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 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3000425/How-Nike-did-Brand-s-game-changing-slogan-inspired-infamous-murderer-s-words-shot-dead-firing-squad.html
Cynicism is confirmed again…
1. lance armstrong cheated.
2. the south african “blade-runner” murdered his girlfriend.
Diogenes is laughing!
Pumpkin forgot there are ar whole race of humans whose iq is 60-70iq.
Pumpkin forfets there is a sunrace of humans whose height is less than 5’2.
Pumpkin fogets there is a whole race of humans with the testosterone levels of pandas.
If there is optimisation. Then it is within boundaries.
Having said that, it seems clear humans choose testosterone over other traits in mating.
So in my mind there is a regression to kinshasa.
Is kinshasa the optimum human condition?
Yes, for survival. Not splendour.
Do a post on Illusion breaking
How many high IQ people can decipher part or most of their brainwashing from birth?
Certainly not buffet, zuckerberg or gates.
Another post on people who can create Illusion.
Bonus Question:
Trajectory of Illusion immune people’s reproductive rates (R) (outside of Africa). Trajectory of Illusion selected people (K) within civilised states.
Differentiate and discuss.
Conclusion: Those most genetically immune from illusion (blacks/arabs) will eventually rise up against the creators of the Illusion (Jews).
Despite Jewish mollycoddling of blacks for 50 years, blacks feel no especial harmony for Jews. The blacks will have become the black booted fascists and the joke will be that there are no white people to protect them anymore. The will have to wear stars in Kinshasa too.
Have I cracked it?
Domestication reduced and re-directed the instinct to the social goals. still a instinct / impulsive or programmed behavior.
”Arabs” ”are” ”immune” by now but fertility rates among them are reducing. Tunisia already exhibit lower fertility rates, below replacement.
Seems people in period of social improvement/ascendent social status tend to reduce their fertility rates to increase their wealthy.
Catholic priest syndrome** 😉
”Blacks”, well, one of the most primary of the human races, ”they” are treated just like the ”savages” in the Brave New World trama.
If the Jews manage to finish closing its matrix via technological power, it will not be difficult to contain the hatred of Hispanics, Muslims or blacks.
In fact the Jews are realizing the dream of many Muslims, expand your domain area to Europe.
Most of human groups are hierarchically oriented, i mean, without the endorsement of their leaders, they will do nothing. Without a leadership, the crowd of any group tend to become disorientated.
Jews are only takers via money. They need dumb people to support them, who are usually found in consumerists-materialistic societies. America is the best example.
Continental Western Europeans spend less, because they have evolved past the frivilous consumption behaviors. Humans are not rational, but certain groups are more than others. Americans are the one of the least. Therefore, Jews cannot thrive in this environment. Mosquitoes cannot live in a dry environment.
Philosopher check out this Unz article. It’s extremely long (10,000 words) but it talks about what you are now.
http://www.unz.com/article/a-framework-for-reclaiming-reality/
Thanks very much Realist. It was a very good read.
This is what Soros called COGNITIVE FUNCTION and NARRATIVE FUNCTION.
Some people have excellent cognitive functions and poor narrative. Revusky’s so called High IQ Idiots.
There are taxi drivers and high school gym coaches that can detect “Roger Rabbit” narratives. Because there are many schizo (middle eastern) taxi drivers and alpha gym coaches.
Immunity from bullshit comes to:
1. Genius level verbals like Soros, Thiel and most classicists like Nietzsche and Enoch Powell.
2. Schizos who instinctively question everything having a tenuous grasp of reality anyway.
3. Alphas who Shrug Alpha as their genes make them immune to slavery, hence why women love them (and no.2).
Redusky is no.1:
“One of my main interests over the last few years has been language learning. I have developed some eclectic theories of language learning that I consider to be more effective than most conventional approaches. You can expect some essays on this to appear here in the near future. There are only three languages in which I am really fluent: English, French, and Spanish. I also speak Russian and Chinese at a functional level. My German and Portuguese are off-and-on projects.”
Redusky never mentioned the greatest taboo of all – how the word “race-ism” was invented out of nothing in the 40s. But he would really be burned at the stake for that. Many western countries impose imprisonment for that particular call.
He’s changed my mind on blowback theory however. But I would mention the IRA, Mau Maus and the fact many imperial dominions did conquer Britain on the battlefield without needing terrorism. The CIA had that word in their internal memos. It was not a purposeful Roger Rabbit/Illusion. Many left intellectuals are not disingenuous. Actually I find most leftist intellectuals a lot more interesting and capable than “conservative” ones. They want what’s good for the common man. Like me. Like Trump. Not like the Globalists.
Roma is hailed as the height of pre modern civilisation.
Romans were fascists.
Ergo facists created a civilisation more advanced than state controlled (peaceful) civilisation along the Yangtze and Indus.
Ergo tribalism may be necessary to great civilisation.
Ergo fascism may be necessary to great civilisation.
Ergo one must ask why Zion is afraid of the fasces:
Can it be, because they are also Fascists, but against Rome?
Will the Jews ever forget their humiliation?
They will never build another Rome.
Because they are Gamma.
correcting
Psychopathic elites created civilization to increase their power and wealthy at costs of million of miserable people…
PERIOD.
”Great ‘civil ilization’ ” = a super power tribes who expanded their power and wealthy via bloody wars, rampant social inequality… summarizing, profiting with ignorance and stupidity of other vulnerable people.
Jews have never built anything resembling a Rome. Israel is on life support, with American taxpayers’ money.
http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/266.png?v=1431031796
Even those who controlled Rome; the Senatorial Provincial elites, weren’t ethnically homogeneous.
Rome encompassed the “known world” and was hence diverse.
Appears to be Alt-Right shenanigans…..
as Rhazib Khan has said a lot of these “realists” are “mythicists”
Jews were not in the helm of any Roman domain.
Jews see themselves as the chosen, yet they manage to demonstrate an inferiority complex, if you compare what the Jews have given to the world vs what Aristotle and the Greeks have given to the world. The Classical Greco-Roman Departments of many universities are now with professors of surnames like Cohen and Goldberg, who admire dead pagans, whom many of their religious nutbags viewed with contempt and derision (again, Jews suffer from an inferiority complex against Western Supremacy). This hatred of White gentiles, especially White gentile males is nothing but a mask for jealousy and envy.
Please JS,
most people in the world believe they are the chosen ones.
Rome was ”grandious” America prole, remember*
Yes, maybe it’s right that ”jews” tend to be complexed, well, self-aware people are more prone to have inferiority complex, even psychopaths tend not to be ”fully” self-aware.
I agree that the Jews weren’t at helm of any Roman domain, per se.
They were enemies with the Levantine peoples and eventually just ‘overran’ them (casually took over without some bloody conquest).
I was rebutting to what I could understand through “philospher’s” word salad.
Jews suffer from megalomania and delusion.
Schizo-Philosopher is a black pseudo intellectual? Seems like one.
”Jews suffer from megalomania and delusion.”
most people suffer by it…
including you when you re-shaped the historical facts to fit with your spanish supremacist narrative.
He’s Blasian, iirc.
Anyhow, he’s not dumb, of course, but “psuedo intellectual” may be the right word.
It is in the habit of HBDers to elevate their own, those who tote the HBD mantra or base their rhetoric off of it, as great intellects, while those who question it, like you or Mugabe, are diminished.
In reality, HBDers are below average in IQ, as PP has stated many times.
Philosopher,
do you have paranoid schizophrenia**
you’re black*
before you leave the blog, remember, you said it was black.
or it was a false memory….
JS have great intellect**
Sorry JS, i have sympathy for you, but we can’t be everything good [we want] is not*
my guess is that those “senatorial provinces” were under-represented for their populations.
even today the college of cardinals is 42% italian.
how could the roman empire have been less roman than the one holy roman and apostolic church?
recall that the pope, the pontifex maximus, is only the pope, because he is…
the bishop of rome…
aka roman emperor.
Obviously Italians were predominant, but they weren’t the only group running the show, twas my point.
It is good to have a general dominant race, I.E. 70% of the culture, etc.
Otherwise you look like Brazil.
But 100% vs. 80%, etc. is just semantics.
The only way non-Italians could be elevated to the Papacy was if they were fantastically corrupt;
or in times of crisis, where competence > ethnic heritage;
It is notable that Benedict XVI was 78 when he ascended, perhaps he had to have extra career experience to compensate for not being Italian. (JP I was 66, Paul VI was also mid-60s, etc). Francis was 76 at his ascension, but his parents were Italian born.
Once again provides no response to being called out on his bullshit idea that Rome was an ethnostate.
Arrogance= Low IQ.
Some HBDers are obsessed with IQ as a form of regression, it seems.
Once again provides no response to being called out on his bullshit idea that Rome was an ethnostate.
who are you talking to?
rome was an empire run by guidos.
rome is dead, outside the roman church.
italy is still alive.
ethnostates are stable.
empires are unstable.
…
persian empire…
alexandrian empire…
roman empire…
carolingian empire…
mongol empire…
mogul empire…
holy roman empire…
german/napoleonic/nazi empire…
spanish empire…
russian empire/soviet union…
british empire and especially the raj…
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
DEAD
!!!
try again jew cock sucking cubano.
or rather…
…whom are you talking to?…
Maybe it was RUN by Italians, but it was not homogenous.
Even so, that’s debatable, cuz
Caesar was descended from Greek colonists, mofo.
One of the more intelligent Alt-Right arguments I heard was ‘if America is going to by any more than biracial (Europeans and Blacks), then it will lose it’s character as a Republic (or it already has) and become an Empire’.
I suppose your biggest gripe is Jewish influence, not the mere presence of them or non-pure Europeans within our boundaries?
rather, homogeneous
Mugabe has been noted by PP to be one of the most pro-NAM White Nationalists ever….
Is the mere presence of them, or their use by Jews as a ‘tool’ a major threat to the U.S.
or is it just that their existence, is in your mind, furthering the Jewish cause?
you’re no capablanca cubano.
i’m not a “white nationalist”.
i’m a nationalist who happens to be white.
i am NOT a supremacist.
my “nationalism” does NOT stem from any ridiculous “pride” in my ancestors’ geographic origins or my contempt for those with other origins.
my nationalism is motivated by my belief in
1. democracy
2. socialism
that is, my belief in…
democratic socialism…
the scandinavian model.
3. norms of reaction.
…
america and the americas are fubar.
it’s just a rear guard action at this point.
and the ONLY reason why the US and canada are holding on to first world status while everything south of the rio grande is shit is…
RACE…
interpret that however you want, it’s THE reason.
the one exception is…
The great midcentury economist Simon Kuznets is said to have said (this is one of those lines that’s too good to abandon just because it may have been apocryphal) that there are four kinds of countries: developed countries, underdeveloped countries, Japan, and Argentina.
argentina should be a lot richer than it is.
mutli-ethnic societies are inherently anti-democratic and extremely unequal.
thus those who believe in democracy and equality (in some vague sense) are NECESSARILY…
pro nation-state, nationalist.
the solution to the jewish question is the resettlement of all jews in israel along with erecting borders to capital not just to people (labor).
globalization will have the same effect on the sovereign states of the world that the american civil war had on america’s sovereign states…
they will lose their sovereignty…
but worse is that the new federal government of the world, unlike that of the US, will be 100% un-democratic.
it will owe its formation to all the retards like yourself who heard someone scream “racist!” and believed them.
so again needless to say…
the european union is a joke.
the han chinese may be as distinct genetically as europeans, but they all identify as chinese first and whatever else second. china has a common language, mandarin. it has an all powerful central government.
so if peepee is right, there’s not going to be any contest in the centuries to come.
ceteris paribus, diversity is a weakness, not a strength…
the coming centuries will be…
the chinese centuries.
but before the easy sailing comes, china may blow up. it may soon have its own financial crisis.
the US will be remembered by historians centuries in the future as a supreme joke, a yarmulke wearing joke.
Jews are such a rare case of faster thinkers with higher intelligence… generally faster thinkers tend to come from lower intelligence–groups.
Jews combined the best and the worst of human intellect.
”Jews” (again, disproportionate* many them* most them*) always have a ”ace in the hole”. Many whites and other groups seems a ‘jews in low motion’.
at least 30% of jews are atheist. And i doubt if most of ortodox jews are REALLY religious in the same way many christians are.
the smartest of atheist or agnostics by logic tend to be great strategists because they are thinking in the real world without a black hole of magical thinking blurry their perceptions and dooming their results.
Jews seems sustain the ancient tradition to have ”elderly ‘wise’ strategists”, or not, just magical thinking by my own, 😉
Health is not exactly the same than longevity
the question is not live longer, only it, but live healthfully the time you have to live, which is programmed to live without a great suscetibilities to biological infectious diseases (stronger immune system) or other random non-organic causes.
People who naturally live longer may have a completely different way to perceive the world than those who tend to live less.
Of course species who live longer and without any artificial intervention is likely to be healthier because their immune system will be robust for more time than others but it’s dependend, seems, of many fact-actors for example the % of ”pathogens” in their area.
Santo — I will be reading this book soon:
http://bookspics.com/wp-content/uploads/how_the_french_think__an_affectionate_portrait_of_an_intellectual_people.jpe
You are correct to say the French are much more intellectual than Anglo Joos. Not too long ago, I met a French guy in the states, and he told me that Americans are so boring. Just consumers of garbage, with no room for higher attainments or thinking.
JS,
France seems to be one of the greatest leftist epicenter, i thought most of ”intellectuals” of any area are not so brainy as their ego’s think.
France seems more intellectualized than Anglo jewdaized ”America” but they are in the first place in the suicide train Western World has walking..
is not enough think more than other, but think more and correctly, and most ”intellectuals” seems good or leaning to think more than normies but without the necessary practicism.
this fact may mean something.
”You are correct to say the French are much more intellectual than Anglo Joos. Not too long ago, I met a French guy in the states, and he told me that Americans are so boring.”
yes, Anglo’s are the responsible of the unfair fame of ”white people can’t dance”.
too boring = greater social stability* (without co-evolved problems)
Such artistic vein seems even more rare among anglos than in other groups.
too much pragmatic, pseudo-rational/logic, utilitarist…
i don’t know if industrialization or protestantism have a impact in their (seems) excessive formalism.
But Anglo Joos are more delusional than other Westerners. Most important, Anglo society is not all that happy. That makes it worse. Funny, I’m in French Canada, and have met Americans, not many wanting to go back to the states. Also, I don’t find any Joos coming from America. My hypothesis, Joos are very happy in America, or maybe not, French Canada is very anti-semitic. Also, not very money oriented, so that’s another issue.
”Jews” ( most, many, a lot of them**) sniff money, dishonest and naive people.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/09/how-the-french-think-an-affection-portrait-of-an-intellectual-people-sudhir-hazareesingh-review
Demonstrates the formalism and stiffness of Anglos.
1. when the french think, they think in german.
2. the anglos don’t think, because they can’t.
I know that germans, on avg, tend to love France (and Italy) culture, language, sofistication. Russian too, specially centuries before. France become expert in manufactire frivolous but appreciable beauty.
France always was like that or italian renaissance influenced ”her” considerably*
@PP
Can you discuss the Wonderlic? I’m just curious. I scored a 42 on the practice Wonderlic online. I think that’s a 99th percentile score. Is it a valid measure of IQ?
It’s alright. It predicts arrest rates for nfl players
http://www.unz.com/isteve/wonderlic-iq-test-help-predict-nfl-arrest-rates/
“Obviously the overnutrition (agriculture doesn’t cause undernutrition, don’t know where you got that from)”
From the Neolithic forward, sedentary agriculturalists got by on fewer calories that HGs. Many people don’t have it in their head that Europeans coming to the New World were pygmy-like compared to some of the Amerinds, especially the upper strata.
“He gets it wrong on evolution, Melanesians and Australasians being Negroid, and progressive evolution. He says Mitochondrial Eve looks like the reconstruction provided, that’s bullshit. No race is ‘more evolved’ than another.”
Chill, stop repeating your different opinion over and over. Give your facts and let people decide.
Has Pumpkin ever gone this long without posting before?
I’m hoping to post stuff today about why brain size has been shrinking over the past 10,000 years. Just very hard to get good data because different methods of measuring brain size give different results so that’s been distracting me for days.
=^)
I was going to do a post on that too. It’s the past 20k years it’s been shrinking. I believe it’s due to the end of the last glacial maximum. It makes sense. As the planet warms, brain size gets smaller. That’s the most viable hypothesis in my opinion.
Obviously the overnutrition (agriculture doesn’t cause undernutrition, don’t know where you got that from) did well for our brain growth as a whole for synapses and what not. But the trend over the past 20k years is downward. The past 100 years is really meaningless to the whole overarching trend in brain size reduction in our species.
RaceRealist who think he is at Pumpkin’s level…LOL ! 😂
He gets it wrong on evolution, Melanesians and Australasians being Negroid, and progressive evolution. He says Mitochondrial Eve looks like the reconstruction provided, that’s bullshit. No race is ‘more evolved’ than another.
Other than that I like him. Though he puts way too much faith in Rushton and Jensen. I’m at anyone’s level.
the shrinking brain is a problem for those (like cockring, professor shoe, and gregory clarke) who believe that IQ has been selected for.
the one physical dimension which is most correlated with IQ is brain size. is it not? not cranial circumference, but brain volume determined by MRI, has had samples with correlations of .4 within the same ethnic group.
so if IQ has been selected for since the neolithic why aren’t heads even bigger, let alone smaller?
there are only three possible answers:
1. brain volume, IQ (intelligence assayed by whatever means appropriate to the historical period) correlations are mistaken or have not always been what they are today…
2. IQ tests do not measure intelligence in an historically independent way.
3. intelligence has NOT been selected for.
in other words, the question can be inverted, “why don’t contemporary humans look like telosians?”
apparently “the ability to adapt” (as peepee mistakenly defines intelligence) is NOT adaptive in the darwinian sense.
why would allen’s rule be more important than intelligence?
They said that relative sitting height is negatively correlated with temperature for indigenous human populations, meaning that people who originate from colder regions have proportionately shorter legs for their height and people who originate from hotter regions have proportionately longer legs for their height.
yet peepee has mocked me for my self-reported short legs. she’s used this as an example of my genetic inferiority.
apparently peepee is unaware that my proportions are standard for…
NE asians…
even though i’m 100% western euro.
my arms are proportional to my torso. that is, my arms are long, because my torso is long.
so i’m not sonny liston, but my arms are fairly long.
in general my body obeys allen’s rule for very cold weather people.
my ears are pretty big though, and i have big fleshy earlobes.
people without earlobes should be gassed. am i right?
Hbd believes they are very superior than mainstream media and academia. Not so…
Indeed gender and see is not fixed …. Because it can be changed, I mean, masculinized women and feminized men can out breed other sexual groups and change the norm.
Gender and sex is fluid and not binary because almost of variations or distortions on space and time/existence are dualistic or continuum between the extremes,
Binary values are real incorrect conclusive interpretation about its particular reality.
“eugenics is trivial” 😉
In the basic things hbd choice neocon propaganda than “science”, or better, reason.
If hbd accepts that patriarchy is a evolutionary result of selective pressures that select for that prevalent types of men and women they will inevitably need to accept sex and gender is not fixed nor binary and agree partially with “enemy” or leftist narrative.
Many regular commenters here keep calling me black or blasian even though I’ve debunked that claim 3 times, have never mentioned I’m black in any comment and nearly all my comments slander blacks mercilessly, and are almost comically over the top raving loon racist against the most prized Pokemon in all of Kanto Region.
Despite this, pumpkin person keeps claiming this. This confirms beyond doubt that Pumpkin person is a chalkboard autistic. His/Her commentary in other articles threw me, but I forgot to remember many of his/her thoughts are spirited regurgitations of people with a Theory of Mind and liquid fluency. Perhaps even that concept was taken from someone like myself as well.
Anyway its pretty easy to tell one’s social background and race from their writing style and the images they chose (consciously and subconsciously).
~
If I was to guess the power distribution of Rome, I would be looking at land ownership, military generals and trade merchant barons alongside Senators. We sometimes forget that our current constellation of power distribution is not a good way of diagnosing power constellations in the past. Today military generals in America have almost no political power for instance. But media owners do, or indeed financiers.
As for brain size, this is probably related to memory storage needs. Since Guttenberg most humans have had to rely less on less on the spoken tradition of history, news and so on. This is a just a hunch. Nutrition would predict it should grow (in certain conditions), but we see many East Asians actually have much smaller heads, but higher IQs than whites or blacks. East Asians had movable type long in place before Guttenburg.
A corollary is that East Asians don’t seem very interested in non-functional things or other World cultures or literature and so on, so whatever memory is there is primed to just take in surplus production improvement information for pharaoh’s needs and NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITAHHH like good slaves.
Perhaps cranium size is all round intellect.
This is why an East Asian Genius like Terry Tao has a much smaller cranium to waist ratio, than Von Neumann, a Jew Genius.
Once again, I may have cracked it 20 years before the autists catch up.
Just like I diagnosed the problem with the world economy 10 years ago as a college student independent of Marx (lack of redistribution) despite attending a neoliberal economics college.
Or diagnosed the T Hierarchy.
Or discovered how Zion has brainwashed everyone into joining a Jim Jones Suicide Cult.
Or related how the tax treatment of debt is leading to oligarchy and gross inefficiency as evidenced by the Herfindahl Index of most industries.
Or diagnosed that centralised states create autism (which Unz hasn’t figured out yet)
Just like I know how to make most women find me sexually attractive (which the vast majority of “geniuses” never figure out).
Just like I have an interview tomorrow for a job on the beach paying me tons of money tax free.
Just like many things I know make it very hard for me to live without emotional and psychic pain.
I cannot kill Madonna:

Many regular commenters here keep calling me black or blasian even though I’ve debunked that claim 3 times, have never mentioned I’m black in any comment and nearly all my comments slander blacks mercilessly, and are almost comically over the top raving loon racist against the most prized Pokemon in all of Kanto Region.
Despite this, pumpkin person keeps claiming this.
Huh? I only claimed you were black once or twice, and that was before you denied it. I’ve since completely stopped. You have me confused with Chiune Sugihara.
This confirms beyond doubt that Pumpkin person is a chalkboard autistic. His/Her commentary in other articles threw me, but I forgot to remember many of his/her thoughts are spirited regurgitations of people with a Theory of Mind and liquid fluency. Perhaps even that concept was taken from someone like myself as well.
No, I’ve been blogging about Theory of Mind for years. It was me who originated the theory that Mongoloids and Negroids occupy opposite extremes in the autism schizophrenia continuum, as part of Rushton’s r/K selection model. I proposed a similar model for the social classes.
Based on theory of mind model east Asians seems more concerned about intentions and necessities of “others” than African blacks. In the Nysbett documentary about “cultural’ differences between “west” and “east” east Asian people tend to think in the tastes of people who visited their homes while in the Wes “westerners” generally Don’t anticipate about visitors tastes. Of course it’s just a one cultural difference. Hospitality tend to be universal but some people are more naturally hospitable than others.
Introverted or more extroverted people tend to be diffidently empathetic than extroverted.
And again… Autistics are less sympathetic and emotional but still empathetic and some of them are very empathetic.
Actually Santo I agree that autistics are more AFFECTIVELY empathetic. You can see that in the stories they do like.
But they are not COGNITIVELY EMPATHETIC. If I asked an autist before his job interview how to tell if he’s got the job, he simply wouldn’t know.
Actually he would probably say something like “When I hear the words: Here is the job, buddy”.
Philosopher,
Autiwtics on avg seems are not equipped with the natural capacity to lie but I thought many them learn very well how to do be a “neurotypical”.
I don’t believe they do. Neurotypicals are irrational. They take more risks in terms of drug use, casual sex, credit card spending and so on. Autists prefer routines, introversion and have very high impulse control.
It might seem I bash autists all the time Santo, but there are many good points to them:
1. Like you say, they can’t lie.
2. They’re loyal.
3. They work hard and play fair.
4. They don’t whine as much.
5. They’re not violent.
6. They can create things most schizos and neurotypicals cannot.
7. They pay taxes.
8. They’re basically model citizens in a textbook civics class sense.
9. They don’t mind nitty gritty.
10. If the rules are made by King David and not Sauron, then the civil service should be mandatorily serviced by autists only.
11. They give everyone a chance to prove competence with no stereotyping.
12. WHY CAN’T WE BE FRIENDS, WHY CANT WE BE FRIENDS. I WANNA KNOW.
Schizo Mel working with a black actor and Jewish movie producers. Haha.
Philosopher,
I though you’re overgeneralizing things.
First: Many autistics namely high functioning types are not this classical nerd with high impulse control you’re thinking, seems
Second: There are basically three types of normies and non normies, “K types”, mixed types and R types. Indeed the classical normie usually have non explicit vestiges of mental disorders or higher in emotional stability but specially higher tolerance to accept cultural or mainstreamed norms without any mental reflectance,
Many neuro atypical people are nirmies
Third: Neuro atypical people are more prone to be R life or faster way of life (live now) than slow way of life because disorders usually created a vigilant existential environments.
We are talking about existential prismas: Primary or selfish, social, artistic and scientific and philosophical. The scale of level of self awareness or existential realism. Most people as well mammals tend to operates in social level.
I thought we can lie at subconscious level or hypo understanding about it. It seems a common place among many Hillary supporters. I don’t think autistics are so different like that as many people think. But what Staffan blogger like to say (Jewish Swedish blogger): ” there are many autistics who are genuine free thinkers” and I think if many them will be disproportionately anti evil system. The worst of pseudo social justice worriors and the best of thinkers seems will be found among them in more histrionic way than among neurotypical groups.
Remember that neurotypical is not the same than normies, those who follows norms without ant substantial and necessary criticism.
”It might seem I bash autists all the time Santo, but there are many good points to them:”
”1. Like you say, they can’t lie.”
Lies is manual for them, they can learn how to use the manual of human deception very well.
”2. They’re loyal.”
Based on Wrong Planet political stats a lot of them are leftists.
”3. They work hard and play fair.”
We have little knowledge about behavioral correlates among them, seems. They are, on my pedantic perception, disproportionately prone to play fair than neurotypicals and specially than normies, but remember, many of them are normies and many abnormies are not honest.
”4. They don’t whine as much.”
I don’t know, what i said above, there are many ”social injustice worriors” who are autistics or abnormies.
”5. They’re not violent.”
high functioning autistics (non verbal intelligence higher than verbal) are more proportionally represented in world crime while, seems aspies are very less capable to commit visible and or characteristic crimes.
”6. They can create things most schizos and neurotypicals cannot.”
maybe, by now, in most countries the % of uneployment or sub-employment among them are very higher, unfortunately and unfairly.
”7. They pay taxes.
8. They’re basically model citizens in a textbook civics class sense.”
there is a diversity of types, difficult to affirm it, autistics are not a monolithic.
”9. They don’t mind nitty gritty.”
I don’t understand this part.
”10. If the rules are made by King David and not Sauron, then the civil service should be mandatorily serviced by autists only.”
idem.
”11. They give everyone a chance to prove competence with no stereotyping.”
maybe many of them but i don’t know if almost of them..
less the deplorable ones, 😉
”12. WHY CAN’T WE BE FRIENDS, WHY CANT WE BE FRIENDS. I WANNA KNOW.”
a collective hug**
upa le le
“autistic” or whatever…
“the philosopher” is right that what makes for “success” in a given time and place depends on that time and place.
some traits, supposing they are genetic, will be adaptive in one time and place and mal-adaptive in another.
but independent of their adaptability, they will be virtues or vices absolutely. this is beyond peepee comprehension, because peepee has no conscience.
peepee had no reason to identify “the philosopher” as black.
she has yet to explain why she ever identified him as black.
easy…
she hates black people…
except oprah.
this strongly suggests….
peepee is a self-hating black lesbian.
I have demanded the explanation on multiple occasions. “She” better spend some time going over that response in detail so as not to offend Oprah and the billions of black psychometric aficionados.
My surprise is more the fact that “she” couldn’t tell I wasn’t black simply from my writing style.
I would assume myself anyone that knows about the Ming dynasty is almost certainly not black whose general knowledge is usually around salacious or cool topics.
My surprise is more the fact that “she” couldn’t tell I wasn’t black simply from my writing style.
I would assume myself anyone that knows about the Ming dynasty is almost certainly not black whose general knowledge is usually around salacious or cool topics
.
I haven’t had the pleasure of reading all your comments in full yet, but no one thought you seemed black. Just the opposite. Another William Player (now known as Chiune) was very surprised when he was told you were black, writing:
I think I am going to stick around….
he’s a Black guy!
Wow. there’s never a dull moment.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/06/11/the-irony-of-intelligence/comment-page-1/#comment-27641
I thought you were black because they thought you were black.
PP is a “self hate” black just because s/he accept some true about them??
Supposedly right and left are stupid political denominations that only fool people give relevance….
But but
When you said Pp is self hater because s/he accept that blacks on avg are biologically less smart than whites you are just using the same leftist “argument” (emotional blackmail)….
Supposedly you’re not a hidden leftist negrophile with a equal hidden agenda here.
Some lefitsts are more prone to be negrophiles than homophiles and my opinion is that this type is even dumb than the other types because while homosexuals on avg don’t procreate the otherwise pattern still is found among blacks and demographic is destiny.
The correct academic term is “Magic Negro”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro
I seem to recall philosopher saying he was black and Asian. If I weren’t so lazy right now I’d get the comment.
Just like I know how to make most women find me sexually attractive…
the fantasy of UGLY men like lion.
“the secret” is:
1. be tall and robust. don’t be ugly.
2. don’t talk like a girl. the voice is very important.
3. be indifferent. let her rape you. or don’t.
4. don’t act like a girl. stop playing pokemon.
5. be rich.
ALL OF THESE ARE VERY HARD TO FAKE.
TO SAY THE LEAST.
I’ve actually been told I look like a movie star on more than one occasion by multiple women of various races if you’re trying to insinuate I look like a World of Warcraft addict.
But yes, I assume Lion looks like an omega.
But your list indicates you ain’t exactly hitting it out of the ballpark either bud-eh, so don’t you be runnin them poor kids down boy!
I said “make” on purpose.
Being tall and having a certain voice is not quite something most people can change (you can, technically, using some methods, with side effects).
And being rich does not really make one SEXUALLY attractive. This makes me think you don’t know anything. People that wear jumpers say this. They usually don’t do well.
It does if you are opulently rich I suppose. I think the Heartiste linked to a study showing you would need to be making top quintile earnings to make up for being a lower quintile looks man and still only be as attractive as the average non obese guy.
(The tradeoff of course being working in an Ibank or law firm you won’t have time to be a huntin anyway)
Being rich is actually irrelevant to primal sexual attraction in any case, unless its associated with real power and the women can SEE the power.
The list is more like:
0. Fame/Political power (tops, but irrelevant for most people)
1. Testosterone level/muscularity/intimidation factor
2. Body fat <12% = Looks
3. Height
4. Social popularity
5. X factor: Fashion choice, charisma, profession, interests.
The x factor is different for different types of girls.
Its not easy, but there are tried and proven ways for an omega to jump 2 to 4 points with effort. Hitting the gym would be number one.
the insinuation was exactly the opposite.
the point was that making women interested is not a game. you have to have certain attributes which can’t be faked. but ugly, or effeminate, or whatever men like to imagine that there’s some secret.
there’s no secret.
women are basically fags. bottoms.
i thought by “be sexually attracted to” you meant “want to and will have sex with”.
needless to say these are not the same thing.
but contra the whore stereotype, i think that status is a turn on. that is, women are attracted to high status men…sexually.
does “rich” equal “high status”? not always. but “high status” usually equals “rich”.
and no dude.
as men go…physically.
i’m a below the belt KO.
i’m the greatest right hand every thrown…to the cunt.
but i’m also smart enough not to care.
you aren’t apparently.
but ultimately humans range themselves into species…
such that species mate…
what do i mean?
i mean that humans partition themselves into groups for the purpose of procreation just as if they were partitioned by nature.
that is…
in general…
mating pairs are matched for…
1. physical beauty or lack thereof
2. social status/class AND class background, race, religious affiliation, etc.
3. IQ
4. personality…whatever that is…common interests…the same college major…etc.
birds of a feather flock together…
the exceptions prove the rule…
and they never work out…
always end in divorce.
the voice is by far the most under-appreciated aspect of what makes someone attractive or not, sexually or otherwise.
that is, not what they say or even how they say it, but the distinctive quality of their voice.
for example:
1. hillary has a truly horrible voice.
2. trump has a fairly good voice.
There is a quasi mythology of autism neurotypicality differences as if most of neueotypicals were very good to “read the mind of others” just like specialized gypsies who read the hand of their clients.
Indeed majority of people are very bad in emotional and social issues, people lie one each other all the time. Most of parents don’t know their kids and if had a son knowledge test most of them would score lower.
Well I can read a person by their fashion, demeanour, voice, accessories and body composition if that’s what you mean by palm reading.
But yes, many neurotypicals don’t get it. But not because they’re functionally blind, but because they’ve been brainwashed.
Look at how racist and bro bro the Aussies and Kiwis are…less jew media to make them think like female slaves.
I don’t think like that… I’m not talking about “don’t perceive black and or other groups behavioral avg diffs” but in most aspects humans are hypo mentalists. Because hypo mentalists predominates it become a norm/acceptable/desirable behaviors but not in absolute/ideal way.
I’m like that.
Well I thought you’re most feminine in this aspect than masculine 😉
“Well I can read a person by their fashion, demeanour, voice, accessories and body composition”
This. You can gauge how someone is by having a short conversation with someone. You can also guesstimate, to a point, someone’s IQ by what they talk about in their average day. (Most Facebookers and other social media types are on the left side of The Curve.)
Just like I diagnosed the problem with the world economy 10 years ago as a college student independent of Marx (lack of redistribution) despite attending a neoliberal economics college.
the under-consumption theory of recessions appears in one of my encyclopedias from the early 80s.
in general the problem with economics and economists, and thus of the modern world, is that they presume that their theories are at a higher level of abstraction than the history and evolution of technology/techne.
they aren’t.
this is especially true of the anglo-sphere. despite britain being the home of the industrial revolution, it and its colonies regard technical people as “deplorable”.
if all anglo-sphere PhDs in economics (or politicians) were required to have degrees in engineering or nat. sci., the problem of the neo-liberals/washington consensus/chicago boys/etc. would be solved in a trice.
the problem of the “marxists” (in peepee language) would also be solved.
(what peepee thinks a “marxist” is, is not what a marxist is.)
Misdiagnosis.
In the first order yes, agg demand is hit causing the cuckolds to run around spraying credit, compressing spreads and so forth.
In the second order the savings glut on corporate balance sheets needs to be recycled into say stocks or property, causing intertemporal distortion of discount rates. The hunt for yields leads to open capital borders.
In the third, capital assumes political power causing open borders, wars, and other misadventures to increase yields beyond what can be countenanced even with borrowing future prospective demand.
We redistribute to maintain efficiency of competition in industry, cleaner politics and give those of potential born to difficult situation chance, not liquidity of equilibrium per se.
I also acknowledge the compassionate aspect.
The nature of the redistribution is important – it should be into human and physical capital spending, and not simply welfare or ‘tax credit’ Friedman retardation. Friedman somehow convinced himself the GD happened because there weren’t enough credit cards.
Autists will always be stuck on the first order of all problems. What I’ve mentioned above is linear as well. In real life, foreign powers and the underlying biology of the populous changes as well.
liquidity or equilibrium pe se#
The open capital borders has important ramifications for the financial system as the dispersion of capital increases systemic risk. One day in the neoliberal dystopian future, a hot dog stand in Laos will go under and Citi will be shrieking for a bailout.
An engineer is the last person you want looking at human problems.
Look at Prescott and Cochrane.
They Dont Know What They’re Doing.
Robot does not compute irrational. Micrologic. Equilibrium. Compute. Compute. Why don’t we abolish minimum wage to restore equilibrium. Compute. Micro logik. Why don’t I shower more often. No Need. Time Wasted. Need to spend time optimising Euler function. Compute.
Haha.
Look at them. Do you think they even understand their wives?
By the way, read an econ phd.
I DOUBLE DARE YA.
We haven’t learned anything important or useful in economics since maybe the 60s outside of very good empirical work and the psychologists.
cochrane’s BS was in physics.
prescott’s was in math.
if either had earned his degree in civil engineering he might have been less ridiculous. but an even better inoculation against autistic economics would be a degree in the history of technology…if there were such.
They Dont Know What They’re Doing.
Robot does not compute irrational…
exactly right.
but at the same time…
1. practical subjects are not inherently “autistic”. are they?
2. the anglo-sphere looks down on technical people. thus the only high IQ types who pursue technical studies are unaware of this and thus tend to be “autistic”…in the anglo-sphere.
3. autistic economics is actually more in accord with reality (though still far off) when there is no non-vocational education, no mass media, no fine arts, no entertainment, no religion, no source of distraction, etc.
Final word on epistemology.
Exhibit 1:
Hi! My name is Karl.I figured out the capitalist system in the 1800s using common sense. You can look at empirics to see if I’m right. Please ignore my prescription though. That was a bit extravagant of me!
Exhibit 2:
Hi! My name is Wang Ye. I have a PHD in nuclear physics. I have spent 5 years figuring out that in the sacrifice for building a useful and workable general equilibrium model without Deep Blue of the economy, and therefor using Matlab in between high sodium pot noodle sessions, I realise I cannot say anything with multiple asterix involved. I have therefore decided all humans are robots to make my Phd easier.
PS I still can’t figure out why I work 80 hour weeks in China and get paid in sandwiches despite my productivity. Clearly the business owner is irrational.
WOooo WEEE.
This is why an East Asian Genius like Terry Tao…which the vast majority of “geniuses” never figure out…
“genius” is an ambiguous term.
inter alia it can mean:
1. someone who is the best or among the best at one particular thing. so for example, eric bristow was once described as a “genius”.
2. someone who is very smart.
even when the one particular thing is mathematics as with tao and von neumann or some other intellectual endeavor, “geniuses” may not be geniuses of the second type.
my guess is most geniuses are extremely boring even to people in their own field of specialization. they’re obsessed with one thing, and they’ve used all their ability at that one thing.
True dat.
You could make a better argument a genius is good at different types of intelligence.
Now Da Vinci.
Yes.
Hes a real man!
“In the room they come and go, speaking of Michaelang…Da Vinci”
Michaelang is the Michelangelo made in China, falsified, 😉
Funnily enough Chiune I’d estimate I’m 2 standard deviations above you if you want that information.
You’re probably the lowest IQ commenter on this blog thread in both GOC and NAR.
OH SAY IT AINT SOO MISTER.
Not that you’d want to wake up in agony every day now would you little girl?
what is it*
Who have the lowest deplorable IQ here*
Santo is my new favorite commenter.
Philosopher claimed that racism isn’t real/linked to low IQ because everyone in the 1950s around the world was racist….
what you failed to understand, is that during that time the Racialists would have a lower Z-score for rarity, simply because there are so many of them.
Not high conceptual reasoning in terms of Mathematics.
I don’t even post original material here, I just mainly piggy back off of JS.
You’re just making shit up…like a Nationalist HBDer would be expected to do.
and of course the little Turd will provide no response to this of any sort….
further evidence that arrogance/cockiness is correlated with low IQ.
What’s going here**
Oh thank you Chiune!!! 😉
Low IQ, yet has tarnished you with the label of being Black….FOREVER…on this blog.
yet another FACT which is NOT explained by the jewish IQ.
Top Donors to Clinton Campaign and PACs
$20.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Donald Sussman [JEW]
15.0M . . . . . . . . . JR & Mary Kathryn Pritzker [JEW]
12.5M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haim & Cheryl Saban [JEW]
11.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .George Soros [JEW]
9.6M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Daniel Abraham [JEW]
Top donors to Trump campaign and PACs
$10.5M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sheldon & Miriam Adelson [JEW]
7.0M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernard Marcus [JEW]
6.2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Linda McMahon
5.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Mercer & family [?]
2.3M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geoff Palmer [JEW]
Damn, McMahon donated to Drumpf? Not surprising tbh.
Oy vey, the alt-righters said that Drumpfstein didn’t accept any shekels from Adelson!
As I said, bought by Jews.
(The McMahons aren’t Jews. Actually the only one on the list that isn’t.)
just imagine all the things that could be put in place of “JEW” between those two brackets…
which would arouse suspicion, and would be reported on ad nauseam by the mainstream media.
imagine this:
Top Donors to Clinton Campaign and PACs
$20.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Donald Sussman [CHINESE AMERICAN]
15.0M . . . . . . . . . JR & Mary Kathryn Pritzker [CHINESE AMERICAN]
12.5M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haim & Cheryl Saban [CHINESE AMERICAN]
11.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .George Soros [CHINESE AMERICAN]
9.6M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Daniel Abraham [CHINESE AMERICAN]
Top donors to Trump campaign and PACs
$10.5M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sheldon & Miriam Adelson [CHINESE AMERICAN]
7.0M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernard Marcus [CHINESE AMERICAN]
6.2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Linda McMahon
5.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Mercer & family
2.3M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geoff Palmer [CHINESE AMERICAN]
or imagine this:
Top Donors to Clinton Campaign and PACs
$20.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Donald Sussman [MUSLIM AMERICAN]
15.0M . . . . . . . . . JR & Mary Kathryn Pritzker [MUSLIM AMERICAN]
12.5M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haim & Cheryl Saban [MUSLIM AMERICAN]
11.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .George Soros [MUSLIM AMERICAN]
9.6M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Daniel Abraham [MUSLIM AMERICAN]
Top donors to Trump campaign and PACs
$10.5M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sheldon & Miriam Adelson [MUSLIM AMERICAN]
7.0M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernard Marcus [MUSLIM AMERICAN]
6.2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Linda McMahon
5.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Mercer & family
2.3M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geoff Palmer [MUSLIM AMERICAN]
or this:
Top Donors to Clinton Campaign and PACs
$20.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Donald Sussman [ITALIAN AMERICAN]
15.0M . . . . . . . . . JR & Mary Kathryn Pritzker [ITALIAN AMERICAN]
12.5M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haim & Cheryl Saban [ITALIAN AMERICAN]
11.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .George Soros [ITALIAN AMERICAN]
9.6M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Daniel Abraham [ITALIAN AMERICAN]
Top donors to Trump campaign and PACs
$10.5M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sheldon & Miriam Adelson [ITALIAN AMERICAN]
7.0M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernard Marcus [ITALIAN AMERICAN]
6.2M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Linda McMahon
5.8M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Mercer & family
2.3M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geoff Palmer [ITALIAN AMERICAN]
Philosopher-
1200/1800 Old SAT= about 119 on White norms according to PP.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/09/24/converting-sat-score-to-iq/
You’ve identified as a paranoid schizophrenic on this thread.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2014/10/08/the-iqs-of-the-criminally-insane/
Y’all have an average lower IQ…but that doesn’t mean anything.
If you truly are high IQ, you are not only a “Magic Negro” but a “Magic Schizo” as well.
Ciao.
1200/1800 on New SAT I mean. Oops.
it was gould who i remember saying that evolution is not progressive.
so why has there been progress?
because as time goes on the range of the distribution of complexity increases, even though the probability of evolving to more or less complex is constant.
rather than the drops from a candle, evolution is more like a hacky sack squished against a floor and a wall.
the wall is the minimal complexity.
you get the hacky sack squished left (less complex) and squished right (more complex).
http://il8.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/14843257/thumb/9.jpg?i10c=img.resize%28height:160%29
it was gould who i remember saying that evolution is not progressive.
so why has there been progress?
because as time goes on the range of the distribution of complexity increases, even though the probability of evolving to more or less complex is constant.
If the range of complexity increases, and the minimum stays constant, then the mean level of complexity will increase over time. So newer forms of life will on average be more complex then older forms of life. That alone makes evolution progressive..
On a deeper level, evolution is progressive because some adaptations are more versatile than others, so once these adaptations evolve, they tend not to be selected against.
The final nail in the coffin for “more evolved” and “progressive” evolution.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-for-more-evolved-and-progressive-evolution/
“If the range of complexity increases”
Saying that humans are “more complex” than other species is not warranted by the data. Moreover, it’s undecided as to whether or not there is ‘progress’ in evolution.
Click to access mcshea96.pdf
How about this:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-70831-2_6
“So newer forms of life will on average be more complex then older forms of life. That alone makes evolution progressive..”
PP, please. This is just a rehash of the “Great Chain of Being” which evolutionary biologists do not believe anymore. That’s a holdover from Aristotle.
The two main components to evolution are random variation and differential reproductive success. These two variables do not combine to create an ordered progression that “improves with change”. Random variation is, of course, random and reproductive success depends on the environment which constantly changes. So evolutionary change leads to continual difference with no variation being “better” than another.
This is simple evolutionary biology, PP.
“On a deeper level, evolution is progressive because some adaptations are more versatile than others, so once these adaptations evolve, they tend not to be selected against.”
You know damn well that if selection against eyes and good eyesight occurred, such as a total blackout on earth or something happening to have us lose our good eyesight, that the ability will be lost because gasp mutation and natural selection will occur and the changes that need to occur, such as losing eyesight or having it be slightly worse than today, will occur because it’d increase fitness–which is the name of the game for evolution since without increased fitness, there would be no evolving happening.
The final nail in the coffin for “more evolved” and “progressive” evolution.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-for-more-evolved-and-progressive-evolution/https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-for-more-evolved-and-progressive-evolution/
Homo Floresiensis is the exception that proves the rule. I mentioned it a long time ago as an example of a more evolved organism becoming less intelligent. But your criticism, in order to be compelling, must look at the TOTALITY of the evolutionary record. Almost any confirmed hypothesis can be debunked using selective examples. Try again.
Saying that humans are “more complex” than other species is not warranted by the data. Moreover, it’s undecided as to whether or not there is ‘progress’ in evolution.
Even Gould was forced to admit that the average level of complexity increased over evolutionary time, because as Mugabe note, the range increases while the minimum level stays the same.
PP, please. This is just a rehash of the “Great Chain of Being” which evolutionary biologists do not believe anymore.
Rushton believed it. Darwin believed it. Richard Lynn believes it. E.O. Wilson believes it. John Bonner believes it. Indeed it’s hard to think of a scientist of any repute that has believed anything else.
The two main components to evolution are random variation and differential reproductive success. These two variables do not combine to create an ordered progression that “improves with change”. Random variation is, of course, random and reproductive success depends on the environment which constantly changes. So evolutionary change leads to continual difference with no variation being “better” than another.
Your thinking is too linear. You need to make the leap to lateral thought. Parallel processing. Look at the forest, not the trees.
This is simple evolutionary biology, PP.
It’s not simple, it’s simplistic.
You know damn well that if selection against eyes and good eyesight occurred, such as a total blackout on earth or something happening to have us lose our good eyesight, that the ability will be lost because gasp mutation and natural selection will occur and the changes that need to occur, such as losing eyesight or having it be slightly worse than today, will occur because it’d increase fitness–which is the name of the game for evolution since without increased fitness, there would be no evolving happening.
No adaption is useful in ALL environments, but some adaptations are useful in more environments than others. Thus over billions of years of trial and error, across thousands of different kinds of environments, the most versatile adaptations tend to be favored, which partly explains why the average brain size of all mammals has tripled in the last 65 million years, and why dinosaurs were projected to have evolved human intelligence had they not gone extinct.
“Homo Floresiensis is the exception that proves the rule. I mentioned it a long time ago as an example of a more evolved organism becoming less intelligent. But your criticism, in order to be compelling, must look at the TOTALITY of the evolutionary record. Almost any confirmed hypothesis can be debunked using selective examples. Try again.”
You just look at it as “a more evolved organism getting less intelligent”. I look at it as “an organism’s body and brain shrank to meet environmental pressures, i.e., fewer kcal, hotter climate and selection for it. Eating fewer calories is a huge reason why floresiensis had a smaller stature and brain. On average the daily kcal consumed was 1200 for floresiensis while being 1400 while lactating in comparison to erectus who needed 1800 kcal a day and a day 2500 kcal while lactating. I’ve shown that on islands both dwarfism and giagantism occur, and this happens due to environmental pressures. The fact that floresiensis’s brain shrunk so much due to the climate shows that it can “go backwards” (using your words) while I say “it’s just an evolutionary pressure and this will increase the fitness of the organism”.
“Even Gould was forced to admit that the average level of complexity increased over evolutionary time, because as Mugabe note, the range increases while the minimum level stays the same.”
There is local “progress”, but throughout the fossil record there really isn’t as 63 percent of fossils remain in stasis. And the human brain remained in stasis for a pretty long time then a change occurred. Brain size is (was?) increasing, that’s a fact, so that shows a change in environment to reach the genetic potential. Brain size has changed in the past 100 years, but not in the past 7000. Human evolution is also occurring faster.
And that means more ethnic differences (if isolation continues).
Random variation and differential reproduction doesn’t equal “progress”, as evolution of traits occurs so the organism has a better chance to survive in that environment. The minimum level “stays the same” (changes would still occur) because the environment doesn’t change so no change needs to occur. Local “progress” (new evolutionary adaptation to environment) is what you’re talking about. Even looking back 65 mya, as I’ve shown, when body size increases, Encephalization and metabolic rate are the primary determinants in directing mammalian longevity and may explain other life history traits. Obviously, bigger organisms have slower metabolic rates and bigger brains. But that doesn’t mean ‘more evolved’ It’s from long-term evolution in any given environment that give an organism the best chance to reproduce. It’s about fitness.
“Rushton believed it. Darwin believed it. Richard Lynn believes it. E.O. Wilson believes it. John Bonner believes it. Indeed it’s hard to think of a scientist of any repute that has believed anything else.”
I specifically said evolutionary biologists. Rushton is a psychologist, Darwin had contradictory views on it, Richard Lynn is a psychologist, Wilson just desrcibes microbes, Bonner:
What’s the big deal? If we do find a way to quantify ‘complexity’, then it’s just as likely for an organism to become ‘less complex’ in order to survive better in its environment and be fitter. This will obviously change with an environment change.
For the prokaryote argument, they’re adapted to their environment and they don’t need to ‘change’.
“Your thinking is too linear. You need to make the leap to lateral thought. Parallel processing. Look at the forest, not the trees.”
Not even. What I said is absolutely correct. Evolution is random variation followed by differential reproduction. Evolution is constant change; not improvement.
“It’s not simple, it’s simplistic.”
No it’s simple evolutionary biology. Evolution shows that species will incur mutations over time based on the environment they live in over time to survive in that habitat. Evolution is not “progressing” anywhere or “progressing” to any type of organism. It’s just happening.
What do you mean simplistic? These doofy humanoid dinosaur pictures are simplistic.
“No adaption is useful in ALL environments, but some adaptations are useful in more environments than others.”
Exactly. Lower intelligence, lower fitness etc will be useful in other environments. Organisms become simpler all the time. That’s what you don’t understand. There is no ‘trend’ in evolution. It just happens
“Thus over billions of years of trial and error, across thousands of different kinds of environments, the most versatile adaptations tend to be favored, which partly explains why the average brain size of all mammals has tripled in the last 65 million years, and why dinosaurs were projected to have evolved human intelligence had they not gone extinct.”
I can’t find the source (Russell, D. A. (1989). The Dinosaurs of North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.) that Rushton cites online, can you? I like primary sources. You should too. I always read up on the sources when I’m done reading a book to see if what they said is accurate. Is it possible? Of course it is. But evolution doesn’t occur linearly, it’s non-linear. So we can’t say “this would occur if this were to happen”, evolutionarily speaking, because it wouldn’t occur like that. If everything didn’t happen *just right*, we wouldn’t be talking about evolution right now. If things would have happened differently, even slightly, things would have turned out differently.
So you can’t say, post hoc as well I may add, that things would occur a certain way when you know them beforehand and are biased to the outcome. Because it’s random, based on changing environment and differential fitness.
So newer forms of life will on average be more complex then older forms of life. That alone makes evolution progressive..
NO!
that’s the EXACT opposite of what i said.
simpler forms of life, like bacteria, are far more numerous.
the variance increases. the mean stays the same.
…
but iirc it is true that brains have been getting bigger. not human brains in the last 10 or 20k years, but brains of all animals over the last 100m years.
that is, the older the fossil the smaller its brain on average.
…
the point of this is that because a taxon (like chinamen) may be newer does not mean it is more evolved in any sense AT ALL. it’s just newer.
Even Gould admitted that the average level of complexity was increasing, but regardless, NEWER forms of life are more complex than older forms of life, controlling for taxanomical level. It’s true that many bacteria species are extremely new, but the bacteria category itself is BILLIONS of years old.
Northeast Asians are probably the most evolved, not just because they’re newer, but because they did more branching on the human evolutionary tree (though such trees are somewhat arbitrary):
PumpkinPerson you’re the only one I know who would read an evolutionary tree like that. That’s retarded. I just showed multiple times over that complexity isn’t measurable and you still push this dumb idea. Especially your weird way you read evolutionary trees. It’s retarded and a misconception of yours that I’ve shown you to be wrong on.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#c2
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a3
We’ve come full circle back to this. Put it to bed already. It’s over. Speaking of arbitrary, and traits you choose to denote superiority would be arbitrary and the traits people have put forth to be showing “progress” don’t even show up.
It’s over.
PumpkinPerson you’re the only one I know who would read an evolutionary tree like that. That’s retarded. I just showed multiple times over that complexity isn’t measurable and you still push this dumb idea. Especially your weird way you read evolutionary trees. It’s retarded and a misconception of yours that I’ve shown you to be wrong on.
You haven’t shown anything. As the above tree shows, among members of the same taxonomical level, there’s a high correlation between the degree of branching and (1) brain size, and (2) intelligence. I’ve demonstrated at least one measure of evolutionary progress that can be empirically tested.
MISCONCEPTION: Taxa that appear near the top or right-hand side of a phylogeny are more advanced than other organisms on the tree.
CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two distinct misunderstandings. First, when it comes to evolution, terms like “primitive” and “advanced” don’t apply. These are value judgments that have no place in science.
Politically correct platitudes are not science. Calling something primitive is not a value judgement, it’s a description. Replacing it with the more politically correct term “ancestral” doesn’t change anything, it’s just playing word games.
One form of a trait may be ancestral to another more derived form, but to say that one is primitive and the other advanced implies that evolution entails progress — which is not the case. For more details, visit our misconception on this topic. Second, an organism’s position on a phylogeny only indicates its relationship to other organisms, not how adaptive or specialized or extreme its traits are. For example, on the tree below, taxon D may be more or less specialized than taxa A, B, and C.
Yawn. I’ve debunked this stupid quote back in 2014. Splits on an evolutionary tree typically reflect periods of evolutionary growth after long periods of stasis. So if you’re a descendent of many splits, you’re typically a descendent of more evolution.
Mugabe gets this right. Ask Razib Khan if that’s how you rear an evolutionary tree and see what he says.
You can continue quoting Rushton 1997 pg. 292-4 all you want, that doesn’t make evolution “progressive”. I’ve more than proven this notion wrong.
You can continue quoting Rushton 1997 pg. 292-4 all you want, that doesn’t make evolution “progressive”. I’ve more than proven this notion wrong.
xenosystems.net reviewed my arguments and yours and sided with me. So no, you haven’t proven anything wrong.
Link?
BUGabby, as a closeted leftoid negrophile no have credibility about most thing he say here about evolution, racial differences, exactly because their cognitive/cultural biases.
Evolution is not progressive for him probably because it match perfectly with their BELIEFS in ”environmental determinism”.
He’s even worst than Swanky because s/he at least wasn’t dishonest, s’he was very clear about the nature of their assumptions = egalitarian-esque. He’s not.
Pumpkin,
you’re in contradictions here
in one hand you say neutral dna differences measured by genetic geographic distance is not the big picture, so, negritos in asia and negroids in africa, because their very similar phenotypes and behavioral levels are more similar one each other via non-neutral dna,
in other hand you use genetic geographic distances to affirm that east asians are the most evolved.
evolved in what*
Someone explain me why caucasians are used to represent modern human phenotypes and not east asians**
maybe eurocentrism*
i don’t think so, i think because caucasians are the human populations who was more modified since human population-basis, africans, BASED on out of africa theory.
So –many east asians have more primitive features than europeans, specially northwestern europeans.
The differences between a gifted and and non-gifted brain is a illusion, 😉
Pumpkin,
you’re in contradictions here
in one hand you say neutral dna differences measured by genetic geographic distance is not the big picture, so, negritos in asia and negroids in africa, because their very similar phenotypes and behavioral levels are more similar one each other via non-neutral dna,
in other hand you use genetic geographic distances to affirm that east asians are the most evolved.
Good point. Neutral genetic distance tells you how long ago people split, and who split from who. GENERALLY speaking, people who split from the family tree early are less evolved than people who split late, but not always. Phenotype tells you more precisely how much actual evolutionary change occurred in that time.
Now in MOST cases, there’s a high correlation between neutral genetic distance (time) and phenotype distance.
So I use BOTH measures to argue East Asians are most evolved. East Asians are BOTH descended from the most splits in the human family tree AND they’re the newest phenotype to appear in the fossil record.
But when you look at say Papuan New Guineans, you see a contradiction. Their evolutionary development as measured by the genetic tree shows them to be more advanced than Africans and a different race, but their phenotype shows them to have not much evolved from their African roots. So neutral DNA is GENERALLY a good indicator, but not always.
”Good point. Neutral genetic distance tells you how long ago people split, and who split from who. GENERALLY speaking, people who split from the family tree early are less evolved than people who split late, but not always. Phenotype tells you more precisely how much actual evolutionary change occurred in that time.”
Exactly.
People may have pretty significative genetic distance but very similar evolutionary levels. what’s happen between many human groups not just negritos and negrids.
And i already think that psychological phenotype can evolve completely different than physical phenotype, i mean, a hypothetical case of aboriginals with higher complex intelligence… or not.
every human group have their non-reached celling, in this case, for intelligence.
physiognomy is right, but it’s particular right to the certain evolutionary contexts and not universal… or not.
when humans become smarter they don’t only modify the environment but themselves, a kind of ancient ”genetic engineering”.
”Now in MOST cases, there’s a high correlation between neutral genetic distance (time) and phenotype distance.
So I use BOTH measures to argue East Asians are most evolved. East Asians are BOTH descended from the most splits in the human family tree AND they’re the newest phenotype to appear in the fossil record.
But when you look at say Papuan New Guineans, you see a contradiction. Their evolutionary development as measured by the genetic tree shows them to be more advanced than Africans and a different race, but their phenotype shows them to have not much evolved from their African roots. So neutral DNA is GENERALLY a good indicator, but not always.”
Probably because we are not just talking about geographical differences between groups but also environmental differences where humans were colonizing and the environmental differences between tropical africa and southeast asia is low in contrast with european, middle east and east asia environments.
the ”cold intelligence theory” fit very well with this model, even i thought tempered climate seems more decisive to increase dynamic thinking than too much cold or too much hot, well, because tempered climate is dynamic and more instable than intertropical, desertic or cold areas.
So i thought we can have a very evolved population-basis, specially, in particular aspects, like intelligence, and not-so-evolved derived populations and what tend to be the rule, the opposite pattern.
Based on certain aspects seems correct to say that east asians are the most evolved but don’t appear to be conclusively homogeneous for almost traits. Based on minimalistic evolutionary strategy, east asians are the most evolved.
I agree with RR and others IN THIS PERSPECTIVE that evolved or non-evolved will be relative.
well we are dealing with very complex stuff, very nuanced, it’s not easy, and should not be.
”Have another look at the writings of the pathological Jew haters and anti Semites Many of the Jew-haters here are not pathological. Thanks for your contribution as poster child.”
–
For Santo:
This is the wonderful America for you. Is Brazil just as stupid? I think America is stupider. I think the Romans were not as dumb. Romans were more pragmatic to say the least.
10. Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate Obama campaign fund-raising event.
09. Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population is black 40+ % of all federal entitlements goes to black Americans – 3X the rate that go to whites, 5X the rate that go to Hispanics!
08. Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee), BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
07. Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
06. Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just ‘magically’ become American citizens. (Probably should be number one)
05. Only in America could the people who believe in balancing t he budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be called EXTREMIST.
04. Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
03. Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. Oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
02. Only in America could you col lect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.
01. Only in America could the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.
Brazil is so dumb that still is dumber than “America”.
Too much pragmatic = immoral
Brazil can be even worse than “America” in all this list.
8- Sweden is worst.
“America”” is in the epicenter of Jewish idiocy.
Js,
What make hispanicism superficially better than anglosazonism model is that instead multiculturalism, hispanicism has been based on “multi”ethnicismbecause most of Latin American nations are momoculturals.
The only reason to bad functioning of multiethnic societies is not multiethnicity itself but because lack of eugenic selection.
But multiculturalism and based on human cultures “qualities” seems indissoluble.
People with different backgrounds and basically the same culture or little variation in cultural habits.
That’s correct. And America is not even multicultural. It’s a pluralistic society of devolution. A lot of dumb people doing different things that are dumb.
here again is the wikipedia article peepee won’t post:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_progress
here again is the book worth her time that she won’t read:
unlike race realist i have no issue with subjective judgements of more or less evolved. they may be impossible to operationalize, but i will stipulate that humans are more evolved than chimps.
but in general the newer taxon is just as likely to be less evolved as it is to be more evolved.
viruses evolving from bacteria is an example of evolution going from more complex to less complex.
and in terms of who looks least like apes…there’s no competition.
europeans and caucasoids generally have a facial skeleton which is least ape like.
and speaking of going from more to less complex…
all chinamen look alike…how can they even tell who’s who?
not really…
but close.
and even the chinapeople know this is TRUE.
i recall some white guy who wrote about china.
he was told, “your face is very three dimensional.”
He needs to read this book too.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19444315-adaptation-and-natural-selection
Unmoderate muh comments!!
Unmoderate muh comments!!
Why? They’re just a rehash of arguments I’ve already responded to. When you have something new to say about this topic, you can do so, but until then, let’s agree to disagree.
Fine. Fair enough. I was enjoying this ongoing debate though.
As you can tell, I look for things to argue about. I do this everywhere and this is probably why I got banned from The Alternative Hypothesis.
i will stipulate that humans are more evolved than chimps.
I’m very impressed. But I think it’s very easy to operationalize because we have taxonomic classifications. My theory is that when comparing two life forms, you simply look at the lowest taxanomic classification they both belong to, and then you determine, who has more ancestors at the taxanomic level right below it.
For example, let’s say humans and Neanderthals are two different species that both belong to the genus Homo. They share a common Homo ancestor. If both are an equal number of species removed the common ancestor, both are equally evolved, but if humans are two species removed the common ancestor, and Neanderthals are only one, then humans are more evolved.
As for Caucasoids and Mongoloids, they are both races belonging to the human species, and both share a common ancestor. If both are just one race removed from the common ancestor, both are equally evolved, but if Mongoloids are two races removed from the common ancestor, or if Caucasoids ARE the common ancestor, then Mongoloids are more evolved.
Then within each macro-race, you can similarly rank the micro-races, but the most evolved micro-race within a primitive macro-race will always be less evolved than the least evolved micro-race within an advanced macro-race.
More evolved doesn’t nessecarily mean more complex or superior but generally speaking it does.
But backwards evolution can and does happen. Homo floresiensis for example probably evolved from Homo Erectus, so by definition is more evolved, but it has a much smaller brain than its ancestor.
I was going to spend my night with Steve Weiser and Mary Jane, but this is more fun to me than that.
RR vs PP round 6 million
“I’m very impressed. But I think it’s very easy to operationalize because we have taxonomic classifications. My theory is that when comparing two life forms, you simply look at the lowest taxanomic classification they both belong to, and then you determine, who has more ancestors at the taxanomic level right below it.”
Actually, scientists say that chimps are ‘more evolved’ than we:
http://www.livescience.com/1429-chimps-evolved-humans.html
I hate this concept; it has no bearing in evolutionary biology.
“For example, let’s say humans and Neanderthals are two different species that both belong to the genus Homo. They share a common Homo ancestor. If both are an equal number of species removed the common ancestor, both are equally evolved, but if humans are two species removed the common ancestor, and Neanderthals are only one, then humans are more evolved.”
Retarded conjecture.
The above graph shows that since all species alive today share a common ancestor, that they all have had the same time evolving.
“As for Caucasoids and Mongoloids, they are both races belonging to the human species, and both share a common ancestor. If both are just one race removed from the common ancestor, both are equally evolved, but if Mongoloids are two races removed from the common ancestor, or if Caucasoids ARE the common ancestor, then Mongoloids are more evolved.”
No.
With how you may read phylogenetic tress, this is what you see, but in actuality it doesn’t say that at all. Let me quote Berkely, and they conveniently have a section on your specific misconception of ‘more evolved’:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evotrees_interpretations
Berkely cites papers that talks about all of these misconceptions you have on phylogenetic trees. No biologist reads trees like you do. Though, laymen do.
“More evolved doesn’t nessecarily mean more complex or superior but generally speaking it does.”
What are you talking about? It most definitely means that.
Implying one organism is ‘more evolved’ than another means they are more ‘complex’ or ‘superior’ in comparison to ‘lower’ organisms. This isn’t true.
“But backwards evolution can and does happen. Homo floresiensis for example probably evolved from Homo Erectus, so by definition is more evolved, but it has a much smaller brain than its ancestor.”
Do you even consistency, PP? H. floresiensis would be ‘less evolved’ than H. erectus using your metrics. However, as I’ve shown in my article the other day, he evolved that way due to the climate and island dwarfism. Look it up, it’s a cool concept. Where you’re wrong is saying that just because an organism came from an ancestor is different that it’s ‘more evolved’. But H. floresiensis went ‘devolved’ in comparison to H. erectus. So it seems your theory is not consistent. Why?
I also wrote a nice post on this last night:
Moreover, whatever traits you choose to say that one is ‘more evolved’ than another, scientists don’t even agree that this can be quantified to show progressive evolution, much less ‘complexity’ or ‘superiority’.
I found the perfect paper talking about that last night but I forgot to save it. I’ll link it when I find it.
“My theory is that when comparing two life forms, you simply look at the lowest taxanomic classification they both belong to, and then you determine, who has more ancestors at the taxanomic level right below it.”
Forgot to add:
This is laughably wrong and Berkely has specifically written about this common intuitive misconception when reading phylogenetic trees. Please read the specific papers Berkely cites to see how you’re reading these trees wrong.
This part blasts your theory out of the water:
INTUITIVE INTERPRETATION: Taxa that appear near the top of a side-oriented tree or on the right-hand side of an upright phylogeny are more advanced than other organisms on the tree.
SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION: A taxon’s position on a phylogeny is a function of its relationship to other taxa and the way that the phylogeny’s branches are rotated. The position or placement of a terminal taxon is not an indication of how adaptive, specialized, or extreme its traits are.
EXPLANATION: When exploring such intuitive reasoning, it’s important to note first that the idea of evolutionary “advancement” is not a particularly scientific idea. It is tempting to view organisms that are more similar to humans as more “advanced”; however, this is a biased and invalid perspective. There is no universal scale for “advancement” that favors human-like traits over spider-like, whale-like, or fir-like traits. We can use phylogenetics to study the evolution of eyes, photosynthetic ability, or any other trait, but such traits are not the equivalent of evolutionary advancement. Second, note that taxa with extreme versions of traits (e.g., complex eyes or a complicated photosynthetic pathway) may occur on any terminal branch irrespective of branch location. Tree designers sometimes place such taxa near the top or right-hand side of a phylogeny, but by rotating branches around nodes, we can generate many equivalent phylogenies in which taxa with extreme traits appear in different positions on the tree.”
When exploring such intuitive reasoning, it’s important to note first that the idea of evolutionary “advancement” is not a particularly scientific idea. It is tempting to view organisms that are more similar to humans as more “advanced”; however, this is a biased and invalid perspective. There is no universal scale for “advancement” that favors human-like traits over spider-like, whale-like, or fir-like traits.
Postmodernist egalitarian propaganda has even spread to zoology.
We can use phylogenetics to study the evolution of eyes, photosynthetic ability, or any other trait, but such traits are not the equivalent of evolutionary advancement. Second, note that taxa with extreme versions of traits (e.g., complex eyes or a complicated photosynthetic pathway) may occur on any terminal branch irrespective of branch location. Tree designers sometimes place such taxa near the top or right-hand side of a phylogeny, but by rotating branches around nodes, we can generate many equivalent phylogenies in which taxa with extreme traits appear in different positions on the tree.”
When you’re comparing life forms of equivalent taxa, you can not arbitrary reorient the tree. You have a common ancestor A. A splits into branches B and C. If B does not split, but C splits into D and E, then D and E are typically more evolved than B, because each split typically (not always) represents an evolutionary development like speciation.
Your Berkeley quotes are way too sophomoric for a blog as advanced as this one. You need to step up your game big time if you wan to continue this discussion.
Actually, scientists say that chimps are ‘more evolved’ than we:
I thought you said there was no such thing as “more evolved”. So you now admit you were wrong.
Chimps could be more evolved than humans but it’s pretty unlikely, given their inferiority. I would have to examine their taxonomical history to be sure though, to see which lineage has travelled through more equivalent level taxa.
I hate this concept; it has no bearing in evolutionary biology.
We hate things we can’t understand.
Retarded conjecture.
Actually it’s brilliant conjecture. I’m sorry if it’s just too subtle for you.
The above graph shows that since all species alive today share a common ancestor, that they all have had the same time evolving.
Duh! But the concept you can’t seem to grasp is equal time evolving != equal amount of evolving.
It’s like saying, Usain Bolt and I both spent an hour running. We must have travelled the same amount of distance. Don’t be stupid, RaceRealist!
No
Good comeback.
Intuitive Interpretation: Some living (i.e., extant) species have longer evolutionary histories than others (i.e., have been evolving for a longer time), and so some species are more or less “evolved” than other extant species. (<——– This is you, PP vvvvv this is how you read it)
Scientific Interpretation: Since all extant species are alive today and share a common ancestor (one that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago!), all extant species have been evolving the same amount of time. (vvvvv this is the explanation)
Duh!
You continue to miss the point. See my Usain Bolt analogy above. Two people can run for the same amount of time but one has traveled through more spatial distance. Similarly, two lineages can evolve for an equal amount of time, but one has evolved through more taxonomical distance.
What are you talking about? It most definitely means that.
More evolved only means superior or more complex if you believe evolution is progressive, the very assertion you deny.
But without the assumption of progress, more evolved simply means having undergone more evolutionary change.
Do you even consistency, PP? H. floresiensis would be ‘less evolved’ than H. erectus using your metrics.
No you’ve misunderstood my argument. If H floresiens evolved from H erectus, then by definition it is more evolved because it has evolved into one extra taxa then its ancestor.
My argument is (1) some extant organisms are more evolved than others, and (2) more evolved organisms are ON AVERAGE superior to less evolved organisms, but there are lots of exceptions to this general trend
You keep conflating argument 1 with argument 2. Please read more carefully before belabouring this point.
However, as I’ve shown in my article the other day, he evolved that way due to the climate and island dwarfism. Look it up, it’s a cool concept.
Yes, I’m well aware of that theory.
“Postmodernist egalitarian propaganda has even spread to zoology.”
Strawman.
You damn well know my politics, so you can’t say that I hold this view because I’m a postmodernist egalitarian spreading this to zoology.
Good comeback.
You can use those words all you want, that doesn’t say anything to what is written. You’re just politicizing this conversation when I’ve brought no politics into it.
I guess Darwin was one of those too since he wrote a note to himself to never call species “higher” or “lower” than one another; but what does he know?
“When you’re comparing life forms of equivalent taxa, you can not arbitrary reorient the tree. You have a common ancestor A. A splits into branches B and C. If B does not split, but C splits into D and E, then D and E are typically more evolved than B, because each split typically (not always) represents an evolutionary development like speciation.”
Still repeating the same garbage.
This is so funny and so wrong. An organism may have “more advanced” (whatever arbitrary trait you want to use) than another and be “lower” on the tree.
A population splitting off from another and becoming a founder population for a new species don’t mean that the new species is “more evolved”; it just means a gross misunderstanding of reading evolutionary trees and thinking about evolution.
The tree doesn’t equal “A < B < C < D". This is what you don't understand.
"I thought you said there was no such thing as “more evolved”. So you now admit you were wrong."
No no. I still used "quotes" for "more evolved". Just showing what the article said. Of course popular science articles use shitty, attention-grabbing titles; that's how they get clicks.
"Your Berkeley quotes are way too sophomoric for a blog as advanced as this one. You need to step your game big time if you wan to continue this discussion."
I laughed. I love your blog and there's great conversation and you have good ideas, but you're wrong on somethings and progressive evolution is one of them. You can say I "need to step my game up if I want to continue discussion", but I'm bringing up good points. I'm directly showing how you're wrong in reading these trees. Read the papers they cite, surveys were taken on how people read these trees and many people, like you, read them the completely wrong way. The biologists corrected it. You calling it postmodernist egalitarian propaganda is meaningless because I'm not pushing an egalitarian argument, I don't believe in egalitarianism at all. I believe each organism is "good enough" for its environment and when the environment changes for good, it will change and develop new phenotypic traits. That doesn't mean that the new species is "more evolved", it means that evolution occurred to better survive. That's it. Any reading into trees like you do is wrong and has been pointed out. You're just repeating the same tired things that have been rebutted. But I need to step my game up. OK.
"Chimps could be more evolved than humans but it’s pretty unlikely, given their inferiority. I would have to examine their taxonomical history to be sure though, to see which lineage has travelled through more equivalent level taxa."
Chimps are suited to their environment. That's not an 'egalitarian statement", that's the truth. The term has no biological basis. It's 'good enough' for its environment. You're just rehashing the great chain of being which is garbage.
"We hate things we can’t understand."
I completely understand it. I've shown there's no unidirectional trends in evolution due to the frequency of environmental change, the multitude of factors underlying fitness, the possibility of frequency-dependant epistatic interactions amongst features, and selection occurring within population. But I don't "understand" it.
"Actually it’s brilliant conjecture. I’m sorry if it’s just too subtle for you."
Too subtle? I just showed you how to read it and you're saying it's "too subtle" for me? You're the one with fantasies of evolution being progressive and "more evolved" organisms. This has no evolutionary basis. I've established that. Rushton=psychologist. Not evolutionary biologist. I love Rushton, but of course by going outside of his field he'd make wrong conjectures. Do you believe everything that Rushton ever wrote? Do you think he was wrong on anything?
"Duh! But the concept you can’t seem to grasp is equal time evolving != equal amount of evolving."
No way to quantify this. Any traits chosen will be arbitrary. This is what you don't seem to grasp. Which of Darwin's Finches are 'more evolved'? You read trees so horribly wrong. Please go tell Razib how you read these trees. I want to see what he says.
"It’s like saying, Usain Bolt and I both spent an hour running. We must have travelled the same amount of distance. Don’t be stupid, RaceRealist!"
Wow, you win. sarcasm
Read up on muscle fiber typing and get back to me.
"he runs faster than me for a short amount of time; this proves that there are 'more evolved' organisms than others". How stupid does that sound? Don't be stupid, PumpkinPerson!
"Good comeback."
I showed how you're wrong the evolutionary tree.
An organisms placement on the tree is arbitrary, the trees branches can be rotated, blah blah blah. There's so much information for you to read about this out there. Here.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=misconceptions+on+evolutionary+trees
"You continue to miss the point. See my Usain Bolt analogy above. Two people can run for the same amount of time but when can have traveled through more spatial distance. Similarly, two lineages can evolve for an equal amount of time, but one has evolved through more taxonomical distance."
I do not miss the point. Your Usain Bolt analogy is garbage. Just because one "evolves through more taxonomical distance" doesn't mean that it's "more evolved". Email any evolutionary biologist or stop by Razib and tell him what you think on this matter.
There is one species. One small subset of that one species diverges 500 miles away into a completely different environment. Selection only occurs on heritable alleles. Over time since this species isn't adapted to that environment, those who can't survive die. Those who survived incurred mutations to help them survive and through natural selection they passed on the heritable gene variants to help them survive. They turn into a new species. The same thing happens again. The third species is not "more evolved" than the two previous ones. It went through different selection pressures and thus different heritable phenotypic traits occurred in that organism so it could survive. Just because an organism goes through different selection pressures doesn't mean it's "more evolved" because of differing selection pressures.
Let's say that whites and East Asians died out one day, only leaving the equatorial races. Are they still "more evolved". Do you see how retarded that is now?
"More evolved only means superior or more complex if you believe evolution is progressive, the very assertion you deny."
I do deny. I said that as "more evolved means superior or more complex" because they would logically follow. That's the logical progression. As I've said, you're rehashing the great chain of being.
"But without the assumption of progress, more evolved simply means having undergone more evolutionary change."
Not quantifiable. I've written at least 20,000 words on this on why you're wrong.
You're venturing into philosophy with your statements. Specifically axiology. So right there with your philosophizing on the subject, you're stepping out of the realm of science.
The 'more evolutionary change' occurred due to a different environment. 'More change' isn't 'more time' evolving. This isn't scientifically quantifiable.
"No you’ve misunderstood my argument. If H floresiens evolved from H erectus, then by definition it is more evolved because it has evolved into one extra taxa then its ancestor."
Your argument is baseless in biology. It's 'more evolved' yet smaller in stature and with a smaller brain; the thing that "more evolved" organisms don't have. You just said that brain size and intelligence correlate with the tree branches, which is implying brain size and intelligence to be the traits you've chosen. Well I choose ability to breath underwater naturally. Who's 'most evolved' then? Ask any biologist about this, see what they say.
"My argument is (1) some extant organisms are more evolved than others"
This is a premise, not an argument.
"more evolved organisms are ON AVERAGE superior to less evolved organisms, but there are lots of exceptions to this general trend"
This is a premise, not an argument.
"You keep conflating argument 1 with argument 2. Please read more carefully before belabouring this point."
Those are premises, not arguments. Please learn the difference between premises and arguments.
Your argument (1) is wrong, premise one is wrong. Your argument (2) is wrong, premise two is wrong. Therefore your overall argument, your whole argument is unsound as they are comprised of two false premises.
Those two premises are not arguments, they are premises.
"Yes, I’m well aware of that theory."
This is one reason why it occurred, the 'devolution' of H. floresiensis, AKA evolving to adapt to its environment.
You damn well know my politics, so you can’t say that I hold this view because I’m a postmodernist egalitarian spreading this to zoology.
The people you are citing are brainwashed by postmodernist views and you accept their interpretations uncritically.
Still repeating the same garbage.
This is so funny and so wrong. An organism may have “more advanced” (whatever arbitrary trait you want to use) than another and be “lower” on the tree.
Of course. But generally speaking, the more splits on the evolutionary tree you’re descended from, the more evolved you are.
A population splitting off from another and becoming a founder population for a new species don’t mean that the new species is “more evolved”;
Of course it does. More evolved means having undergone more evolution. How do you know when you’ve undergone more evolution? When you’ve evolved into something new.
RaceRealist is saying “just because we ran a mile, and you split off and ran another mile, doesn’t mean you’ve run more miles than me!”
Yes it does.
The tree doesn’t equal “A < B < C < D". This is what you don't understand.
No, RaceRealist, I’m not merely reading from left to right. What I’m saying is A < B = C < D = E
Splits on a tree typically indicate speciation. So whatever species is descended from the greatest number of splits, typically has the most species in its ancestry. Since evolving into a new species reflects evolutionary change, whoever is the descendent of the most species (within a given taxa) has experienced the most evolutionary change. Most evolutionary changed = most evolved.
I laughed. I love your blog and there’s great conversation and you have good ideas, but you’re wrong on somethings and progressive evolution is one of them. You can say I “need to step my game up if I want to continue discussion”, but I’m bringing up good points. I’m directly showing how you’re wrong in reading these trees. Read the papers they cite, surveys were taken on how people read these trees and many people, like you, read them the completely wrong way. The biologists corrected it.
When the biologist say it doesn’t matter which species is on the left or right of the tree, they are correct. However my point is that whichever species is descended from the most SPLITS on the tree is TYPCALLY the most evolved. If you don’t like the term most evolved, then can we at least agree they’ve generally undergone the most evolutionary change?
You calling it postmodernist egalitarian propaganda is meaningless because I’m not pushing an egalitarian argument, I don’t believe in egalitarianism at all. I believe each organism is “good enough” for its environment and when the environment changes for good, it will change and develop new phenotypic traits. That doesn’t mean that the new species is “more evolved”
Yes actually that’s exactly what it means. Undergoing more evolutionary change makes you more evolved. It doesn’t matter WHY you’re more evolved.
Any reading into trees like you do is wrong and has been pointed out. You’re just repeating the same tired things that have been rebutted.
If they’ve been rebutted, explain the high correlation between number of splits each of these populations is descended from, and brain size/IQ. If number of splits is completely meaningless, no such correlation should exist:
No way to quantify this. Any traits chosen will be arbitrary. This is what you don’t seem to grasp.
More evolved is quantified by the number of taxa you’re descended from within a given taxa. The traits favoured are not arbitrary, they’re decided by examining the most evolved specimens.
Let’s say that whites and East Asians died out one day, only leaving the equatorial races. Are they still “more evolved”.
Yes they are, until the equatorial races catch up to where the Eurasians left off.
Your argument is baseless in biology. It’s ‘more evolved’ yet smaller in stature and with a smaller brain; the thing that “more evolved” organisms don’t have. You just said that brain size and intelligence correlate with the tree branches,
Correlation != PERFECT correlation
I do deny. I said that as “more evolved means superior or more complex” because they would logically follow.
But according to you evolution is not progressive so why would more evolved imply superior? If evolution is completely directionless as you imply, then more evolved organisms would be just as likely to be inferior as superior.
RaceRealist logic: “people don’t walk in any direction, but the people who’ve walked most have walked most North”
You just said that brain size and intelligence correlate with the tree branches, which is implying brain size and intelligence to be the traits you’ve chosen. Well I choose ability to breath underwater naturally. Who’s ‘most evolved’ then?
Whoever has gone through the most evolutionary change since the shared common ancestor.
“My definition is having undergone more evolution, full stop. So a monkey that evolves into a human and then evolves back into a monkey is more evolved than a monkey that merely evolves into a human. But as far as I know, examples of backwards evolution are relatively rare (homo florensis is the only documented case among primates, and even it is extremely controversial) but Mugabe has implied it’s common in simpler organisms. But perhaps once you get beyond a basic threshold of complexity, it becomes very unlikely to go backwards.”
Monkeys don’t “evolve” into humans!!! You have a Pokemon-like understanding of evolution. It’s pretty concrete. They had to have come from somewhere and I documented great evidence that shows it’s true. It is ‘common’ in ‘simpler organisms’. And it’d be common for humans too, the ‘most evolved’ ‘most adaptable’ species. We will respond to our environment.
An asteroid crashes into earth and blocks out the sun. Then what? We’d evolve differently. We wouldn’t be ‘more evolved’ if we changed into a new species if that pressure was long enough. ‘Complexity’ is not definable in biology!
Click to access McShea%20-%20Complexity%20and%20Evolution%20what%20Everybody%20Knows%20(1991).pdf
“The latter. If an organism has to evolve into a new species to adapt to its environment, then obviously the original species was not very adaptable. Humans are arguably the most adaptable organism precisely because we’re one of the few organisms that doesn’t have to evolve in order to adapt. We don’t need to change our genes because we can change our behavior, and now we’ve even learned how to change our behavior to change our genes.”
What do you mean? The founding population of the new species was the same as the old species. But through natural selection (and even when NS is weak as I’ve shown), changes occur. But that doesn’t mean “more evolved” or “more adaptable”. It means an organism survived because it was “good enough”.
When humans die out for good and other organisms are still here, will we still be ‘more evolved’?
I’ve shown 6 million times that we aren’t as ‘complex’ as you think we are.
Monkeys don’t “evolve” into humans!!! You have a Pokemon-like understanding of evolution. It’s pretty concrete.
You have a concrete definition of a monkey. Broadly speaking, a monkey is any sub-human higher primate, including the anthropoid apes
An asteroid crashes into earth and blocks out the sun. Then what? We’d evolve differently.
Under extreme cases we’d evolve drastically, but unlike other animals, we went from sub-Saharan Africa to the arctic without evolving into a new species. That’s an incredible accomplishment.
We wouldn’t be ‘more evolved’ if we changed into a new species if that pressure was long enough.
Yes we would because in order to evolve into something new, you have to do MORE EVOLVING!
‘Complexity’ is not definable in biology!
Sure it is. Most people would agree that angiosperms are more complex than slime molds and that multicellular organisms are more complex that prokaryotes with no nucleus, and that the human mind is more complex than a snake’s brain.
What do you mean? The founding population of the new species was the same as the old species. But through natural selection (and even when NS is weak as I’ve shown), changes occur.
If the founding population were able to adapt as it was, changes would not have needed to occur.
When humans die out for good and other organisms are still here, will we still be ‘more evolved’?
Yes, but maybe in another few million years, something else will have experienced even more evolution than we have.
I’ve shown 6 million times that we aren’t as ‘complex’ as you think we are
The human mind is the most complex known object in the universe.
Not an argument. I can say that Rushton is brain washed. Where does that get us?
Not quantifiable. Any trait chosen is arbitrary.
No one looks, except laymen, look at a tree like that and see what you’re seeing. Email Cavalli about that.
Evolving into something new, speciation, occurs due to pressures from the environment. You’re trying to throw a mask of evolutionary progress there, but it doesn’t work like that.
Splitting off means nothing.
But ‘progress to adapt’ doesn’t always mean ‘gets better’, in the grand, anthropomorphic scheme of things. Cave animals for example have evolved to lose their sense of sight (because mutations that negatively disrupted vision were not detrimental, and actually allowed them to save energy that otherwise would be spent towards maintaining vision systems). They’re better fit for living in caves, but I think one could easily argue that that adaptation significantly reduced their ability to survive elsewhere. Similarly, a polar bear putting on extra padding and thicker fur makes it better suited for the arctic, but strikingly less suited for further south ranges, and not surprisingly, you don’t see polar bears in the US.
Evolution pressures organisms to become better fit to the environment they’re currently in, because those organisms that are better suited than their competitors are the one’s that produce yet more competitive progeny to continue the process. Evolution doesn’t care about more evolved Zorn progress, or your masked great chain of being. It’s an ongoing process, whether there is speciation or not. That’s what you don’t understand.
Trees are read in terms of most recent common ancestors. The ancestor before is not more or less evolved. And when you bring this argument to human races you’re most definitely applying superiority here which I’ve shown doesn’t exist in biology. You’ve basically just read left to right. You’re saying a is better than b who’s better than c who’s better than d who’s better than e. Each one is set for their environment. Saying one is more evolved is a stealth way to say “superior” and “progressive” evolution.
And other times you’d be wrong. Because trees aren’t just not typically read like that, they are never read kkk that. It’s in terms of common ancestors.
This is such a 5th grade understanding of an ultra complex concept. Evolution is an ongoing process. So one species isn’t more evolved than its predecessor. This is where your misconceptions are huge.
This is an utterly ridiculous claim, because ‘number of splits’ has literally nothing to do with ‘duration of separation’, and everything to do with A ) resolution used to depict the tree, and B ) number of offshoots. For example, monotremes are one of the three original mammal offshoots, and there have been very few offshoots from that lineage relative to marsupials or eutherians. Explain the high correlation? Because those groups went to colder climates. Simple.
But they would be arbitrary. Because organisms survive with the traits they have. Natural selection selects from the current heritable variations already in that species. Therefore any traits you choose will be arbitrary. You can’t say E is more evolved than A because it comes from more splits. Please ask Razib Khan if that’s correct. Or email a biologist. I’d love to see the response.
Evolution is not a linear line. It won’t happen the same for others. What do t you get about that? Evolution isn’t linear.
If it happened once it’ll happen again. The fact that it happened to H. erectus, one with a bigger brain, it throws a wrench in your theory. Island dwarfism is also another reason why they changed that abruptly. That doesn’t mean more evolved. It mean different selection pressure.
“More evolved” implies “superior”. If the “more evolved” organism is “more evolved” than the “less evolved” organism, that means its “higher” than the other organism. That’s “superiority”. It doesn’t exist in biology. Yes more “evolved organisms” are just as likely to be “inferior” than “less evolved” organisms. Because evolution has no direction. No organism is worse or better than another. No organism is “more or less evolved” than another.
Whoever goes through evolutionary change has to to to survive. Evolutionary trees are read in terms of most common ancestors. That’s it.
Not quantifiable. Any trait chosen is arbitrary.
When biologists define something as having evolved into a new species, they look at the totality of traits.
No one looks, except laymen, look at a tree like that and see what you’re seeing. Email Cavalli about that.
The layman are right in this case. I used to be like you and thought the position on the tree was meaningless. But when Rushton implied it had meaning, I was so intrigued I decided to keep an open mind and gradually I figured out the logic behind why it actually DOES matter.
Evolving into something new, speciation, occurs due to pressures from the environment.
Of course. The more environmental pressure you put on a species, the more evolved it becomes. And typically the lineages with the most splits on the evolutionary tree are those that have experienced the most environmental pressure. That’s what caused them to split in the first place. For example a sudden drought in Africa destroying a chunk of forest that apes normally cross, thus dividing one ape species into two.
You’re trying to throw a mask of evolutionary progress there, but it doesn’t work like that.
I am, but more evolved in and of itself does not imply progress, unless you agree that evolution is progressive. It’s true that in the layman sense “more evolved” means superior, but that’s because the layman agrees with me that evolution is progressive. In other words, you’re arguing two contradictory points:
1) evolution is not progressive
2) more evolved means superior
But ‘progress to adapt’ doesn’t always mean ‘gets better’, in the grand, anthropomorphic scheme of things. Cave animals for example have evolved to lose their sense of sight (because mutations that negatively disrupted vision were not detrimental, and actually allowed them to save energy that otherwise would be spent towards maintaining vision systems). They’re better fit for living in caves, but I think one could easily argue that that adaptation significantly reduced their ability to survive elsewhere. Similarly, a polar bear putting on extra padding and thicker fur makes it better suited for the arctic, but strikingly less suited for further south ranges, and not surprisingly, you don’t see polar bears in the US.
Evolution pressures organisms to become better fit to the environment they’re currently in, because those organisms that are better suited than their competitors are the one’s that produce yet more competitive progeny to continue the process.
Yes of course, but it still might be the case that some organisms can adapt to more environments than others.
Evolution doesn’t care about more evolved Zorn progress, or your masked great chain of being. It’s an ongoing process, whether there is speciation or not. That’s what you don’t understand.
Yes of course it’s an ongoing process, but what you don’t understand is that just as a foot is a unit of geographic distance, a species is a unit of evolutionary distance. So two bugs are continuously crawling. It’s an ongoing process, but one bug passes through two feet of geographic distance and the other only passes through one. The latter bug still keeps crawling, but it hasn’t crawled as much.
Similarly, two bugs are both evolving for the same amount of time. Neither stops evolving. But one bug speciates twice, the other bug speciates once. The former has travelled more evolutionary distance than the latter because species is a unit for measuring evolutionary distance. So is race, but it reflects less distance. So is genus, but it reflects more distance etc.
Trees are read in terms of most recent common ancestors. The ancestor before is not more or less evolved.
Yes it is. Humans evolved from Homo erectus (with a few species in between). That makes Homo erectus less evolved than we are. Even if homo erectus were still alive, it would still be less evolved than we are because the mere fact that it would still be homo erectus means it hasn’t yet done enough evolving to qualify as a new species. That’s the measure of evolutionary change!
And when you bring this argument to human races you’re most definitely applying superiority here which I’ve shown doesn’t exist in biology. You’ve basically just read left to right. You’re saying a is better than b who’s better than c who’s better than d who’s better than e. Each one is set for their environment. Saying one is more evolved is a stealth way to say “superior” and “progressive” evolution.
Only if you believe evolution is progressive does more evolved = superior. I do believe evolution is progressive, but even I don’t believe more evolved = superior, I believe more evolved CORRELATES with superiority. And it’s not about left to right, it’s about less splits vs more splits. Trees can be reoriented so that the most splits can occur on either the left or right of the tree, and in the case of the tree I showed, the most splits occur in the middle.
This is such a 5th grade understanding of an ultra complex concept.
And when you graduate from the 4th grade, maybe you’ll understand it.
Evolution is an ongoing process. So one species isn’t more evolved than its predecessor. This is where your misconceptions are huge.
No it’s where your misconception is huge. Just because evolution is an ongoing process doesn’t mean some things are not more evolved than others. More evolved means having undergone more evolutionary change. Whether change is progressive or not is a separate issue, but when a scientists declares something to have evolved into a new species, he is saying it has crossed a milestone in evolutionary distance. As the punctuated equilibrium implies, there is a long period of stasis followed by a huge jump in evolutionary change (speciation).
This is an utterly ridiculous claim, because ‘number of splits’ has literally nothing to do with ‘duration of separation’, and everything to do with A ) resolution used to depict the tree, and B ) number of offshoots.
Race is the level of resolution the tree depicts and the number of lineages reflects the number of races (as Cavalli-Sforza defined them). Splits in an evolutionary tree typically correspond to environmental pressures that caused one race to split into two. For example the first split on the tree is the split between Africans and non-Africans because the pressure to find food drove some humans out of Africa. The reason we see the high correlation between intelligence and splits is because the races descended from the most splits are lineages that endured the most environmental pressures.
Explain the high correlation? Because those groups went to colder climates. Simple.
And going to colder and colder climates created environmental pressures that caused populations to split.
Now look at this tree, this time on the level of human species not races. Once again we see the same pattern. The two species descended from the most splits (Sapiens and Neanderthals) are the most intelligent (and notice they’re on the left of the tree, not the right). The species from the next most splits (heidelbergensis) is the next most intelligent. In fact with the exception of floresiensis, there’s a virtually perfect correlation between intelligence and splits. Still think the amount of splitting is meaningless? If so, how do you explain the correlation this time?
But they would be arbitrary. Because organisms survive with the traits they have. Natural selection selects from the current heritable variations already in that species. Therefore any traits you choose will be arbitrary. You can’t say E is more evolved than A because it comes from more splits.
Yes you can, roughly speaking, because splits strongly correlate with speciation (or other taxa change), and every time you become a new species/race/genus/kingdom etc, you’ve crossed an evolutionary milestone. You simply have no conception of evolutionary distance or the measurement thereof.
Please ask Razib Khan if that’s correct.
No I don’t need Razib’s approval for my original theory (built upon Rushton’s insight)
Evolution is not a linear line. It won’t happen the same for others. What do t you get about that? Evolution isn’t linear.
I agree it wont happen the same for others. But whatever form it takes, a lineage that does more evolving than we have will probably be judged to be quite impressive if we were around to see it.
If it happened once it’ll happen again. The fact that it happened to H. erectus, one with a bigger brain, it throws a wrench in your theory. Island dwarfism is also another reason why they changed that abruptly. That doesn’t mean more evolved. It mean different selection pressure.
Becoming a new taxa means more evolved. Period. Of course it can happen again but my theory never assumed a perfect correlation between more evolved and superiority. It allows for more evolved species being inferior every now and then, as long as they’re the exception that proves the rule.
.
“More evolved” implies “superior”. If the “more evolved” organism is “more evolved” than the “less evolved” organism, that means its “higher” than the other organism. That’s “superiority”. It doesn’t exist in biology. Yes more “evolved organisms” are just as likely to be “inferior” than “less evolved” organisms. Because evolution has no direction. No organism is worse or better than another. No organism is “more or less evolved” than another.
It depends how you define superior in the evolutionary context. Put simply, more evolved species, as I have defined them, are judged to be more impressive than less evolved species, even if they’re just plants. As Bonner implied, angiosperms are more impressive than slime molds.
Whoever goes through evolutionary change has to to to survive.
It doesn’t matter why A experienced more evolutionary change than B, all that matters is that it did.
They still don’t evolve into humans.
Yes they fucken did. The last common ancestor of humans and chimps was monkey, broadly defined.
Sewall Wright believed the Fst value to be great enough between the races to call them separate species. He would know because he kinda invented the concept.
Fst values mostly reflect junk DNA and don’t code for any actual phenotypic transformation. Morphologically, all humans are the same species.
That more evolved organism will die in an environment where its no suited. It’s that simple.
I agree 100%, but I believe that GENERALLY speaking, more evolved organisms can survive in more environments than less evolved organism. I keep talking about a general trend and you keep citing specific exceptions.
Who is “most people”? Average Joe and Jane? Why should I care what a layperson thinks?
Because some traits are so subtle, they can only be measured by asking humans to judge them, but if those judgements correlate, they can be considered an objective measure.
The founding population adapted genotypically which obviously after that occurs the phenotype is affected. Then speciation occurs after long enough. Remember Punctuated Equilibria. Long time in stasis, quick jump to a new species. Most fossils have been in stasis. When an organism moves into an area, it either adapts or dies. Those traits are already in the population, natural selection selects for alleles that are beneficial to that organism. If the founding population can’t adapt, it wouldn’t have turned into the new species anyway. This is where you’re confused.
No that’s where YOU’RE confused. Humans moved into new environments and we didn’t need to evolve into any new species. We were adaptable enough as we were. If the only way you can adapt is by changing what you are, then what you are is not adaptable enough!
Why should I care about “maybe”? I care about what’s quantifiable. From what I’m seeing, you’re attempting to revive the great chain of being. It’s a junk argument. Time matters, not amount of splits, for evolution.
Wrong! It’s not how long you’ve been driving that determines the distance travelled, it’s how fast you drive. If you branch off the highway prematurely, you’re not going to travel as fast as someone doesn’t branch off the highway until the last exit.
The universe is the most complex known object in the universe.
The universe is not in the universe.
”Monkeys don’t “evolve” into humans!!! You have a Pokemon-like understanding of evolution. It’s pretty concrete.”
Seems this argument ”duh, humans don’t evolve (directly) from monkeys” was created by atheists to refute theist people who laughed about that ”absurd” ”duh, from the night to the day, a ‘monkey’ have a human kid”.
Humans evolved from a intermediary species, between them and the nearest primate species, and this intermediary species came from this primates…
so, i don’t think it’s completely wrong to say ”humans evolved from monkey”.
to the good listener (and to this particular subject), half word is enough.
”A population splitting off from another and becoming a founder population for a new species don’t mean that the new species is “more evolved””
Of course not, species evolved, devolved, go to be extincted, remain stagned, etc… the fit between organism and environment and environmental-organism changes is not always perfect.
Seems your fundamental argument may be ”environment change so much that what we define ”more evolved” will not be tomorrow, so this idea ‘evolution is progressive’ is nonsense”.
Dinossaurs are the example of very succesful evolutionary case and ”unluck”, well, after million years of world domination they was extinct via asteroid shock in earth surface.
“When biologists define something as having evolved into a new species, they look at the totality of traits.”
That backwater at Berkeley has, of course, an article on this.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
When genes can’t flow between two species is when speciation occurs.
That’s really where the demarcation of species is.
“The layman are right in this case. I used to be like you and thought the position on the tree was meaningless. But when Rushton implied it had meaning, I was so intrigued I decided to keep an open mind and gradually I figured out the logic behind why it actually DOES matter.”
So trust laymen, who have no idea about biology, over scientists who do and specifically make these trees? Ummm OK. So Rushton implied it, it implored you to look deeper and how you defend it–like a religion–so much that you can’t see where your reasoning is flawed on reading trees. It doesn’t really matter. Evolution is random. It’s an ongoing process. It’s not linear.
“Of course. The more environmental pressure you put on a species, the more evolved it becomes. And typically the lineages with the most splits on the evolutionary tree are those that have experienced the most environmental pressure. That’s what caused them to split in the first place. For example a sudden drought in Africa destroying a chunk of forest that apes normally cross, thus dividing one ape species into two.”
Of course that’s what caused the split. No one denies this. But what’s denied is more evolved. Superior. Progressive evolution. It doesn’t follow. I don’t need your example, I know how speciation occurs. But becoming a new species doesn’t mean you’re “more evolved” it means different things happened to have you evolve to better survive in that ecosystem.
” I am, but more evolved in and of itself does not imply progress, unless you agree that evolution is progressive. It’s true that in the layman sense “more evolved” means superior, but that’s because the layman agrees with me that evolution is progressive. In other words, you’re arguing two contradictory points:
1) evolution is not progressive
2) more evolved means superior”
And you are wrong. Horribly wrong. I don’t agree that evolution is progressive. But more evolved DOES imply progress. It’s that simple. The layman has no damn idea what he’s talking about. Would a layman who’s never seen a tree in his life and reads it like you do know better than a biologist who’s been working with them his whole life? Do you realize how retarded this sounds? Evolution isn’t progressive. More evolved IMPLIES superiority.
“Yes of course, but it still might be the case that some organisms can adapt to more environments than others.”
And if they could adapt to those environments, their genome along with their phenotype would change. This is called evolution.
“Yes of course it’s an ongoing process, but what you don’t understand is that just as a foot is a unit of geographic distance, a species is a unit of evolutionary distance. So two bugs are continuously crawling. It’s an ongoing process, but one bug passes through two feet of geographic distance and the other only passes through one. The latter bug still keeps crawling, but it hasn’t crawled as much.
Similarly, two bugs are both evolving for the same amount of time. Neither stops evolving. But one bug speciates twice, the other bug speciates once. The former has travelled more evolutionary distance than the latter because species is a unit for measuring evolutionary distance. So is race, but it reflects less distance. So is genus, but it reflects more distance etc”
A species is a unit of evolutionary change due to being exposed to new environments. Evolution occurs through mutation, natural selection, migration and genetic drift. Just because one speciates twice and the other once means nothing pp!! It just means it had to occur so they could survive. That’s it. There is no progress involved. Because going back to the previous environment, they’d pretty much go back to being the same. Your analogies to attempt to prove your non-evolutionary point don’t make sense. Of course it’s traveled more distance, that doesn’t mean more evolved though!! I’ve shown your reasoning is retarded. You’re saying on no Berkeley is wrong, but what you fail to realize is that article was made using like 8 different papers on the subject you’re having so much trouble grasping. Please read the papers and come back to me. That same “open mind” (which I believe is just Rushton said it is the only reason you had an “open mind”) you say you had for this canard you have, use it while reading the papers that show why and how you’re wrong.
” Yes it is. Humans evolved from Homo erectus (with a few species in between). That makes Homo erectus less evolved than we are. Even if homo erectus were still alive, it would still be less evolved than we are because the mere fact that it would still be homo erectus means it hasn’t yet done enough evolving to qualify as a new species. That’s the measure of evolutionary change!”
If homo erectus were around today unchanged, that means he didn’t go to a new environment. With the possibility of floresiensis being homo erectus descendant, that shows what *gasp* happens when one organism goes to a new environment.
“Only if you believe evolution is progressive does more evolved = superior. I do believe evolution is progressive, but even I don’t believe more evolved = superior, I believe more evolved CORRELATES with superiority. And it’s not about left to right, it’s about less splits vs more splits. Trees can be reoriented so that the most splits can occur on either the left or right of the tree, and in the case of the tree I showed, the most splits occur in the middle.”
I’ve shown 6 trillion times that there’s no unidirectional trends in evolution due to the frequency of environmental change, the multitude of factors underlying fitness, the possibility of frequency-dependant epistatic interactions amongst features, and selection occurring within population.
You’ll get it one day. Use the same “open mind” you had that had you accept Rushton’s words and you’ll see that I’m right.
“And when you graduate from the 4th grade, maybe you’ll understand it.”
You’re the one using the ultra basic “muh more evolved. Muh progressive evolution” when its been rebutted countless time by me. You can say Marxist ideologue egalitarian propaganda all you want, that’s not what I’m arguing for and you know I don’t believe that. You’re doing the same shit the leftists do “oh he’s a racist don’t listen to him!!!”
“No it’s where your misconception is huge. Just because evolution is an ongoing process doesn’t mean some things are not more evolved than others. More evolved means having undergone more evolutionary change. Whether change is progressive or not is a separate issue, but when a scientists declares something to have evolved into a new species, he is saying it has crossed a milestone in evolutionary distance. As the punctuated equilibrium implies, there is a long period of stasis followed by a huge jump in evolutionary change (speciation).”
Punctuated Equilibria is real. Researchers not named Eldredge and Gould have corroborated this. There is an extremely long period of stasis before speciation occurs. But that doesn’t imply “more evolved”. Moreover, “more evolved” implies that the traits of the new species are “more evolved” than the predecessor. That’s not true. At all. My examples on speciation are apt here. Berkelys example is apt here.
“For example the first split on the tree is the split between Africans and non-Africans because the pressure to find food drove some humans out of Africa.”
Speculation. Wanderlust we the cause, the DDR4 allele, I believe.
And your hypothesis is not falsifiable, therefore unscientific.
“The reason we see the high correlation between intelligence and splits is because the races descended from the most splits are lineages that endured the most environmental pressures.”
You’re grasping for straws here.
More splits doesn’t equal more intelligent. Another split could and will one day occur to make the new species less intelligent. More branches on the tree doesn’t mean more intelligent or bigger brains. It has to do with the overall environment over thousands of years. Intelligence is not necessarily a good thing for an organism. There are thousands of organisms who aren’t intelligent yet they survive just fine. Moreover, floresiensis, no matter how much you want to deny it or say it’s the only example for hominids doesn’t matter. It happened. Which means it can and will happen again as evolution is random. They endured DIFFERENT environmental pressures, not more. Your inability to understand this one simple notion is why you’re wrong.
“And going to colder and colder climates created environmental pressures that caused populations to split.”
No one denies this. But to say that it’s more evolved has no basis in evolutionary biology. I’ve shown numerous citations to back my position.
“Now look at this tree, this time on the level of human species not races. Once again we see the same pattern. The two species descended from the most splits (Sapiens and Neanderthals) are the most intelligent (and notice they’re on the left of the tree, not the right). The species from the next most splits (heidelbergensis) is the next most intelligent. In fact with the exception of floresiensis, there’s a virtually perfect correlation between intelligence and splits. Still think the amount of splitting is meaningless? If so, how do you explain the correlation this time?”
The amount of splitting is meaningless. Take a population that’s intelligent to our standards. A few bands branch off. They go to a different environment and split two more times becoming less intelligent each time. Does splitting matter then? Again, floresiensis proves this argument is bunk. The fact that he evolved from either erectus or habilis and decreased in these so-called more evolved traits shows this argument is invalid and that something like that has happened in the past and it can and will happen again. Intelligence isn’t some ultimate apex quality. Numerous species have done just fine not being ultra intelligent. You know that big brains, and with it higher intelligence, can only be had with adequate kcal as well as the right macro and micronutrients. Without that, higher intelligence would never have evolved in the first place. This is a fact. The splits show intelligence because they went into new environments and the selective pressures, along with cooking for more kcal and nutrients, selected for bigger brains. Have you ever heard the phrase “if you’re looking for something, you’re going to find it”? This is what you’re doing.
“You simply have no conception of evolutionary distance or the measurement thereof.”
I definitely do. But you’re looking for things to fit your theory. Aka that’s not scientific. Thsys what’s called confirmation bias. You’re looking something, you found it. It happens all the time. Species change into other species due to new environmental pressures. Over time, new species come about. Doesn’t mean more evolved, or progressive evolution, or superior. I’ve shown 6 million papers saying that. But I guess it doesn’t fit your worldview so you’ll disregard it. That or they’re egalitarians pushing propaganda on zoology (strawman, doesn’t say anything to the argument. That’s what a called a fallacy).
“No I don’t need Razib’s approval for my original theory (built upon Rushton’s insight)”
PP, Rushton fanatic. Rushton, psychologist. Razib Khan. Population geneticist. It’s not about asking for his approval, it’s about telling him you’re theory so I can see how he rips it apart. You have these misunderstandings because you’re not a population geneticist, nor a biologist. Rushton wasn’t either, he was right on tons but here he was horribly wrong. You take information about evolution from psychologists. Why? Why not from geneticists and biologists? Razib said he told Rushton to cut his shit a lot of times for spreading false information, what do you say about that? What do you say about Lynn’s garbage data on Italian IQ? It’s simple pp. You have e these misconceptions because you take biology and evolution information from psychologists.
“I agree it wont happen the same for others. But whatever form it takes, a lineage that does more evolving than we have will probably be judged to be quite impressive if we were around to see it.”
It would be cool to see. Let’s say the road to human evolution was done all the way through again, except for one change, one major change. We wouldn’t be here right now. Because evolution ain’t linear.
“Becoming a new taxa means more evolved. Period. Of course it can happen again but my theory never assumed a perfect correlation between more evolved and superiority. It allows for more evolved species being inferior every now and then, as long as they’re the exception that proves the rule.”
Oh exception that proves the rule. Right. New taxas are just as likely to lose traits. All of the blind and semi blind animals attest to this. That damn cave fish!! He’s not as good as fish with eyes, the predecessor species was more complex! Environment he dammed!
“It depends how you define superior in the evolutionary context. Put simply, more evolved species, as I have defined them, are judged to be more impressive than less evolved species, even if they’re just plants. As Bonner implied, angiosperms are more impressive than slime molds.”
But they’re still adapted for their environment. That doesn’t mean more evolved. “Impressive” can be seen to say “more complex” but as I’ve shown I’m the McShea paper last night, it’s not quantifiable. Read the paper to see how wrong you are. There are others out there talking about evolution not baked Rushton.
“It doesn’t matter why A experienced more evolutionary change than B, all that matters is that it did.”
Back to your oversimplified view of evolution. It does matter. Because this so-called more evolved only occurs because of new environmental pressures. That’s it! B is still as evolved as A, it just went through different pressure. And A is still evolving, evolution is ongoing!!
Yes they fucken did. The last common ancestor of humans and chimps was monkey, broadly defined.”
Bro. Monkeys don’t fucking evolve into humans!! Google that please and get back to me.
“Fst values mostly reflect junk DNA and don’t code for any actual phenotypic transformation. Morphologically, all humans are the same species.”
Ummm it’s been recently found that junk genes are responsible for a lot of phenotypic variance.
“I agree 100%, but I believe that GENERALLY speaking, more evolved organisms can survive in more environments than less evolved organism. I keep talking about a general trend and you keep citing specific exceptions”
And if the more evolved organism can’t survive then it dies. ALL THE TIME. Yea yea, exceptions prove the ‘rule’. Whatever that means. If something were to occur that this “more evolved” organism couldn’t “adapt” to, it’d die. It’s not about citing specific examples, as much as showing what’s evolutionarily possible, and if it’s evolutionarily possible, it has happened in the past and will happen again.
“Because some traits are so subtle, they can only be measured by asking humans to judge them, but if those judgements correlate, they can be considered an objective measure.”
I’ll trust people whose actual job it is to read trees and report why they mean. The fact that you’re citing laymen as an example of ANYTHING shows your implicit bias. If you’re looking for something, you’re going to find it.
“No that’s where YOU’RE confused. Humans moved into new environments and we didn’t need to evolve into any new species. We were adaptable enough as we were. If the only way you can adapt is by changing what you are, then what you are is not adaptable enough”
The fuck? How “adaptable” will an African be in the tundra 20kya. How “adaptable” will a European be in 120 degree weather in the Sahara? Skin cancer don’t real? You’re misunderstanding evolution and natural selection. Darwin wrote a specific note to himself to never call species “higher” or “lower”, but who’s this “Darwin” guy, right? If you’re not adaptable enough, the whole species does out. It’s that simple.
“Wrong! It’s not how long you’ve been driving that determines the distance travelled, it’s how fast you drive. If you branch off the highway prematurely, you’re not going to travel as fast as someone doesn’t branch off the highway until the last exit.”
If a species branches it was due to environmental effects. That simple. Anything else is conjecture and wrong assumptions based on not fully understanding evolution or trees. You can use warped logic all you want to attempt to prove your point all you want, that doesn’t mean you’re right.
“The universe is not in the universe.
The universe allows for our brains to exist. Our brains are made of damn star dust!! The universe is the most complex thing.
Holy shit this was a long comment and took me over an hour on my phone.
“When biologists define something as having evolved into a new species, they look at the totality of traits.”
That backwater at Berkeley has, of course, an article on this.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
When genes can’t flow between two species is when speciation occurs.
That’s really where the demarcation of species is.
That definition is controversial because it turns out primates can exchange genes after much longer separation than originally thought, perhaps even millions of years longer.
Of course that’s what caused the split. No one denies this. But what’s denied is more evolved. Superior. Progressive evolution. It doesn’t follow.
I already proved to you that some animals have undergone more evolutionary change than others, and you’ve already conceded the point. Thus your unwillingness to accept the term “more evolved” shows you don’t understand that evolved just means having undergone evolutionary change. Whether more evolved organisms are superior is a separate question.
I don’t need your example, I know how speciation occurs. But becoming a new species doesn’t mean you’re “more evolved” it means different things happened to have you evolve to better survive in that ecosystem.
Different things that caused you to undergo more evolutionary change than your ancestors who did not change enough to qualify as a new species. Hence you’re more evolved.
And you are wrong. Horribly wrong. I don’t agree that evolution is progressive. But more evolved DOES imply progress. It’s that simple. The layman has no damn idea what he’s talking about.
More evolved implies progress because most people feel evolution is progress. You reject that idea, so for “more evolved” to imply progress to you, indicates confusion.
And if they could adapt to those environments, their genome along with their phenotype would change. This is called evolution.
From an evolutionary perspective, the truly superior organisms are those who can adapt to many environments, WITHOUT much evolving
The fuck? How “adaptable” will an African be in the tundra 20kya. How “adaptable” will a European be in 120 degree weather in the Sahara?
Adaptable enough that humans didn’t need to evolve into a new species when we migrated to new continents.
A species is a unit of evolutionary change due to being exposed to new environments. Evolution occurs through mutation, natural selection, migration and genetic drift. Just because one speciates twice and the other once means nothing pp!! It just means it had to occur so they could survive. That’s it. There is no progress involved. Because going back to the previous environment, they’d pretty much go back to being the same. Your analogies to attempt to prove your non-evolutionary point don’t make sense. Of course it’s traveled more distance, that doesn’t mean more evolved though!! I’ve shown your reasoning is retarded.
No, what you’ve shown is that you can’t grasp the difference between evolving more and progressing more. I believe the two are correlated, but they’re conceptually distinct.
I’ve shown 6 trillion times that there’s no unidirectional trends in evolution due to the frequency of environmental change, the multitude of factors underlying fitness, the possibility of frequency-dependant epistatic interactions amongst features, and selection occurring within population.
Actually it’s impossible to show that there are no unidirectional trends in evolution. You can’t prove a negative. At best you can try to disprove a unidirectional trend which you’ve completely failed to do. I’ve shown that once a complex brain evolves, there’s a unidirectional trend towards increased brain size. I’ve demonstrated this by showing:
1) The huge increase in average encephalization across 140 million years of dinosaur evolution
2) The tripling of average brain size across 65 million years of mammal evolution
3) The tripling of brain size across 4 million years of human evolution
4) The fact that the more branching a Homo species does, the bigger its brain on average
5) The fact that the more branching a human race does, the bigger its brain on average
6) The fact that, as Mugabe noted, the older a fossil, the smaller its brain, across the entire fossil record
7) The fact that dinosaurs were projected to evolve human intelligence had they not gone extinct
8) The Drake equation, widely accepted by astronomers, which predicts that given enough time, all planets with life will eventually evolve technological intelligence
Everyone of these facts undermines your claim, but taken together they absolutely devastate it.
More splits doesn’t equal more intelligent. Another split could and will one day occur to make the new species less intelligent. More branches on the tree doesn’t mean more intelligent or bigger brains. It has to do with the overall environment over thousands of years.
Of course. Anything’s possible in evolution. Depending on the environment humans could evolve into brainless goo. But the fact remains, that once a complex brain evolves, there’s a general trend towards more and more intelligence and your denial of progressive trends can’t accommodate that fact. When your theory doesn’t fit the facts, it’s time to revise the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milnesium_tardigradum
JBK it’s possible they’re superior to us and it’s also possible they’re more evolved than us. I would need to see a phylogenetic tree at the phylum level to see if their phylum did more branching than ours (an excellent proxy for how evolved something is according to my theory)
“That definition is controversial because it turns out primates can exchange genes after much longer separation than originally thought, perhaps even millions of years longer.”
Know why it’s controversial? Because species is really just a social construction. Brown bears and polar bears can mate to make pizzly bears. They’ve been separated from their common ancestor for between 650 kya to 6 mya. But there is a demarcation line of species. But that doesn’t mean the definition for species is wrong.
“I already proved to you that some animals have undergone more evolutionary change than others, and you’ve already conceded the point. Thus your unwillingness to accept the term “more evolved” shows you don’t understand that evolved just means having undergone evolutionary change. Whether more evolved organisms are superior is a separate question”
I said of course, no one denies this. What I do deny and deride is more evolved equals superior equals progressive evolution. I’ve extensively documented in the past 2 weeks and it’s a bunk concept. Superior is a dumb ass term in biology. But you didn’t take biology so you wouldn’t know this. I’ve shown evolution ain’t progressive. I’ve shown superior is retarded. More evolved? More evolutionary change? Mongoloids went under more change than Europeans? So explain how Europeans popped up 6500 ya. Before then they were a single breed population. Explain who’s “more evolved”. Rushton, a non-evolutionary biologists conjecture is meaningless. Razib said he told Rushton to cut his shit numerous times. But he wouldn’t stop. Do you believe this claim from Razib or not? I love Rushton. You know that. I look at Rushton as a psychology authority. Not an authority on evolution.
“Different things that caused you to undergo more evolutionary change than your ancestors who did not change enough to qualify as a new species. Hence you’re more evolved.”
God pp, as I said, this is such a basic way of talking about evolution. Evolution is more complex than ‘he branched off an “underwent more evolutionary change” so he’s’ more evolved”.
“More evolved implies progress because most people feel evolution is progress. You reject that idea, so for “more evolved” to imply progress to you, indicates confusion.”
Just because people “feel” that evolution is progressive doesn’t mean a thing. Again, should I trust average Joe to read a tree? Pp knows how to read a phylogenetic tree over someone who does this for a living? Pp I can tell you didn’t read the McShea 1998 paper, because he directly rebuts thus claim. Complexity? No accepted definition!! Read the papers I’ve linked you in the past few days. I read everything you link me. I’ve read race evolution and behavior. Rushton isn’t an evolutionary authority. He just wrote a book, his iq stuff is good obviously but he leaves a lot to be desired for his evolutionary theory and “progress”. Mongoloids and Europeans have been split for 6500 years as I’ve shown to you a few times. So how are they “more evolved”? Are slanted eyes more evolved traits? Is the EDAR allele a superior trait? Not being able to sweat due to less sweat glass as well as smell less? Is being shorter a more evolved trait? Or do all of these traits occur due to the environment and no one is “more evolved” than another. You have a rudimentary understanding of evolution. Your ideas in your head don’t mean anything to what the people who study evolution for a living say.
“From an evolutionary perspective, the truly superior organisms are those who can adapt to many environments, WITHOUT much evolving”
Reread my posts to you and you’ll see that superior is MEANINGLESS in biology. From an evolutionary perspective, superiority doesn’t exist and is not definable. Complexity isn’t definable either. PP just because we think evolution is teleological doesn’t mean it is. You know you’re philosophizing now right? Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology are meaningless.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865876
Also see Ayala 2016.
“Adaptable enough that humans didn’t need to evolve into a new species when we migrated to new continents.”
Speciation will occur with enough genetic isolation, or are humans special? Fst differences show that speciation would have occurred eventually given enough time and genetic isolation. Just because it didn’t happen in 6500 years doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have happened. You do know that all the races of man are new right? You take to Razib or no? His Bastard Race post. Do you believe it?
“No, what you’ve shown is that you can’t grasp the difference between evolving more and progressing more. I believe the two are correlated, but they’re conceptually distinct.”
You believe they’re correlated because it fits your theory. I’ve shown evolution ain’t progressive. Countless times. Thousands of words. Numerous papers. But I guess since they’re not name Rushton it doesn’t matter.
“Actually it’s impossible to show that there are no unidirectional trends in evolution. You can’t prove a negative. At best you can try to disprove a unidirectional trend which you’ve completely failed to do. I’ve shown that once a complex brain evolves, there’s a unidirectional trend towards increased brain size. I’ve demonstrated this by showing:”
No it’s not. I specifically linked a paper on this and you’re still denying it.
Am not repeating myself in responding to the first three.
“4) The fact that the more branching a Homo species does, the bigger its brain on average”
Looking for it, going to find it. This is an utterly ridiculous claim, because ‘number of splits’ has literally nothing to do with ‘duration of separation’, and everything to do with A ) resolution used to depict the tree, and B ) number of offshoots. For example, monotremes are one of the three original mammal offshoots, and there have been very few offshoots from that lineage relative to marsupials or eutherians. Do you believe if you’re looking for something that you’ll find it? Dinosaurs projected to evolve human intelligence? Oh shit that must mean they would have!! The fossil record doesn’t show change in complexity. Moreover, we can’t even know if species long extinct were “complex” (whatever that means) as certain things don’t fossilize.
“Everyone of these facts undermines your claim, but taken together they absolutely devastate it.”
I lold. You’re not even reading the papers I link. The desk equation, sure it’s possible. But have we found intelligent life yet and I didn’t hear about it? You link to Turney, it hasn’t been empirically proven. You talk about the drake equation, show me some damn intelligent life. I want empirical data. The empirical data doesn’t show a match to complexity (whatever that means). Of your have read the papers I link you’d see that. See McShea 1994,1996, 1998, and 2001.
“Of course. Anything’s possible in evolution. Depending on the environment humans could evolve into brainless goo. But the fact remains, that once a complex brain evolves, there’s a general trend towards more and more intelligence and your denial of progressive trends can’t accommodate that fact. When your theory doesn’t fit the facts, it’s time to revise the theory.”
Exactly. Brainless good. Once a complex (whatever that means) brain evolves, there damn well could be a chance to become ‘less complex’ (whatever that means). If you say no then you don’t understand biology and should read a few text books on evolution and population genetics. I’ve shown how there is no damn unidirectional trend in evolution. But I guess since that guy’s name isn’t Rushton it doesn’t matter.
Use that same “open mind” you claim to have had when you looked into Rushton’s conjecture and look into what I’m showing you with an open mind. You’re just parroting what Rushton said in the last 3 pages of his book. Use that open mind and read the links I’ve linked and you’ll see how wrong you are pp. Evolution ain’t progressive. Read all my articles to you. You’re wrong.
I said of course, no one denies this. What I do deny and deride is more evolved equals superior equals progressive evolution.
I’m glad to hear you no longer have a problem wit the term “more evolved”.
I’ve extensively documented in the past 2 weeks and it’s a bunk concept. Superior is a dumb ass term in biology. But you didn’t take biology so you wouldn’t know this.
You have no university training in biology either. And I’ve known since I was a kid that biologists rejected the term superior because they believe that an organism that is superior in environment A, might be inferior in environment B. But that’s only half true. Many pathological conditions would be disadvantageous in virtually every environment.
PP just because we think evolution is teleological doesn’t mean it is. You know you’re philosophizing now right? Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology are meaningless.
I don’t think it’s teological at all. I’m an atheist. I think evolution is nothing but blind trial and error. But most biologists underestimate the ability of such a mechanism to produce progressive results after BILLIONS of years. They simply don’t grasp the POWER of that much time. They confuse the idea of progress with the idea of purpose and so do you because it’s a very subtle distinction.
Speciation will occur with enough genetic isolation, or are humans special? Fst differences show that speciation would have occurred eventually given enough time and genetic isolation.
If you define species by time, sure, but that’s a useless definition. When a new fossil is discovered, they typically can’t even look at the Fst because the DNA is so degraded. Species is instead defined by morphology
You believe they’re correlated because it fits your theory. I’ve shown evolution ain’t progressive. Countless times. Thousands of words. Numerous papers. But I guess since they’re not name Rushton it doesn’t matter.
You’ve cited papers. I’ve cited FACTS. Facts trump bloviating.
No it’s not. I specifically linked a paper on this and you’re still denying it.
Quote the section of the paper where they say, we have proven evolution is NOT progressive.
This is an utterly ridiculous claim, because ‘number of splits’ has literally nothing to do with ‘duration of separation’, and everything to do with A ) resolution used to depict the tree, and B ) number of offshoots. For example, monotremes are one of the three original mammal offshoots, and there have been very few offshoots from that lineage relative to marsupials or eutherians.
Stop quoting jargon you don’t understand and THINK CLEARLY.
If population A splits into population B and C, and population C splits into population D and E, you have a tree where D and E have done more splitting than C. Now I have found that on human trees, at both the race and species level, the lines that do the most splitting are smarter on average than the lines that do less. The explanation for this is very simple:
1)The more splits, the more evolution, on average
2) There’s been a long-term trend favoring increased intelligence in vertebrates in general, and humans in particular.
Do you believe if you’re looking for something that you’ll find it?
You could use that argument to dismiss any proof. Scientists only proved the komodo dragon exists because they went looking for proof. Scientists only proved evolution because they went looking for fossils. RaceRealist don’t be absurd.
Read this paper. This shows how wrong you are regarding phylogenetic trees.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x
“I’m glad to hear you no longer have a problem wit the term “more evolved”.”
When you say that evolution is progressive, I have problem. When you day organisms are superior to another I have a problem. When you say that organism b is ‘better’ than organism a I have a problem. Did b go through *more* change than a? Yes. But a was still going through change *in that environment*.
“You have no university training in biology either. And I’ve known since I was a kid that biologists rejected the term superior because they believe that an organism that is superior in environment A, might be inferior in environment B. But that’s only half true. Many pathological conditions would be disadvantageous in virtually every environment.”
Im in college for biology right now actually. I’m glad to hear you no longer have a problem with organisms not being “better” than another.
“I don’t think it’s teological at all. I’m an atheist. I think evolution is nothing but blind trial and error. But most biologists underestimate the ability of such a mechanism to produce progressive results after BILLIONS of years. They simply don’t grasp the POWER of that much time. They confuse the idea of progress with the idea of purpose and so do you because it’s a very subtle distinction”
But it is teleological. Teleology is the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than postulated causes. I know you’re an atheist. But that doesn’t mean you can’t think that there’s evolution is teleological. I’m not confusing the idea of progress and purpose, progress pretty much MEANS purpose. If there were “progress” to evolution (there isn’t), that’d imply a teleological explanation. A teleological explanation doesn’t need God, per se, but teleology tries to explain phenomen by the purpose they serve rather than their causes. Please read the links I’ve given you. See Ayala 2016 as well.
“If you define species by time, sure, but that’s a useless definition. When a new fossil is discovered, they typically can’t even look at the Fst because the DNA is so degraded. Species is instead defined by morphology”
You know there isn’t an accepted definition of the word “species” right? It’s just a word we invented. So to say species is defined by this or that is meaningless. The demarcation between species and not a species is small and we have, again, a bias as to what’s a species or not.
“You’ve cited papers. I’ve cited FACTS. Facts trump bloviating.”
I’m not bloviating, but that’s your opinion. I’ve shown numerous times, especially in the “progress in evolution?” paper that there is no unidirectional line of progress, PP. So don’t cite papers then, only cite facts and see where that gets you.
“Quote the section of the paper where they say, we have proven evolution is NOT progressive.”
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-70831-2_6
Darwin, who you champion as “having gone got it” specifically wrote a not to himself to never say an organism is higher or lower than another.
“Now I have found that on human trees, at both the race and species level, the lines that do the most splitting are smarter on average than the lines that do less. The explanation for this is very simple:”
What I said to you holds pp. That’s a ridiculous notion. Number of splits on a tree doesn’t have anything to do with duration of separation. It does have to do with the resolution used to depict the tree and the number of offshoots. You’re, again, reading trees wrong. Please ask an expert how to read trees. Don’t go by laymen interpretations.
“There’s been a long-term trend favoring increased intelligence in vertebrates in general, and humans in particular.”
Because the environment evolved in selects for it. It’s that simple and I don’t see what’s hard to understand. Decreasing brain size for humans–all of which is half explained by agriculture (still another 10 k years to account for)–still needs explanation. I believe it’s that we’ve moved into bigger groups and we don’t need our brains to be as big as they were. Due to being more social and piggybacking off of others, our brains shrank because we didn’t use them more because we cooperated. However looking at the way the world’s going now you could say that it’s going to negatively affect our intelligence eventually. You have an anthropocentric view of evolution. You should get a biological understanding of evolution.
“You could use that argument to dismiss any proof. Scientists only proved the komodo dragon exists because they went looking for proof. Scientists only proved evolution because they went looking for fossils. RaceRealist don’t be absurd.”
Scientists do all they can to minimize bias, the same is not so for laymen. If you’re looking for something, you’re going to find it. This especially holds here with how you’re reading trees. Perfect example, you’re reading trees wrong because it fits your theory of more evolved men’s more intelligent and bigger brains and k selection, Rushton’s theory, and that’s why you went looking. You found it. Because you’d have found it regardless. Reading a tree the real way doesn’t have one come to these conclusions. There are tons of papers out there on people who read trees wrong. Am I to believe a blogger who’s biased for his theory (naturally) on how to read trees or a professional biologist (one who’s likely to minimize his bias and actually know how to read a tree)?
When you say that evolution is progressive, I have problem. When you day organisms are superior to another I have a problem. When you say that organism b is ‘better’ than organism a I have a problem. Did b go through *more* change than a? Yes. But a was still going through change *in that environment*.
It’s possible to believe some are “more evolved” without believing evolution is progressive. In fact that’s probably the position of most biologists.
I’m glad to hear you no longer have a problem with organisms not being “better” than another.
I think it’s perfectly valid to describe some animals as “superior” to others though I concede it’s a difficult thing to prove.
But it is teleological. Teleology is the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than postulated causes. I know you’re an atheist. But that doesn’t mean you can’t think that there’s evolution is teleological. I’m not confusing the idea of progress and purpose, progress pretty much MEANS purpose.
No purpose means the progress happened because someone or something INTENDED it to happen. Progress in evolution is the ultimate example of UNINTENDED consequences.
You know there isn’t an accepted definition of the word “species” right? It’s just a word we invented. So to say species is defined by this or that is meaningless. The demarcation between species and not a species is small and we have, again, a bias as to what’s a species or not.
I’m simply using species as a unit for measuring morphological change. Yes it’s arbitrary but so are all units of measurement. Why are there 12 inches in a foot instead of 20? An arbitrary decision, but once the decision is made, it’s a valid measurement as long as it’s applied consistently.
Because of the frequency of environmental change, the multiplicity of factors underlying fitness, the possibility of frequency-dependent and epistatic interactions among features, and the consequent possibility of nontransitive fitness relations between phenotypes, selection acting within populations frequently, though not inevitably, fails to produce unidirectional trends.
Frequently fails to produce unidirectional trends != never produces unidirectional trends.
The extent to which unidirectional trends dominate, or fail to dominate, the fossil record is therefore not a measure of the adequacy of neo-Darwinian mechanisms as causes of large-scale patterns in evolution.
This is an implied concession that evolution DOES have large scale patterns (i.e. progressive trends), only the cause is disputed.
What I said to you holds pp. That’s a ridiculous notion. Number of splits on a tree doesn’t have anything to do with duration of separation.
Again, your fixation on time causes you to miss the point. I’m not arguing that more splits means more separation time, I’m arguing the more splits, the MORE EVOLUTION OCCURED OVER THAT TIME! In the tree below, the African branch and the non-African branch are both equally old. Both split from the same common ancestor at the exact same time. But the non-African branch has many splits and the African branch has none. This suggests there was more morphological changes over the duration of separation in the non-African branch because splits are a good proxy for evolutionary activity. This is because some environmental pressure or environmental change is usually what CAUSED the splits in the first place, though not always.
You’re, again, reading trees wrong. Please ask an expert how to read trees. Don’t go by laymen interpretations.
You ARE a layman. I’m reading the trees correctly, you simply don’t understand the inferences I’m making from them.
Because the environment evolved in selects for it. It’s that simple and I don’t see what’s hard to understand.
But why would so many environments so consistently select for increased encephalization unless intelligence was an unusually versatile trait? This proves my point that some traits are useful in many different kinds of environments than others, and the long-term selection of said traits creates progressive trends in evolution.
Decreasing brain size for humans–all of which is half explained by agriculture (still another 10 k years to account for)–still needs explanation.
There’s no strong evidence that brain size decreased before 10,000 years ago. Indeed John Hawks’s chart showed brain size INCREASING from 15,000 to 10,000 years ago.
Am I to believe a blogger who’s biased for his theory (naturally) on how to read trees or a professional biologist (one who’s likely to minimize his bias and actually know how to read a tree)?
You shouldn’t BELIEVE anyone. You should think about it logically and come to your own conclusion, independent of what others say.
All species have the same time evolving as I’ve shown. You may say oy, no the number of splits, but that’s just conjecture. We all evolved from a common ancestor some 3.8 billion years ago. To out brain size with number of splits is ridiculous. And looking for something and finding it. Since we share a common ancestor, that means the same time evolving.
Moreover, Eurasians split between 6500 to 10000 ya. How does that make Asians “”more evolved”” if they split off at the same time?
“It’s possible to believe some are “more evolved” without believing evolution is progressive. In fact that’s probably the position of most biologists.”
See, more evolved IMPLIES progress which I’ve said numerous times.
“I think it’s perfectly valid to describe some animals as “superior” to others though I concede it’s a difficult thing to prove.”
If it’s difficult to prove (re: impossible), how is it perfectly valid? You agree that organisms evolved bases on their environment, so what kind of unbiased metric would there be to denote “superior organisms”?
“No purpose means the progress happened because someone or something INTENDED it to happen. Progress in evolution is the ultimate example of UNINTENDED consequences.”
Progress implies that an organism or set of organisms are “progressing” somewhere or to some ultimate form. There is NO progress in evolution. I have three articles on that in the past week. Progress in evolution implies a “great chain of being”. You’re attempting to rehash this which has no basis in biology. You may not be saying “great chain of being” word for word, yet that’s what you are implying.
“I’m simply using species as a unit for measuring morphological change. Yes it’s arbitrary but so are all units of measurement. Why are there 12 inches in a foot instead of 20? An arbitrary decision, but once the decision is made, it’s a valid measurement as long as it’s applied consistently.”
Differing morphological traits come about due to differing environments. Your definition of species is kinda weak compared to Wright’s Fst. Degree of morphological difference is not an appropriate species definition.
http://darwiniana.org/mayrspecies.htm
“Frequently fails to produce unidirectional trends != never produces unidirectional trends.”
Showing all the variables on how you can’t show an evolutionary trend was the meaning.
“This is an implied concession that evolution DOES have large scale patterns (i.e. progressive trends), only the cause is disputed.”
There are local changes, such as changes in brain size and the like, but there are no large-scale patterns. Moreover, complexity can’t be defined scientifically. The ’cause’ is natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and migration. That’s what causes evolution, however it is NOT progressive.
“The non-African branch has many splits and the African branch has none. This suggests there was more morphological changes over the duration of separation in the non-African branch because splits are a good proxy for evolutionary activity. This is because some environmental pressure or environmental change is usually what CAUSED the splits in the first place, though not always.”
All of your misconceptions are addressed in this paper.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x#Sec8
1) The placement of a taxon is not an indication of how specialized, advanced or extreme its traits are.
2) Evolutionary change may occur during any part in the line; the offshoot isn’t always phenotypic change.
3) Morphological change still occurred in Africa. If you say no you’re fooling yourself.
4) Environmental pressures always don’t mean changes in the visible phenotype; it may mean something like better oxygen absorption in the Tibetans.
5) Morphological changes occur in Africa due to long-term selection from the environment. For example, the Pygmy. Their short stature is due to the CISH gene, which is linked to resistance from malaria and tuberculosis. Mice that are engineered to produce more of the CISH protein are smaller in stature. CISH regulates height and since it helped them survive better they became shorter due to the malarial resistance.
You’re acting as if absolutely no changes occurred in Africans after the split.
“You ARE a layman. I’m reading the trees correctly, you simply don’t understand the inferences I’m making from them.”
I won’t be a layman soon. You’re reading them wrong and I’ve shown you how multiple times. I understand the inferences you’re making from them, and they’re common intuitive misconceptons reading phylogenetic trees.
“But why would so many environments so consistently select for increased encephalization unless intelligence was an unusually versatile trait? This proves my point that some traits are useful in many different kinds of environments than others, and the long-term selection of said traits creates progressive trends in evolution.”
One of the biggest reasons we have big brains is due to how many kcal we ingest. If that were to drop definitively, like say we go from eating 2300 kcal a day to 1100 kcal average per day, both brain size and stature would decrease. That’s a selection response due to the environment. Without the amount of kcal we consume, we wouldn’t be able to support our brains as they consume at least 25 percent of our daily energy.
Selection against eyesight has happened. This happened in the cave fish and other organisms I brought up. Eyesight is only needed where it’s an advantage; without that, like in pitch black environments, it’s not a useful trait so it gets selected against. One good reason is energy doesn’t have to be diverted to eyesight and it can use what energy it does consume for other pertinent functions.
“There’s no strong evidence that brain size decreased before 10,000 years ago. Indeed John Hawks’s chart showed brain size INCREASING from 15,000 to 10,000 years ago.”
redacted John Hawks says that human brain size started decreasing 20 kya going from 1500 cc to 1350 cc.
“You shouldn’t BELIEVE anyone. You should think about it logically and come to your own conclusion, independent of what others say.”
Believe people whose job it is to read them and teach them how to be read correctly. The people who draw them up. Or an intuitive interpretation of the trees. Hmm…
I am thinking logically. I know how to think logically. You’re reading trees wrong and I’m showing you how.
Natural selection is local adaptation; not progress.
[two words in post redacted by PP on Oct 29, 2016, for clarity. See part of above text that says redacted in bold ]
See, more evolved IMPLIES progress which I’ve said numerous times.
For the 100th time, “more evolved” only implies progress because most people think evolution is progressive. You reject that assumption, so it’s completely hypocritical for you to associate “more evolved” with progress. You’re like an anti-racist who equates the term “more white” with progress. Internally inconsistent.
If it’s difficult to prove (re: impossible), how is it perfectly valid? You agree that organisms evolved bases on their environment, so what kind of unbiased metric would there be to denote “superior organisms”?
You could simply ask people to rank living things on a scale of progress. If different raters gave similar rankings, the measure would be considered scientific. Such methods are often used in science for hard to measure variables.
Progress implies that an organism or set of organisms are “progressing”
Mammals have been progressing in enchephalization for 65 million years and dinosaurs were progressing in encephalization for 140 million years.
Degree of morphological difference is not an appropriate species definition.
It’s the most commonly used definition. It’s how our own species has been defined.
Showing all the variables on how you can’t show an evolutionary trend was the meaning.
I just showed you an evolutionary trend: increased encephalization. What the hell is wrong with you?
There are local changes, such as changes in brain size and the like, but there are no large-scale patterns.
When the average brain size of all living mammals TRIPLES over 65 million years, that’s a large-scale pattern not a local trend.
1) The placement of a taxon is not an indication of how specialized, advanced or extreme its traits are.
WRONG! The placement of the tree does indeed correlate with how evolved, and in vertebrates, how big brained a population is. You’re like a five-year-old repeating platitudes people are told when they first learn evolution. You haven’t yet learned that the reality is more complex than the simple platitudes imply. Kind of like stats students who are taught correlation does not imply causation, only to later understand that correlation and causation are indeed correlated. But you haven’t reached the level of understanding where you can question the platitudes.
2) Evolutionary change may occur during any part in the line; the offshoot isn’t always phenotypic change.
More kindergarten platitudes. No one’s saying it can’t, or that anything ALWAYS implies anything. I’m talking about a general trend.
3) Morphological change still occurred in Africa. If you say no you’re fooling yourself.
No one’s denying that. It’s the DEGREE of morphological change that’s the issue.
4) Environmental pressures always don’t mean changes in the visible phenotype; it may mean something like better oxygen absorption in the Tibetans.
Still a phenotypic change, and generally speaking, changes on the outside correlate with changes on the inside.
5) Morphological changes occur in Africa due to long-term selection from the environment.
Duh!
You’re acting as if absolutely no changes occurred in Africans after the split.
No I’m arguing that FEWER changes occurred in Africa because there were fewer splits in the African branch (at least as conceptualized by Cavalli-Sforza)
I won’t be a layman soon.
Getting a diploma in health and nutrition does not make you a biologist.
You’re reading them wrong and I’ve shown you how multiple times. I understand the inferences you’re making from them,
No you don’t. You’re utterly incapable of understanding that more splits in the evolutionary tree correlates with more morphological change even after you’ve been shown numerous examples.
and they’re common intuitive misconceptons reading phylogenetic trees.
Yawn. I used to believe the same platitudes as you do until I actually looked at the trees and saw for myself that there was indeed a correlation between placement and morphological change from a common ancestor. I’ve come up with a theory explaining why. It’s called original thinking.
John Hawks says that human brain size started decreasing 20 kya going from 1500 cc to 1350 cc.
His chart of brain size in Europe, shown in this video, shows brains expanding from 15,000 BP to 10,000 BP and only after 10,000 BP are they shrinking:
I am thinking logically. I know how to think logically. You’re reading trees wrong and I’m showing you how.
You teaching me about reading trees would be like me teaching Michael Jordan how to play basketball. It’s absurd. Everything you believe is stuff I used to believe, but have since outgrown.
”Progress implies that an organism or set of organisms are “progressing””
Sorry RR but it was a horrible argument.
I’m really enjoying this discussion. You do give me a lot to chew on (as I hope I do for you).
“For the 100th time, “more evolved” only implies progress because most people think evolution is progressive. You reject that assumption, so it’s completely hypocritical for you to associate “more evolved” with progress. You’re like an anti-racist who equates the term “more white” with progress. Internally inconsistent”
You’ve stated numerous times that evolution is progressive. Which is why I assume you’re equating “progress” with “more evolved”. Do you believe that more evolved implies progress or that progress implies more evolved?
“You could simply ask people to rank living things on a scale of progress. If different raters gave similar rankings, the measure would be considered scientific. Such methods are often used in science for hard to measure variables.”
And they would say “fish to land to monkeys to humans”. There can be directionality without evolution having one set direction (there is none). Yes. Moreover I trust scientists over laymen interpretations (as I hope you would too).
“Mammals have been progressing in enchephalization for 65 million years and dinosaurs were progressing in encephalization for 140 million years.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02491.x/full
“It’s the most commonly used definition. It’s how our own species has been defined.”
Just showed this is wrong.
“I just showed you an evolutionary trend: increased encephalization. What the hell is wrong with you?
When the average brain size of all living mammals TRIPLES over 65 million years, that’s a large-scale pattern not a local trend.”
See above.
“WRONG! The placement of the tree does indeed correlate with how evolved, and in vertebrates, how big brained a population is. You’re like a five-year-old repeating platitudes people are told when they first learn evolution. You haven’t yet learned that the reality is more complex than the simple platitudes imply. Kind of like stats students who are taught correlation does not imply causation, only to later understand that correlation and causation are indeed correlated. But you haven’t reached the level of understanding where you can question the platitudes.”
Sure they are CORRELATED, but it doesn’t imply a cause. A relationship is not a cause. I just showed you a paper that shows you’re wrong but whatever.
” No one’s saying it can’t, or that anything ALWAYS implies anything. I’m talking about a general trend.”
No kindergarten. Needs to be brought up. And the trend is up and down so you can’t say anything. I’ll grab the papers I read on fossils and all that later.
” It’s the DEGREE of morphological change that’s the issue.”
How would this be gauged? Would you say to look at the LCA and gauge morphological changes?
“Still a phenotypic change, and generally speaking, changes on the outside correlate with changes on the inside.”
Of course. But it’s not always visible as shown with the Tibetan example.
“No I’m arguing that FEWER changes occurred in Africa because there were fewer splits in the African branch (at least as conceptualized by Cavalli-Sforza)”
Prove it!
“Getting a diploma in health and nutrition does not make you a biologist.”
I switched my major. =^)
“No you don’t. You’re utterly incapable of understanding that more splits in the evolutionary tree correlates with more morphological change even after you’ve been shown numerous examples.”
I fully understand what you’re saying. Except I’ve shown how it’s wrong! You can’t say one branch means morphological change AND EVEN THEN, morphological change does not equal speciation as shown in the Mayr paper.
“Yawn. I used to believe the same platitudes as you do until I actually looked at the trees and saw for myself that there was indeed a correlation between placement and morphological change from a common ancestor. I’ve come up with a theory explaining why. It’s called original thinking.”
I get that it’s original thinking. It’s wrong though. Chisala has original thinking; does that make him right?
Do me a favor pp. Email an evolutionary biologist and tell him how you read trees and show me the response.
“His chart of brain size in Europe, shown in this video, shows brains expanding from 15,000 BP to 10,000 BP and only after 10,000 BP are they shrinking:”
I’ll watch this later. Care to grab me a citation?
“You teaching me about reading trees would be like me teaching Michael Jordan how to play basketball. It’s absurd. Everything you believe is stuff I used to believe, but have since outgrown.”
Do you know better than people who do this for a living? There are multiple papers on misconceptions of cladograms and the like. I get its original nd I respect that. You’re a smart mother fucker pp. But that doesn’t mean you’re right here.
Have you read Gould’s book “Full House”?
You’ve stated numerous times that evolution is progressive. Which is why I assume you’re equating “progress” with “more evolved”. Do you believe that more evolved implies progress or that progress implies more evolved?
I PERSONALLY believe more evolved life is on average, superior to less evolved life, but there is nothing intrinsically progressive about being more evolved, and there’s no reasons for opponents of progress to avoid the term. In some cases, the more evolved form is clearly inferior such as when a dog evolved into a cancer.
Moreover, ancestral state reconstructions of absolute brain mass, body mass and EQ revealed patterns of increase and decrease in EQ within anthropoid primates and cetaceans.
But the OVERALL pattern has been one of increase. The average brain size of ALL living mammals has TRIPPLED in 65 million years.
Just showed this is wrong.
No you just cited a paper that agrees with your definition of species. That’s not an argument.
Sure they are CORRELATED, but it doesn’t imply a cause. A relationship is not a cause. I just showed you a paper that shows you’re wrong but whatever.
But a correlation is enough to show that evolution is progressive. Evolution correlates with progress = evolution is progressive.
How would this be gauged? Would you say to look at the LCA and gauge morphological changes?
That’s one way.
“No I’m arguing that FEWER changes occurred in Africa because there were fewer splits in the African branch (at least as conceptualized by Cavalli-Sforza)”
Prove it!
The proof is that those humans who scientists believe have preserved the phenotype of the earliest modern humans (i.e. Andaman islanders, Papua New Guineans) all look very Negroid, as do those forensic reconstructions of ancient skulls you reject.
I fully understand what you’re saying. Except I’ve shown how it’s wrong! You can’t say one branch means morphological change AND EVEN THEN, morphological change does not equal speciation as shown in the Mayr paper.
You can say that if one branch has lots of splits, it implies environmental changes and pressures (since generally speaking, that’s what causes splits) and environmental changes generally cause morphological changes, which is one definition of species.
Do you know better than people who do this for a living? There are multiple papers on misconceptions of cladograms and the like. I get its original nd I respect that. You’re a smart mother fucker pp. But that doesn’t mean you’re right here.
I understand why you think I’m reading the trees wrong. I used to think the exact same way as you, and the sources you cite. Laymen shouldn’t make the simplistic assumption that higher branches = more evolved and that’s why scientists try to dispel that notion. Because the tree is just there to show relatedness, and evolution can happen or not happen at any point in the tree, no matter how many splits or non-splits occur.
However once we understand all that, we have to ask ourselves, even though IN THEORY, any branch on the tree can evolve in any direction, and there’s nothing about the tree that implies a hierarchy, IN REALITY, is there a correlation between tree position and brain size and other measures of “progress”? I’ve provided evidence that there is. You can either ignore the evidence because it doesn’t fit the theory that branch placement is irrelevant, or you can realize that evolution is a little more nuanced than some simplistic introductory Berkeley paper implied.
Santo that is a premise. This is an argument.
P1. If evolution is non progressive, then superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
P2. Evolution is non progressive.
Therefore superiority doesn’t exist in evolution.
I knew you would talk it, lol
So, it was a pre-reasoning*
”that is a premise. This is an argument.”
…
So higher IQ is not superior/evolved than lower IQ**
Entire Hbd science is based exactly in this idea of superiority/inferiority, better/worse, evolved/stagned, you’re denying here, period.
Simply no make sense to worry about the future of Europe or USA or Australia (Canada is a american state) if superiority don’t exist via evolutionary value.
“Entire Hbd science is based exactly in this idea of superiority/inferiority, better/worse, evolved/stagned, you’re denying here, period.”
I am denying it because it makes no evolutionary sense. Hbd is based on human differences, the way I look at it it’s not based on that, it’s just based on the causes for racial and ethnic differences. I’ve argued enough that evolution doesn’t mean superior or progressive.
“Simply no make sense to worry about the future of Europe or USA or Australia (Canada is a american state) if superiority don’t exist via evolutionary value.”
Solid strawman. I never argued that. They are fit for their environments. They should stay there.
Show me where I ever argued that statement.
”I am denying it because it makes no evolutionary sense. ”
Personal opinion.
because…
”Hbd is based on human differences, the way I look at it it’s not based on that, it’s just based on the causes for racial and ethnic differences.”
racial and ethnic ”NEUTRAL” differences**
maybe the semantic roots of the word evolution mean basically ”transformation”, and i agree, because organisms can change to the better, to the worst, to the paradoxal better or worst (”illogical’ dead ends), remain stagned… A lot of species, even the most evolved of all in their period may go to the extinction. But this facts don’t prove that evolution can’t be progressive. can be…
”I’ve argued enough that evolution doesn’t mean superior or progressive.”
evolutionary trends depend species, space and time we are talking about.
evolution can mean superior, regressive, progressive, etc…
”Solid strawman. I never argued that. They are fit for their environments. They should stay there.”
You’re, as usual, dishonest. You dislike blacks not because they don’t fit in ”your” environment, please, but because judgment of value (superiority/equality/inferiority) and it’s not subjective.
You’re insinuating that if evolution can not be progressive or superior so no need to measure values of contrasts, if they do not exist. Even if this is not your original intention, you are leaving open, vague, so that other clever ones can use it as relativist ”argument”.
Deny possible (and common) progressive and qualitatively progressive nature of evolution IS PART of blank slate scientology you’re buying.
And the idea of progress no have at priore any judgment of value. If time is progressive, specially the time of the planet we live/leave, so transformations/evolutions are trivial in the Earth timeline.
developed and evolved are basically synonyms**
appearance of life was part of the evolution. It’s like saying ‘life is not superior to non-life’ ‘.
Based on atomized non-compararative analysis of evolutionary trends, your point of views are parcially right.
Based on comparative analysis, and specially among variants of the same species, evolutionary trends are strongly DISCREPANT/inequally superior, diversely similar or inequally inferior.
It’s not because we have three different variant of birds in neighboring islands with different but equally efficient organic transformations caused by different selective pressures that one of this variant can not grow more than the others, take over other island and start threatening the habitat of one of more than one of the species.
“personal opinion”
No. My premises are true and my overall argument is sound.
“maybe the semantic roots of the word evolution mean basically ”transformation”, and i agree, because organisms can change to the better, to the worst, to the paradoxal better or worst (”illogical’ dead ends), remain stagned… A lot of species, even the most evolved of all in their period may go to the extinction. But this facts don’t prove that evolution can’t be progressive. can be…”
Evolution means ongoing change. Whether that change is “better” or “worse” comes clean to environment and founding populations, genetic drift, mutation and migration. That’s the driver of evolutionary change.
History is full of mass extinctions. 99 percent of all species that have ever lived are extinct.
“evolutionary trends depend species, space and time we are talking about.
evolution can mean superior, regressive, progressive, etc…”
Evolutionary “trends” need the above mentioned variables.
You can say “this is more intelligent than that” than say “he has photosynthetic ability and he doesn’t”. Ie, it’s arbitrary.
“You’re, as usual, dishonest. You dislike blacks not because they don’t fit in ”your” environment, please, but because judgment of value (superiority/equality/inferiority) and it’s not subjective.”
Blacks aren’t fit for first world environments. That much is clear. They’re fit for where they evolved. It IS SUBJECTIVE. I’m not saying we are equal, nor superior or inferior. I argue that environmental changes do NOT denote progressive evolution nor superiority, inferiority, or more evolved.
“You’re insinuating that if evolution can not be progressive or superior so no need to measure values of contrasts, if they do not exist. Even if this is not your original intention, you are leaving open, vague, so that other clever ones can use it as relativist ”argument”.”
Values chose are arbitrary. Why not choose this over that instead of that over this?
Try to reword this because I hardly understand the word salad.
“Deny possible (and common) progressive and qualitatively progressive nature of evolution IS PART of blank slate scientology you’re buying.”
Because I don’t believe progressive evolution means I’m buying blank slate ideas? Strawman. You’re full of fallacies today.
“And the idea of progress no have at priore any judgment of value. If time is progressive, specially the time of the planet we live/leave, so transformations/evolutions are trivial in the Earth timeline.”
What? Reword this please.
“appearance of life was part of the evolution. It’s like saying ‘life is not superior to non-life’ ‘.”
“This biological organism is “superior” to that inanimate object.” What the hell? Of course appearance of life was part of evolution. That doesn’t mean it’s progressing anywhere.
“Based on comparative analysis, and specially among variants of the same species, evolutionary trends are strongly DISCREPANT/inequally superior, diversely similar or inequally inferior.”
No. The variants in the same species come down to what occurred IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. It has NOTHING to do with who’s “superior” over who.
Organisms are either for or unfit for their environment. This is fact
“It’s not because we have three different variant of birds in neighboring islands with different but equally efficient organic transformations caused by different selective pressures that one of this variant can not grow more than the others, take over other island and start threatening the habitat of one of more than one of the species.”
Huh? One finch can’t get food where another can. Each of their beaks are adapted so they can better get their sustenance, DUE TO EVOLUTION.
i was reading the wiki on the “multiregional” theory of human origins yesterday.
iiuc…there are small parts of the genome of the races of man which are so different that their closest common ancestor is > 1m years in the past.
hard to believe.
but apparently there is genetic evidence of the multiregional hypothesis…as well as genetic evidence against it, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans
there are some serious anthro profs who claim that neanderthals evolved into europeans rather than the usual neanderthals were replaced by modern looking humans from africa with some interbreeding.
Some dolt on ShamRen was arguing for that the other day. I said people still believe that? Over at counter-currents, Greg Johnson actually said that Cro-magnon evolved into Europeans. I called him out on that and showed a link saying that CM and Neanderthals never interbred, so if there were any CM DNA in Europeans it’d show but it doesn’t. He didn’t publish my comment. Razib is right that they are ‘race-mythists’ and not ‘race-realists’.
i was reading the wiki on the “multiregional” theory of human origins yesterday.
iiuc…there are small parts of the genome of the races of man which are so different that their closest common ancestor is > 1m years in the past.
On every continent, modern humans did breed a bit with archaic types before killing them off, but it’s a trivial few percent of our genome. I wish people would shut up about it.
there are some serious anthro profs who claim that neanderthals evolved into europeans rather than the usual neanderthals were replaced by modern looking humans from africa with some interbreeding.
Well it was a reasonable theory before the Mitochondrial Eve was discovered in the 1980s. Many great scientists invested their careers in proving it, and are not eager to be told their life’s work was a huge waste of time.
JS,
You used the same comment in lion of blogosphere.
You copied my comment from Unz.
Really??
iffen says:
October 25, 2016 at 12:22 pm GMT
@Binyamin
Have another look at the writings of the pathological Jew haters and anti Semites
Many of the Jew-haters here are not pathological.
Thanks for your contribution as poster child.
Santo piece und loeb
said:
October 25, 2016 at 1:26 pm
”Have another look at the writings of the pathological Jew haters and anti Semites Many of the Jew-haters here are not pathological. Thanks for your contribution as poster child.”
Ok.
Seems I commit a mistakes. 😖
OK, we’ll call it a Helen Keller moment and move on.
“Anti Semitism” is one of the healthiest psychological reaction about Jewish “attitudes” (psychopathy) against gullible and mentally lazy “goym”. And over react against “them” is even healthier based on huge disaster “THEY’ created and is coming…
Again and always
How is the percent of malicious Jews who are “behind” all of this global shit??
Based on collective silence of them and the common attitudes among supposed allies I thought most of them are
Aware about what is happening
Supporters of this planned and melodramatic/ridiculous diasters, well, supporters of the Kalergi Plan and Frankfurt School.
I could be favorable to the replacing of angry homophobic and race supremacist white men by personal obvious reasons but
This idiocy must stop. Why not now?
Yes, because his readers might want to read it. I think everything about the post sums up why America is a mad house or a mental institution. America is still a dynamic country, but it’s energy is mostly negative, because of the prole majority.
these are my people, if i were russian. they are bigger and more serious than neo-nazis, and the soviet union only started the afghan war which makes it more sympathetic than nazi germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism
Hey I Haven’t been on here in a long time. Just wanted to tell you guys my woman is birthing me a daughter. We plan on having another child next year. at least 17 in total, and she is slowly becoming an HBD’er
Congrats.
17 kids?! You’re out of your mind.
Nobody cares…
Idiocracy no
IQdiocracy now
A tip
Never create great expectations about something. The probability your desire don’t happen generally is higher, ;)))
What’s worst??
Typical stupid people out procreating
Or
Atypical stupid people and a special class: Iqdiots out procteating…
Trump np have a direct language: ” I’m fighting for white people”, “I’m against non white immigration to the “America” ”
How impactant would this narrative???
And why he Don’t use it??
Calling Jew-haters pathological is inaccurate.
From Wiki:
“Mental or social disorders or behaviours seen as generally unhealthy or excessive in a given individual, to the point where they cause harm or severe disruption to the sufferer’s lifestyle, are often called “pathological” (e.g., pathological gambling or pathological liar).”
Jew-hating is rather typical ingroup/outgroup behavior, it is rarely, if ever, pathological.
Now, I think that a case can be made that for many individuals infected with Jews on the Brain Disease, the higher cognitive functions, in particular the recognition of facts and the application of logic can be impaired. This seldom becomes pathological as most think of themselves as normal.
Yes, it’s a sign of mental health and not the otherwise. The problem is overgeneralizations… my question: what is the % of jews who are fully aware and supporter of caucasian genocide and/or bloody wars*
“my question: what is the % of jews who are fully aware and supporter of caucasian genocide and/or bloody wars*”
I am unsure and don’t believe we can get at the exact %. Off the top of my head I would guess that it is less than the % of Hutus who want to kill Tutsis, but greater than the % of Americans who want to kill Canadians.
People are seeing too much South Park, lol.
”% of Hutus who want to kill Tutsis, but greater than the % of Americans who want to kill Canadians.”
Between 99% and 2%**