Great lecture by geneticist Steve Jones arguing evolution as we know it has essentially stopped in modern humans because of massive declines in natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift.
Declining natural selection
Today any fool can survive to reproductive age so natural selection is essentially over.
Declining sexual selection
In the past some surviving men would father orders of magnitude more babies than others, but today the range is much more restricted.
Declining genetic drift
Our population has become so big that it’s hard for any population to become genetically isolated enough to mutate a new morphology.
Pumpkin Person 
steve jones agrees that HBDers are retarded.
In the past some surviving men would father orders of magnitude more babies than others, but today the range is much more restricted.
survival has 100% nothing to do with sexual selection [redacted by pp, jan 13, 2017]. the peacock’s tail is its paradigmatic example.
evidence against sexual selection in humans would be that ugly people have as many children as beautiful people.
in fact ugly men are the least successful as reproducing themselves, but mediocre women produce the most chillens.
survival has 100% nothing to do with sexual selection
That was my point. Some surviving men had more kids than other surviving men. I was using the term “sexual selection” to mean differences in reproduction holding survival constant. That’s not technically what it means, but there’s no other term for what Jones was describing.
This. Evidence for this piles up weekly. Sexual selection has nothing to do with survival. It has to do with beauty. Any survival benefits are a byproduct of the selection for beauty.
The “endgame” of evolution is not survival on the individual level, it’s the propagation of genotypes that express adaptable phenotypes. “Beauty” is such a subjective term. The main mechnaism for natural selection is death, while sexual selection’s is reproduction. The formation of species requires sexual selection and genetic dirft arguably have more impact on evolution then natural selection:
” What Darwin apparently did not clearly appreciate, however, is that sexual selection is often stronger than natural selection, as it frequently drives trait values beyond their naturally selected optima. Furthermore, this occurs even though sexual selection largely acts on only half the population (usually males), a situation that has been referred to as the quantitative paradox of sexual selection.
The solution to this apparent paradox is that the variance in male reproductive success is typically very large, meaning that sexual selection can be strong. It is important to remember that the variance in reproductive success is a measure of the potential for sexual selection and need not imply that any selection is occurring — the variance in sexual fitness may be random with respect to trait values, which of course means no selection. To establish a trait is subject to sexual selection, a clear link between it and mating success needs to be made (see below). Nonetheless, potential and realized selection on male traits is often very strong, with many male characters subject to sexual selection. This includes male body size, display rate or display size, and is why male mammals are often larger than females, for example.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210015198
If the thesis pumpkin made on steve jones is indeed reflective of his opinions, then it displays his ignorance quite well.
Sexual selection is not entirely dependent on fertility, neither is genetic drift dependent on population size. Larger populations tend be affected more by natural selection(in statistical sense) but since natural selection has in fact been slightly lifted(though it is still a present force) Genetic drift and sexual selection(which usually have bigger affects on smaller populations) have become he dominant force, meaning our evolution will be a little more randomized. There are in fact many studies indicating that we are still evolving.
Steve Jones is known for making ignorant comments. See my article on his views on testosterone.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/07/testosterone-the-crime-gene/
It seems like the selection preference has shifted from excellence towards mediocrity, probably as a result of the dysgenic effect caused by the serious decline of childhood mortality and thus, mutation accumulation.
Bruce Charlton & Edward Dutton’s book “The Genius Famine” is pretty much about this: http://geniusfamine.blogspot.com
“Intelligence is measured by IQ tests (meaning Intelligence Quotient; see below) and IQ test scores in childhood will predict many important things – higher intelligence predicts higher education level, higher socio-economic status, higher salary, better health, greater civic participation,[9] lower impulsivity, and longer lifespan[10]; lower intelligence predicts higher criminality, and (probably causally related to crime) shorter-term future-orientation.[11] ”
Wonder why…
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/01/07/iq-and-construct-validity/
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/24/iq-test-construction/
https://www.scribd.com/document/297490155/Ken-Richardson-The-Origins-of-Human-Potential
I think evolution is continuing and its being chereographed by Master. This explains the ever increasing rise of autism in the West. It also explains why IQ is dropping – Master brings in more r selected races of man in order to control the whole mass. A better word might be domestication or slave engineering.
One thing thats interesting to me is that there are clearly intelligent people in academia despite the censorship. So you would guess they talk to each other and share ideas about how the world really works. For example, I don’t really think Craig Venter actually believes there is no such thing as race privately because I don’t think he could get to that level in genetics and not meet anyone intelligent to say it to him. I guess all this means that there is a large swathe of scientists who are as scared of priests as they were 100 years ago and won’t say what their studies show about gender, race, poverty, crime etc.
Steve Sailer linked to a video where Steven Pinker ‘entertains’ some alt right ideas and basically says they are all true. I’ll also always remember a video of Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dennet and Dawkins where Harris brings up HBD. These people must be exposed to the truth.
Of course Robert has a theory that they cajole themselves into believing what the priests say for career advancement and ‘moral’ reasons maybe.
Pinker didn’t say that at all. Not surprising thst an altrighter misinterprets his words as support.
I remember in economics we were taught that open borders increases wages because the coolies ‘complement’ the existing labour pool. My professor actually believed the law of supply and demand broke down over the case of open borders. We studied the Mariel Boat Lift which ‘proved’ wages didn’t go down. Anyone with an IQ over 120 and isnt autistic is going to be seriously wondering why they spend so much money learning rubbish in college.
I learned all my economics in one postgraduate module in marxist economics. I was the only guy in the class that understood it. Marxists dont help themselves with their jargon.
Final thing I’ll say before I head off to this exam, marxist economics is much more intuitive that autistic standard econ or even austrian economics. But its very top heavy, looking down on the phenomenon instead of working up through micro economics. Autistic people seem to have incredible issues with getting the idea a phenomenon won’t hold as you magnify out due to entropy. They just don’t get that a capitalist system is self destroying.
In other words, they don’t get chaos with its peculiarities, like scale dependence; they’re not so naturally in sync with nature. It’s the usual case of autistic intelligence (more linear, convergent thinking) versus creative intelligence (a preference for intuitive, divergent thinking style). Seymour Epstein’s Cognitive-experiential self-theory describes the two thinking styles perfectly.
On PP’s blog regarding “Steve Jones”
“Great lecture by geneticist Steve Jones arguing evolution as we know it has essentially stopped in modern humans because of massive declines in natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift.”
Oh really?
“Declining natural selection
Today any fool can survive to reproductive age so natural selection is essentially over.”
Survival=/= producing offspring due fitness in environment from adaptive traits.
“Declining sexual selection
In the past some surviving men would father orders of magnitude more babies than others, but today the range is much more restricted.”
Range? Technically speaking, I think you mean that the variation of “haves and have nots” is reduced in regards to litter size.
That said, that’s not sexual selection either, that’s it doesn’t define the state sexual selection in a absolute sense.
“Declining genetic drift
Our population has become so big that it’s hard for any population to become genetically isolated enough to mutate a new morphology.”
“Big population” doesn’t mean big breeding population.
Overall, the best explanation, as I see it, is that humans are similar to other populations of species or sub species like Canids and Lions.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00432-7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_wolf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiatic_lion#Modern_lions
That is, our diversification goes back circa 70k-300k years ago overall (the latter date needs more verification as 200k is more likely for living components, but geneflow prevented huge differences in our genetic distance.
“that’s it doesn’t define the state sexual selection in a absolute sense.”
That is, it doesn’t define sexual selection in a absolute sense.
Survival=/= producing offspring due fitness in environment from adaptive traits.
True, but Steve’s point is that in the past, survival itself was an important variable in who got to reproduce. One of the reasons this topic is confusing is that most sources define sexual selection as a type of natural selection, but Darwin I believe originally saw them as two different concepts.
Range? Technically speaking, I think you mean that the variation of “haves and have nots” is reduced in regards to litter size.
I’m referring to differences in number of kids you have not explained by survival (yours or theirs). Sexual selection was too narrow a term for this, but it includes sexual selection. Differences between halves and halve nots is arguably sexual selection in the sense that rich men have more access to women, but natural selection in the sense that rich babies survive at higher rates.
“Big population” doesn’t mean big breeding population.
True, but because of modern transportation, we no longer have the geographic barriers to gene flow that allowed the macro-races to evolve.
“True, but Steve’s point is that in the past, survival itself was an important variable in who got to reproduce. One of the reasons this topic is confusing is that most sources define sexual selection as a type of natural selection, but Darwin I believe originally saw them as two different concepts.”
You know what are also two different concepts? Survival rates and selected individuals who are deemed more fit in an environment and reproduce.
In otherwords, “survival” being less of a factor now doesn’t rule out a new variable in reproduction.
“I’m referring to differences in number of kids you have not explained by survival (yours or theirs). Sexual selection was too narrow a term for this, but it includes sexual selection. Differences between halves and halve nots is arguably sexual selection in the sense that rich men have more access to women, but natural selection in the sense that rich babies survive at higher rates.”
Well the same principle applies, things may’ve shifted but that doesn;t equate to sexual selection (intersexual) being reduced.
Click to access 18-5.pdf
Second, I thought you just explained that the difference were excluding survival?
“True, but because of modern transportation, we no longer have the geographic barriers to gene flow that allowed the macro-races to evolve.”
Pfft…alright, I’m just going to throw out some regions just to get the point across.
East Africa, Central Asia, Central America, and South America. Each of these are mixed areas that occurred at various times prior to modern times (I supposed you could call American Colonization “modern” in a sense, yet it aligns closer previous migrations of ancient times).
Compared to the current rate of race mixing, modern “transportation” barely added anything to what has already happened. Over the past 300 years, aside from some race mixing in colonies, the world’s breeding barriers have been fairly constant.
Ejat has changed is how they crossed geographical barriers.
Compared to the current rate of race mixing, modern “transportation” barely added anything to what has already happened. Over the past 300 years, aside from some race mixing in colonies, the world’s breeding barriers have been fairly constant.
I don’t know about the past 300 years, but certainly if you sequence DNA from 10,000+ year old genomes, you find that the genetic distance between geographically separated people was much greater. For example the difference between late Paleolithic Europeans and late Paleolithic Middle Easterners, was as great or greater than the genetic distance between Caucasoids and Northeast Asians today.
“Ejat has changed is how they crossed geographical barriers.”
What has changed is how they crossed geographical barriers, I.E immigrants who hardly intermarry with the host population at large enough quantities to the concern of many natives.
“I don’t know about the past 300 years, but certainly if you sequence DNA from 10,000+ year old genomes, you find that the genetic distance between geographically separated people was much greater. For example the difference between late Paleolithic Europeans and late Paleolithic Middle Easterners, was as great or greater than the genetic distance between Caucasoids and Northeast Asians today.”
1. Citation, because my readings would suggest otherwise.
2. This doesn’t refute my point, as all of this geneflow nonetheless took place while macro races were still forming and before “modern transportation”.
The citation is the fourth paragraph of this article. It does refute your point if the oldest known Caucasoid skull is Mladec 1 (31,000 B.P., Czech Republic ). Scientists can’t even agree on what the oldest known modern human skull is, so you’re really going out on a limb claiming Caucasoid skulls didn’t exist until the late Holocene.
Dutch are drifting in stature .
The rising height of the Dutch, even if it’s genetic, would not be considered evolution by Jones who is using a “man on the street” definition.
Selective migration is also a powerful tool when people stay endogamous.
Steve Jones unironically believes that testosterone is ‘a gene for crime’.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/07/testosterone-the-crime-gene/
“Today any fool can survive to reproductive age so natural selection is essentially over.”
No it’s not. It’s just slower due to modernity.
“In the past some surviving men would father orders of magnitude more babies than others, but today the range is much more restricted.”
Except some people still have more babies than others.
“Our population has become so big that it’s hard for any population to become genetically isolated enough to mutate a new morphology.”
Probably the only true thing said. Though I can think of a few possibilities of it occurring today.
How does this guy get work? After I watched that video of him rambling on and on and testosterone (something he doesn’t understand) I couldn’t take him seriously.
The fact you dont think t is related to aggression and crime makes me think you are the muppet my friend.
I showed how wrong Jones was and I’ve battered that myth to death.
PP do you still call yourself a genetic determinist?
Did I ever call myself that or was it biological determinist? Depends how you define genetic determinist.
All this might be true, but the innate nature of tribalism will not go away anytime soon.
PP reel in Melo on heritability. He believes that heritability speaks to how malleable a trait is and that a heritability of 1 implies no malleability while a heritability of 0 implies full malleability.
I hope he doesn’t believe that. An accent has zero heritability but is very unmalleable, but weight seems highly heritable (within America) but is extremely malleable, as Oprah keeps proving. Of course in general heritable traits should be less malleable because it’s hard to find a correlation between identical twins raised apart at any one time, if they keep changing their phenotype at different times.
Actually with the number of Negroids multiplying like rabbits the evolution is more likely going backward. If you believe, as me and PP do, that Negroids are less evolved than Caucasoids and Mongoloids.
Of course the expansion of Negroids will not last forever. When all high empathy whites will be killed or mixed with Negroids there will be nobody to protect them.
If you take pathological altruism out of this equation the smartest race win.
Hey PP! Just wanted to let you know that my an essay (An Informal Enquiry Regarding the Absence of Phenotypical Femininity from the Historical Record Prior to the Second Quarter of the 20th Century) has now exceeded 13,600 words, but there’s still more to be written. It’s an ongoing project, as it has been for the last six months.
For anyone who doesn’t know, my essay delves into the multifaceted reasons why sexually attractive women are not represented in art (paintings, sculpture, and also photography) prior to roughly 1920-30. I discuss the censorship of women by Abrahamic religion, the influence of homosexuals in art since Greco-Roman times, the nature of qualia, postmodernist obscurantism and alethic (cognitive) relativism, Hume’s is/ought dilemma and the fear of value judgements in the evolutionary sciences, inverted and perverted qualia, and finally some propositions for the genetic conservation of the feminine phenotype and methods to combat sexually antagonistic selection. I’m most proud of the section I wrote on the rational correlates of female beauty, and the intrinsic logic of our current sexual dimorphisms. I still need to write a section on the mathematical coordinates of beauty, but I’m very pleased with what I’ve written so far, and I can only hope that holier-than-thou academics will care to give it the slightest attention. Most of the fundamental research on the objectivity of beauty has already been done by Lorenz, Farkas, Langlois, Buss, Sapolsky, Pinker, Etcoff, Stewart-Williams, etc. I take it everyone is already familiar with the data, and that’s why I don’t punctuate every paragraph of my essay with a ton of links to peer-reviewed papers. Such a pedantic level of “academic rigour” does tend to interrupt the free flow of my thoughts.