose tolerance (something settled farming civilisations develop) and genes to ward off certain types of genetic diseases, or say, slanty eyes to deal with ice age migration.
They also never really developed the genes for neuro disorders like autism (and hence the genes to build a modern calculator).
Why on earth, if you accept this conjecture, would you assume Africans have developed the genes for greater quant IQ in an environment that requires brute strength, athleticism and brutality?
You assume the genes in the current African population ‘scale up (and down)’ and can be mixed and matched with IQ genes in other races. When in fact, all we know for sure genetically about intelligence is that it is based on symphonies of genes acting in a manner to provide different types of intelligence, such as verbal, spatial…musical.
I would have a hunch that if we bred another billion of blacks (which will happen in the next 80 years), none will win any hard science nobel without affirmative action or being mixed race.
But don’t take it from me. Take it from all the great black mathematicians and physicists of the last 5000 years.
I believe according to emoto logic one black De Grasse Tyson makes me wrong. So you got me.
Or maybe De Grasse Tyson has some white ancestry and isn’t as smart as other (asian) astrophysicists of his academic rank.
I heard India had a similar population but at least they discovered mathematics 3000 years before the Africans who’ve been around maybe 500k years longer in a Homo Sapien form.
By the way, I assume you’re african with this poor abstract thinking?
Hahaha.
In our better moments, we reflect that we cannot all be good at everything, as Nature has ordained.
You won’t need to worry about an Asian threatening you guys in the 100 metre or a nightclub.
“Why do you assume Africans have greater variability when they are the least ‘evolved’?”
Actually the fact that they are considered less evolved, or in less ignorant terms “Closer to our CHLCA”, means they have greater genetic diversity.
“There are actually some genes the Africans never developed for example in relation to lactose tolerance (something settled farming civilisations develop) and genes to ward off certain types of genetic diseases, or say, slanty eyes to deal with ice age migration.”
Actually east asians tend to have higher levels of lactose intolerance than afrcans even though they are what pumpkin would consider “more evolved”
http://milk.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000661
“They also never really developed the genes for neuro disorders like autism (and hence the genes to build a modern calculator).”
I don’t think you realize how retarded that sounded.
“I would have a hunch that if we bred another billion of blacks (which will happen in the next 80 years), none will win any hard science nobel without affirmative action or being mixed race.”
Doubt it, as technology increases positive eugenic trends will too. DTM shows a good case for this as well.
” the genes for greater quant IQ in an environment that requires brute strength, athleticism and brutality?”
Since when did africa require that?
“I believe according to emoto logic one black De Grasse Tyson makes me wrong. So you got me.
Or maybe De Grasse Tyson has some white ancestry and isn’t as smart as other (asian) astrophysicists of his academic rank.”
What do you got against Tyson? I loved cosmos.
“By the way, I assume you’re african with this poor abstract thinking?
Hahaha.”
We all assumed you were african.
Right place and right time
Or not
Philosopher wrote-“By the way, I assume you’re african with this poor abstract thinking?
Hahaha.”
I doubt that you or many asians have an IQ higher thn mine period *smirk*
152
heres the proof;
Hahaha to that…Lol
Well philo…why dont you try it. I bet you’ll be too ashamed to post the result..lol
Its wrong firstly to say that Africans never developed some genes (e.g lactose intolerance) while other races did. Africans as a whole contain ALL the genes that the human species has. I.e. there are lactose tolerant africans , its just that THEY ARE FEW IN NUMBER.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation
quoute-“Sub-Saharan Africa has the most human genetic diversity and the same has been shown to hold true for phenotypic diversity.[35]”.
Think of it in terms of height. The genes for height are THE SAME in ALL races, but some have them in greater frequency. Theres no gene for black skin per se its just that there are MORE coding for it in black people. Asians have this gene too but it is less frequent.
Because variability implies a range of VALUES , more variability implies a greater range, but variability DOES NOT affect averages, because the values could go (and in this case do) up as much as they go down.
But my example was off….say chimpanzees have the same genes as us Basicaly and its just a question of prevalence. And they have greater diversity If There was a population of them that was as large as the east asian population NO WAY would a chimp be found who is more intelligent than all asians. BUT if chimps have a greater variability in IQ then there will come a point (much nearer for blacks than chimps) , as we increase the population size that this will happen.
philosopher wrote-” Take it from all the great black mathematicians and physicists of the last 5000 years.”
If there are 50 times as many people in the northern hemisphere than there are in the southern , what logic would suggest that there should be an equal number of mathematicians in both groups?
“If there are 50 times as many people in the northern hemisphere than there are in the southern”
And if there are 40 times as many flying pigs in Bombay than in Kinshasa, why is there less bacon. Is it because they’re flying?
Wow you level of logical comprehension, *sigh* where shall i begin..
The amount of bacon does not correlate with the fact that they are flying, but with the fact that there are 40 times the AMOUNT of flying pigs in one city. Amount of one thing (number of flying pigs) is directly proportional to amount of another thing (amount of bacon).
Now my example ALSO correlates amount. Amount of people in different areas and amount of genius in those different places.
Is that what passes for logic in you dim excuse of a brain? Oh and about my challenge….
Let me ask you a question Philo…
New york has less total number of geniuses than those in the rest of America? Why? Both groups have the same racial character (largely) and hence IQ mean.
three things;
1. Amount of bacon
2.Amount of flying pigs
3. the fact that they are flying
Statistics uses numbers ,so only those things that are based on the notion of number can be Statistically DEPENDANT…anything else is statistically independant and hence does not belong in the same correlation domain.
Of the three above only two belong in the same correlation domain and can be correlated…and its not the fact that they are flying because that has nothing to do with numbers.(stats).
Hahahahaha.
I reckon you DID do the test and got something at least one standard deviation lower than mine….but are too ashamed to respond….well thats official until you do do the test and show us …HAHAHAHA!!!
Wait a minute…if you had an IQ , 1 standard deviation below mine you’ld still be a genius….lol
But India is not exactly in THAT northern hemisphere, nor Africa. Patagonia and south Africa, yes.
More important to have great arguments is to be affective and cognitively right. What define a clever silly is
– clever enough to give greater mental gymnastics
-silly enough to be essentially wrong and don’t know they are wrong.
But indians are caucasians??
I am saying there are greater chances for finding geniuses among the total population of whites and asians, than in blacks because of their relative numbers?
There are more people in the white and asian team to do stuff than in the black team.
I would have thoght this is obvious
Really ? What make geniuses is never the quantitative but “qualitative” factor. Japan for example with much less people than China have produced more pretty good scientists. Based on this logic China and India should be natural farm of geniuses. And today Africans and diaspora have more young people than east Asians and Europeans. I will wait for that African geniuses emerging soon.. I hope.
People think American environment are differently disadvantageous for blacks but first this environment has been created by own black people, because despising obvious problems in American society America indeed was the land of opportunity and people with greedy, practical creativity and other traits has been beneficiary. Even people who don’t “make America” still improved a lot their standard living if compared with other groups. Japanese Americans carefully named the japs have suffering great discrimination in America’s society Brazil included and they have prospered.
Second people who behave good and work hard has been beneficiary in USA included African immigrants.
The legal discrimination against African Americans wasn’t created just because their skin color but because long term living with them (aware about their proportionally higher social dysfunctionaloty) and the smartest African Americans has been beneficiary, that blacks with “white behavior”, in the more meritocratic society in the past when again I know America never was a perfect society.
Oprah is a example of how the old and rigorous meritocratic system has been slightly good for blacks who are not quasi-full savages. Oprah was beneficiary of two condluent american current realities, the already existent rigorous meritocratic American system abs the emergence of the politically correct and multiculturalism in the 80’s.
Confluent
Of course meritocracy based on American criteriocracy because in the ideal meritocratic system a entertainer never would treated in the superior way than for example a doctor or a scientist, even the absolute ideal world social inequality would be eliminated but the inequality of soul quality seems impossible to be eliminated and would determine the ideally perfect social hierarchy.
Let me ask you Santo piece und löeb-
Take two city’s ,one with 1000 000 000 people ,city 1,and one with 500 people , city 2. Both city’s have the same mean IQ (i.e. they have people from the same race)
Would you find more geniuses in city 1 or city 2.
Genius or better higher creativity are mutations when sons or daughters born more intelligent than their fathers. The % of great achievers has been always little. It’s not just have many people or even have many smart people. Seems the rule is the regression to the mean.
A little fraction of European populations has created great part of European civilization and other people learn and sustain their innovations, artistic, cultural, scientific or technological.
Better, sons who born with greater perceptiveness than their fwthers.
Ok
which city will PROBABLY have more geniuses.
Your pattern argumentation here seems is not systematically validated. Read The Man of genius by Lombroso to understand better about geniuses.
Lol
the dynamics for the creation of genius is the same in both city’s, however its made, or induced, so that has nothing to do with it.
I believe you know what i am saying. Pride is a delicate thing..
People born with genius potential, highly perceptiveness. If geniuses were so easy what you seems are thinking so we had a legions of them and triple of more of its innovations and we no have this reality.
Your argumentation: ” bigger populations= more chance to have geniuses is partially logic by obvious reasons but what I already said. If it was so causal then china and India would natural farms of geniuses and it’s not.
My argument-” bigger populations= more chance to have geniuses is partially logic by obvious reasons
Its not partially logic. it is COMPLETE…. because all it talks about is probability .Bigger population does not cause more genius , rightly like you say, but it causes the greater probability of genius, which was my point.There was no other part to my point, so its not partial.
Contradictory
If bigger populations are not only factor to produce geniuses so your argument is partially correct, as I said. But, it’s logically correc and because geniuses are so rare what seems make them possible is more “qualitative” than purely quantitative. A bunch of unusual or rare biological combinations that produce highly functional perceptiveness and a favorable environment to change perceptiveness to creativity. No one born creative but almost of highly creative people born highly perceptive. “
”
If bigger populations are not only factor to produce geniuses so your argument is partially correct, as I said.
”
My argument was about the probability of genius being found in greater populations.*******Not about what factors produce genius*******. So my arguement is totally correct.
E.g. I said a 10 is greater than 1. This is 100% correct despite the fact that it is also greater than 5.
Its NOT partially true that 10 is greater than 1. Thats a guaranteed fact.
”My argument was about the probability of genius being found in greater populations.*******Not about what factors produce genius*******. So my arguement is totally correct.”
Your fundamental argument is
”because bigger populations, east asians and europeans have produced more geniuses than africans”
partially correct or better LOGICALLY correct…
make sense, but…
Do you know that whatever causes genius will form a normal distribution.That distribution will have on one axis PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION. When we combine this information with the IQ bell curve we get a composite curve which has as an axis PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION. So ALL the factors of genius WHATEVER THEY ARE are dependant on population size.
THATS THE WHOLE STORY.
Tell me a factor of genius and why you wont find few people not displaying it much, most people displacing it to a middle extent and a few people displaying it at genius level. THATS THE BELL CURVE that talks of percentages of people with a certain trait.
The greater the population size, even if the percent stays the same , the greater the number whpo display this genius trait.
All genius traits are population dependant, because a BELL CURVE prdicts percentage of a population with a particular trait.
This is what you are saying.
There are some factors that cause genius that blacks didnt have , so even if they had a greater population they wouldnt have as many geniuses, THATS what you mean by partially true.Also those populations where these factors arose had smaller populations than those of blacks.
But i beg to differ with this logic because; .
The greater the total number of a race , the greater the probability that these small subsets of the race with those genius factors will appear.
SO I AM STILL CORRECT
I don’t said you’re wrong but partially right.
Even genius traits are population dependents generally the combinations that produce that highly perceptive individuals (Bruce Charlton like to describe it: Endogenous personality… Well perceptiveness would the cognitive part, endogenous personality would be the psychological part/aspect) tend to be occasionally combined. Hbd generally believe in the Terman theory that geniuses are undoubtedly someone with higher intelligence (IQ in very hbd jargon) and higher creativity, remember, creativity is the product : Innovative and useful ideas. I prefer use the term perceptiveness, the “trait” that usually produce creativity, I mean, IQ dependent while I thought IQ is not absolutely IQ dependent instead the correlation between both IQ and genius seems will be pretty higher. Genius and creativity are absolutely perceptiveness-dependent. None geniuses or more creative people aren’t highly perceptive, broadly or narrowly speaking. The correlation between perceptiveness and IQ seems significant to the broad and highly perceptive individuals or polymaths while will be possibly lower or less among narrowly highly perceptive individuals.
It’s not
IQ is not IQ dependent lol
It’s
Perceptiveness is not IQ dependent
And too much or too low perceptiveness usually correlates with mental disorders.
Perceptiveness also is not like hyper sensorial sensitivity but also tend to correlate.
Maybe you have trouble with english. I made an atomic statement that is either true or false and cannot be partially true or partially false.
I re read my last comment here and I don’t see my problem with English. Seems more and more a fllacid excuse than a real reason. Yew many times I write even more horrible than usual. Not in this case. I’m writing via smartphone, a very little factor that worse my ænglish.
Re read your first coomemts…
http://www.themarysue.com/world-population-latitude-longitude/
Quote-“As you can see above, there’s quite a northerly bias: According to Rankin, roughly 88 percent of the world’s population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, with about half north of 27 degrees north.”
A final item is something for Pumpkin Parsons to look at.
Have you heard of huntingtin production?
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21645713-could-key-evolution-human-brain-be-found-dreadful
CAG cycles/generation~Markowitz risk return frontier
I think this is one of the keys to the mind.
A non-recessive genetic disease.
The three researchers mentioned will win the Nobel Physiology prize before I’m dead.
Have you ever wondered how with an average IQ thats considered retarded among whites, that means 25% of them (blacks) are below an IQ of 45 , that blacks in Africa can still function; marry, raise kids ,*read*,drive. And there is no 25 % of blacks who cannot do all of this BTW, while ALL Caucasians with an IQ 5 points above that, i.e. 50, can do non of the above?
Yes.
http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-does-iq-70-mean-for-black-and.html?m=1
Interesting…some thoughts
I would then place a heavy factor on the interoperatabilty of the different parts of an IQ test to determine intelligence. I take it a white 70 (retard) would be one whith different weighting e.g very high scores in everything but one extremely low one ,perhaps spacial IQ, and ordinary living needs (black 70), equal scores in evrything, just that they are all low, but not extremely low. The white guy would be totaly f**kd in life because of the distribution of the various levels of iq constituents.
Or perhaps vice versa
How explain IQ equally lower among aboriginals… That nom negroid and geographically distant group??
Who live in an environment as difficult as any cold one, a desert environment….oh and please dont avoid my city question Santo piece und löeb
I already answer..
Don’t avoid my question:
” why colder areas have less flora and fauna than intertropical areas??”
Because plants find it harder to survive there….So those few that are left HAVE A HIGHER IQ than those in africa….lol
Whats your point?
Colder areas are more intrinsically difficult to live that most of livng beings of all types can’t adapt to this environment plants included.
The mystery is resolved when you think of RNA/DNA interaction and the zygote incubation as a sort mechanism to allot proteins to brain stem and the physique.
Has it escaped your attention that black men and women are far larger? Many black women having higher testosterone levels than an increasing number of white men?
In most of human history this would be far more important than being able to integrate a function.
The proteins that are left over, go fully into R selected intellectual traits like charisma and social skills.
Thats why AESTHETICS DONT LIE.
An 80IQ black kid isn’t going to look retarded. In fact he may look more ‘normal’ than the average Korean nuclear engineering student. Even to asian women. Maybe even more than normal…haha.
Because AESTHETICS DONT LIE.
The proteins go to where they are most needed in Kinshasa. In Kinshasa’s case reproduction and physical brutality. In Seoul, being able to rote learn textbooks and follow orders.
Blacks commit the most heinous and despicable crimes against each other as well as others. Because they were select for the Struggle, not the Splendour of the Will.
It is not the converse however to say Asians were selected for splendour, lacking imagination, literature (cognitive empathy) and any musical ability or aesthetic taste despite their historically massive numbers relative to other regions.
Hence why Classical Greece even overshadowed much of the Ming.
Many of the mings innovations were functional, practical. Like their ancestors object fetishes today.
Phil.
PS Jensen was intuitively correct that the social intelligence would allow them to do more than the same IQ ‘retarded’ white child.
In an adaptation sense, being socially intelligent is de facto more intelligent. Hence why they breed more than similarly retarded whites or appear normal. The Algorithm couldn’t care less about these tests. It will decide who was smart.
The next step in psychometrics is to assign weighting to various intelligence in relation to reproductive and fitness criteria.
Or as I mentioned before, ecological studies of so called ‘geniuses’ in a variety of environments.
Is it not interesting that when it comes to the exclusive achievements of dark skinned Caucasians, light skinned Caucasians claim them as theirs because they are also Caucasians, but when it comes to the exclusive white skinned Caucasians achievements “its because we lived in a cold environment and they didn’t that they cant claim them.”
Current MENA people tend to be mixed race than decanted breed. Older MENAs were more cauvssoid or originally Caucasoid than today. In the true we have little knowledge about how Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans really look like. The fundamental discussion here is: They were more Nordic or Mediterranean in racial phenotype? I agree that a German guy say “my people did Sumerian civilization” is at least silly because the older Sumerians and their culture no more exist. The fact we have so many stupid people claiming their supposed achievements as well happen with afrocentrists and afrocentric don’t invalidates specially that older civilizations may has been constructed by “whites”.
When we talk that “colder climate can make humans strategically long term smarter we are talking about very old and particular events for example in the period of invention of clothes of animal skin or to coze the foods. Thousand times than the first historically known civilization.
I agree that claim Egyptians was whites seems stupid. But they don’t look pure black breed but mulato.
IQ tests measure long term technical intelligence. Most blacks I know are very clever at short term but they live in long term thinking environments. I believe most human beings are in some way clever as well average and dumb.
corporatist has nothing to do with corporations, btw.
1. the individualist ideology explains various social phenomena as the result of innate traits or moral choices of individuals irrespective of the group to which the individual belongs and his personal experience.
2. a corporatist ideology explains individual outcomes as the result of the groups to which the individual belongs by birth or by choice.
these groups include such obvious things as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. all the things that the “corporate” (in another sense) Democrats identify. in northern ireland the catholics and protestants are such groups. these groups also include workers and owners, rich and poor, etc. the groups that the marxists think are most important. but they also include the group of people who belong to no group and identify with no group and are thus excluded by all groups. “introverts” or “night people” are such groups.
AHHH BUT!
a corporatist ideology is itself an individualist ideology in most cases. by that i mean that if the group is determined by certain psychological traits or by moral “inclinations”…
it is NOT at all clear that such traits are innate. that is, the group one belongs to will DEPEND on the society he is a part of.
take for example the group “introverts”.
as far as i know, i might be an “extrovert”…in japan or s korea or even switzerland.
SO…
1. if any corporatist ideology is not the full corporatist ideology, it is FALSE. but even the full corporate ideology is FALSE.
2. the individualist ideology has reached its full expression in the US and UK, especially in “libertarianism”/’randianism”. that it has realized what it is in full is its only virtue. it’s 100% pure crap…or just evil.
PP please read this book.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20821275-arrival-of-the-fittest
evolution is like anthropogenic global warming.
1. retards thinking that scientists are gods.
2. less than half the story.
it’s funny how the mass media uses the term “populist” pejoratively.
ummm.
it’s beyond the reach of any of these people that this can be paraphrased as…
“the people can’t be trusted. oligarchy is better than democracy.”
it’s a great example of how dumb and ovine the american elite has become.
the best possible interpretation is…”a populist makes promises he can’t keep and his supporters are too dumb to know this.” demonstrating the utter contemptibleness of main stream media. they can’t use the phrase “islamic terrorism”, but they can use the term “populist”.
things like these are why peter thiel and steve shoe are on the trump train.
Yes, I was getting very annoyed at the Rotschild Economist 3 or 4 years ago when it started using that phrase. I believe that was the first paper to revive the word.
Its quite hilarious when you consider they want the reader to associate the word with extremism. But by definition, a person evoking the popular will, cannot be a political extremist, except to his foreign agents, perhaps…
Another amusing situation.
Suppose we poll the public on a number of political questions. Let’s say anything above 60% support. Now imagine we create a party with that specific platform of referenda policies. Let’s call it the ‘Sanders/Trump Party’.
Now let’s imagine all the positions that reaped 30% or less support. Let us call it, ‘The Cuckold Party’.
This is not an imaginary scenario.
Hahahaha.
#Except to the foreign agents in the country or foreign enemies.
and christopher hitchens can say (not joking), “i don’t like people from yorkshire.”
according to wikipedia:
the population of yorkshire in 2011 was 5.3m.
the population of jews in the uk in 2011 was 269,568.
yet saying, “i don’t like jews” is not permitted.
THIS IS NOT A “FALSE EQUIVALENCY”…
!!!
Whats your opinion on Hitchens?
I never liked his idiot support for the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds. But he was very good on a number of other topics.
But its hard to like him too much whenever he hedged his comments by invoking the holocaust and lifting up his dress to virtue curtsy to Jews when discussing issues.
Many years from now, believe in the Blank Slate will be equivalent to theological belief and a bit of a stain on the intellectual record for many.
Like Newton and his fascination with Bibles.
Or, it could demonstrate that such people were well socialised enough to accept conventional wisdom i.e. not schizo.
Or it could demonstrate that they were so socially intelligent they threw these fig leaves of modesty at the gallery so they could talk brass tacks on other issues.
Hitchens bashed religion, but ‘forgot’ to bash Judaism much. Presumably because Judaism is the one religion that gifts humanity a net benefit. Or he gets excommunicated by the Hive.
Funny, how Zion is ignored by Dawkins and co. Or Smart.
Just as the Jews used Kinshasa as a battering ram against whites to accept Zion. So whites should use Muslimophobia as a battering ram against Jews.
I’ve cracked it!
this is why brazil didn’t send a man to the moon.
too many fags.
I thought Merica were a prolestan…
Too many “geniuses ‘with’ IQ 160”.
You created the murrican prole aerospatial programme??
I also thought too many blacks here make Brazil a undesirable American sweet nightmare…
Too many niggers?? Huh? Or Spaniards?? 700 thousand magnificent Spaniards..
Aerospatial race is relevant to philosophy??
Also too many alcoholic poor souls, some them have pathetic megalomaniacal feelings, do you knew?
Dom Quixote is you??
complexity and evolution is NOT like the wax falling from a candle.
viruses can be simpler than the first cell (the candle).
only if the trunk of the candle corresponded to a prion could complexity and evolution be like a dripping candle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
NO!
evolution is just as likely to go less complex (CHINK) as it is to go more complex (WHITE).
Well said. This notion that evolution is always ‘progressive’ is idiotic. Why then do organisms lose traits that are beneficial to that environment when a positive trait occurs through natural selection? Why have human brains been getting smaller if they’re ‘the most complex thing in the universe’?
Evolution is not evolved to be minimalistic or maximalistic but underliely efficient to the survive. Evolution based on this criteria is progressive, if the human brain is supposedly the most complex thing in the universe and not the fish brain.
Your English is getting better. I can stand to read your comments now. =^)
“Evolution based on this criteria is progressive”
And then if you look at other traits then it’s not. For instance, we look at what traits we have, and other organisms have for that matter, and only focus on those. But why no focus on the traits that become negative when a positive trait is selected for? For instance how penguins can’t fly or some other trait? We like to think of evolution is progressive, but it’s really not. See my reply to pumpkinperson that I published this morning.
PROGRESSIVE complexity of human brain and their size reduction is not exactly two causal evolutionary events. Human brains in civilization is becoming little if compared with anterior because “civilization” select for reasonably smarter people, smart enough to work well not enough to fight against the rulers and to emancipate themselves.
But reduction of brain size seems a particular Eurasian event is not?/ the same have happened in other groups??
Yea but it Don’t prove evolution is not progressive. Deny enormous human predominance or say” human brain is the most complex thing ever” is basically agree that evolution is progressive. I know that there are many ways to evolve but Jews know very well that the population who prevail who survive is the best adapted and not the most complex. Yes evolution is in the same time subjective (many ways to evolve tyrannosaurus to the chickensaurua) and objective (efficient capacity to survive).
Well said. This notion that evolution is always ‘progressive’ is idiotic.
No one is saying evolution is ALWAYS progressive. Progress doesn’t happen in a straight line. Sometimes you have to take two steps forward and one step back, but over billions of years of trial and error, we do see certain trends that can be considered progressive: compared to 500 million years ago, the average organism on Earth today is more complex, more intelligent, more impressive and more adaptable.
FACT!
Why have human brains been getting smaller if they’re ‘the most complex thing in the universe’?
Because we’ve made the leap from biological evolution to cultural evolution. We’ve learned to pool our knowledge creating collective intelligence, which far surpasses any individual intelligence our biology could maintain.
That’s progress.
Evolution does not work like that. Even Steven Jay Gould knew evolution wasn’t progressive. I agree with him here and not Rushton.
More complex? Uhhhhno. Things don’t even always become more complex over time. This directly rebuts the notion of progressive evolution.
Cultural evolution pp? You’re proving my point. Something is happening that’s negatively affecting our brain size. That’s not progress.
There is also the fact that we look at only positive traits and not negative ones, especially not ones brought about by so-called positive changes.
Hmm.
”Evolution does not work like that. Even Steven Jay Gould knew evolution wasn’t progressive. I agree with him here and not Rushton.”
Please.
”More complex? Uhhhhno. Things don’t even always become more complex over time. This directly rebuts the notion of progressive evolution.”
No, i thought you’re confusing two different things
evolution is not adaptation
many times, adaptation is regressive and not progressive,
evolution is always the improvement of certain organism to adapt, always a qualitatively progressive adaptation.
evolution is quasi a natural eugenics/natural selection specially when certain organism evolve at point to become qualitatively better, for example, humans and primates.
”Cultural evolution pp? You’re proving my point. Something is happening that’s negatively affecting our brain size. That’s not progress.”
You said ”evolution is not progressive” BUT ”brain size is progressive**”, ”brain size matter#”.
hey, i’m not you ”NewCanchro”, grrrrrr
“Please”
Thank you.
“evolution is always the improvement of certain organism to adapt, always a qualitatively progressive adaptation.”
There is devolution.
“You said ”evolution is not progressive” BUT ”brain size is progressive**”, ”brain size matter#”.”
Brian size is shrinking. Evolution isn’t progressive. Read.
You must need refute my points instead avoid it.
”Thank you.”
huh*
”There is devolution.”
huh* i expected any answer, less it.
”Brian size is shrinking. Evolution isn’t progressive. Read.”
Domestication is not evolution.
”Less ‘smart’ people are having more kids” … your conclusion= evolution is not progressive.
I did refute. You said please, which is not a response. The fact that brain size is decreasing shows its not progressive. Darwins finches show its not progressive. It’s retarded to think evolution I progressive. Gould was right here, Rushton was wrong. So are you saying that evolution is not continuing today in the modern world?
”I did refute. You said please, which is not a response.”
Gould and Rushton agree with my statement also is not a response.
”The fact that brain size is decreasing shows its not progressive.”
because what has happened is not evolution but domestication. humans are so spectacular that ”they” are able to self-devolved.
”reduction of brain size caused by domestication and dysgenics” don’t prove that evolution is not ALSO progressive.
the criteria to be more evolved is varied, but the underlied/omniscient idea is the same, ”better” = ”evolved”.
because evolution is imperfect don’t mean that it’s non-progressive.
USA, since 13 english colonies to ”New Rome” super power, it’s progressive or not*
”It’s retarded to think evolution I progressive.”
You have conclusive statements, i want to see your reasoning.
”So are you saying that evolution is not continuing today in the modern world?”
Since a long time, humans behave like ants, it’s like evolution**
to the ants, it’s the appex.
for us, absolutely not.
”humans” are destroying the world, started by europeans, creativity out of control and based on wrong main ideas tend to cause many problems.
avg human are far to be super smart as we usually think, even to the other animals.
human evolution has been pretty problematic, pretty assimmetric…
“Gould and Rushton agree with my statement also is not a response.”
Evolution is like a tree, not a line. Each branch isn’t ‘more evolved” than the last, nor is the previous branch’ less evolved ‘. Each is suited to be good enough for its environment to reproduce.
“because what has happened is not evolution but domestication. humans are so spectacular that ”they” are able to self-devolved.”
Uh-huh. Its because of dysgenics. Our brains shrinking in the past 10 k years, such progress.
“the criteria to be more evolved is varied, but the underlied/omniscient idea is the same, ”better” = ”evolved”.”
It’s varied because there’s no consensus because it doesn’t make sense. Darwins finches are the best example.
“You have conclusive statements, i want to see your reasoning.”
Darwin’s Finches are the perfect example of how evolution is not progressive. They are fit for each environment. The tree finch has a blunt beak for tearing vegetation, the ground finch has a broad beak for crushing seeds, and Warbler finch’s small beak makes it good for eating insects. Each bird evolved from the same ancestor, each evolved in different ecosystems on the same island, but they evolved to do different things based on what they had to do to survive in that ecosystem. This very simple example shows that evolution is not progressive, and that these mutations occur to better help an organism in that niche in the ecosystem.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/getting_the_monkey_off_darwins_back
Human evolution isn’t problematic. We are smarter than animals.
http://www.siumed.edu/anatomy/KingCoS/304/progress.htm
”Evolution is like a tree, not a line. Each branch isn’t ‘more evolved” than the last, nor is the previous branch’ less evolved ‘. Each is suited to be good enough for its environment to reproduce.”
typical trees grow progressively up… ok, white europeans are not more evolved than black africans… and iq differences don’t matter…
to say ”evolution is not progressive” is like to say ”everyone is the same”
you appear to be very confused with this ideas probably because you don’t understand very well the terms you’re using.
i’m not denying part of your point of views, indeed, i’m agreeing.. we have so many diverse ways to evolve but no doubt some organisms evolved to be better than others, at least in some aspects, for example, human intelligence or ability to fly to the birds, or ability to survive in desert for long time…
humans are more evolved than any other living being IN THE capacity to think, to use their brain and reflect their actions, as well, some individuals are more evolved than any other to do the same thing, as well we have some human populations who are more evolved in this aspect than others.
”Uh-huh. Its because of dysgenics. Our brains shrinking in the past 10 k years, such progress.”
dysgenics don’t prove ”evolution is not progressive”.
our brains**
my brain don’t shrink over last 10 years, 😉
”It’s varied because there’s no consensus because it doesn’t make sense. Darwins finches are the best example.”
no, it’s varied not because there’s no consensus or because it doesn’t make sense!!
varies because varies, 😉
You’re understanding my point or don’t want to understand.
Some of this birds can evolve to become more smart than any other, what happens between humans and primates.
evolution is not exactly speciation, but qualitative differentiation, the improvement of certain organism, progressive supremacy of this organism in contrast with other related organisms. Maybe evolution is more rare among non-human animals and more possible among ”us”.
you’re confusing LINEAR with progressive. Evolution is not exactly linear, but it’s progressive in the way that organisms are always being selected to be equally efficient than anterior or even better.
”Human evolution isn’t problematic. We are smarter than animals.”
please, more reasoning…
because
is not
”human evolution isn’t problematic BECAUSE we are smarter than animals”
we are smarter than animals**
i thought it was relative, 😉
“typical trees grow progressively up… ok, white europeans are not more evolved than black africans… and iq differences don’t matter…”
Trees branch out. What’s so hard to understand about this? No race or ethny is ‘more evolved’ than another. Different selection pressures, different phenotypic traits. Maybe you should read something on evolution in Portuguese and you’ll understand this. Who said that IQ differences don’t matter? Point me to where I’ve ever said this.
“to say ”evolution is not progressive” is like to say ”everyone is the same””
…….what? Are you serious? Think about what you just said, then think about it again and again. Then tell me how stupid that statement was.
“you appear to be very confused with this ideas probably because you don’t understand very well the terms you’re using.”
Not confused at all. It must be the language barrier because I’m concise with my words.
“but no doubt some organisms evolved to be better than others, at least in some aspects, for example, human intelligence or ability to fly to the birds, or ability to survive in desert for long time…”
How many times do I need to repeat this?
LOOKING AT SINGULAR TRAITS WE CAN SAY WHO’S “MORE EVOLVED” OR “SUPERIOR” BUT WHEN LOOKED AT AS A WHOLE IT DOES NOT EXIST. DO YOU GET IT YET?
“humans are more evolved than any other living being IN THE capacity to think, to use their brain and reflect their actions, as well, some individuals are more evolved than any other to do the same thing, as well we have some human populations who are more evolved in this aspect than others.”
See above. You’re not understanding what I’m saying at all. Reread all of our correspondence on this because I’ve repeatedly said this to you.
“dysgenics don’t prove ”evolution is not progressive”.”
Yes it does. Dysgenics–factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species
Get it yet? If evolution is ‘progressive’, why is this occurring? Why has our brain shrank, “the most complex thing in the known universe” to use PP’s words (I beg to differ, the UNIVERSE itself is the most complex thing in the universe).
“no, it’s varied not because there’s no consensus or because it doesn’t make sense!!”
So tell me which of Darwin’s Finches is ‘most evolved’ and which ‘progressed more’ from the common ancestor.
“Some of this birds can evolve to become more smart than any other, what happens between humans and primates.”
And? You’re, again, proving my point. LOOKING AT CERTAIN TRAITS WE CAN SAY THIS BUT WHEN LOOKED AT AS A WHOLE IT’S MEANINGLESS.
“evolution is not exactly speciation, but qualitative differentiation, the improvement of certain organism, progressive supremacy of this organism in contrast with other related organisms. Maybe evolution is more rare among non-human animals and more possible among ”us”.”
Punctuated Equilibria:
Species remain in stasis for a long time before quick speciation occurs.
Click to access speciation.pdf
Pretty amazing huh?
“you’re confusing LINEAR with progressive. Evolution is not exactly linear, but it’s progressive in the way that organisms are always being selected to be equally efficient than anterior or even better.”
LINEAR IMPLIES PROGRESS! Provide evidence for your assertion please.
“i thought it was relative”
We are smarter than animals. This isn’t even up for discussion. BUT THAT’S ONE TRAIT AND WHEN LOOKED AT AS A WHOLE THIS NOTION OF “MORE EVOLVED” “SUPERIOR” AND “PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTION” IS RIDICULOUS!
Understand what I’m talking about please and read the links provided so you can see where I’m coming from because it’s clear that you don’t.
Trees branch out. What’s so hard to understand about this?
And some branches diverge from the trunk at a lower point than others, and don’t do anymore branching, and these lower branches give rise to less evolved populations. Why can’t you understand this?
No race or ethny is ‘more evolved’ than another.
Some races are more morphologically similar to the common ancestor of all races than others. That makes them less evolved. You seem to think that because all races have evolved since they diverged from a common ancestor, that they all have evolved to an equal degree. The very concept of one being more evolved than another is incomprehensible to you, because you measure evolution by time, not understanding that evolution proceeds at different rates for different populations.
Different selection pressures, different phenotypic traits.
Some selection pressures cause more evolution than others. Why can’t you grasp this simple concept?
Get it yet? If evolution is ‘progressive’, why is this occurring? Why has our brain shrank, “the most complex thing in the known universe” to use PP’s words (I beg to differ, the UNIVERSE itself is the most complex thing in the universe).
The exception that proves the rule. Further:
1) Much of the brain shrinkage is caused by environmental change (malnutrition associated with agriculture) not evolutionary change
2) Much of the brain shrinkage not explained by environmental change can be explained by body size reduction; brain mass relative to body mass has shrunk less than absolute brain mass
3)we’ve largely replaced biological evolution with cultural evolution (the ultimate progress)
RaceRealist, if evolutionary trees looked like these, then you could argue all races are equally evolved, because these trees depict parallel branches:
But the reality is the evolutionary tree looks like the image below. A ladder of progress where some branches diverge prematurely, and others diverge after several more steps of evolution:
Capiche?
Will,
Can you believe the Trumpets fell for this?
http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/trump-drudge-post-office-troll/
Dear God……
I guess they think the “Globalists” are about as smart as they are, clumsy/bufoonish in their plots to deprive Herr Drumpf from the election; bragging about the actions to rig it.
lol
P.S. Matt Drudge as brackets, iirc
(((Matt Drudge)))
Matt Drudge *has* brackets.
Can’t believe they fell for it. The election is in three weeks. Last debate on Wednesday. This is going to be good. I feel like I’m watching Monday Night Raw watching this unfold.
Evolution is even more complicated than we can possibly know. Think of all the variables involved.
The environment itself is not static. Foreign genes migrate here and there causing conflict and upheaval. Viruses evolve as well and soon antibiotics may not keep up with them.
And as Pumpkin mentioned, technology allows a lot of ‘fat’ in the populace to be somewhat viable reproductively because they can outsource Cognitive function or physical ability to machines.
The harshness of the algorithm is further blunted by contraception, abortion, ideology and other matters. The government can also intervene like in China to remove Tragedy of the Commons problems unlike any other species (r like open borders, cause Commons problems).
Finally medical innovations allow previously unviable humans to be viable. Such as myself and many many others.
Evolution is not a Whig phenomenon in the sense that the end destination of leaner, stronger, smarter is the undisputed outcome. It certainly will not cause nicer, kinder, gentler if womens mating preferences are a guide to the inherent intent of the Algorithm.
Think of it like a gravitational force more than an optimisation engine – with it getting weaker and stronger as various forces above interact in various ways, pushing the bodies on the plane as a whole towards certain permutations that are optimal for a certain time — before the solution collapses or erodes, and the algorithm calculates the next permutation of genes.
A very very complex phenomenon. It probably has more in common with a weather system in precursor state to a storm or tornado than linear functions unzipping each other in order.
An even more fantastical observation I would add, is that if it is not quite a Whigian process, then the ideological will be crestfallen, because symmetrical utopian outcomes are clearly not viable, even in theory.
If that is that case, whatever created this has no clear intention in mind.
This would corroborate with the wave function view of reality where everything is conditional and processing in a parallel manner.
As a final rejoinder we may now speculate, that there is a kind of Free Will in the sense that the dread chains of evolution do not drag us to a certain outcome kicking and screaming thankfully, but that unfortunately, at a meta level, various scenarios, perhaps all scenarios are viable if not always, then at certain points in time.
As a final final rejoinder, we conclude therefore that it is only the voices in our head that give us certain free will. At the micro level. The narrative function. And that is good enough to be considered free will, because we can manipulate our interpretation of reality even if it is lacking fitness.
If you believe in Soros and reflexivity, our irrationality can also change the environment.
Our irrationality gives us free will. And thus, purpose.
antibiotics have never had any effect on viruses.
and i thought you were as smart as afrosapiens and swanknasty…
i was wrong.
That BUGabe only know say this kind of thing,
”clever” sillies support one each other,
”sophistication”
aaaawnnn…
”smart as afrosapiens and swanknasty”
”you have no reason to be ashamed of his race”
in somewhere…
BUGabby is a masked leftOID.
apesapiens fundamental statement
”black africans are superior breed, they only have a very bad environment sponsored by white trash”
swankynasty genius belief
”play video games make people smarter”
and she/he was shocked when I told her/him that the opposite was the most likely to be.
swanky believes in epigenetics ”or” neuroplasticity…
no doubt we can see a HUUGE pattern here
BUGabby confuse appearance with substance and vice-versa.
in the same way a perfect english verborragically well written by
swanky
apesapiens
do it wrongly conclude that they are the most intelligent here, a ”clever” verborragy do it conclude that Heidegger was a genius of philosophy, while he himself does not know what the big Heidegger meant by his theories.
Today christallized skills are over-valued in contrast with fluid.
result:
many people who are very good on christallized skills BUT NOT in fluid (the most important**) can climb high academic / intellectual status because scholastic meritocracy select for christallized skills, specially.
They may seem impressive, playing a huge amount of very specific knowledge that a mere mortal would have no opportunity and perhaps the same ability to memorize. However, it is more appearance than substance. They can deceive us (cheating themselves, first) trying to intimidate or impress us
” Hey, look what I ‘know’ and you do not know ‘
However, knowledge of fact, they know little, they do not know how to apply in the real world.
Any pseudo-intellectual nonsense falls apart when it is applied in the real world, the famous scientific method.
When this is applied or observed in the real world.
Gurreat Heidi…
Yes I made a boo boo there. Better check my homework before submitting it to the an internet blog.
The rest of it is fine though in thrust.
Santo
I also ‘believe’ in neuroplasticity. You can increase your functional IQ quite a lot by doing a number of things. Diet is an obvious one.
Certain things I’m aware of that will ease autist symptoms like NAC, 5HTP and other more specialised pharmaceuticals or certain lifestyle choices and environments.
I’m pretty much sold on long term video game use as well. But what you gain from that in spatial and reaction time, you lose in obesity, bad socialization and opportunity cost in hitting the gym or upskilling.
A priori, playing video games is not a good idea if you knew what the trade offs were or were planning to retire or be a drone pilot or something.
No there such thing ”functional iq”…
indeed IQ is a THING just like violin is also a thing.
IQ scores is like take your school exames and change them in ”intelligence certification diploma”.
the main idea of neuroplasticity is
”if you born ”with” (sic!) iq below 70, testified many times, you can improve it via ”cognitive training”, etc”
NO.
just like a libertarian genetics.
you just can improve something if you have SOME pre-disposition and neuroplasticity deny that this pre-dispositions are inequally distributed among populations.
”Diet is an obvious one.”
source* any evidence*
”I’m pretty much sold on long term video game use as well. But what you gain from that in spatial and reaction time, you lose in obesity, bad socialization and opportunity cost in hitting the gym or upskilling.”
no son.
seems many of gamers are COGNITIVELY smart, above average, BUT INTELECTUALLY avg or below avg.
intelectually = culturally- people,nations, culture/behaviorally/morally smart.
cognitively = culturally-things smart/”learn’– memorize techniques, or better, ”academically smart”.
gamers don’t become [cognitively] smarter after play video games, correlation (they born cognitively smarter and they are attracted to this kind of mental games) and not causality ( play video games increase [cognitive] intelligence).
Self awareness/meta cognition and very good autobiographical memories may help to destroy this silliness ”you’re absolutely influenced by environment”, ”people become ‘smarter’ because they are created in good environments”, etc
I respectfully disagree Santo.
We know for instance, that South Asians born in the West to FOB paretns do better on IQ tests than South Asians on the subcontinent. Ron Unz also did a great analysis of Murray’s bell Curve data showing quite a lot of improvement in American European immigrants IQ over their homeland over the 20th century is environmental.
Ireland had terrible IQ scores up until the 1990s when diets, the economic situation and other factors improved greatly.
I see IQ a lot like weight training. I would agree with the notion that people have natural differences in IQ and their potential, just like some people are stronger and taller.
Some men will never become rugby players or NFL sized men no matter how many weights they lift (or steroids they take). But you can do a fair bit for IQ too – especially in early childhood when the brain is still forming, it requires nutrients, in the same way even a genetically athletically gifted child needs food too.
I never said video games increase all types of intelligence, just mentioned spatial:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gpr/14/2/92/
It also matter what types of game you play. Strategy games, like for instance like chess/poker all the way up to my old flame Age of Empires will develop more than just spatial.
“Selected” immigration for south Asians. The avg south Asian do “worse” in their original nations while im the diaspora they tend to be much “better”. Many reasons for this situations. Very bad Indian government, unfair caste system lunacy AND because they can do better. What happens is: Better distribution of wealth as have happened in China. Income increase in China because people become smarter? No. Because government increase the creation and distribution of wealth by absolutely non morally recommendable ways.
All things you said wasn’t proved.
Ireland potato crisis was in XIX.
Scientific method.
Santo is correct to say that Americans are the New Roman Proles. Republican Romans were anti-intellectual, very pragmatic and there were hardly any scientific discoveries among them.
I see it ”America = New Rome” in the geography book, 😉
This is true. Also, America is less scientific compared to other Western Continental Nations. It ranks bottom, much worse than Canada. Romans were less scientific than Greeks and later, the Muslims.
Myth: East Asians are not very strong in STEM. They are the most numerous of the science/engineering students in America, and America is weak scientifically.
Debunked myth — East Asians are strong in STEM…
IQ tests are completely stupid and have no connection to real world success. Only SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT etc are useful for gauging someone’s intelligence.
“Progression”!!!
linear is not progressive…
😉
Progressive is not linear.
lin isn’t pro
You don’t need to be the older species to be the more developed of all…
humans can think about bacterias in very sophisticated ways.
bacterias can think about humans**
of course, greater the sophistication of organism, greater may be their vulnerabilities to the very faster mutating micro-organisms.
in individual levels, bacterias no have a good day.
i commit a mistake when i said
”evolution is fundamentally the capacity of certain organism to improve their survive strategy via biological modifications”
is not just or exactly it because evolution is also the sophistication or increasing of complexity of organisms, making them
– more efficient
– equally efficient to their own survive
– or even, reducing their fitness
when evolution leave some species to the dead end.
Let me just say since I’m anonymous, that paranoid schizophrenia is a debilitating nightmare that I wouldn’t wish on anyone.
You will never see the taut dark limousine window hue of a schizo smog.
Even when I laugh at my ideas or insinuations, I still believe them deep down. I believe I have unfortunately degraded to the point where some of my suspicions can now never be disproven. The conspiracy becomes more intricate with every debunking. Because my real opponent is not truth or falsehood, but fear.
When you combine it with nearly always being correct on matters (well, relative to many people), you have a very dicey situation. People react badly, because theyz stoopid.
Yeah. True.
But maybe youses is crazy too to care so fuckin much about it Phil, eh?
Blue boy, worried about the world’s eyes
Worried every time the sun shines
Worried about his haircut
Calm down, sweetheart, grow up
Blue boy
Blue boy, older than the world knows
Honey, that’s the way that life goes
No use acting so tough
Come down, sweetheart, grow up
Blue boy
Oh I would give anything to be wrong!
Such a sad song…
http://monthlyreview.org/2011/02/01/stephen-jay-goulds-critique-of-progress/
You never have your own thoughts…
Game of words.
More common don’t mean more evolved and what I already said above: Organisms can become more complex and improved but in the dead end.
And again. Organisms have evolved for different goals, for different directions in non perfect linear way. But they have evolved more parochially and less generally. A super invincible organism adaptable for all environments seems inexisent.
Bacterias mutated quickly and adapt quickly because their “simple” form. I mean, 90% of individuals dying in severe events and this genocide events seems very common to happen among micro organisms. It’s easy a simple form evolved or at least adapted quickly. Bacteria evolution seems a rare event and I can be wrong of course.
Humans have evolved more than any other organism to the task “to think”. Evolution is progressive and fundamentally in specific/punctual aspects than super uber generalized improvement.
>do-don’t quote experts!! That means you don’t ha-have your own thoughts!!
–Santoculto, 2016
Are you that daft to believe that I don’t think for myself? Are you that daft to think that ONE PERSON can think of anything and everything there is in the world, and if they can’t that ‘they can’t think for themselves”? Seriously? I can tell that you don’t read, because if you did you wouldn’t say shit like this.
“More common don’t mean more evolved and what I already said above: Organisms can become more complex and improved but in the dead end.”
Organisms can become less or more complex based on selective pressures in the environment. This is why ‘superiority’, ‘progressive evolution’ is retarded.
“Humans have evolved more than any other organism to the task “to think”. Evolution is progressive and fundamentally in specific/punctual aspects than super uber generalized improvement.”
Except it’s not.
Are you that daft to not get that the term ‘progressive’ and ‘superior/inferior’ are subjective across the world? Are you that daft to not know that these terms are not scientific and thusly not falsifiable making it *not science*?
Do some reading, then maybe you’ll stop saying “yo-you can’t think for yourself!!!”
Game of words, yes. The game of words that says that evolution is not pogressive.
And PP, Darwin had contradictory thoughts on the progressiveness of evolution.
G-d Santo, do some damn reading instead of reading blogs all day. Then you’ll change this retarded stance you have.
So Santo. According to your logic (remember that logic is a part of philosophy and we all know how much you love philosophy), for instance someone who says that the CICO model works for weight loss who ‘thunk for themselves’ means more than what I would say to rebut that along with my knowledge of human nutrition and metabolism along with the pertinent quotes are meaningless because some uneducated idiot says something “that he thought of himself”.
That’s not true. The truth means more than ‘what we think of’. I can tell you hardly read books because you have this retarded notion that quoting people means nothing. Read some G-d damn books and change this idiotic reasoning you have.
So quoting people who know what they’re talking about is meaningless bro? Fact of the matter is, evolution is not progressive. This is a fact. “Superiority” and “more evolved” are retarded terms, biologically speaking.
Take some biology classes and you’ll understand this one simple notion.
Sulrealist,
you always quoted your pet-experts, do you can’t see it**
you did it now.
you always avoid write with your own words why you internalized this or that thing.
and i’m not the only one here that perceived it.
other commenter asked for you to show your reasoning, probably because you don’t have reasoning enough to show up.
and when you ”argue”, you just repeat your toten-sentences
HOPELESS–2016
”Are you that daft to believe that I don’t think for myself? Are you that daft to think that ONE PERSON can think of anything and everything there is in the world, and if they can’t that ‘they can’t think for themselves”? Seriously? I can tell that you don’t read, because if you did you wouldn’t say shit like this.”
Of course you think for yourself, but very little, you conclude very fast and don’t develop any reasoning…
i already produced many arguments to defend my point of views, you produce none…
quote the pet-experts,
repeat the same sentences,
and when you try to develop by yourself something,
it’s HOPELESS
”Organisms can become less or more complex based on selective pressures in the environment. This is why ‘superiority’, ‘progressive evolution’ is retarded.”
……… because…. the same sentence…
one thing don’t necessarily implies in other thing. seems a false cause and effect.
i’m talking about EVOLUTION and not ADAPTATION, hundred comments before.
evolution IS the improvement of the certain organism
example
new humans versus older humans SPECIALLY about intelligence… or you’re not understanding my comments or you’re a functional illiterate (or both).
evolution generally or usually is the improvement of certain particularity/trait of certain organism.
again, humans can think about bacterias in very very sophisticated ways, bacterias can’t do it in any way…
humans are absolutely more evolved in cognitive aspects than bacterias and this fact prove that evolution is progressive in non-linear way. non-linear because organisms generally evolved in some aspect, parochially speaking, but not in all aspects, or this improvement will with costs. non-linear because organisms adapted and evolved for different directions, but it’s underlied: the progress. without this progress humans would not be possible.
”Are you that daft to not get that the term ‘progressive’ and ‘superior/inferior’ are subjective across the world? Are you that daft to not know that these terms are not scientific and thusly not falsifiable making it *not science*?”
I thought you must look to the mirror before call someone ”idiot”, but the problem is that you have only one mirror and the first mirror is always good for us, wrongly good. the second mirror showed our imperfections but body-building guido here have testosterone in excess to be reasonable.
you seems a leftoid arguing, hihihihihihihihihihihihihihi
”race realism is not science”
”black woman are ugly” = superior or inferior value**
The kindergarten is waiting for you
explain me oh great wise of Calabria
if superior and inferior are not scientific terms,
why you think black woman is ”ugly”, it’s not subjective**
why you think superior or inferior IQ are scientific terms, it’s not subjective**
and if evolution is absolutely subjective, why you think no there such thing ” ‘multiple’ intelligences”**
subjectivity usually implies in diversity…. a diversity of values with a variably similar quality. what i already explained before.
stop to humiliate yourself.
perhaps no one is worried about it, maybe even most think that you are a reasonable thinker.
I do not know if this worries you, but I know you’re a weak thinker.
it’s not subjective, it’s objectively proved by yourself.
”Game of words, yes. The game of words that says that evolution is not pogressive.
And PP, Darwin had contradictory thoughts on the progressiveness of evolution.
G-d Santo, do some damn reading instead of reading blogs all day. Then you’ll change this retarded stance you have.”
until this time, no decent argument for his part.
”So Santo. According to your logic (remember that logic is a part of philosophy and we all know how much you love philosophy), for instance someone who says that the CICO model works for weight loss who ‘thunk for themselves’ means more than what I would say to rebut that along with my knowledge of human nutrition and metabolism along with the pertinent quotes are meaningless because some uneducated idiot says something “that he thought of himself”.
That’s not true. The truth means more than ‘what we think of’. I can tell you hardly read books because you have this retarded notion that quoting people means nothing. Read some G-d damn books and change this idiotic reasoning you have.
So quoting people who know what they’re talking about is meaningless bro?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
duuuuuuuuuuude
you don’t want your cry, i want your arguments to defend your point of views…
” Fact of the matter is, evolution is not progressive. This is a fact. “Superiority” and “more evolved” are retarded terms, biologically speaking.
Take some biology classes and you’ll understand this one simple notion.”
REAL arguments please…
develop it now without the help of university students…
i will help you
”humans ARE NOT more evolved than bacterias in cognitive skills”
OK Santo do you want an actual argument?
P1: if evolution were progressive, we would be able to objectively say who or what is superior
P2: evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration suit an organism for its environment making them “good enough” to pass on their genes in that environment.
Conclusion: evolution is not progressive because we cannot objectively say what traits are superior because it’s subjective. Along with the four variables listen above, this shows why evolution is not progressive.
Put into propositional logic it goes like this. Let’s use E for evolution, and N for natural selection. And P for progress.
((N ^ E) – > ~P)
This says “if nature selection and evolution, then not progress” or “if n and e, then not P.
The premises are true and the argument is sound. What say you? That’s an actual argument. I took a logic class buddy.
And you saying that we’re more intelligent than bacteria is meaningless. It’s one singular trait. When looked at as a whole, superiority and more evolved doesn’t real.
Take a biology and logic class and maybe you’ll get this.
”P1: if evolution were progressive, we would be able to objectively say who or what is superior”
I’m superior than a bacteria in the task to think. You too*
i can think about my thoughts. A bacteria can’t think like me about their own ”thoughts”…
”P2: evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration suit an organism for its environment making them “good enough” to pass on their genes in that environment.”
Don’t prove evolution is not progressive.
Where you copy this arguments** 😉
”Conclusion: evolution is not progressive because we cannot objectively say what traits are superior because it’s subjective. Along with the four variables listen above, this shows why evolution is not progressive.”
you have severe problems to understand and accept the concept of subjectivity.
think reflectively is not superior than ”act instinctively” without to know definitively what you’re doing, where you’re going, the risks, costs and benefits**
bacterias: ”zero” reflective thinking/reason
cows: existent but little reflective thinking/reason
humans: existent and reasonable reflective thinking/reason
It’s not progressive
some species ”live forever” or have greater longevity, wow
it’s not progressive
based on this value/factor, it’s obviously progressive.
”Put into propositional logic it goes like this. Let’s use E for evolution, and N for natural selection. And P for progress.
((N ^ E) – > ~P)”
E = P + N = =)
”This says “if nature selection and evolution, then not progress” or “if n and e, then not P.”
thank you!! 😉
”The premises are true and the argument is sound. What say you? That’s an actual argument. I took a logic class buddy.”
okay.
”And you saying that we’re more intelligent than bacteria is meaningless. It’s one singular trait. When looked at as a whole, superiority and more evolved doesn’t real.”
we are debating via internet/computer, writing in associative symbols and with very complex stuff = meaningless
intelligence is not a singular trait.
i’m not looking for the whole, based on the whole, i agree wit you,
is you who don’t want look for this particularities that, well, make all differences…
“i can think about my thoughts. A bacteria can’t think like me about their own ”thoughts”…”
You’re proving my point. On this one trait we are, but bacteria are evolved for their environment.
“Don’t prove evolution is not progressive.”
The whole argument does.
“Where you copy this arguments**”
The premises with the conclusion is the argument. The P2 is the second premises. Premises are either true or false. Arguments aren’t true or false, they’re either sound or unsound. I gave true premises and my argument is sound. Do you object? If so, which of my premises were wrong. Point them out.
You can search all 3 of the things I wrote above to see its my thoughts if you don’t believe me.
“based on this value/factor, it’s obviously progressive.”
“Based on ONE variable it arises but as a whole it doesn’t. You’re proving my point.
i’m not looking for the whole, based on the whole, i agree wit you,
is you who don’t want look for this particularities that, well, make all differences…”
So my argument was good enough to persuade you that evolution isn’t progressive?
PP believes that arguments are opinions. This isn’t true. PP look at this link.
http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/05/are-logical-arguments-evidence/
Do you get it now, PP?
you spend the whole day on the internet **
you are so stupid.
I do not want and can not waste time with their irrational stubbornness.
I’m not proving any point of yours, is you do not want to see, what a pity.
you seem very smart on your blog, but only Appear to be. In genotypic time to spend your neurones you are what you show here. Its fluid intelligence seems quite weak. Unable to tell in their own words and make decent arguments.
If you refute my arguments, that is, in fact, catch my every sentence and refute it, you realized it, perhaps …
You will never do this because you’re dumb, unable to realize their mistakes, unable to accept, even after all attempts, that is not quite right.
People like you sink a country.
When you put on your head wind a point of view, even if this view is wrong, hardly anyone will be able to take you that.
It seems common among European south. I have a family of almost direct descendants of the Portuguese, and they are a lot like you. They look very smart in cognitive, technical terms, but in time to think when they insist with something, it’s almost impossible to get out of their heads, especially / commonly when they are wrong.
You’re a delay passing as a progress.
you are the antithesis of wisdom, a highly high-contradictory version of a typical leftist or any idiot who are ideologically identifiable.
You can continue to run in circles thinking you’re PROGRESSING …
I will not waste my time with your stupidity.
Is Race Realist Southern Euro? I didn’t really think so. Maybe Italian American or maybe some other like an Asian type.
“you spend the whole day on the internet **”
No I don’t. I have downtime at work and when I do I post here. Hit hard to grasp.
“you are so stupid.”
Ad hominem. Address my sound argument.
“I’m not proving any point of yours, is you do not want to see, what a pity.”
You’re saying we are more intelligent than bacteria. I agree. But bacteria are evolved for their environment. This is what you’re not getting and you’re proving my point by choosing arbitrary variables to see superior. Must be the language barrier, because you are proving my point without realizing it.
“you seem very smart on your blog, but only Appear to be. In genotypic time to spend your neurones you are what you show here. Its fluid intelligence seems quite weak. Unable to tell in their own words and make decent arguments.”
Thanks! I told you, in my own words with my own original argument, why evolution isn’t progressive. Do you deny that the 2 premises are true? Do you deny that the argument as a whole is sound? Tell me which propositions were false and then falsify my argument with a counter example. If you can’t, then you have to agree with what I said because you have no counter example to falsify my argument and its premises. This is how true argumentation works.
I am what I shown here? Care to elaborate?
“If you refute my arguments, that is, in fact, catch my every sentence and refute it, you realized it, perhaps …”
Tell me your premises and their conclusion. I did rebut your ‘argument’. Care to tell me what your argument is in a few words? I did for you and you cannot counter it because it’s sound and the premises are true.
“You will never do this because you’re dumb, unable to realize their mistakes, unable to accept, even after all attempts, that is not quite right.”
I did earlier. I’m dumb? Ad hominem. I do realize and accept my mistakes but I’m not wrong here. Did you even read the article that I linked her last night about ‘progress’ in evolution or are you just talking our of your ass? I can tell you don’t read because you’re extremely belligerent when I show how and why evolution is not progressive. Gould was write, Rushton was wrong.
PP, Gould was right, Rushton was wrong.
“People like you sink a country.”
What the hell are you even talking about.
“When you put on your head wind a point of view, even if this view is wrong, hardly anyone will be able to take you that.”
You’re describing everyone who has ever lived with this statement. Except I know I’m right and I’ve more than backed my point. I gave a sound, logical argument and you have nothing to say.
“It seems common among European south. I have a family of almost direct descendants of the Portuguese, and they are a lot like you. They look very smart in cognitive, technical terms, but in time to think when they insist with something, it’s almost impossible to get out of their heads, especially / commonly when they are wrong.”
Haha. Show me where I’m wrong. Link me a scholarly source showing that I’m wrong. I linked you one and I know you didn’t read it. You don’t change your mind when you’re wrong. I’ve changed my mind countless times since I’ve gotten into HBD, but you wouldn’t know that because all you do is make baseless, untrue claims.
“you are the antithesis of wisdom, a highly high-contradictory version of a typical leftist or any idiot who are ideologically identifiable.”
Funny. You can’t rebut what I’m saying so go to character attacks. Attack my supposed character and not my sound, logical argument with true premises. Good job!
“You can continue to run in circles thinking you’re PROGRESSING …”
You assume I’m running in circles because you don’t understand what I’m saying, you didn’t read the links I provided and you’re going off of what you think when that’s meaningless to the truth and how this so-called progressive evolution has been studies.
“I will not waste my time with your stupidity.”
So don’t reply to me anymore dude. I got you with my argument. It’s that simple. And now all you have are retarded ad hominem and character attacks. Logical fallacies. Part of philosophy that you champion so much. Hmm why are you attacking my supposed character and not my argument? Is it because you have no retort? That must be it.
http://monthlyreview.org/2011/02/01/stephen-jay-goulds-critique-of-progress/
^^^ read this whole article then get back to me. You’re wrong. PP is wrong. Rushton is wrong. Your problem is that you’re too damn stubborn to read new information that contradicts your views. I’ve already told you I used to believe that evolution was progressive, then with further reading into it I realized it wasn’t.
Care to tell me which of Darwin’s Finches is “more evolved” or “progressed more” from the common ancestor? Should be easy if evolution is “progressive”, right?
JS – Italian American.
Are you Southern Italian? With roots from Naples, Campania, or Sicily.
I’ve only met 4 people who are Northern Italian in the states. More if I count those whom I met in the cultural centers and museums. Most Southern Italians aren’t found in these institutions.
I have roots from Andalusia, Southern Spain.
There’s an interesting blog written by a Southern Italian, where he laments the situation of Southern Italians in America who know nothing of their history. Anything Italian is usually of Northern origin.
http://www.iitaly.org/bloggers?goTo=http://www.iitaly.org//blog/55/archive/2012/11
For example, I think they’ve been brainwashed to celebrate an insignificant holiday like Columbus Day. Not only was Columbus, a Northern Italian, he didn’t even sail for Italy. It was the Spanish crown that financed his trip to the New World, where he became a miscreant to the natives. No one in Italy celebrates Columbus. Spain also doesn’t celebrate Columbus, only stupid Americans.
JS, Calabria and Naples.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO retard!!!
Sidetracking: Isn’t interesting that PP admire Jews so much, while his fellows Canadians are more anti-semitic than Americans?
Maybe not in the Northeast.
Here in W.V., South Italians are disp. represented in academia, politics, law, etc.
They’re our Jews in terms of ‘material success’.
Apparently Sicilians are a ‘different breed’.
I can vouch for mainland South Italians, but maybe not Sicilians.
wtf?
you’re in west virginia?
Will,
Well we know Lynn’s Italian data is wrong.
Sooooo…. There is no IQ gap.
Here in NJ, there are tons of S. Italians in government and other jobs of that nature. I know an ultra smart Sicilian woman (ultra gorgeous as well and a race-realist) with 3 degrees going for a fourth.
This stereotype is garbage. S. Italians have great attainment in America and abroad. Hmmm… Almost as if something is wrong with then environment in S. Italy…
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9511-cultural-recuperation-and-the-case-of-southern-italy
Here you go PP.
yes santoculto, these are ‘my words and thoughts’. I have specific training in this field.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/what-its-like-to-be-a-jewish-journalist-in-the-age-of-trump/504635/
Noooooooooooooooo!!!!
=(
”high IQ” or envy…
😉
Will,
Holy shit!! These AmRenners are such idiots. Read this comment thread.
http://www.amren.com/news/2016/10/your-neanderthal-dna-might-actually-be-doing-you-some-good/
My IQ is dropping.
I can’t bring myself to read it…..
Likewise, apparently Taylor said that Humans are more different than what we think because ‘Khoisans and Whites can’t breed’.
1. Khoisans and Whites CAN breed, and do it all the time. South African ‘Blacks’ range up to 100% Khoisan and have bred with Whites; the whole of Western South Africa is Mulatto.
What a moron.
No historical knowledge, no genetic knowledge, etc.
I’m beginning to think he’s a troll as well.
Will they have no understanding of evolution. This one guy was trying to argue for the multiregional hypothesis. He said how did whites evolve from Africans. I said less sun and sexual selection. He then says “so you’re telling me that American blacks will turn white one day.”……… Holy shit!!
And this other idiot who has no understanding of evolution trying to use that carb hypothesis that I rebutted last week. God, they’re so stupid!!
Got a source for Taylor saying that? That’s hilarious if true.
Likewise, apparently Taylor said that Humans are more different than what we think because ‘Khoisans and Whites can’t breed’.
If he said that, that is stupid. The Coloureds of South Africa are proof they can, being 25% white, 25% Capoid, 25% Congoid and 25% South Asian
Even whites and Neanderthals could breed and they were separated far longer than whites and Khoisans. It’s now believed primates must be separated for at least 2 million years (some say a lot more) before they can’t produce fertile offspring
PP, if you could put a post in your backlog on obesity and IQ, that’d be cool. I’d like to compare.
the foregoing is all totally irrelevant.
what really matters is…
Holmes was best known for his exceptionally large penis…
is that your picture?
lol
what*
that’s a picture of you, Santo, is it not?
🙂
indeed.
america is white and black…
everyone else is a complication…a wrench in the works.
america in white and black is workable…
“rainbow” america is UN-workable…
american black GENIUS…
GENIUS!!!…
(LIKE CAPABLANCA)…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itWale01TQI
THELONIUS SPHERE MONK…
GENIUS!
GENIUS!
GENIUS!
greatest geniuses in music and chess that the new world has ever produced are…
1. a black guy, thelonious sphere monk…
2. a white cuban, an hispanic,
jose raul capablanca.
brazil is so funny.
http://images.adsttc.com/media/images/55e5/9910/07d3/0d75/4300/09ca/slideshow/brazil48.jpg?1441110284
where was brazil…brah-zee-oo?
wrong vid!
my bad!
i meant to post this…
http://diversityischaos.blogspot.com.br/2016/10/the-largest-study-of-genetic-variation.html
What should be ”th IQ” of this man**
looks like gayle king was sitting next to kissinger in the catholic dinner.
Poor Gayle. That must have sucked.
that both candidates show up in the same place…
ROME STILL RULES…
apparently!
It’s called trying to get the Catholic vote
it’s more than that peepee.
why is the roman vote even a consideration, why does anyone care?
563 years after the fall of constantinople?
think peepee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcI5rNR5TGM
Just “trying to get the Catholic vote”, espousing no Catholic values.
Politicians are worthless.
#medprideworldwide
^^^^^^^
so the first non-italian pope in 450 years was jp ii.
but francis is an ITALIAN argentine!
ROME STILL RULES.
how long has it been?
julius crosses the rubicon in 49 BC…
AND THE ROMANS ARE STILL FUCKING THE WHOLE WORLD IN 2016!
PumpkinPerson:
http://monthlyreview.org/2011/02/01/stephen-jay-goulds-critique-of-progress/
Do you get it yet?
As I’ve said 6 million times and I’m sure I’ll need to say 6 million times more: Darwin’s Finches are the perfect example as to how evolution is not progressive. Different ecosystems on the same island call for differing things to survive. Each finch is adapted to their environment and what they had to do to survive so, obviously, the differing phenotypic traits evolved so they could better survive in that ecosystem on the same island.
Evolution ain’t progressive my friend. Once you get out of this Rushton paradigm then maybe you’ll understand it.
Gould was right here; Rushton was wrong.
Race Realist, I’ve debunked Gould’s nonsense before, and the xenosystems blog reviewed both our arguments and implied I’m right and you’re wrong.
But what does evolutionary progress even mean?
It means that more evolved organisms are better, on some scale of progress, then less evolved organisms.
But you deny that some organisms are more evolved than others. You think that because all living things have been evolving for the exact same amount of time, they’ve all experienced the exact same amount of evolution. So from your perspective, evolution can’t form a ladder of progress because you can’t even see that it forms a ladder, but rather see it as nothing but parallel lines.
There’s no point arguing with someone who thinks an amoeba is just as evolved as a human.
“And some branches diverge from the trunk at a lower point than others, and don’t do anymore branching, and these lower branches give rise to less evolved populations. Why can’t you understand this?”
I can tell you don’t read the links I provide.
Your answer to this was not satisfactory. There is no ‘more evolved’ organism.
This is retarded conjecture. I never claimed they evolved to an equal degree, I claimed evolution doesn’t speed up nor slow down for one population. I implied that you cannot scientifically validate this so it’s meaningless as a scientific hypothesis.
Evolution DOES NOT proceed at different rates for different populations. Where did you learn about evolution? That’s a horribly wrong statement. Evolution IS MEASURED BY TIME! What don’t you get about that? You can’t say “oh northerly climes were tougher to survive in therefore evolution ‘sped up’ for those who evolved in the north compared to those who evolved in the south.’ It’s retarded and makes no biological sense. Each organism incurs alleles that help it survive to the next generation.
“Some selection pressures cause more evolution than others. Why can’t you grasp this simple concept?”
This is retarded. Provide an academic citation for this or stop saying it. Your conjecture is meaningless to actual biology and evolutionary biology as a whole. As I said in my reply to you, I do grasp it, it just makes no biological sense. Just like you’re wrong in thinking that blacks are stronger than whites and that Australoids and Melanesians are Negroid, you’re wrong about evolution being progressive and there being ‘more evolved’ organisms than others.
“The exception that proves the rule. Further:”
But it’s “the most complex thing in the known universe” (the universe is the most complex thing in the known universe, not the human brain). Why would it be shrinking? Such progress PP!
“1) Much of the brain shrinkage is caused by environmental change (malnutrition associated with agriculture) not evolutionary change”
Farming to blame for our shrinking brains.
http://phys.org/news/2011-06-farming-blame-size-brains.html
“2) Much of the brain shrinkage not explained by environmental change can be explained by body size reduction; brain mass relative to body mass has shrunk less than absolute brain mass”
It can be explained by farming. The fact of the matter is, the human brain is shrinking. It wil continue to slowly shrink.
“3)we’ve largely replaced biological evolution with cultural evolution (the ultimate progress)”
Ummmm there is gene-culture coevolution, but just in America, we’ve seen evolution occur in the past 50 years! Nature’s evolution is more succinct than ‘man’s cultural evolution’.
“RaceRealist, if evolutionary trees looked like these, then you could argue all races are equally evolved, because these trees depict parallel branches:”
Evolutionary trees don’t need to look like that to say that all races are equally evolved. My point is, organisms incur mutations that come from their environment (whether through migration or the environment changing) and natural selection selects for advantageous alleles (even then, selection for negative alleles still occurs. I showed you the citation that showed selection in the genome IN ALL “THREE MAIN RACES” and that’s still not good enough for you. The same sections of the genome have been under genetic change. Over 130 sections of the genome have been under change in the past 10ky with the ‘three main races’. What does that tell you? That different selection pressures caused this. What else does that tell you? That oganisms evolve to increase fitness in their environment. Thusly you cannot quantify this. Fitness is linked to environment, not progress.
http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IBladder.shtml
“But the reality is the evolutionary tree looks like the image below. A ladder of progress where some branches diverge prematurely, and others diverge after several more steps of evolution:”
Please show me ANY BIOLOGIST who would read an tree like that please. And no, just because you have some idea about it in your head that it means “more evolved” or “progress” doesn’t make it true. It’s NOT A LADDER OF PROGRESS. Have you read “The Blank Slate” by Steven Pinker? Biologists don’t believe in that ladder or progress garbage. Keep living in 2000 BC and not 2016, PP.
“I’ve debunked Gould’s nonsense before”
You’ve debunked Gould on progressive evolution? Where?
“the xenosystems blog reviewed both our arguments and implied I’m right and you’re wrong.”
“This is more interesting than it looks.”
How do you imply that from what was said?
“It means that more evolved organisms are better, on some scale of progress, then less evolved organisms.”
“On some scale of progress”. What scale? Any traits you choose will be arbitrary. This is not scientific, there is no way to quantify this nor to scientifically test this. It is not falsifiable therefore it is not a scientific theory.
It’s also worth noting that Rushton only implied that races can be “more evolved”, it was Lynn who said it. Which is ridiculous. Organisms evolve for their environment. X 6 million. It’s that simple. You have a rudimentary understanding of evolution if you believe this nonsense, PP.
“You think that because all living things have been evolving for the exact same amount of time, they’ve all experienced the exact same amount of evolution.”
Evolution doesn’t work that way. Organisms are just as likely to become less complex.
This is simple enough for a five-year-old to understand, PP.
I know that there is no way to scientifically quantify this because they will be arbitrary traits. Who’s ‘more evolved’ a shark or a bird? Or are they both adapted to be good enough for their environments?
“evolution can’t form a ladder of progress because you can’t even see that it forms a ladder, but rather see it as nothing but parallel lines.”
Implying that evolution is progressive is implying that it is linear. Refer back to the branches quote about one organism not being better than another because it branched off ‘later’ than the other who’s near ‘the base’. This is very simple to get.
“There’s no point arguing with someone who thinks an amoeba is just as evolved as a human.”
How intelligent are amoeba then, if they can adapt so well to their environment?
Moreover, they are two different organisms in two completely different environments.
Speaking of arguments:
P1: if evolution were progressive, we would be able to objectively say who or what is superior
P2: evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration suit an organism for its environment making them “good enough” to pass on their genes in
that environment.
Conclusion: evolution is not progressive because we cannot objectively say what traits are superior because it’s subjective. Along with the four variables listen above, this shows why evolution is not progressive.
Put into propositional logic it goes like this. Let’s use E for evolution, and N for natural selection. And P for progress.
((N ^ E) –> ~P)
This says “if natural selection and evolution, then not progress” or “if n and e, then not P.
Sound argument, true premises. Logical arguments are evidence.
http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/05/are-logical-arguments-evidence/
“I never claimed they evolved to an equal degree, I claimed evolution doesn’t speed up nor slow down for one population. I implied that you cannot scientifically validate this so it’s meaningless as a scientific hypothesis.”
To clarify:
I never claimed they evolved to an equal degree, just that evolution through migration, mutation, genetic drift and natural selection make an organism as fit for its environment. All are not ‘evolved to an equal degree’, they evolve differently based on the selective pressures in their environment. Very simple to understand.
I never claimed they evolved to an equal degree
So you admit some life forms are more evolved than others.
Thank you.
“And some branches diverge from the trunk at a lower point than others, and don’t do anymore branching, and these lower branches give rise to less evolved populations. Why can’t you understand this?”
Repeating something your teacher told you 20 years ago is meaningless. This doesn’t mean that ‘she got it’ over people who are trained in evolutionary biology. Just because you keep repeating something doesn’t make it true.
“So you admit some life forms are more evolved than others.
Thank you.”
DIFFERENT does not equal MORE EVOLVED. DIFFERENT SELECTION PRESSURES does not mean MORE EVOLVED. God PP. This notion in your head of ‘more evolved’ and a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary trees is why you’re saying this garbage. Show me ANY biologist who would read an evolutionary tree like you’re reading it. It makes NO SENSE.
Please read the whole entire link on Gould’s critique of evolutionary progress. You’re wrong. Rushton is wrong. Wilson is wrong. Gould is RIGHT ON THIS.
What say you about Punctual Equilibria? Why does the fossil record show that 63 percent of species remain in stasis for an extremely long time before speciation occurs (that is, before differing phenotypic traits occur)?
Whenever the environment changes, the organism incurs mutations to either help it survive that change or it doesn’t and becomes extinct. THAT’S IT. You CANNOT say one is more evolved than another.
Go ask Razib Khan what he thinks about this. You know, an authority on the matter, someone who has actual training and a huge background in this.
DIFFERENT does not equal MORE EVOLVED. DIFFERENT SELECTION PRESSURES does not mean MORE EVOLVED.
You’re evading the question. Just because animals evolve differently, doesn’t mean one didn’t evolve more.
For example, let’s say one race evolved to be taller and another evolved to be heavier? If population A evolved to be 3 SD taller and population B evolved to be 1 SD heavier, then population A not only evolved differently, but evolved MORE.
You apply the same logic to many traits (skin color, hair texture, face shape, IQ etc)and you can easily see which population is more evolved from their most recent common ancestor.
http://www.siumed.edu/anatomy/KingCoS/304/progress.htm
This destroys any notion of any so-called ‘evolutionary progress’.
Read the Gould link and this. You are wrong.
In short, no. No one has yet demonstrated any measureable parameter that shows a consistent, reliable increase over time as evolution proceeds
WRONG! Intelligence shows a consistent reliable increase over evolution time, both in mammals and dinosaurs.
Stop quoting people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Better yet, stop quoting and start thinking
“WRONG! Intelligence shows a consistent reliable increase over evolution time, both in mammals and dinosaurs.”
Intelligence is decreasing. Dysgenics. Idiocracy. Brains are shrinking since agricultural revolution.
And even then: THAT IS ***ONE TRAIT***. When you look at ONE OR A FEW TRAITS THIS ARISES, but looked at as a whole, IT DOES NOT EXIST.
“Stop quoting people who don’t know what they’re talking about”
This is gold. Stop quoting people who know what they’re talking about and have training in something, I KNOW MORE THAN THEY!
Gould was right. Rushton and Wilson were wrong.
I know you know what quotations are used for.
“Better yet, stop quoting and start thinking”
Sure.
P1: if evolution were progressive, we would be able to objectively say who or what is superior
P2: evolution through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration suit an organism for its environment making them “good enough” to pass on their genes in
that environment.
Conclusion: evolution is not progressive because we cannot objectively say what traits are superior because it’s subjective. Along with the four variables listen above, this shows why evolution is not progressive.
Put into propositional logic it goes like this. Let’s use E for evolution, and N for natural selection. And P for progress.
((N ^ E) –> ~P)
This says “if natural selection and evolution, then not progress” or “if n and e, then not P.
Sound argument, true premises. Logical arguments are evidence.
http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2010/05/are-logical-arguments-evidence/
This is an argument. A real argument.
Anyone can have any stupid idea in their head and say ‘hurrr stop quoting people who don’t know what they’re talking about’ (trained people in the field compared to a layman) and say that they’re right. But the facts about evolution do not show this.
I hope you know that Darwin had contradictory views on ‘progressive evolution’.
Your argument boils down to “stop citing people who don’t know what they’re talking about.” Except they do know what they’re talking about. Your ideas in your head and your non-ability to read an evolutionary tree correctly, warping it to fit your confirmation bias show that you don’t know the basics of evolution if you believe this *common misconception about evolution.* But I’m sure you know more than Berkely PP.
Rushton was wrong; Gould was right.
Intelligence is decreasing. Dysgenics. Idiocracy. Brains are shrinking since agricultural revolution.
Again, that’s largely an environmental change (malnutrition) not an evolutionary change, and it’s not clear that encephalization has decreased, and even if it has, it’s just the exception that proves the rule. The totality of the fossil record shows encephalization increasing over evolutionary time.
And even then: THAT IS ***ONE TRAIT***. When you look at ONE OR A FEW TRAITS THIS ARISES, but looked at as a whole, IT DOES NOT EXIST
Your source claimed “no one has yet demonstrated ANY measureable parameter that shows a consistent, reliable increase over time as evolution proceeds”.
Your source is WRONG!
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/notes_4.html
All those damn uninformed science textbooks say that evolution is not progressive either!
PP, the fact that Darwin couldn’t explain why there are gaps in the fossil record says tons. If evolution was about small incremental changes–‘progress’–why are there hardly any transitional fossils?
Punctuated Equilibria.
Click to access speciation.pdf
Click to access eldredge.pdf
PP, the fact that Darwin couldn’t explain why there are gaps in the fossil record says tons. If evolution was about small incremental changes–‘progress’–why are there hardly any transitional fossils?
Punctuated equilibrium in no way debunks evolutionary progress. It could merely imply progress occurs in sudden jumps, not slow gradual change.
Species remain in stasis for an extremely long time before speciation occurs. This explains why there are hardly any transitional fossils. The speciation occurs quickly, THEN the phenotypic differences are observed in the fossil record AFTER there being hardly any transitional fossils.
PE perfectly answers Darwin’s question, and is 100 percent Darwinian.
Why do you not address my sound argument?
“Again, that’s largely an environmental change (malnutrition) not an evolutionary change, and it’s not clear that encephalization has decreased, and even if it has, it’s just the exception that proves the rule. The totality of the fossil record shows encephalization increasing over evolutionary time.”
No it’s not. Since either start of the agricultural Revolution brain size has decreased. The totality of the fossil record may show that brain size has increased, however there is a marked decrease in brain size since the industrial revolution. This is a fact.
“Your source claimed “no one has yet demonstrated ANY measureable parameter that shows a consistent, reliable increase over time as evolution proceeds”.”
Know why? Because things change based on the damn environment!! If something occurred to make humans less intelligent because it increased fitness, then what? Fitness is linked to environment, not progress. This notion of superior is idiotic. Notice how Rushton downplayed that part of his theory. Because it was WRONG. Things occur that show ‘progress’, then due to environmental factors, things show ‘less progress’, yet they are still fit organisms. There are fit and unfit organisms, not “more evolved or less evolved” organisms.
We only think there is progress in evolution, but there really isn’t. You know damn well that if this were to happen all over again that the same events would not occur. We are not the top of the evolutionary “”tree””. Aristotle was wrong. Stop living in 2000 BC and join us in 2016.
“Punctuated equilibrium in no way debunks evolutionary progress. It could merely imply progress occurs in sudden jumps, not slow gradual change.”
That’s the point. The fossil record shows that speciation happens in bursts and not slow and gradual change.
Darwin also had contradictory writings on progress in evolution. It’s not a viable hypothesis as its not testable. It’s a retarded notion.
No it’s not. Since either start of the agricultural Revolution brain size has decreased. The totality of the fossil record may show that brain size has increased, however there is a marked decrease in brain size since the industrial revolution. This is a fact.
No brains have become substantially bigger since the industrial revolution. You of all people should know that since you believe nutrition is the main cause of the Flynn effect. Lynn writes:
It has been shown in a number of studies that during the last half century there have been
increases in head size and consequently of brain size. These increases have taken place from birth
onwards. Among British 1 yr olds. average head circumference has increased by approx. 1.5 cm and
among 7 yr olds by approx. 2.0 cm over the last 50 yr (Ounsted, Moar & Scott, 1985; Whitehead
& Paul, 1988). In Hong Kong head circumference among 7-18 yr olds has increased by approx.
1 cm over the years 1965-1985 (Davies, Leung & Lau, 1985). Similar increases have been found
in Japan (Morita & Ohtsuki, 1973). These increases are of the order of 1 SD over a half century,
approximately the same that has occurred for height and IQ.
Click to access lynn1990.pdf
Know why? Because things change based on the damn environment!! If something occurred to make humans less intelligent because it increased fitness, then what? Fitness is linked to environment, not progress.
I understand that, and I used to think like you do, but then I made the leap to a higher understanding. Few adaptations are 100% local. That is if you evolve an eye so that you can see in a forest, that eye is also going to be useful when you live in the savannah. So over time, those organisms that evolve more, that is, evolve into more different kinds of races or species, will become more adaptable to a greater and greater number of environments.
It turns out I’m not the only one who made this leap in understanding. Doing a google search I discovered another scientist named Peter Turney, coincidentally from my neck of the woods, who proved this mathematically:
The idea that there are any large-scale trends in the evolution of biological organisms is highly controversial. It is commonly believed, for example, that there is a large-scale trend in evolution towards increasing complexity, but empirical and theoretical arguments undermine this belief. Natural selection results in organisms that are well adapted to their local environments, but it is not clear how local adaptation can produce a global trend. In this paper, I present a simple computational model, in which local adaptation to a randomly changing environment results in a global trend towards increasing evolutionary versatility. In this model, for evolutionary versatility to increase without bound, the environment must be highly dynamic. The model also shows that unbounded evolutionary versatility implies an accelerating evolutionary pace. I believe that unbounded increase in evolutionary versatility is a large-scale trend in evolution. I discuss some of the testable predictions about organismal evolution that are suggested by the model.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/106454600568357#.WAr1_Wcm5es
“No brains have become substantially bigger since the industrial revolution. You of all people should know that since you believe nutrition is the main cause of the Flynn effect. Lynn writes:”
I know that brain size has increased in the past 100 years, but the overall trend from 10kya is a decrease.
There is also evidence of brain size decreasing since the 70s. I’ll get it tomorrow.
“but then I made the leap to a higher understanding.”
Are you saying that fitness is linked to environment and not progress? Would you say that having fewer children is more progress than more children? Van den Berghe 1981: evolution isn’t about production, but reproduction There is not higher understanding with evolution. It’s about organisms becoming good enough for their environment.
“That is if you evolve an eye so that you can see in a forest, that eye is also going to be useful when you live in the savannah. So over time, those organisms that evolve more, that is, evolve into more different kinds of races or species, will become more adaptable to a greater and greater number of environments.”
Contingent convergence.
PP local trends don’t dictate progress. As even then trends can go in the opposite direction. Organisms become less complex all the time, but are still for and adapted for their environment.
“It turns out I’m not the only one who made this leap in understanding. Doing a google search I discovered another scientist named Peter Turney, coincidentally from my neck of the woods, who proved this mathematically:”
Hasn’t been empirically confirmed.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.293
Can’t link pdf on my phone so citation is here.
McShea, D.W. (1996). Metazoan complexity and evolution: Is there a trend? Evolution, 50, 477-492.
I know that brain size has increased in the past 100 years, but the overall trend from 10kya is a decrease.
Yes, because of the malnutrition of agriculture, but we’ve recovered much of our lost brain mass in the last century. It’s not clear our brains have become GENETICALLY smaller, especially relative to our body size, and you have to show genetic change to make an evolutionary argument. But even if they have, the OVERALL trend across all animals over the grand sweep of evolution, is increase encephalization.
There is also evidence of brain size decreasing since the 70s. I’ll get it tomorrow.
That I would like to see.
Are you saying that fitness is linked to environment and not progress?
I’m saying more evolved organisms (defined as more branching on the evolutionary tree and more morphologically differences from the common ancestor) are GENERALLY (not always) able to survive in a wider range of environments than less evolved organism, and one could describe this trend as progressive.
There is not higher understanding with evolution. It’s about organisms becoming good enough for their environment.
But to get good enough for your environment, you also get good enough for other environments, because the traits that are adaptive in one environment are often adaptive in another. So as organisms are forced to adapt to one environment after another, they become better at adapting to ALL environments, because they evolve traits that are versatile like intelligence, vision, and cooperation.
Contingent convergence.
You don’t believe some traits are more versatile than others?
PP local trends don’t dictate progress. As even then trends can go in the opposite direction. Organisms become less complex all the time, but are still for and adapted for their environment.
But each adaptation has two components: A: a part that is useful in only the local environment, and B: a part that is also useful in many environments
When the environment changes, you lose A because the new environment no longer needs it, but B will generally increase in every environment because it serves a broad function.
Hasn’t been empirically confirmed.
The fact that Peter Turney proved it mathematically shows it’s LOGICAL. It’s been confirmed to the degree that humans are arguably (one of) the most evolved species and are also arguably (one of) the most adaptable
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm
PE shows full well that there is no progress to evolution. When species remain in stasis for an extremely long time before a quick phenotypic change, this shows that the environment stayed the same so the species stayed the same. Then the quick phenotypic change was a change in environment and the phenotypic change occurred to have the organism better survive in that environment. It’s that simple. PE shows that evolution isn’t progressive.
PE shows full well that there is no progress to evolution. When species remain in stasis for an extremely long time before a quick phenotypic change, this shows that the environment stayed the same so the species stayed the same. Then the quick phenotypic change was a change in environment and the phenotypic change occurred to have the organism better survive in that environment. It’s that simple. PE shows that evolution isn’t progressive.
But evolution is progressive precisely because constantly changing environments create an animal that can adapt to MANY environments. I agree that animals stuck in the same environment don’t much evolve or progress. That’s why I call them less evolved. It’s you who thinks evolution is measured by time. I think it’s measured by speciation, sub-speciation, super-speciation etc.
“Yes, because of the malnutrition of agriculture, but we’ve recovered much of our lost brain mass in the last century. It’s not clear our brains have become GENETICALLY smaller, especially relative to our body size, and you have to show genetic change to make an evolutionary argument. But even if they have, the OVERALL trend across all animals over the grand sweep of evolution, is increase encephalization.”
What do you mean “malnutrition of agriculture”?
What are you even talking about? Nutrition is my forte, you’re wrong here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22624301/
Agriculture will improve nutrition for Indians.
Farming led to us getting more nutrients. It’s not due to malnutrition of agriculture as agriculture leads to no malnutrition.
But our brains have been shrinking this is fact.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
My favorite explanation is the warming of the planet since the LGA.
The overall trend is a decrease in brain size. There are local brain size changes within humans, but it’s a relatively recent phenomenon. You’re looking at 100 years in history, I’m looking at the past 10k +.
“That I would like to see.”
Disregard this for the moment. I can’t find it. But I know I read it 2 years ago.
“I’m saying more evolved organisms (defined as more branching on the evolutionary tree and more morphologically differences from the common ancestor) are GENERALLY (not always) able to survive in a wider range of environments than less evolved organism, and one could describe this trend as progressive.”
Do any evolutionary biologists define “more evolved organisms” as more branching on the evolutionary tree? Do any scientists hold your view on evolutionary trees and the ‘newest’ branches being ‘more evolved’?
Generally? I disagree. Morphological changes occur due to differences in environment. Let’s say 1000 organisms split off from a population and become the new founder population of a species in the future. They migrate to an area 1000 miles away. There is a totally different environment and climate to survive in. They will be morphologically different in comparison to the original population because of the differing selection pressures and different environment. This is obviously one way how speciation occurs, and as one shown it occurs very slowly with K gradually change, but punctuated change with a long time in stasis before that.
Even then, again, morphological differences are one variable. As a whole, as I’ve said too many times to count, organisms are adapted to their environment to be good enough. Things become less complex all the time.
“But to get good enough for your environment, you also get good enough for other environments, because the traits that are adaptive in one environment are often adaptive in another”
This is retarded. Of course the traits would be good enough in a similar environment but for the complete opposite environment this would not be the case. Once environmental changes occur, changes will occur in the species so it could better survive in the new ecosystem.
“So as organisms are forced to adapt to one environment after another, they become better at adapting to ALL environments, because they evolve traits that are versatile like intelligence, vision, and cooperation.”
One after another? To clarify, are you saying that one organism can survive somewhere for 10 k years, then move on to another environment for 10 on years, incur those benefits and still hold onto the previous natural selection that occurred 10 k years previously? How intelligent are amoeba and the like? They’re constantly adapting to their environment. A polar bear can have all the intelligence, cooperation and vision it wants, it won’t survive naturally outside of the arctic. Take any organism that’s specialized for its specific niche out of its niche and throw it in the complete opposite environment and it will die, even being intelligent, having vision and cooperation.
“You don’t believe some traits are more versatile than others?”
I believe that your example is contingent convergence. Structures constrain developmental pathways and can lead to convergence but the structure themselves are contingent products of history (Gould).
How well do eyes work for moles, cave crickets, eyeless shrimp, eyeless fish, cave crayfish, and cave beetles work for them? Oh, you mean to say they completely blind due to their environment as that was a selection pressure they had that had them evolve to be blind?
“But each adaptation has two components: A: a part that is useful in only the local environment, and B: a part that is also useful in many environments”
Of course there are traits that are good for all environments, but as organisms as a whole going from one extreme environment to another, how well would that work out? And the trait useful in the local environment would show that organisms evolve based on their environment. The fact that you cite eyesight as anything when there are tons of blind and partially blind species shies you’re wrong there. Just because a trait is useful in other environments doesn’t mean anything. Contingent evolution. Just because a trait can evolve independently in two different geographic locations doesn’t mean anything. This is like your confusion of Australians and Melanesians being negroid. Would we humans be able to survive where extremophiles exist nd thrive, say, the mouth of a volcano? Would the extremophiles be able to survive in modern society?
“The fact that Peter Turney proved it mathematically shows it’s LOGICAL. It’s been confirmed to the degree that humans are arguably (one of) the most evolved species and are also arguably (one of) the most adaptable”
And my LOGICAL argument showed how evolution is not progressive. Are we talking about things that haven’t been empirically verified yet or are we talking about things that have? Brain size is shrinking. Empirical fact. IQ is dropping. Empirical fact. Peter Turney’s model. Not empirical fact. How adaptable are humans? How adaptable were the team got stranded on the Andes mountains? Without intervention they’d have died. Much adaptation!! You say arguably most adaptable and arguably ‘most evolved’ (I laugh every time I type that), but we are evolved for our environment. We wouldn’t be able to survive at the mouth of a volcano. Extremophiles wouldn’t be able to survive in our societies. And hell, let’s say there are organismsoving on Enceladus. They wouldn’t be blessed to survive on earth, why? Because they’re fit for the frozen oceans of Enceladus!!
The point is is that it hasn’t been empirically verified PP.
“But evolution is progressive precisely because constantly changing environments create an animal that can adapt to MANY environments.”
Back to my question above: are you saying that if an organism survives somewhere and incurs phenotypic changes to have it bigger survive in that environment for 10 K years then moves on to another environment for 10 K years and incurs other phenotypic changes that 1) they’d be able to go back to the original environment and survive the same way they did before and 2) that the phenotypic changes incurred in the previous environment wouldn’t go away when they migrated to the new environment and stayed and evolved there for 10 k years?
“That’s why I call them less evolved”
You’re the only one that does so. They are evolved for their environment. Things become less complex all the time, such as parasites, but they are still fit for their environment. You can’t quantify this ‘more evolved’ canard. It’s not a scientifically valid hypothesis. Just because you call them less evolved doesn’t mean they are less evolved. And you know damn well that if some new pressure occurred in their environment that they would evolve to meet those demands. That’s not ‘less evolved’ it’s just an organism surviving, which is all evolution is about. It’s not about being ‘more evolved’ or any ridiculous notion like that. The Great Chain of Being has no basis in evolutionary biology. Evolution isn’t linear. Evolution the progress.
Farming led to us getting more nutrients. It’s not due to malnutrition of agriculture as agriculture leads to no malnutrition.
Wrong! Agriculture caused malnutrition:
Following the recession of the ice age people evolved a new life style living in permanent village
settlements with domestic animals and cereal agriculture. But although the new life style was more
convenient the quality of nutrition fell and many skeletal remains show signs of rickets and other
malformations caused by suboptimal nutrition (Festinger, 1983).
Click to access lynn1990.pdf
My favorite explanation is the warming of the planet since the LGA.
It’s a combination of warming + malnutrition caused by agriculture.
Do any evolutionary biologists define “more evolved organisms” as more branching on the evolutionary tree? Do any scientists hold your view on evolutionary trees and the ‘newest’ branches being ‘more evolved’?
Rushton hinted at it, but I’ve developed the theory much further. Scientists avoid the term “more evolved” but they use terms like more primitive and more advanced which mean the exact same thing.
Generally? I disagree. Morphological changes occur due to differences in environment.
But the point is race realist, if the environment doesn’t change, the organism wont evolve, causing some organisms to be less evolved than others. Some organisms haven’t evolved for 2 billion years according to the following:
So how can Darwin’s theory account for these apparently nonchanging bacteria? The answer comes in looking at the bacteria’s similarly stable surroundings. True, the deep-sea bacteria in this study haven’t changed for eons, but neither has their environment, Schopf said. Darwin’s theory doesn’t call for organisms to evolve unless their environment changes, so the microbes’ lack of evolution is consistent with the theory, Schopf added.
To compare the fossils, Schopf and his colleagues used a method known as Raman spectroscopy to measure the composition and chemistry of the rocks. Then, using confocal laser scanning microscopy, they produced 3D images of the fossils and compared these visualizations with the modern bacteria. The ancient microbes looked identical to the present-day ones, the team found.
The fossils studied date back to a period known as the Great Oxidation Event, which occurred when oxygen levels surged on Earth between 2.2 billion and 2.4 billion years ago. During this time, there was also a large rise in sulfate and nitrate levels, which provided all the nutrition the sulfur bacteria needed to survive and reproduce. The environment inside these deep-sea rocks hasn’t changed since then, so there has been no need for the organisms to adapt, the researchers said.
http://www.livescience.com/49677-deep-sea-organism-evolution.html
Even then, again, morphological differences are one variable. As a whole, as I’ve said too many times to count, organisms are adapted to their environment to be good enough. Things become less complex all the time.
But the AVERAGE organism today is more complex than the AVERAGE organism 2 billion years ago. So overall, there is a progressive trend.
This is retarded. Of course the traits would be good enough in a similar environment but for the complete opposite environment this would not be the case. Once environmental changes occur, changes will occur in the species so it could better survive in the new ecosystem.
Primate brain size tripled in Africa. Then when we left Africa for the totally opposite environment of Norther ice age Europe, brain size increased again. Only in the last 20,000 years has brain size shrunk, but it’s not clear intelligence has. Further, the average encephalization of all mammals has tripled in the last 65 million years, showing a long-term progress trend across a huge number of changing environments. Not only that, but the trend of increased encephalization is replicated in the dinosaurs over their 140 million year span. If there were no long-term progressive trends in evolution, this wouldn’t happen.
Of course there are traits that are good for all environments, but as organisms as a whole going from one extreme environment to another, how well would that work out?
You just admitted there are traits that are good for all environments, which means natural selection would tend to favour them in all environments. Of course there are always exceptions, but over billions of years of trial and error, evolution will progress towards the most universally useful traits.
This is like your confusion of Australians and Melanesians being negroid.
I’m not confused about a FUCKING thing. There’s no question that some Australoid types have genetically preserved the phenotype of the Negroids in Africa from which all humans evolved. Papua New Guineans for example.
Whether you want to call them Negroid or not is just semantics.
Would we humans be able to survive where extremophiles exist nd thrive, say, the mouth of a volcano? Would the extremophiles be able to survive in modern society?
Humans can’t survive everywhere, but scientists like Rick Potts believe we’re the single most adaptable species on Earth because unlike most other living things, we can live in rainforests, deserts, high mountains, ice, outer space, and underwater. We’re certainly one of the most adaptable and we’re certainly one of the most evolved, suggesting more evolved organisms are more adaptable.
And my LOGICAL argument showed how evolution is not progressive. Are we talking about things that haven’t been empirically verified yet or are we talking about things that have? Brain size is shrinking. Empirical fact.
Brain size in humans has been shrinking for 10,000 years. It was increasing for 2 million. Across the entire mammal class it’s been increasing, relative to body size for 65 million years. So the overall trend is progressive.
IQ is dropping. Empirical fact.
IQ is increasing: the Flynn effect. Of course that’s an environmental effect and is largely spurious but perhaps you mean genetic IQ is decreasing. That theory is far from proven, and even if it’s true, it’s only a small exception to the overall trend of rising mammal intelligence over 65 million years and rising dinosaur intelligence over 140 million years.
The point is is that it hasn’t been empirically verified PP.
Human adaptability has been verified by all the environments we’ve lived in. Evolutionary progress has been verified by increased encephalization for tens of millions of years in both mammals and dinosaurs.
Back to my question above: are you saying that if an organism survives somewhere and incurs phenotypic changes to have it bigger survive in that environment for 10 K years then moves on to another environment for 10 K years and incurs other phenotypic changes that 1) they’d be able to go back to the original environment and survive the same way they did before and 2) that the phenotypic changes incurred in the previous environment wouldn’t go away when they migrated to the new environment and stayed and evolved there for 10 k years?
Humans evolved in Africa by growing bigger brains. They then left Africa for Europe and evolved even bigger brains. Some whites have since returned to their ancestral Africa and had no trouble adapting, indeed colonizing, their ancestral land. That answers your question.
You’re the only one that does so. They are evolved for their environment. Things become less complex all the time, such as parasites, but they are still fit for their environment. You can’t quantify this ‘more evolved’ canard.
Yes you can. If you have one population that splits into three, and population A evolves into a different race from the parent population, while population B evolves into a different species from the parent population, and population C evolves into a different genus from the parent species, then C is more evolved than B who is more evolved than A, because a new genus is a higher taxonomical level, thus represents more evolutionary change, then a new species, which represents more evolutionary change than a new race.
It’s not a scientifically valid hypothesis. Just because you call them less evolved doesn’t mean they are less evolved. And you know damn well that if some new pressure occurred in their environment that they would evolve to meet those demands. That’s not ‘less evolved’ it’s just an organism surviving, which is all evolution is about
But if the environment doesn’t change, then the organism doesn’t have to evolve much to survive, hence those bacteria that didn’t evolve for 2 billion years.
My reply:
RaceRealist, it seems a lot of our disagreement just comes down to semantics. You write on your blog:
“More evolutionary change does not equal ‘more evolved‘ or ‘superior’ nor does it mean that ‘evolution is progressive‘”.
But Webster defines evolve as “to undergo evolutionary change”. So an organism that has undergone more evolutionary change by definition is more evolved. That’s not disputable.
Now what is disputable is whether more evolved life forms show PROGRESS over less evolved life forms. If there’s a statistical correlation between how evolved an organism is, and how high it ranks on a trait most people would consider progressive (i.e. intelligence, complexity, adaptability, etc) then it’s reasonable to say evolution is progressive. I believe such correlations are proven by the tripling of encephalization in 65 million years of mammal evolution and comparable gains in 140 million years of dinosaur evolution.
As to whether certain Australoid type people are Negroid, you keep denying this based on neutral DNA, but keep in mind, the concept of Negroid predates modern genetics. If you define Negroid by lineage, then you’re right, they’re not Negroid because they split off from the Negroid line at least 50,000 years ago. But I define Negroid not by how long ago your ancestors left sub-Saharan Africa, but by whether you genetically preserve the sub-Saharan phenotype.
Correction on last sentence:
Evolution isn’t progressive.
Humans because their ”trailer-environment” style = culture can adapt in other environment without pass before for natural selections while seems for most of non-human beings the change of environment is very likely that will disrupt selective pressures before to the fixation to the new home, or not.
“But Webster defines evolve as “to undergo evolutionary change”. So an organism that has undergone more evolutionary change by definition is more evolved. That’s not disputable.”
Evolution is constant change, not improvement.
“Now what is disputable is whether more evolved life forms show PROGRESS over less evolved life forms. If there’s a statistical correlation between how evolved an organism is, and how high it ranks on a trait most people would consider progressive (i.e. intelligence, complexity, adaptability, etc) then it’s reasonable to say evolution is progressive. I believe such correlations are proven by the tripling of encephalization in 65 million years of mammal evolution and comparable gains in 140 million years of dinosaur evolution.”
Most definitely its disputable as there is not even an accepted definition for complex. And all other definitions that have been posited don’t show any ‘progress’. Your variables you’re stating don’t show progress. I’ll link a paper on that this afternoon. But it’s proven our brains are shrinking, as to whether this will continue is up for debate.
Show me anyone who shows Melanesians and Australoids to be negroid. They way you’re using it is just on phenotype. You’re trying race as a social construct. Need I quote Razib again on your common misconception? Yes pp, you define negroid on phenotype. But genotype shows otherwise. The way you’re treating race shows your assuming its a social construct.
But the way Santo, you’re right that brain size is decreasing due to modernity and ‘domestication’.
What is the difference between negritos and negroids*
RR,
i don’t know if brain size shrinking was/is a universal or eurasian particular phenomenon.
Older amerids had bigger brains than amerids, in the same tribes of course, in the Columbus period*
Older africans had bigger brains than african(ids), in the earlier european invasion & ”[cultural] colonization”**
Pre- ”modern human races –humans” had bigger brains than modern human races*
Santo and pp, on brain size.
http://m.imgur.com/j3gTyI1,8pZmJrY
PumpkinPerson one more thing on brain size.
Without our bodies’ ability to store fat like we do, we wouldn’t have been able to grow such big brains.
PP you go on about some races being ‘morphologically similar to the LCA’,but you’re forgetting that evolution occurs to have an organism fit for its environment. You’re confusing complexity with evolution.
Moreover, those tree don;t reflect progress but increased divergence due to selection pressures. Also, by that logic, as of now arctic and northeast Asian along with Europeans and non-Europeans are equally complex….except how would you measure that as they have diverged due to environmental pressures?
Address Punctuated Equilibrium as well, why do species remain in stasis for such a long time before speciation occurs?
You’re also saying that we’ve replaced biological evolution with cultural evolution… but what creates culture?
One final note on brain size. It’s noticed in homo erectus that they has a small gut but relatively big brain. Big brains were able to be sustained with a relatively smaller gut. Smaller intestines as well as smaller teeth couldn’t have come to fruition unless they were eating a high-quality diet with tons of meat and food processing (for instance crushing plants and the like for more nutrients). We obviously have small guys relative to our brain size, and that came from homo erectus.