Milo Yiannopoulos rose to the top of the alt-right universe thanks to his incredibly high verbal IQ, flamboyant gay enthusiasm and the fact that he is fanatically pro-Trump enough to appeal to the masses yet pro-Neocon enough to appeal to the elites who manipulate those masses.
However his career appears to have imploded after the media learned he made the following comments that appeared to some to be defending pederasty:
In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationships — the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable sort of rock
This was an incredibly stupid comment on two levels: First, there’s a huge difference between young people needing adult role models and mentors who understand what they’re going through, and those adult role models having sex with them. When you’re young your sexuality is still developing and any kind of deviant or traumatic experience can permanently affect it.
Secondly, if he’s going to have a theory that disgusting, he should at least be smart enough to keep it to himself.
Verbal IQ allowed Milo to rise to the top, but a lack of Theory of Mind IQ appears to have caused him to come crashing down.
I’m reminded of a great quote from the late great J.P. Rushton who told me:
All of us have successes. All of us make mistakes. But high IQ people tend to get further ahead in life, partly because they make fewer mistakes.
One of the reasons the correlation between IQ and MEASURABLE cumulative life-time earnings might be as high as 0.5 is that free market punishes dumb mistakes. Milo just lost an incredibley lucrative book deal and he’s lost his massive platform at the well funded Breitbart.
My first clue that Milo’s Theory of Mind IQ was not that high was when he described Trump as one of the smartest people in the country; “he’s so, so clever” Milo gushed.
“You know when you talk about intelligence, there are so many different parts to it, ” a wise mentor once told me. “It’s memorization, it’s pattern recognition, it’s…”
The speed of the brain?
“That’s only one part of it!” my mentor said: “If you want a single umbrella to cover ALL of intelligence….” he said, slowly, carefully, spreading out his arms as far as they would reach to convey the utter vastness of the entity he was describing, “then it’s the ability to adapt; to take whatever situation you’re in, and turn it around to your advantage. That’s really what intelligence is”
Here we see Milo used one part of intelligence to get to the top (verbal IQ), but his lack of another part of intelligence (Theory of Mind IQ) derailed his success. In order to get to the absolute top of America, you can’t just be a one-trick pony. You must be able to adapt.
Pumpkin Person 
peepee made me look for my physical anthro textbook. sad!
was this what i was looking for?
or this?
neither…but close.
notice how abos and melanesians are MUCH more closely related to europeans than either is to SSAs.
unless you’re blind…
And the first modern human was more related (in family tree) to Homo heidelbergensis than they are to you. What’s your point?
You don’t understand the difference between neutral DNA & selected DNA & why the former is preferred to make phylogenetic trees but the latter determines taxonomy (at least until the dumbing down of biology)
“And the first modern human was more related (in family tree) to Homo heidelbergensis than they are to you”
No they weren’t.
“(at least until the dumbing down of biology)”
Please, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
No they weren’t.
Of course they were. How many generations do you think separate the first modern human from a Heidelbergensis vs the number separating the first modern human to us?
Please, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
How so?
“Please, you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
This. PP thinks that 18th-century taxonomy has any bearing on racial classifications we use today. That’s hilarious.
Is there anything else you believe that’s hundreds of years old, PP? Flat Earth?
It’s actually still used for most species RR
any bearing on racial classifications we use today.
“How many generations do you think separate the first modern human from a Heidelbergensis vs the number separating the first modern human to us?”
First, think about what you’re asking me, and how ridiculous the premises are. You’re trying to tell me that two populations from the same species are not more related to each other than they are to a completely different species.
Second, the molecular clock or neutral dna has little to do with the number of generations between species. The literal definition of the molecular clock:
“the average rate at which a species’ genome accumulates mutations, used to measure their evolutionary divergence and in other calculations.”
Thinking critically for a minute the specific quantity of accumulated neutral mutations is dependent upon the number of generations, so you are correct in this regard. What you didn’t understand was the number of generations is determined by a number of factors, like outside selection pressures or the respective life history and can successfully slow down or speed up the mutation rate.
Interestingly, we know for a fact that Hominids have been becoming more K selected, meaning homo heidelbergnesis would have had a much faster mutation rate per generation than homo sapiens. This debunks the idea that the herto fossils are more related to hiedelbergensis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock#Non-constant_rate_of_molecular_clock
“How so?”
Well first off the term “selected dna” is completely made up. Second, since it has been bothering me, you downplay the importance of “junk” dna. Do you know what Hox genes are?
Neanderthals supposedly lacked rotation in their arms, let’s say a group of neanderthals became isolated and hypothetically they mutated rotatable arms again. Are they more related to heidelbergensis? No. Selected dna would be a useless thing to try and study because the term itself implies the compared individuals have similar dna to begin with, which is why it’s only useful on a species level/sub species level comparison.
Phenetics does not take symplesiomorphic traits into consideration
In this sense you are correct in saying that australian aborigines may have more selected dna in common with negroids than Europeans but they are not more related to eachother they just had similar selection pressures.
“PP thinks that 18th-century taxonomy has any bearing on racial classifications we use today.
It’s actually still used for most species RR”
He’s not completely wrong RR , but no they do not use it for most species, they tend to use it in conjuction with cladistics and on the species-level
“The two methodologies are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why, e.g., species identified using phenetics cannot subsequently be subjected to cladistic analysis, to determine their evolutionary relationships. Phenetic methods can also be superior to cladistics when only the distinctness of related taxa is important, as the computational requirements are lower”
He is arguing Phenetics vs Cladistics
Phenetics:
“also known as taximetrics, is an attempt to classify organisms based on overall similarity, usually in morphology or other observable traits, regardless of their phylogeny or evolutionary relation.”
“However, with computers growing increasingly powerful and widespread, more refined cladistic algorithms became available and could put the suggestions of Willi Hennig to the test; as it turned out, the results of cladistic analyses turned out to be superior to those of phenetic methods – at least when it came to resolving phylogenies.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenetics#Phenetics_today
First, think about what you’re asking me, and how ridiculous the premises are. You’re trying to tell me that two populations from the same species are not more related to each other than they are to a completely different species.
I’m saying the first members of our species are more related to the Heidelbergensis of their day than they are to us. It sounds ridiculous because there’s a strong correlation between degree of family relatedness and morphology, however this just happens to be an exception to that correlation.
Thinking critically for a minute the specific quantity of accumulated neutral mutations is dependent upon the number of generations, so you are correct in this regard. What you didn’t understand was the number of generations is determined by a number of factors, like outside selection pressures or the respective life history and can successfully slow down or speed up the mutation rate.
Scientists assume the mutation rate is constant, otherwise it couldn’t function as a clock. What good would your alarm clock be if during the first hour of the day, an hour was 60 minutes, but in the second hour it was only 45 minutes. If it’s used to measure the time since the line leading to humans diverged from the line leading to chimps, it can certainly be used to compare when the time since the first modern human shared an ancestor with his Heidelbergensis cousin, and that time was much, much smaller than the time since you shared an ancestor with the first modern human.
So yes, the first modern humans were much, much, MUCH closer to Heidelbergensis than the first modern humans were to us. This is because of what Stephen Jay Gould called punctuated equilibrium, where evolution doesn’t occur gradually, but rather is static for thousands of years and then suddenly leaps forward in sudden huge bursts. It would be analogous to you getting your girlfriend pregnant and the baby being a mutant so strange it did not qualify as human. Technically you’d be completely related to it because your its father and neutral DNA would show the close link, but morphologically (which is how taxonomy traditionally worked) you’re different species from your own son. I’m not suggesting speciation happens in just one generation, but however many generations, it’s few enough for the last members of an extinct parent species to be more related to the first members of the new species, than the new species is to future members of its own species.
Family relatedness is not the same as morphological similarity. The former is measured by neutral DNA and the molecular clock while the latter is measured by selected DNA and phenotype.
In this sense you are correct in saying that australian aborigines may have more selected dna in common with negroids than Europeans but they are not more related to eachother they just had similar selection pressures.
But a new form of life only evolves when it faces new selection pressures (or extreme genetic drift). The problem with using neutral DNA to define race or species, is that anytime population splits for a long enough time, neutral DNA defines them as a new species, even if they stay the same in every possible way. Because all neutral DNA theoretically measures is the amount of time since two people shared a common ancestor. It ignores what happened in that time and looks exclusively at chronology (because it serves as a clock, mutating at a predictable rate). But one of the interesting things about evolution is that certain species have existed for millions of years. However if you define species by neutral DNA, then by definition, a species can’t exist for a million years because neutral DNA classifies life by time.
“I’m saying the first members of our species are more related to the Heidelbergensis of their day than they are to us.”
If you really are assuming punctuated equilibrium was the catalyst for most of our speciation then that further re illustrates my point. The only way The first homo sapiens could have been more related to heidelbergensis was if the transition was a gradual and constant.
“Scientists assume the mutation rate is constant, otherwise it couldn’t function as a clock.”
Sometimes they do. Most of the times scientists correct for the inconsistent rates using statistical methods:
“Molecular clock users have developed workaround solutions using a number of statistical approaches including maximum likelihood techniques and later Bayesian modeling. In particular, models that take into account rate variation across lineages have been proposed in order to obtain better estimates of divergence times. These models are called relaxed molecular clocks because they represent an intermediate position between the ‘strict’ molecular clock hypothesis and Joseph Felsenstein’s many-rates model and are made possible through MCMC techniques that explore a weighted range of tree topologies and simultaneously estimate parameters of the chosen substitution model. It must be remembered that divergence dates inferred using a molecular clock are based on statistical inference and not on direct evidence.”
“Stephen Jay Gould called punctuated equilibrium, where evolution doesn’t occur gradually,”
Gould was intellectually dishonest, besides that though, that is not what punctuated equilibrium implies.
Punctuated equlibirum is still a gradual process, with it usually taking 50,000-100,000 years which would have been about 4000 generations of homo heidelbergensis(assuming they reproduced earlier on than us).
Secondly, Gould posited that the driving mechanisms of these “punctuations” was extreme genetic isolation or allopatric speciation. When this occurs, the population’s genome is put through a strainer, Inbreeding increases, and the mutation rate skyrockets
The isolation doesn’t just affect deleterious or beneficial genes, it also accumulates neutral mutations more frequently. Gould assumes that before these punctuated events, there is little to no change in shifts of allele frequency, but neutral mutations can become fixed within a populations through genetic drift. Secondly neutral dna isn’t necessarily the same thing as non-coding dna.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/InbrDrift/InbrDrift.html
“Family relatedness is not the same as morphological similarity. The former is measured by neutral DNA and the molecular clock while the latter is measured by selected DNA and phenotype.”
That’s my point thought you’re not taking symplesiomorphic traits into consideration. You cant establish any relationship of genetic similarity because the shared trait could be derived from a common ancestor or plesiomorph.
Two individuals from the same species but from completely different familial lineages could express the same selected traits, not because of actual similarity but because at some point all humans have a common ancestor with one another.
“A symplesiomorphic trait is also shared with other taxa that have an earlier last common ancestor with the taxa under consideration. They are therefore not an indication that the taxa be considered more closely related to each other than to the more distant taxa, as all share the more ancestral character state.”
“Since a plesiomorphic character inherited from a common ancestor can appear anywhere in a phylogenetic tree, its presence cannot reveal anything about the relationships within that tree.”
“The problem with using neutral DNA to define race or species, is that anytime population splits for a long enough time, neutral DNA defines them as a new species, even if they stay the same in every possible way.”
There seems to be a confusion. The molecular clock is a measure of when species diverged not the actual defining tool used to establish any particular group as a species.
“However if you define species by neutral DNA, then by definition, a species can’t exist for a million years because neutral DNA classifies life by time.”
How so? If enough mutations have accumulated how could you say it’s the same species when the gnome itself is completely warped?
Sometimes they do. Most of the times scientists correct for the inconsistent rates using statistical methods:
The point is, the more time since two “people” have shared a common ancestor, the more random mutations in their neutral DNA. The time since the first modern human and his most recent Heidelbergensis ancestor was much smaller than the time since the first modern human and you, thus when it comes to neutral DNA, they’re closer to each other than either one is to you. You might say, that’s impossible, “I’m the same species as the first modern human, how can we be so genetically distant on neutral DNA?” But that’s precisely why neutral DNA is chosen as a molecular clock. It tends not to reflect events like speciation and selection, and thus serves as a clock that ticks at a predictable rate, not much skewed by whether major evolution does or does not occur in that time.
Gould was intellectually dishonest,
But not when it comes to this.
Punctuated equlibirum is still a gradual process, with it usually taking 50,000-100,000 years which would have been about 4000 generations of homo heidelbergensis(assuming they reproduced earlier on than us).
You think there were 75,000 years separating the first modern human and his most recent Heidelbergensis ancestor? I doubt it, but even still, there are 200,000 years separating the first modern human and you, so more time for mutations to accumulate in your neutral DNA, making you more different from them than they are to each other.
Secondly, Gould posited that the driving mechanisms of these “punctuations” was extreme genetic isolation or allopatric speciation. When this occurs, the population’s genome is put through a strainer, Inbreeding increases, and the mutation rate skyrockets
I think you might be confusing mutation rate with the rate of pairing of recessive alleles which does indeed skyrocket among the inbred.
The isolation doesn’t just affect deleterious or beneficial genes, it also accumulates neutral mutations more frequently.
If that’s true how would neutral DNA function as a molecular clock? For example we know that Australian aboriginals arrived in Australia about 50,000 years ago because of the huge number of neutral mutations they have, but if they accumulated more neutral mutations because they were isolated (which they were) then they might have only needed 10,000 years to accumulate all those mutations. So what you’re saying doesn’t make sense right?
Gould assumes that before these punctuated events, there is little to no change in shifts of allele frequency, but neutral mutations can become fixed within a populations through genetic drift.
They can also be lost through genetic drift so the two possibilities cancel out.
Secondly neutral dna isn’t necessarily the same thing as non-coding dna.
True, but there’s huge overlap between the two.
That’s my point thought you’re not taking symplesiomorphic traits into consideration. You cant establish any relationship of genetic similarity because the shared trait could be derived from a common ancestor or plesiomorph.
I’m arguing that science SHOULD group life forms by the degree to which they genetically preserve the traits of a common ancestor, not based on how many generations ago they shared a common ancestor.
Two individuals from the same species but from completely different familial lineages could express the same selected traits, not because of actual similarity but because at some point all humans have a common ancestor with one another.
Define actual similarity. You’re defining similarity by how recently two people shared an ancestor, ignoring how much evolution occurred or didn’t occur in that time. In reality, most classifications are based on morphology. If a group of animals look and act alike because of a shared ancestry, they’re grouped together, even if that shared ancestry was millions of years ago. Only with the rise of DNA have scientists been doing absurd things like classifying birds as dinosaurs and humans as apes and negritos as non-Africans because they are looking at TIME since divergence, and ignoring the degree of evolution that occurred in that time.
There seems to be a confusion. The molecular clock is a measure of when species diverged not the actual defining tool used to establish any particular group as a species.
It’s used both to measure the divergence between a group of animals but also used to regroup them taxonomically (i.e. humans are now apes, birds are now dinosaurs, negritos are no longer African). For example if DNA had showed Neanderthals had only split from modern humans tens of thousands of years instead of hundreds of thousands of years ago, they’d be considered just another race of modern humans instead of a separate species, regardless of their morphological differences.
How so? If enough mutations have accumulated how could you say it’s the same species when the gnome itself is completely warped?
Because the mutations would be largely limited to neutral and non-coding DNA, but they’d be the same species in terms of appearance and behavior. If DNA had never been discovered, no one could tell them apart.
“How so? If enough mutations have accumulated how could you say it’s the same species when the gnome itself is completely warped?”
Biological species concept. If they can breed they’re still similar. If not then they are different species.
I’ll go though the rest of your post later.
I’ll respond later too but in the meantime if MeLo & RR could go to the nominees post & tell me who they considers the world’s 30 most influential LIVING humans.
We need to include the brown boy perspective 🙂
For the 80 millionth time pp, I’m not brown.
I’ll give my list tonight.
When you get the list in I’ll consider you white 🙂
PP, the mutation rate is not always constant.
And Melo, Gould was dishonest about human evolution. His main evolutionary theory is solid. Read The Structure of evolutionary Theory. I’ve read a bit of it so far. Good read.
“I’ll respond later too but in the meantime if MeLo & RR could go to the nominees post & tell me who they considers the world’s 30 most influential LIVING humans.”
Eh, I would probably be useless for such a task. I might, but no promises, and it’ll more than likely it’ll be half-assed.
“Biological species concept. If they can breed they’re still similar. If not then they are different species.”
We’ve been through this before, different species can produce fertile offspring.
“I’ll go though the rest of your post later.”
Have fun. I rigorously researched this.
“Gould was dishonest about human evolution. His main evolutionary theory is solid. Read The Structure of evolutionary Theory. I’ve read a bit of it so far. Good read.”
He is basically a political scientist. Because of his polymath nature, he tends to have plenty of inconsistencies in his subsequently promulgated concepts.
Other researches have noted his almost agenda driven manner of articulation.
Punctuated equilibrium is interesting but dawkins sums it up nice:
” Dawkins terms “variable speedism.” Variable speedism may also be distinguished one of two ways: “discrete variable speedism” and “continuously variable speedism.” Eldredge and Gould, proposing that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity, are described as “discrete variable speedists,” and “in this respect they are genuinely radical.” They assert that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all. “Continuously variable speedists,” on the other hand advance that “evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution.”
Eh, I would probably be useless for such a task. I might, but no promises, and it’ll more than likely it’ll be half-assed.
I’d rather a crappy list than no list at all. No one person’s top 30 will be all that accurate anyway, but aggregating the top 30 of many thoughtful interesting people from many walks of life might produce a very interesting top 100, and as a hybridized second generation immigrant, you bring a unique perspective
Gould and Dawkins had extensive back and forth on this. I’m going to buy a book about the whole ordeal soon.
Can you get the link to where we discussed this before?
“and as a hybridized second generation immigrant, you bring a unique perspective”
Lmao I’m curious to know the thought process behind that rationalization.
“Can you get the link to where we discussed this before?”
Probably not. We were discussing whether homo sapiens and neanderthals were the same species or something like that.
I remember that. I don’t want to repair conversation so I’ll look for it later and post it here so we can continue where we left off.
For any readers that don’t know what Punctuated Equilibira (PE) is:
PE is when a species spends a long time in stasis before a swift morphological change. Taking May’s founder principle—a new, small isolated group. Small, isolated groups have more mutations than bigger groups.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_5.htm
So we would expect an incomplete fossil record and that transitional fossils would be few. An incomplete fossil record is then predicted.
Creationists latch onto this concept and shout that Gould disproved evolution. Gould debated Creationists all the time. I’m sure you know of the most famous Creationist quote mine; Darwin explaining the eye.
It’s also important to note that Gould didn’t completely discard gradualism, he just said that most speciation occurs due to punctuated equilibria. Even Dawkins who you quoted has stated that evolution occurs at different rates. PE is an allopatric theory of evolution. It’s based on geographically isolated species.
“He is basically a political scientist. Because of his polymath nature, he tends to have plenty of inconsistencies in his subsequently promulgated concepts.
Other researches have noted his almost agenda driven manner of articulation.”
I separate his politics from his writings on evolution. Polymath is the best description for Gould tbh.
“Punctuated equilibrium is interesting but dawkins sums it up nice:”
He said it was ‘overhyped and oversold’ in The Extended Phenotype.
Skeptic: A few years ago, you and Stephen Jay Gould got in to a bit of an intellectual row about the question of punctuated equilibrium. By the time you wrote The Blind Watchmaker you seemed to say that more was made of the controversy by journalists than was warranted. What is your current position on this controversy?
Dawkins: I think that punctuated equilibrium is a minor wrinkle on Darwinism, of no great theoretical significance. It has been vastly oversold.
Skeptic: Why?
Dawkins: That’s a matter of individual psychology and motivation and not my province.
https://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_3.php
The fossil record and allopatric speciation back the theory. Does gradualism explain the absence of transitional fossils?
Gould said this about PE and Creationists in The Panda’s Thumb:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Punctuated_equilibrium
lol Creationists.
But yea, there’s evidence for both gradualism and PE, but PE explains the changes in morphology in the fossil record.
By the way Melo, the Morton/Gould debate is not over:
Here’s Lewis et al 2011:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
Here is a critique of Lewis et al, defending Gould:
This article is a reexamination of the Morton and Gould controversy. It argues that most of Gould’s arguments against Morton are sound. Although Gould made some errors and overstated his case in a number of places, he provided prima facia evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases. Gould’s critique of Morton ought to remain as an illustration of implicit bias in science.
Click to access remeasuring-man.pdf
We begin this paper with Lewis et al.’s re-measurements of the skulls in Morton’s collection. Their discussion of the remeasurement takes up a significant portion of their paper, and much, indeed most, of the media coverage focused on this aspect of their work. We argue that this re-measurement was completely irrelevant to an evaluation of Gould’s published analysis of Morton; the exercise was pointless, and there was no legitimate reason to feature the results of that work. The space Lewis et al. devote to their re-measurement of the skulls, as well as the media attention it garnered, form part of a larger pattern of a reframing of Gould’s criticisms of Morton that is, again, at best misleading.
Click to access KAPGOM.pdf
I’d have loved to see Gould’s response to Lewis et al.
“It’s also important to note that Gould didn’t completely discard gradualism, he just said that most speciation occurs due to punctuated equilibria.”
I know: “Eldredge and Gould, proposing that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity, are described as “discrete variable speedists,” and “in this respect they are genuinely radical.”They assert that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all. “Continuously variable speedists,” on the other hand advance that “evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution”
“lol Creationists.”
Creationists are akin to egalitarians, wouldn’t you say?
“Does gradualism explain the absence of transitional fossils”
Dawkins thought migratory events did, then again I don’t care that much, I’m what he calls a “continuously variable speedist”. The dichotomy is useless to me. Evolution follows the trends of selections and probability, it isn’t a process or a mechanism but instead a result or effect, so i don’t expect it to act in an uniform or consistent manner. I hope that made sense
Something I know you’ll be interested in, it turns out primates prefer red food more than anything and use it as an indicator for how much calories a particular items contains. This may have been incentive for our transition into scavengers and then predators
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37034
A lot of stasis is when an organism has gotten as ‘adapted’ as possible to their environment. Though Gould stated that ‘micro-mutations’ were the cause for the swift change.
“Creationists are akin to egalitarians, wouldn’t you say?”
Pretty much. People who quote mine Darwin and Gould are idiots.
“Dawkins thought migratory events did”
As did Eldredge and Gould. That’s the basis behind the biological species concept.
“Evolution follows the trends of selections and probability, it isn’t a process or a mechanism but instead a result or effect, so i don’t expect it to act in an uniform or consistent manner. I hope that made sense”
Selection is the mechanism and what causes selection is mutation (the rates never remain constant), migration and genetic drift. The main component of evolution is natural selection, which is just local change.
The term evolution denotes ‘progress’, so I think I’ll start using ‘Descent with Modification’ (DwM). Darwin doesn’t use the term ‘evolution’ in On the Origin, but Descent with Modification. He does make reference to his theory of descent by modification 19 times, however.
Click to access Origin_of_Species.pdf
“Something I know you’ll be interested in, it turns out primates prefer red food more than anything and use it as an indicator for how much calories a particular items contains. This may have been incentive for our transition into scavengers and then predators”
Great apes prefer cooked food.
Click to access 10.1016%40j.jhevol.2008.03.003.pdf
“Color predicts caloric content”
Right. You can also tell what type of nutrients it has based on its color.
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/colors-vegetables-nutrients-2311.html
The one variable I hope they controlled for in their human cohort, they did (BMI). Mean BMI was 22.
Oh, look at this:
Our findings support also the view put forward by Wrangham and colleagues23 that food transformation is relevant in the evaluation of food quality16,17,23,24. In fact, the level of transformation was a significant predictor for both arousal and perceived calorie content (see ref. 15,25). Moreover, level of transformation weighed more than any other predictor, including the actual calorie content, on the estimation of arousal and perceived calorie content (see Tables 1 and 2; Standardized Coefficient Beta = 0.53 and 0.69 respectively).
Food transformation is most definitely relevant in the evaluation of food quality.
Nice to have some more confirmation for the theory. Along with the genetic evidence:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/26/genetic-changes-from-cooking/
Knowing that natural color says something about food is nutrition 101.
“which is how taxonomy traditionally worked” (speciation)
Melo, I think this is what he means when he says that biology got ‘dumbed down’. He still believes morphology says anything about speciation. But it doesn’t. Re: Ernst Mayr:
I analyze a number of widespread misconceptions concerning species. The species category, defined by a concept, denotes the rank of a species taxon in the Linnaean hierarchy. Biological species are reproducing isolated from each other, which protects the integrity of their genotypes. Degree of morphological difference is not an appropriate species definition. Unequal rates of evolution of different characters and lack of information on the mating potential of isolated populations are the major difficulties in the demarcation of species taxa.
http://darwiniana.org/mayrspecies.htm
PP, what other old and outdated things do you still believe?
RR there are not enough hours in the day to correct all your mistakes
“Biological species are reproducing isolated from each other, which protects the integrity of their genotypes”
Meaningless. We now know populations that have been isolated for over 2 million years can produce fertile offspring
By your definition virtually every species of the genus homo is part of our species
It’s just some arbitrary definition that has nothing to do with how species is actually classified
“RR there are not enough hours in the day to correct all your mistakes.”
There are not enough days in the life of the universe to correct your evolutionary misconceptions.
“Meaningless. We now know populations that have been isolated for over 2 million years can produce fertile offspring”
It’s not meaningless. It’s the most widely accepted species definition. Where the BSC doesn’t apply, phylogeny can take care of asexual organisms and extinct organisms given we have DNA from them. Which species are you speaking of? Any examples?
“By your definition virtually every species of the genus homo is part of our species”
Can we interbreed with erectus?
“It’s just some arbitrary definition that has nothing to do with how species is actually classified”
No it’s not. Biologists do use morphology, but the BSC is the one that’s used the most.
It’s not meaningless. It’s the most widely accepted species definition.
Not anymore. Scientists are discovering all the time that different species can breed
A species is just a group of animals that look and act similar because of shared common ancestry. That’s it.
If the similarity is extra large we might say they are a race not a species.
If it’s less large we might say they’re a genus
But taxonomy is nothing more than grouping organisms by common morphology caused by shared ancestry
Only since the discovery of modern DNA has morphology been ignored but countless animals have not been genetically analyzed thoroughly so morphology still dominates our classification
Can we interbreed with erectus?
Probably. We can interbreed with any primate that diverged from us less than about 2 million years ago
“Meaningless. We now know populations that have been isolated for over 2 million years can produce fertile offspring
By your definition virtually every species of the genus homo is part of our species”
“He still believes morphology says anything about speciation. But it doesn’t. ”
The Biological species concept is somewhat accurate but I have already pointed out it’s flaws, the alternative is the phylogenetic species concept, which utilizes divergence and Morphological traits
If punctuated equilibrium is indeed a correct model of evolutionary trends, then this would mean he PSC would be the best measurement of overall genealogical similarity.
As Pumpkin pointed out though that means ring species can be assigned to in the same classification despite having incredibly varying levels of diversity. This could help vindicate the multi-regional hypothesis.
Forgive the previous comment’s grammatical errors.
A link on the different speciation concepts.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phylogeny/species_concepts.html
I think it makes sense to rely on divergence, not exclusively though.
“But taxonomy is nothing more than grouping organisms by common morphology caused by shared ancestry”
That’s what cladistic classification is.
“Probably. We can interbreed with any primate that diverged from us less than about 2 million years ago”
Source? Not that I doubt it.
“Not anymore. Scientists are discovering all the time that different species can breed”
…..Go on.
“A species is just a group of animals that look and act similar because of shared common ancestry. That’s it.”
A group of organisms that is capable of interbreeding. You missed that one crucial point.
“Only since the discovery of modern DNA has morphology been ignored but countless animals have not been genetically analyzed thoroughly so morphology still dominates our classification”‘
Like? Are they interbreeding natural populations isolated from other groups?
“Probably. We can interbreed with any primate that diverged from us less than about 2 million years ago”
Strongly doubtful.
The website that you discarded on the basis of brain size not being a predictor of IQ says otherwise, though:
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=6585
I doubt it. We’re two different.
And for Melo, East Asians have more than 10 to 15 percent more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans, they probably interbred in two waves. We discussed that before.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947341/
Quick note for Melo.
I like the BSC the most, obviously, since I’m a bio major. However for fossils, the PSC is good (using phylogenies how they’re supposed to be used, not in the way that PP uses it which is unscientific).
However for fossils, the PSC is good (using phylogenies how they’re supposed to be used, not in the way that PP uses it which is unscientific).
RR, you’re a nice guy & you do a lot of great research, but you’re just not a thinker & my theories are too abstract for you.
That’s cute pp. Since my brain is so small and my IQ is so low, explain your theory (which I’ve already shown is wrong) to me like I am 2, please.
I’m not a thinker? I demolished you on dieting my friend. I fully understand your hypothesis. I’ve asked you to put it to the test: choose to species that diverged from a common ancestor. Then study the common ancestors traits. Then count the traits of the parent population and the new population.
Do you have a better way to test this? If so, enlighten me. You have a theory so put it to the test. Either do what I’ve suggested or think of a way to do it on your own.
You should use that big brain of yours and admit you were wrong about dieting.
Also, point out what I said is wrong in that quote you quoted me saying. I’m a biology major. So I take the BSC. For fossils, since we can test them genetically, the PSC is better.
One more thing. Why didn’t you major in evolutionary biology instead of social ‘science’ if you’re so interested in evolution? The world may never know…
Please don’t waste my time with your snarky comments. If you’ve not noticed, I don’t get into the little bullshit squabbles talking about nothing that most of your other commenters do. I come here for serious discussion, not idiotic ad hominem attacks.
Your statement is fallacious pp. Good job! You should have taken a logic class, then you’d notice your fallacious statements….
I’m not a thinker? I demolished you on dieting my friend
No you didn’t RR. You just copied and pasted way too much irrelevant crap for me to have time respond to, but i will later this week.
I made a claim. Dieting slows metabolism. I fully explained the mechanism behind it in a few long posts (that you didn’t respond to). Then I cited studies to back my claim that dieting causes metabolic damage (which, as far as we know, is irreversible).
I await your response to that. No one that I have ever discussed this with has a response for my claim on dieting too long with low kcal and metabolic damage. Because they’re ignorant to human physiology. Much like you are.
I’d love for you to respond to my long example to you on dieting. That was no copy and paste. That came right off the top of my head and you didn’t respond to it, only hand waved it away because you’re ignorant to what I’m telling you.
Better yet, do what I asked in regards to human races. Put it to the test, pp.
This should be good.
This is the comment I am referring to.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/02/16/how-oprah-cured-my-homophobia/comment-page-1/#comment-51179
The three long paragraphs. The extent of my knowledge goes way deeper on this subject, this is just a small sample for you.
Do you know anything about human physiology and metabolism, pp?
Does the first law of thermodynamics apply to biological systems?
RR I’m very busy but I’ll correct your mistakes later this week. You don’t have to keep repeating them in every thread.
CNS should be FNS. I am not worthy to take the exam to be a CNS yet. Probably within the next year I’ll graduate and be ready for the exam.
“The point is, the more time since two “people” have shared a common ancestor, the more random mutations in their neutral DNA.”
I understand your point, but it’s irrelevant if the molecular clock is not actually constant. I literally just explained this to you.
” But that’s precisely why neutral DNA is chosen as a molecular clock. It tends not to reflect events like speciation and selection, and thus serves as a clock that ticks at a predictable rate, not much skewed by whether major evolution does or does not occur in that time.”
A divergence period is identified by speciation events, which occur when a population becomes genetically isolated from the parent one. This is why Morphology is usually ignored when classifying species based on genealogy alone. Just so you aren’t confused, there is a difference between genetic and reproductive isolation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771874/
“You think there were 75,000 years separating the first modern human and his most recent Heidelbergensis ancestor? I doubt it, but even still, there are 200,000 years separating the first modern human and you”
Homo sapiens appears 100k years after most heidelbergensis fossil. Heidelbergensis would have had a faster accumulation of neutral mutations. As I already said.
“I think you might be confusing mutation rate with the rate of pairing of recessive alleles which does indeed skyrocket among the inbred.”
No, they accompany eachother.
“I’m arguing that science SHOULD group life forms by the degree to which they genetically preserve the traits of a common ancestor,”
But that is not an actual measure of divergence or relatedness, you’re only measuring pure phenotypic similarity.
LOL that is how scientists group life forms. You just described the PSC. Each divergence is it’s own species, however within that Phylogenetic branch you can’t be certain of which subspecies has more relation because they all derive from the same common ancestor, so a trait can re appear anywhere.
Indeed, Australoids diverged before Europeans and asians but there is practically no difference in the respective levels genetic similarity when compared to africans. The PSC allows speciation to become an objective practice.
“Only with the rise of DNA have scientists been doing absurd things like classifying birds as dinosaurs and humans as apes and negritos as non-Africans because they are looking at TIME since divergence, and ignoring the degree of evolution that occurred in that time.”
I don’t think scientists consider birds and dinosaurs the same species. Humans are primates but that is their order not their species or even their family. Africans and non africans are apart of the same divergence. The molecular clock is a measure of genetic distance, the actual placement of branches is dependent on elevated levels of genetic accumulation of traits
“For example if DNA had showed Neanderthals had only split from modern humans tens of thousands of years instead of hundreds of thousands of years ago, they’d be considered just another race of modern humans instead of a separate species, regardless of their morphological differences.”
Not necessarily, there was a big degree of genetic isolation between the groups.
“Because the mutations would be largely limited to neutral and non-coding DNA, but they’d be the same species in terms of appearance and behavior.”
Not at all. Did you watch my video about chicken teeth? It’s very informative. junk dna is the culmination of neutral dna over periods of time neutral dna has a lot of functions and is not useless in anyway. It contains hox genes which can cause dramatic phenotypic expressions in only a few generations. This is why chimps are 98% similar to us yet are completely different in appearance and behavior.
“Does the first law of thermodynamics apply to biological systems?”
I assume all laws of physics would. Biology is an extension of physical reactions.
“LOL that is how scientists group life forms. You just described the PSC. ”
Ignore this sentence^ I misread your reply.
“I assume all laws of physics would. Biology is an extension of physical reactions.”
Never assume. The First Law always holds, but is irrelevant to human physiology.
Biology is biology; physics is physics. The first law doesn’t apply to open systems.
The human body is not an isolated system; it is open since energy constantly comes in and leaves. Therefore, thermodynamics is irrelevant to human physiology.
If you said to me “Why is this room getting overcrowded?” and I replied “Well, it’s getting overcrowded because too many people are entering and too few are leaving”. You’d then say (I hope) “OK, of course more people left, but why?” Now using the same logic for obesity: “Rooms get overcrowded because too many people enter it and too few people leave. There is no getting around thermodynamics.” I’d then hope you’d say “OK, then what?”, since I have yet to give you causal information, I am only stating a fact, I am not STATING A CAUSE. Saying “A room gets more and more crowded because too many people come in while too few leave” is tautological.
The First Law states that if we get heavier and heavier, then more energy is coming into our body than is leaving it. When we then say that one becomes fat due to overeating, that’s saying the same thing. It becomes a tautology. However it doesn’t answer the main questions: WHY do we get fatter? WHY do we eat more?
Saying that people get fat because they eat more is ridiculous, and can be reversed. People eat more because they get fatter; people don’t eat more and get fatter. Simply reversing the phrase shows the reality of the situation: becoming fat leads us to eating more.
The First Law says NOTHING about causality and is IRRELEVANT to human physiology. It doesn’t say WHY we get fat.
This is only a small sample for you, PP, my friend.
I’m glad you took the time to figure that out, but honestly I think thermodynamics has little relevancy with people getting fat or whatever.
“I think thermodynamics has little relevancy with people getting fat or whatever.”
…I literally just said that buddy.
I wonder what PP’s response is; WWs says ‘Eating Less and Moving More!’ will make you less fat.
Read this Melo.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/08/11/the-calories-incalories-out-myth/
I have a solid grasp of human biology, metabolic pathways, dieting, physiology, etc. PP does not and only defends WWs garbage because he’s an Oprah Slave, doing Her (c wut i did thur?) bidding: She says WWs took over 40 pounds, RUSH TO WWS!!!
However, as I’ve said a trillion times, she has yo-yoed for DECADES. What makes you think this time will be the time for her to get back on track?
Speaking of Oprah, Gary Taubes also brings her up in his book on his section of thermodynamics:
“There are three laws of thermodynamics, but the one that the experts believe is determining why we get fat is the first one. This is also known as the law of energy conservation: all it says is that energy is neither created nor destroyed but can only change from one form to another. Blow up a stick of dynamite, for instance, and the potential energy contained in the chemical bonds of the nitroglycerin is transformed into heat and the kinetic energy of the explosion. Because all mass – our fat tissue, our muscles, our bones, our organs, a planet or star, Oprah Winfrey – is composed of energy, another way to say this is that we can’t make something out of nothing or nothing out of something.
“Oprah, for instance, can’t become more massive – fatter and heavier – without taking in more energy than she expends, because Oprah fatter and heavier containts more energy than Oprah leaner and lighter. She has to consume more energy than she expends to accomodate her increasing mass. And she can’t become leaner and lighter without expending more energy than she takes in. Energy is conserved. That’s what the first law of thermodynamics tells is. (Taubes, 2011: 73)
Read this too:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18370664
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1445.1.full
Inb4 PP says I’m just spamming links and blah blah blah.
He knows damn well he’s wrong. I assume (rightly so) that people have no idea what I’m talking about here. So, to inform the relevant parties who may be interested in seeing where I got the information, I provided references and books to read. Maybe (I strongly doubt it) PP will read some of them and change his view getting real information and not Big Food information.
Alcoholism is too much alcohol in and not enough alcohol out!!! EI/EO (ethanol in/ethanol out)!!!! Stop drinking so much, alchy!!! The first law of alcohol dynamics you can’t create ethanol out of nothing!!!
Now, what causes a plane crash? Too much gravity or too little lift!! Muh FLoT!!! So the treatment is to have bigger wings or make the plane weigh less. That is the proximate cause. But the ultimate cause is human error, mechanical error or weather. So it’s made sure that pilots get enough training, the planes get maintained welll and weather forecasting is on point.
Here are some misconceptions on kcal:
One of the biggest misconceptions people have on Calories In/Calories out is that these variables are independent of each other. However, they are extremely dependent variables. When you decrease Calories In, your body decreases Calories Out. Basically, a 20 percent reduction in kcal will result in a 20 percent reduction in metabolism which the end result ends up being minimal weight loss.
A big assumption people have about Calories In, and Calories Out is the assumption that the Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) remains stable. Of course, measuring the caloric intake is simple. However, measuring caloric outtake is a much more complicated process. When ever the Total Daily Energy Expidenture (TDEE) is spoken of, that involves the BMR, thermic effect of food, nonexercise activity thermogenesis (the energy expidenture of all activities sans sports), excess post-exercise consumption (EPOC, a measurably increased rate of oxygen intake following increased oxygen depletion), as well as exercise. the TDEE can increase or decrease by as much as 50 percent depending on caloric intake as well as the aforementioned variables.
Another misconception people have is that we have conscious control over what we eat. We decide to eat when we are hungry (obviously). But numerous hormonal factors dictate the decision on when to eat or when to stop. We stop eating when we are full, which is hormonally mediated. Like breathing, the regulation of body fat is under automatic control. Just like we don’t have to remind ourselves to breath or remind our heart to beat, we don’t need to remind ourselves to eat. Thus, since hormones control both Calories In and Calories Out, obesity is a hormonal, not caloric disorder.
Another misconception is that fat stores are essentially, unregulated. However, every single system in the body is regulated. Height increases come from growth hormones; blood sugar is regulated by insulin, glucagon, and numerous other hormones; sexual maturation is regulated by testosterone and estrogen (as well as the hormone leptin which I will return to later); body temperature is mediated by a thyroid-stimulating hormone, among numerous other biologic factors. Though, we are told that the production of fat cells is unregulated. This is false. The best researched hormone on the storage of fat cells that we know of is the hormone leptin which was discovered in 1994. So if hormones dictate fat gain, obesity is a hormonal, not caloric disorder.
And the final misconception is that a calorie is a calorie. This implies that the only important variable on weight gain is caloric intake and thus all foods can be reduced to how much caloric energy they have. But a calorie of potatoes doesn’t have the same effect on the body as a calorie of olive oil. The potatoes will increase the blood glucose level, provoking a response from the pancreas, which olive oil will not. Olive oil is immediately transported to the liver and has no chance to induce an insulin response and so there is no increase in insulin or glucose.
PP, here is my level:
——————
Here is yours (below me, obviously):
—-
You’re woefully misinformed on this subject.
“…I literally just said that buddy.”
I know. You were directing it at me though.
it’s sadly clear now.
peepee’s mom was a chinese australian and her dad was a guyanese indo-black.
sad!
Whoa dude….
I’m all for edgy humor, but that “smells like” name and the avatar is NOT cool.
Let’s try to keep this place family-friendly, okay?
Are you referring to this song?
Always thought she had a nice-looking bosom, big without being grotesquely huge.
Very beautiful even at 50! Very smart too, from what I’ve read.
although she has a lil too much makeup in that photo.
There’s only one magic mac.
Very similar personality to the RP McMurphy character.
Gay
Ever notice the way, there are a lot more autists bred in the world and gdp p.c real growth has plummeted.
In a 2d model, autist=more tech/enginering.
In the philosopher’s economic model, more autists=less wage bargaining, less innovation/creativity, more welfare payments to jew pokemon and less campaigning for higher wages.
Fighting created higher wages, not productivity Milton Autism. Tut Tut.
Some very good tips for Trump here on how to use the magical pokemon against the jews. Can you see his social IQ at work? Its a fascinating. I can hear the music, but I can’t play it myself.
As a black man, I was enthralled by this. Although I don’t care about manufacturing jobs as I get my money from looting and assault.
I like Donald.
me too.
what a pathetic address by a pathetic puppet.
An entire weekly address on black history? and what is this history?
what have the blacks ever achieved for them to warrant a history month?
And lest we forget, no self-respecting black supports black history month
.
Jimmy,
Your social understanding here is very faulty in relation to what Trump is doing here. This reinforces my view that you’ve got the wrong read on a lot of things.
phil,
why do you get so touchy when someone criticizes Trump? are you worried that your view of trump is completely wrong?
Trump thinks that he can win brownie points with that nonsense but the left will never give him an atoms weight of credit for it.
We are less than two months into this presidency and he is already sounding like George Bush.
he has already backtracked on all of his signature promises and they are still attacking him .
cuckservatives need to understand that appeasing the left never works.
He needs less weekly addresses to blacks and more addresses detailing when and how he is going to deport the 20 million + illegals.
Pumpkin turn off the dungeon. You seem to be too busy anyway to let flowering intellectual discussions and more pictures of Salma Hayek through.
Salma Hayek.
Hubba Hubba.
Salma walks around in a dress like that, good chance I crash my car.
yes!
Yes Dear Leader Pumpkin Person, turn off moderation and let truth ring free!!!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16043403
RESULTS:
Discriminant analysis of high vs. low IQ was 92.81-97.14% accurate. Discriminant scores of intermediate IQ subjects (i.e. 90 < IQ < 120) were intermediate between the high and low IQ groups. Linear regression predictions of IQ significantly correlated with the discriminant scores (r = 0.818-0.825, P EEG coherence > EEG amplitude asymmetry > absolute power > relative power and power ratios. The strongest correlations to IQ were short EEG phase delays in the frontal lobes and long phase delays in the posterior cortical regions, reduced coherence and increased absolute power.