Commenter Race Realist informed me of Ken Richardson’s critique of Arthur Jensen’s genetic arguments. The critiques are as follows:
It is very worrying to find a simplistic ‘Mendelian’ model of independent and additive genes still being urged upon us by Jensen. The ‘genetic beanbag’ view is clung to because it furnishes the only paradigm in which Jensen and coworkers can work ‘genetically’. In particular, it furnishes the famous ‘expected’ correlations for relatives (e.g. monozygotic versus dizygotic twins) which form the basis of ‘heritability’ estimates, even though doubts about the model for complex characters have frequently been expressed (see e.g. Barton& Turelli 1989). Indeed, recent molecular biology has shown better than ever how genes for evolved characters have become intricately tied in with adaptable regulatory systems across the genome as a whole. Under these regulations, variable alleles can be utilised for common ends, or common alleles utilised for divergent ends, as developmental needs dictate. Up to 90% of genes are regulatory in function, and not structural alleles at all (Jensen’s claim that humans have 100,000 polymorphic genes seems ridiculous). Phenomena such as canalization, divergent epigenesis, exon-shuffling (which modifies gene-products to suit current developmental needs), and even developmental modification of gene-structures themselves, now make a nonsense of the idea of a one-to-one relationship between incremental accumulations of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ genes, and increments in a phenotype (see e.g. Rollo 1995). This makes the objective of most twin and adoption studies surrounding IQ a red herring, because it is attempting to ‘prove’ a genetic model that no one can seriously believe in.
Ken is technically correct, but so what? Nothing he said debunks the high correlation between your DNA and your IQ. So maybe the correlation is more about the parts of DNA that regulate the genes than about the genes themselves, but it’s all still predicted from your genome which is defined as your complete set of DNA, not genes only. So to quote Hillary Clinton:
As for whether DNA’s effect on complex traits is additive or not, the empirical evidence suggests that it largely is. As for whether DNA has an independent effect (causation) on complex traits, commenter Mug of Pee says we need to ask whether the same genetic predictors of phenotype hold across a wide range of environments around the World, and when it comes to a genomic predictor of height, it certainly does (though the predictor gets weaker on different continents)
Ken then states:
Jensen argues that g has evolved as a ‘fitness’ character. Yet it is the logic of natural selection that fitness characters come to display little if any genetic variation. This has been repeatedly confirmed in artificial selection experiments, and in the wild. The self-defeating logic of Jensen’s argument is obvious. Indeed, I find it amazing that, at the end of the twentieth century, complex, sophisticated edifices like this are being constructed on such patently erroneous foundations.
So by that logic, brain size and height should have little if any genetic variation since they too were fitness characteristics and yet the heritability for height is reportedly 0.7 and the heritability for brain size is reportedly similar. Now perhaps Ken would dismiss all heritability studies as invalid, but then on what basis can he cite the “genetic variation” found in “artificial selection experiments”?
Pumpkin Person 
Would an eurasian population getting back to Africa becoming negroid over time ? Well, if you look at Native Americans from Central America they aren’t in the way of becoming Negroids.
Negroids became Caucasoid/Mongoloid-like when exposed to colder climates, but the reverse is not true.
This is good indication that evolution might be progressive.
“Would an eurasian population getting back to Africa becoming negroid over time ? Well, if you look at Native Americans from Central America they aren’t in the way of becoming Negroids.
Negroids became Caucasoid/Mongoloid-like when exposed to colder climates, but the reverse is not true.
This is good indication that evolution might be progressive.”
No, it’s does not.
1. See Racerealist’s articles on the matter of “progressive evolution”.
2. Regarding your scenario, taxa don’t become “other taxa” simply by being in the same environment.
Convergent evolution exist, but it doesn’t work in the same matter you described.
3. Furthermore, Central America=/= Subsaharan Africa in regards to climate, and native Americans OBVIOUSLY wouldn’t have the same type of ontogenetic variation as Stem Africans would to become negroids (negroids AREN’T conflatible with ancient Africans, see my responses to PP on the matter). Thus, they responded to their environment using different traits/genes, not because evolution is progressive.
In fact, naives of central and northern south America are darker and have more tropical features than thouse of North America and southern South America.
But the tropical zone of the Americas is small and exposed to gene flow from the much larger non-tropical parts, which limits phenotype differentiation.
and naives of nantes think their french.
sounds great.
“In fact, naives of central and northern south America are darker and have more tropical features than thouse of North America and southern South America.”
That’s probably because theu’re pretty much AT the equator, this the N-S relation in Skintone begins to wane.
For instance, the Khoisan’s lighter skin or the oceanic people’s lighter Hair.
“But the tropical zone of the Americas is small and exposed to gene flow from the much larger non-tropical parts, which limits phenotype differentiation.”
Again, another factor,
Sometimes you have to ask yourself what these hbd deniers are drinking. You put blacks in a completely different continent and they almost one to one recreate africa in the carribean. You put whites on another continent and they recreate europe. Even though i agree with tge idea of ones genes changing through live experience and/or certain genes tyrning on and off in relation to certain environments the picture i have of genetics would generallly be fairly deterministic. the reproductive ritual is so important to most humans precisely because genes are being selected and not environments. Nature assumes genes are more important than changing your environment in the coding so to speak. This is why raw athleticism os still aelected by humans sexually even though it is redundant in most civilised nations. There is an inertia in the coding with some phenotypic traits deemed absolutely advantageous and some traits deemed relatively advantageous depending on the environment. The only problem with naturalistic selection is the idea Master artificially interferes with selection by regulating human sexual selection. I think that is a bigger ‘ distortion’ than whatever the environment is selecting for in humans at this point in human development.
Huge height increase looks like a very good environmental candidate to me. The average French male born in 1950 was 172 cm and top 2% was 185. Those born in 1990 are 178 with top 2% with 193 . And the admixture is from shorter people. And in natural selection, only random mutation recruited by environment, should count as genetic. Because if for example taller people have more kids like in The Netherlands, it’s an environmental process that can be simulated by any ethnic group. So I’m not sure it counts at genetic. And once peop’e Accept gene modification , the difference environment/genetic will completely go a away, no ?
Racerealist confuses causality in his head all the time . He completely discredited himself when he aaid tesosterone has nothing to do with aggression. He is literally that guy that has to be told why the punchline of every joke was funny after everyone got the joke.
It scares me thinking about what racerealist wrote in his book reports in school.
E.g 1984
‘This is the story of a man who didnt turn up for work regulary and the book is a big lesson on why people should be punctual for work’.
Yet the ‘critiques’ I got regarding testosterone and aggression are wrong and I’ve shown how they are countless times. I’m actually sick of talking about testosterone. I’ve falsified the so-called relationship numerous times.
“Yet the ‘critiques’ I got regarding testosterone and aggression are wrong and I’ve shown how they are countless times.”
No, you were shown to be wrong any time you brought up the topic, just get over it.
No. You didn’t really say anything. I’ve provided numerous papers against it. I’ve shown that education, not testosterone, predicts aggression in men. You need to get over it because you’re only discussing an assumption you have without understanding the physiology of the hormone.
Our model in the male sample suggested that males with higher levels of education had lower aggressive behaviors. Among males, testosterone was not associated with aggressive behaviors.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4199296/
You don’t know anything about testosterone. Stop talking about it.
Do you even read the stuff you post. This papet says that t is heavily linked to violence in females but not males but then establishes a link in tge literature review it does in the discussion section.
Read the article I wrote and you tell me if I read what I provided.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/11/29/sex-differences-in-aggressive-behavior-and-testosterone/
They cite Archer et al and Book et al, correlations between .08 and .14 with aggressive behavior and testosterone. I’m well aware of the literature and what is said in the paper.
RR is more like the guy who takes the joke too seriously and precedes to dissect it with a monologue that subsequently dries every pussy in the room.
Btw I’ve raid that 25% of people have no sens of humour at all. Most of them don’t know it because they think laughing is purely a social construct . The weird thing is that they are not’ spotted until people are told someone among you doesn’t have humour. The. People pay attention and are able to determine who in the group doesn’t get it. And most of them stop laughing once they realize what they have been doing all their life was mimicking others without enjoying it .
“Ken is technically correct, but so what? Nothing he said debunks the high correlation between your DNA and your IQ.”
What’s the correlation? How is the correlation between ‘your DNA and your IQ’ shown?
95 percent of genes code for transcription factors (TFs) while only 5 percent coding for genes expressed as the structural proteins used in metabolism and development. TFs don’t function as independent units. Genes are followers—slaves—in development, they’re not the leaders. Environmental structures regulate gene transcription and then every other gene transcript becomes the environment of other genes. This shows that trying to account for genetic and environmental variation is useless. I’ll go in further depth here this afternoon, this is a very interesting subject. But TFs don’t buttress your claims at all.
“but it’s all still predicted from your genome which is defined as your complete set of DNA, not genes only.”
The only thing that truly exists is the genome, genes are a) an ever changing concept based on new molecular biological data and b) even then, DNA is not the sole, or even strongest, unit of inherit.
“As for whether DNA’s effect on complex traits is additive or not, the empirical evidence suggests that it largely is.”
I have good data against the additive gene claim, will provide this afternoon.
“Now perhaps Ken would dismiss all heritability studies as invalid”
Because they’re based on highly flawed twin studies that overestimate heritability.
“but then on what basis can he cite the “genetic variation” found in “artificial selection experiments”?”
Because the environment is controlled fully, which is not the case for studies of twins. Furthermore, see the paper On Models and Muddles of Heritability by Peter Schonemann for arguments against the high heritability of IQ. He shows that the heritability IQ is higher than any other trait found in the animal kingdom. So with what we know about how twin studies highly overestimate heritability, we can safely say that the heritability of IQ is highly overestimated.
“or even strongest, unit of inherit.”
That’s not true, most evolution has occurred through the manipulation of DNA by the classical culprits: natural/sexual selection and genetic drift, not epigenetics or lamarkism.
“Because the environment is controlled fully, which is not the case for studies of twins.”
So you’re more concerned with possible confounding factors, rather than the actual mathematical validity of heritability? Just a question.
“That’s not true, most evolution has occurred through the manipulation of DNA by the classical culprits: natural/sexual selection and genetic drift, not epigenetics or lamarkism.”
And hereditary information is not only encoded on DNA. New definitions of ‘gene’ don’t use the term ‘unit of heredity’ because “it is now clear that no such generic universal unit exists.”
Epigenetic effects are how species adapted to changing environments so quickly, and there is no estimate as to what effects epigenetic/Lamarckian inheritance have on evolution but even if it’s a small amount it means big things for our understanding of evolution.
“So you’re more concerned with possible confounding factors, rather than the actual mathematical validity of heritability? Just a question.”
Both. The non-equal environments are a huge problem. They’re perfectly controlled for animal breeding, and we don’t see the sky-high heritabilities we see with IQ, this implies that the heritability is very highly overestimated.
And on the other part, heritability estimates are attempts at imposing a simplistic and reified dichotomy on non-dichotomous processes (Steven Rose). I think heritability estimates are useless because they can be overestimated by twin studies as I’ve shown and they don’t tell us anything about what genes control the trait nor do they tell us anything about trait variation nor pathways in which the trait variation arises.
“And hereditary information is not only encoded on DNA.”
That’s not what I said. I said it was the strongest, not that it was the only one. Reading comprehension.
“New definitions of ‘gene’ don’t use the term ‘unit of heredity’”
That’s not true: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/gene
“there is no estimate as to what effects epigenetic/Lamarckian inheritance have on evolution”
Exactly! So until then, it’s scientifically inaccurate to say that they do have a larger part.
“but even if it’s a small amount it means big things for our understanding of evolution.”
I don’t really think so.
“And on the other part, heritability estimates are attempts at imposing a simplistic and reified dichotomy on non-dichotomous processes”
I think there’s too many variables for it to be a practical measurement.
“That’s not what I said. I said it was the strongest, not that it was the only one. Reading comprehension.”
I can’t read. Sorry, you know my IQ is low, I can’t help it. It’s my genes. My genes made me do it.
“That’s not true: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/gene”
Try reading new research, specifically with the paper I provided back in November.
“Exactly! So until then, it’s scientifically inaccurate to say that they do have a larger part.
I don’t really think so.”
So which authors have you read on epigenetics and neo-Lamarckism? The evidence points to physiological systems responding to changing environments and this can and is inherited without change to DNA. I’ve established this fact.
” I think there’s too many variables for it to be a practical measurement.”
Good to know we agree.
Now that we’re here: up PP. In homogeneous populations are heritability estimates good to measure plasticity/malleability of a trait? (Apologies if I misrepresented your view, I did it off memory and my low IQ genes curse me.)
Also, 1) I’ll address your comment on my blog to me this weekend. I’m busy and I need to dive into the literature and 2) I could do without your emotive responses, it’s just a discussion on the internet dude. No need to get emotional about it.
“Sorry, you know my IQ is low, I can’t help it. It’s my genes. My genes made me do it.”
At least you’re coming to grips with it.
“Try reading new research”
Published: January 23, 2018
Yea, you definitely can’t read.
“So which authors have you read on epigenetics and neo-Lamarckism?”
Besides the ones you posted? None. But I didn’t really need to to understand epigenetics. I just read a a few articles on it back in my denier days.
“I’ve established this fact.”
I never said it wasn’t, it’s just not a big deal. The gains are minimal and practically useless unless real mutations stabilize it, so i don’t see a point in pissing my panties over it, like you seem to be.
“In homogeneous populations are heritability estimates good to measure plasticity/malleability of a trait?”
Even a moderate heritability only tells you how plastic a trait is with the same accuracy a low one does, it’s not really scaled except near the extremes. If a genetically homogeneous trait(like most human traits) shows high heritability it implies extreme homeostasis and vice versa with plasticity, but this is only true because the variance of that trait which is due to environment/genetics is proportionately larger. Heritability estimates are not made to stifle out such details but as long as the trait in question is homogeneous it can be used as a crude proxy for inference.
“I could do without your emotive responses”
My writing style is notoriously “devoid” of emotion. I didn’t embarrass you on your own blog because I was mad, I just wanted to help you. If it hurt you’re feelings that much, I can always apologize, but just so you know, I probably don’t mean it.
“At least you’re coming to grips with it”
Yea it sucks. I’ll cry about it at my desk in my office.
“Yea, you definitely can’t read”
Two paragraphs, pretty much an intro (if that) is not ‘new research’.
“Besides the ones you posted? None. But I didn’t really need to to understand epigenetics. I just read a a few articles on it back in my denier days”
Maybe you should, start here.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12322/full
“I never said it wasn’t, it’s just not a big deal. The gains are minimal and practically useless unless real mutations stabilize it, so i don’t see a point in pissing my panties over it, like you seem to be.”
Minimal? What? You do realize that this shows that instead of it being “evolution > development” in actuality it could be, or even work with, “development > evolution”, right?
” but as long as the trait in question is homogeneous it can be used as a crude proxy for inference.”
This is absolutely wrong. Phenotypic plasticity exists, but heritability is not a ‘crude proxy for inference’ of plasticity/malleability.
“My writing style is notoriously “devoid” of emotion. I didn’t embarrass you on your own blog because I was mad, I just wanted to help you. If it hurt you’re feelings that much, I can always apologize, but just so you know, I probably don’t mean it.”
You didn’t embarrass anybody. I’m not hurt I just expect a higher quality conversation without the stupid name calling. If I wanted that I’d go argue with an altrighter.
” I’ll cry about it at my desk in my office.”
You have an office job? That sucks.
“is not ‘new research’.”
It is the definition by the national library of medicine, Oxford, and google……which is more recent than your study. Even then, genes are still a unit of heredity even if it isn’t the only one.
““evolution > development” in actuality it could be, or even work with, “development > evolution”, right?”
Ok? I’m not sure what your disagreeing with or adding to my previous comment.
“heritability is not a ‘crude proxy for inference’ of plasticity/malleability.”
Yes it is.
“I’m not hurt I just expect a higher quality conversation without the stupid name calling.”
Right, and I expect, a discussion without obfuscation, semanticism, ad nauseam, guilt by association fallacies etc. but we can’t always get what we want.
“You have an office job? That sucks.”
Just because I have an office doesn’t mean I have an office job. It’s a place for my files, computer, things to do with work, etc.
“It is the definition by the national library of medicine, Oxford, and google……which is more recent than your study. Even then, genes are still a unit of heredity even if it isn’t the only one.”
Google, lol. That aside that’s acceptable but that doesn’t mean that other alternative definitions don’t upend the current dogma. In fact a lot has been revised in the past 20 years since we decided the human genome. (Nor that other strong arguments are made against this simplistic ideal of the gene).
“Ok? I’m not sure what your disagreeing with or adding to my previous comment.”
I said it could be reversed in how people think about development and evolution.
“Yes it is.”
I’ve shown you how this is wrong word for word:
There is no relationship between heritability and malleability of a trait.
“Right, and I expect, a discussion without obfuscation, semanticism, ad nauseam, guilt by association fallacies etc. but we can’t always get what we want.”
I obfuscate, no semantics, no ad nauseum, how did I commit guilt by association?
I don’t obfuscate* “You don’t agree with me so you obfuscate and play semantics”, sure thing.
rr is a member of the alt-right whether he likes it or not, because he has opinions which if expressed would have him expelled from all other political groups in the US.
to wit, rr thinks that haitians should not move to palermo. and that italian women are prettier than chinese women. and he has a strong dislike of the chosen people.
as a matter of fact every italian except the cuomos and pelosis are naturally alt-right. what does he think the five star movement is all about? he knows his people were allied with the nazis, doesn’t he?
Giuliani was wildly pro-Israel and famously banned Arafat from New York though as mayor of New York this could have just been blatant political opportunism
Joy Behar hates Mel Gibson with a passion and finds Jewish guys the sexiest and then is baffled why everyone mistakes her for Jewish when she’s Italian
A character on The Sopranos was called “Uncle Jew” (according to a Jewish friend of mine, this was because he looked Jewish, though I can’t imagine HBO being that politically incorrect so it’s probably “Uncle Jun” short for Junior, or maybe they’re just covering their ass)
EGI predicts Italians might even like Jews because they look alike, although Lion says growing up in Staten Island, guidos blamed Jews for killing Jesus, which I suspect is the real reason Lion argues Jesus never existed. EGI explains so much.
[redacted by pp, jan 26, 2018]
the first major politicians to support trump were chistie and giuliani.
staten island was the only burrow that went for trump.
guidos love trump. if you’re not alt-right you’re a fake italian.
Italians support Trump? DUH!
You continue to confuse the alt-right with the far-right. There’s considerable overlap, but they reflect different parts of Trump’s base.
“EGI predicts Italians might even like Jews because they look alike,”
Nah, they’re close on PCA but it doesn’t mean they’d ‘like Jews’, because I know a lot of Italians and Sicilians who don’t.
Btw RR i know you’re very busy but some day you should do a guest article on Italians & bodybuilding/strength. I was ordering pizza the other night and the Italian clerk’s forearms were thicker than most men’s legs & he didn’t look like he spent a day in the gym. And of course there’s the guido stereotype of short beefy aggressive Italians popularized by shows like Jersey Shore that you could either confirm or debunk.
Sounds like a plan. It’d be pretty much speculation and I don’t really enjoy speculating unless I have data but I could do that. Yea the Guido stereotype pisses me off. Long Islanders… Ugh. And I hate the Jersey Shore (not the actual location, it’s beautiful, the stupid show). Gives us a bad name (Italians and people from this part of the country and most of those clowns weren’t from NJ). I’m sure there are a lot of Italian bodybuilders but Italy has only placed I think once or twice in the WSM. (I have an article in mind on physiology, race, social class and diet in mind which I’ll get to you once I get my computer back, should he 2 to 3 weeks. Typing on my phone sucks.)
” current dogma.”
What is wrong with saying a gene is a unit of heredity, even if it’s not the only one? It is a unit of heredity, even if that’s not it’s only function, it’s what it does.
“reversed in how people think about development and evolution.”
I guess to laymen, sure.
“I’ve shown you how this is wrong word for word: There is no relationship between heritability and malleability of a trait.”
No you didn’t, you cited a claim that Heritability is not a measure of environmental or genetic causation, which doesn’t contradict anything I posted. The brain is 100% genetic , but near 100% plastic as well, just like something can have a high heritability but have no genetic catalysts whatsoever. Earrings could be considered highly heritable(at least a few decades ago).
“I obfuscate, no semantics, no ad nauseum, how did I commit guilt by association?”
Sorry I forgot to also put strawmans. I pointed out each time you committed the fallacies, go read our prior conversation
“What is wrong with saying a gene is a unit of heredity, even if it’s not the only one? It is a unit of heredity, even if that’s not it’s only function, it’s what it does.”
Because other strong arguments exist against the claim.
“I guess to laymen, sure.”
Researchers * See M.-W. Ho, “Development and Evolution Revisited,” in Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics, ed. K. hood et al (New York: Blackwell, 2009), 61-109.
And development can “generate the phenotypic variation on which natural selection can act.” See R. Lickliter, “The Origins of Variation: Evolutionary Insights From Developmental Science,” in Embodiment and Epigenesis: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Understanding the Role of Biology Within Relational Developmental System, ed. R. Lerner and J. Benson (London: Academic Press, 2014)173-203, 93
“you cited a claim that Heritability is not a measure of environmental or genetic causation, which doesn’t contradict anything I posted.”
It isn’t. You can’t identify genes nor pathways that lead to trait variation through heritability estimates. This is why causes > variances.
“The brain is 100% genetic , but near 100% plastic as well, just like something can have a high heritability but have no genetic catalysts whatsoever. Earrings could be considered highly heritable(at least a few decades ago).”
The brain isn’t ‘100 percent genetic’. This implies that genes on their own cause the brain, which is a claim Dawkins made in the Selfish Gene (‘they created us, body and mind’), see Denis Noble’s critiques. This is where developmental systems theory comes into play. Read Susan oyama. I’m aware of the earrings argument. Fact of the matter is heritability estimates say absolutely nothing about the malleability of the trait in question.
“Sorry I forgot to also put strawmans. I pointed out each time you committed the fallacies, go read our prior conversation”
Whatever you say man. I’ll go through them later. (As if you don’t ad nauseum as well.)
when the romans conquered palestine they forced the jews to eat pork and put a statue of jupiter in the temple or something awesome like that. the greeks conquered the jews too. what did they do to them? EGI should mean jews love palestinians and vice versa. [redacted by pp, Jan 26, 2018]
of course the theory is ashkenazi jews are descended from women from northern italy, not southern italy. ashkenazi jews are more likely to have blue eyes than southern italians i believe.
Alcohol continues to dull your once bright general knowledge and comprehension: 1) Ashkenazi Jews are at least as related to whites as they are to Arabs, 2) EGI theory is based on relative similarity, not absolute.
Jensen was right: IQ becomes more genetic every year of life but the causal pathway is sometimes indirect. Your DNA made you drink alcohol and alcohol has robbed you of your brilliance.
Sad
confirming my genius:
1. The borough has the highest proportion of Italian Americans of any county in the United States.
2. “borough” is how i spelled it initially. but i looked it up and it was “burrow”. odd. historically they appear to be the same word, from OE “burh”. but they may be unrelated. semantically, an animal’s burrow is his dwelling. this is similar to a human’s lebensraum. so here may be an example of how a more primitive sense is derived from a more specific sense. “burh” and “burg” originally referring to walled towns.
“Your DNA made you drink alcohol”
His ‘DNA’ didn’t ‘make’ him do anything.
PP please weigh in on the heritability-plasticity discussion Melo and I are engaged in. I’d like your thoughts.
Well I think a lot of arguments can be avoided by more precise use of language. As you know heritability is measured simply by the phenotype correlation between MZ twins raised apart, and malleability has no scientific definition as far as I know, but I suppose it could be measured by the phenotypic correlation on occasion A vs occasion B (stability coefficient). So for example height probably has a higher stability coefficient than weight and seems much less malleable than weight, and height has greater heritability than weight, but of course we can’t infer a correlation between malleability and heritability unless we have more examples, and we need to ask Melo how exactly he would measure maleability, because unless you can measure it, it has little place in science.
Also, when he says the brain is 100% genetic, I guess he means that malleability itself is a genetic trait which is a great point, but when most scientists hear “100% genetic” they probably think he’s saying “100% of the variance is genetic” which is not true for the brain so more precise use of language can prevent a lot of disagreements from starting.
PP,
Numerous authors make a point that heritability does not speak about the malleability of a trait. Example being that most people think a heritability if 1 believe that the trait is immutable. Not so. Lewontin’s plant example, etc.
I agree they’re conceptually distinct and there are some non-malleable traits with low heritability and some highly malleable traits with high heritability, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re completely uncorrelated variables. I don’t think anyone’s looked into it.
They’re not related. You’ll see this in any discussion on the heritability of traits. Heritability of 0 doesn’t mean that genes aren’t related, it just means there is little genetic relation with the phenotype.
Well sometimes when there’s a lot of confusion in the general public, scientists seem to go to the opposite extreme to dispel it. So when the public wrongly equates heritable with immutable, scientists might say there’s no relationship, but I suspect that’s a bit of an exaggeration, because there’s a reason why these two concepts get confused in the first place. DNA has low malleability so if something reflects DNA (which is all most people know about heritability) they instinctively think it must have low malleability too. Of course that’s a huge oversimplification, but it doesn’t mean there’s not a grain of truth to it.
Consider the following traits: weight, vocational interests, height, traditionalism, fingerprint ridge count, heart rate, religiosity, occupational interests, systolic blood pressure, Wechsler IQ, and non-religious social attitudes. I suspect if we were to ask scientists or even the general public to rank these traits from most malleable to least malleable, we might find a statistically significant negative correlation between malleability and heritability as measured in table 4. So saying there’s no relationship at all, might be a bit strong, and I’d be a bit surprised to hear a scientists make that strong a claim. Instead what the more careful ones might say is these are two different things and you can be very high one and very low on the other.
“So saying there’s no relationship at all, might be a bit strong, and I’d be a bit surprised to hear a scientists make that strong a claim. Instead what the more careful ones might say is these are two different things and you can be very high one and very low on the other.”
How would there be a relationship? As I said, low heritability means there is little correlation between genetic and phenotypic variation.
For example phenylketonuria has a heritability of 1 yet can be avoided by removing the amino acid phenylalanine from the diet. Heritability of 0 doesn’t mean that genes aren’t involved (as slaves, followers by the system) just that there is little correlation between the two.
Because before the treatment was discovered, the symptoms were not nearly as malleable. And so there are still be a lot of herritable phenotypes society hasn’t learned to change, perhaps causing at least a small negative correlation between malleability and heritability
Myopia is quite heritable and before glasses were invented it was also pretty immutable
“I suppose it could be measured by the phenotypic correlation on occasion A vs occasion B (stability coefficient). So for example height probably has a higher stability coefficient than weight and seems much less malleable than weight, and height has greater heritability than weight.
Thank you he literally lacks the ability to understand that all I’m saying is that a correlation between malleability and heritability exists. The strength of which is dependent on external factors.
“because unless you can measure it, it has little place in science.”
LOL, Where the hell did you get that Idea? It is a natural phenomena that is brought up in science quite a bit.
‘a correlation between malleability and heritability exists. The strength of which is dependent on external factors’
What is this correlation with the crux of our main discussion, IQ? Citations for your claim?
“What is this correlation with the crux of our main discussion, IQ? Citations for your claim?”
As pumpkin already iterated, plasticity is not measurable at the moment. As you stated before, physiological systems(including the CNS) are homeodynamic and tend to have lower heritabilities(around.46). So there is probably some correlation present.
Click to access LTP_McEachern.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1772.full
That PNAS paper looks solid. Need to read it again then I’ll leave my thoughts. (Those papers don’t talk about heritability and malleability and I like the citations in the PNAS paper that shows low heritabilities for traits important for survival as Fisher said.) I checked out the heritability estimates in the cited paper (ref 21) and the estimates are naturally, as they say in the paper, all over the place. I’m too lazy and tired to break down the physiological from anatomic heritabilities so I’ll do it when I have time. Either way thanks for the paper.
Re heritability and malleability/plasticity:
Heritability is completely irrelevant to malleability or plasticity; every possible combination of high and low heritability, and high and low malleability, is not only logically possible but also observed.
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html
I know of one paper on the House Martin showing a heritability of wing length 0.156, tarsus length 0.079, body mass 0.000, immunoglobin, 0.051, T-cell response 0.007, and leukocyte number 0.059. These estimates are from breeding studies in well-controlled environments. See P. Christe, A. P. Moller, N. Saino, and F. Dr Lope, “Genetic and Environmental Components of Phenotypic Variation in Immune Response and Body Size of a Colonial Bird, Delichon urbica (the House Martin),” Heredity 85 (July 2000): 75-83.
And also the Schonemann critique, comparing IQ heritability (from flawed twin studies) to animal traits (from well-controlled breeding studies). It’s clear that 1) heritability estimates for IQ and overestimated; 2) heritability doesn’t tell us anything useful about genes that contribute to individual variance, pathways that lead to trait variation, etc; 3) heritability is not a measure of plasticity/malleability nor does it even point to how malleable/plastic a trait is (no matter if there’s a ‘correlation’ or not); and 4) heritability estimates are useless for biological systems:
Biological systems are complex, non-linear, and non-additive. Heritability estimates are attempts to impose a simplistic and reified dichotomy (nature/nurture) on non-dichotomous processes. Real progress in genetics, developmental and behavioural biology will come from paying attention to Lewontin’s insistence that we attempt to analyse causes, not variances.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/35/3/525/735798
Causes > variances
Source for heritability/malleability quote:
http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html
“heritability is not a measure of plasticity/malleability nor does it even point to how malleable/plastic a trait is (no matter if there’s a ‘correlation’ or not)”
It doesn’t matter if every possible combination is observed that’s why the correlation is not a perfect 1. Hence why I called it “crude”. case in point why you don’t actually understand heritability.The quote above is irrefutable proof of your stupidity, if it didn’t even point to how plastic a trait is then it wouldn’t have a correlation to begin with. And it turns out you can measure plasticity and in fact higher plasticity is usually associated with lower heritabilities:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1989.2020095.x/pdf
“The quote above is irrefutable proof of your stupidity,”
No it is not. Thanks for the kind words.
“And it turns out you can measure plasticity and in fact higher plasticity is usually associated with lower heritabilities”
That’s funny. You know that plasticity studies proved that heritability is a useless concept? I’ve read Massimo Pigliucci’s book Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture (great read, read it; he also calls for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis), I’m aware of phenotypic plasticity, but heritability is still garbage.
Anyways thanks for the link. Though I’ll concede there is a formula to estimate the ‘heritability’ of phenotypic plasticity but not that it means anything because heritability is a useless concept.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.tree.2005.06.001
Point 4 in my previous comment applies.
“Thanks for the kind words.”
You’re welcome.
“You know that plasticity studies proved that heritability is a useless concept?”
Why the fuck am i supposed to care? Do you ever get tired of straw-manning people’s opinions?
“Why the fuck am i supposed to care? Do you ever get tired of straw-manning people’s opinions?”
Why should the heritability of phenotypic plasticity matter if heritability estimates aren’t useful for biological systems?
How is saying that the study of plasticity helped to prove heritability to be a useless concept a strawman? The paper by Pigliucci shows the formula (and heritability, along with the other citations I’ve provided) is not useful.
“How is saying that the study of plasticity helped to prove heritability to be a useless concept a strawman? ”
Why are you arguing what you can infer from heritability, if you think it’s a bunk model to begin with? It doesn’t matter I proved my point.
What’s the correlation? How is the correlation between ‘your DNA and your IQ’ shown?
The correlation between MZ twins raised together is a colossal 0.88 (see WAIS full-scale IQ in table 4). The square root is 0.94, implying a virtually perfect correlation between IQ and DNA in America. Of course that’s not too interesting because the correlation between DNA and environment is so high in America, so the correlation could be caused by the gene-environment covariance, not the DNA itself, but even for MZ twins raised apart, the correlation is 0.69 (again table 4), suggesting that when environment varies randomly, IQ correlates 0.83 with DNA in America.
Of course environment doesn’t vary totally randomly in this study. There are shared prenatal effects and placement bias in adoption, but these effects are not large, so the true national correlation between IQ and DNA among Americans reared in random environments is probably about 0.7. Of course per Mug of Pee, some of this might be a reaction norm effect (certain genotypes just cognitively thrive in the U.S. for some local reason) so more cross-culture research is needed to determine how much of this correlation is causal.
There are massive problems with that study.
1) You have the huge confound of similar environments before birth. I’ve provided new evidence that epigenetic effects in the womb can also cause MZ twin similarity, too.
2) Full details for tbe MISTRA have never been published, so we don’t know how ‘separated’ the twins were. Though Bouchard et al do say that they were separated between 0 to 48.7 months (table 1) so some pairs spent at least 4 years together. Some of the twins even had reunions and spent a lot of time together.
3) They’re not representative and twins who do sign up for this research are self-selecting. Ken Richardson says in his book (2017, pg 55): “Twins generally tend to be self-selecting in any twin study. They may have responded to advertisements placed by investigators or have been prompted to do so by friends or family, on the grounds that they are alike. Remember, at least some of them knew each other prior to the study. Jay Joseph has suggested that the twins who elected to participate in all twin studies are likely to be more similar to one another than twins who chose not to participate. This makes it difficult to claim that the results would apply to the general population.”
4) And the results aren’t fully reported. Richardson also states that (2017, pg 55) “… of two IQ tests administered in the MISTRA, results have been published for one but not the other. No explanation was given for thst omission. Could it be they produced different results?” He even states that attempts to get the data, by researchers like Jay Joseph, have been denied. Why would you refuse to publish, or give to another researcher, your data when asked?
“Of course environment doesn’t vary totally randomly in this study. There are shared prenatal effects and placement bias in adoption, but these effects are not large, so the true national correlation between IQ and DNA among Americans reared in random environments is probably about 0.7. Of course per Mug of Pee, some of this might be a reaction norm effect (certain genotypes just cognitively thrive in the U.S. for some local reason) so more cross-culture research is needed to determine how much of this correlation is causal.”
It’s impossible to carry out a twin study in the way you’re describing. What are ‘random environments’ in regard to the MISTRA? And it’s a very bold claim to state that the correlation is with ‘DNA’ when you know the huge environmental confounds that affect twin studies, most importantly, in my opinion, the equal environments assumption.
We don’t know the relevant environments, and, along with what you mentioned about selection bias, I’ll name a few more: the children’s average age at testing is closer to the biological mother than adopted mother; the biological mother and child will have reduced self-esteem and be more vulnerable to difficult situations, and in this sense they share environments; and conscious or unconscious bias make adopted children different from other family members. Adoption agencies also attempt to put children into similar homes as the biological mother too.
Finally, back to heritability as a whole. The estimates are strongly overestimated due to these flaws, and more. Therefore you can’t say that the correlation is between ‘DNA’ and ‘IQ’. And if you want to get into GWAS and GCTA, we can do that too.
There are massive problems with that study.
1) You have the huge confound of similar environments before birth. I’ve provided new evidence that epigenetic effects in the womb can also cause MZ twin similarity, too.
As you know epigenetics just means “on the genome”, and if what goes on the genome is itself determined by the genome, then epigenetic variation is just part of “genetic” variation and doesn’t change anything. Only if you want to make the leap from epigenetics to Lamarkism does this become an issue, and at this point, that seems premature. With respect to shared prenatal environment, it doesn’t seem to explain much of the variance in the developed world.
2) Full details for tbe MISTRA have never been published, so we don’t know how ‘separated’ the twins were. Though Bouchard et al do say that they were separated between 0 to 48.7 months (table 1) so some pairs spent at least 4 years together. Some of the twins even had reunions and spent a lot of time together.
On average they were separated after the first 5.1 months. I don’t doubt the study overestimated heritability, but perhaps not to an extreme degree.
3) They’re not representative and twins who do sign up for this research are self-selecting. Ken Richardson says in his book (2017, pg 55): “Twins generally tend to be self-selecting in any twin study. They may have responded to advertisements placed by investigators or have been prompted to do so by friends or family, on the grounds that they are alike. Remember, at least some of them knew each other prior to the study. Jay Joseph has suggested that the twins who elected to participate in all twin studies are likely to be more similar to one another than twins who chose not to participate. This makes it difficult to claim that the results would apply to the general population.”
I’m sure there were some twins who were also motivated to sign up because they had nothing in common, and wanted to show they were the exception to the rule. I don’t doubt self-selection skewed the data to some unknown degree but no study’s perfect.
4) And the results aren’t fully reported. Richardson also states that (2017, pg 55) “… of two IQ tests administered in the MISTRA, results have been published for one but not the other. No explanation was given for thst omission. Could it be they produced different results?” He even states that attempts to get the data, by researchers like Jay Joseph, have been denied. Why would you refuse to publish, or give to another researcher, your data when asked?
Well table 4 does show results for two IQ tests: the WAIS and the Raven-MillHill composite and the heritability for the latter is nearly 0.8!
It’s impossible to carry out a twin study in the way you’re describing. What are ‘random environments’ in regard to the MISTRA?
Random environments would be if we could put the name of every household in America into a hat and randomly select a sample of them for kids to be adopted into. Of course that didn’t happen, but it seems from table 1 that the households reflected a huge range of educational backgrounds, from 0 to 20 years of parental schooling.
And it’s a very bold claim to state that the correlation is with ‘DNA’ when you know the huge environmental confounds that affect twin studies,
How do you know they were huge? In table 3 they try to quantify the effect of most of the placement variables and & most correlations are small, though I suspect collectively they might be moderate which is why I agree the study overestimated heritability, but perhaps not as much as you think.
most importantly, in my opinion, the equal environments assumption
That’s a term that usually applies only to studies where heritability is calculated by comparing the phenotype correlation of MZ twins raised together with the correlation of DZ twins together, on the assumption that both pairs are equally similar in environment, so any difference in correlation must be explained by the greater genetic similarity of MZ twins. No such assumption is required for studies of MZ twins reared apart which is why they’re considered the gold standard.
We don’t know the relevant environments,
Heritability is simply the squared genotype-phenotype correlation within a given population when environment varies randomly, so if the environments of MZ twins reared apart resemble a cross-section of the population, that’s probably close enough.
and, along with what you mentioned about selection bias, I’ll name a few more: the children’s average age at testing is closer to the biological mother than adopted mother; the biological mother and child will have reduced self-esteem and be more vulnerable to difficult situations, and in this sense they share environments; and conscious or unconscious bias make adopted children different from other family members. Adoption agencies also attempt to put children into similar homes as the biological mother too.
Those critiques are more relevant to studies comparing adopted kids to biological parents than they are to studies of MZ twins reared apart
And if you want to get into GWAS and GCTA, we can do that too.
One thing at a time
using the P = G + E model the correlation between MZTs with unrelated enviroments is the heritability, h^2. the correlation between the genome and the trait is h.
the formula is P = h*G + sqrt(1 – h^2)*E
this model assumes that each genome and each environment can be assigned a single number which ranks it among all genomes and all environments respectively.
so when it is said, “the genome correlates…”, this means “the genome SCORE correlates…”
of course the P = G + E model and the environment independent scoring of genomes and genome independent scoring of environments is RETARDED.
steve she’s post needs to give the:
1. out of sample correlation for the british data.
2. correlation for the american data.
one might conclude the difference is .4 vs .65. but that’s NOT what his post actually says. it’s left 100% unclear. and this is done intentionally.
the UK and US are much more similar than two randomly selected countries.
steve she’s post needs to give the:
1. out of sample correlation for the british data.
2. correlation for the american data.
one might conclude the difference is .4 vs .65. but that’s NOT what his post actually says. it’s left 100% unclear. and this is done intentionally.
the UK and US are much more similar than two randomly selected countries./
can a professor of psychology have “genetic views”? he can. but they’re 100% meaningless to a professor of genetics or biology.
it’s lonely on the fourth pole.
if you’ve got the figures post them in your next post.
1. out of sample correlation (within uk biobank)
2. american correlation
3. chink and curry muncher correlation
Genes are not cumulative as in one gene will produce 0.5 higher IQ points. But since a gene can effectively have effects on thousands of gene this means that a single gene by chance can raise IQ by 5 or any number of IQ points. Though limits are in place. Hundreds of genes in a web where each gene effects thousands of genes could show that any gene mutation can affect a web / a network of genes. This little girl has an IQ above 160. The network of influences in her genes is different from other children her age.
3 Year Old Girl With IQ Over 160 Accepted Into Mensa America’s Newsroom
A network of genes would preserve the morphology of an organism.
A web that keeps the Da way because not all changes are adaptive.
(Do you know Da way)
what way you may ask
Da way of my people
Thousands of gene interactions. (web)
Additive change is a completely different process from that.
I doubt height and brain size are fitness traits, none appears to strongly determine an individual’s reproductive success.
But they did over the last several million years of evolution. The argument that intelligence is a fitness trait is based on the fact that humans are so selected for it relative to apes so it’s expected to have low genetic variance because so much “dumb DNA” was weeded out. But by the same logic height and brain size should have low genetic variance since we’re so much taller and bigger brained than our ape ancestors.
Not sure we are much bigger than our ancestors, Neanderthals were bigger and bigger brained yet went extinct and what little admixture they left is undergoing strong negative selection.
It’s a basic principle of biology that natural selection acts to reduce genetic variance until fixation. This is what happened to the vast majority of human traits and physiologic functions that are essential to survival. Height and brain size haven’t been shown to have a positive selection coefficient, which means low likelihood of being selected.
https://evolution-institute.org/blog/natural-selection-on-human-height-doesnt-measure-up-to-much/
What defines fitness traits isn’t the extant to which they diverge from ancestral forms, it is the reproductive advantage they provide to their carriers. There are many other differences between humans and chimps than brain size and height.
The level of inter-species differentiation is not how one measures the fitness value of a trait, selection coefficient does that. Neanderthals were bigger and bigger brained than humans.
https://evolution-institute.org/blog/natural-selection-on-human-height-doesnt-measure-up-to-much/
Reducing genetic variance on fitness traits is the purpose of natural selection, so a high heritability and a high fitness value are literally incompatible.
Neanderthals were short & they had smaller brains than modern humans living in the same environment at the time. Obviously brain size and height had a high selective coefficients during much of our evolutionary history or they couldn’t have been so selected. Maybe they don’t today but then maybe intelligence doesn’t today either.
Selection reduces variance but then new mutations replenish it so the question is how rare are positive cognitive mutations. Cochran’s Jewish theory argued that some occurred in just the last 1000 years.
One leading concept in evolutionary biology is punctuated equilibrium. The fact that species emerge after a very short period of dramatic biologic change and then natural selection maintains traits as they first evolved, that’s called stasis.
Intelligence (whatever it means) must be one of those things that evolved dramatically as new species of hominids emerged and then remained stable until the next speciation event.
As for mutations increasing variance, there is no evidence of them. One more likely scenario is that what little true heritability that exists is due to rare deleterious mutations that depress the original optimal phenotype.
One leading concept in evolutionary biology is punctuated equilibrium. The fact that species emerge after a very short period of dramatic biologic change and then natural selection maintains traits as they first evolved, that’s called stasis.
Yes, I love Gould’s PE model, though unfortunately it’s been dealt a blow by new fossil evidence suggesting modern humans evolved very gradually over the last several hundred thousand years, instead of appearing suddenly 200 kya as thought since the 1980s
Intelligence (whatever it means) must be one of those things that evolved dramatically as new species of hominids emerged and then remained stable until the next speciation event.
Why intelligence in particular?
As for mutations increasing variance, there is no evidence of them.
What about Cochran’s et al.’s Ashkenazi high IQ disease evidence?
One more likely scenario is that what little true heritability that exists is due to rare deleterious mutations that depress the original optimal phenotype.
Yes, I’ve wondered about that too because a)brain size decreased at least temporarily since the ice age (though don’t know if the decline was genetic), and b) Steve Hsu thinks most of the genetic variants affecting intelligence are negative.
On punctuated equilibrium:
I suppose it’s a general trend with some exceptions here and there. One recent study found that human brain size hasn’t changed notably since the earliest fossils 300K years ago. However, current brain shape was reached by the time of the emergence of behavioral modernity between 35K and 100K years ago.
http://www.ibtimes.com/modern-rounded-human-brains-evolutionary-step-less-100000-years-old-2645168
What can’t be ascertained is whether these changes in shape are genetic or environmentally/epigenetically induced.
Why intelligence in particular?
Because that’s what HBD discussions on evolution focus the most on. I know the human body is made of thousands of different types of cells interacting in as many different ways to produce the many traits that make us humans. But somehow, it’s always about intelligence and behavior…
Cochran on Ashkenazi intelligence:
Just so-stories, many of these diseases are found in other inbred populations like the French of America. Also, none of the genes involved in those diseases has shown up in GWAS to my knowledge. So there is no evidence whatsoever.
On deleterious variants:
The logic behind the mainly deleterious effect of intelligence-related variants is that positive variants would have been selected up to fixation if intelligence was a fitness traits. Thus, only rare deleterious variants would cause variation in the gene pool and be kept at a very low frequency until they get purged by natural selection. That’s a sound logic, it’s supported by evidence.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/06/09/148247
“Yes, I love Gould’s PE model, though unfortunately it’s been dealt a blow by new fossil evidence suggesting modern humans evolved very gradually over the last several hundred thousand years, instead of appearing suddenly 200 kya as thought since the 1980”
That’s fine and doesn’t hurt the model. I forget what he wrote about humans regarding PE. Gotta check. But things like directed mutation may explain the punctuated process. When the environment changes, the intelligent cells that drive the intelligent physiology react and can make new changes, whether physiological or morphologic with little to no change to the DNA code. I’d even say that epigenetics is a fact of RO PE too.
.
“What about Cochran’s et al.’s Ashkenazi high IQ disease evidence?”
Hage you read the critique?
The main criticisms are: (a) Contrary to NHAI’s argument that the
inherited conditions are due to selection, population bottlenecks and drift remain strong
explanations of their frequency, and consistent with historical information. (b) In NHAl, less
than half of all inherited conditions have even a suggested pathway to higher intelligence. (c)
The inference that genes which stimulate aspects of neural growth are linked to higher
intelligence is pure speculation predicated on a simplistic view of neurological development. (d)
The claimed connection between three specific conditions and higher IQ has virtually no
empirical support whatever. (e) The demonstrated IQ advantage of Ashkenazi Jews as a whole is
less than asserted. (f) The multi-point IQ boosts proposed for specific genes are very inconsistent
with current research on the genetics ofIQ. (g) Even within the mainstream ofIQ research,
which emphasizes geneticlbiological bases, the extent of Ashkenazi IQ advantage is easily
accommodated as due to enviromnent. (h) The “Talmudic Tradition” of emphasizing learning
and abstract reasoning provides a clear cultural explanation for higher IQ among Ashkenazi. In
Ashkenazi history, NHAI’s assumption that higher intelligence led to greater income is
contradicted by (1) a rigid system of social stratification, G) the critical importance for amassing
wealth of capital, social connections, and political patrons, and (k) the absence of any evidence
that success in business required anything more than average intelligence.
I also found this part hilarious.
One critic’s response does need to be addressed here at the start. He identifies himself as
one of the authors ofNHAI. Naturally, he argues with critics ofNHAI’s selection theory, and
dismisses researchers who support environmental components ofIQ. But more significantly, he
offers a very different version of the NHAI argument than appeared in print. He says it is not
important ifmost of the Ashkenazi conditions are associated with higher IQ, although that is
postulated in the article; and de-emphasizes NHAI’s proposition that some conditions give boosts
on the order of 5 IQ points. He says the inherited conditions discussed in NHAI are just the “tip
of the iceberg” of Ashkenazi intelligence genes, and that there are probably many more besides
those that are currently invisible to us. He adds that they did not make this point explicit in
NHAI, and should have done so.
Wonder who that was…
Reducing genetic variance on fitness traits is the purpose of natural selection, so a high heritability and a high fitness value are literally incompatible.
the state of education in biology in france is very sad. but afro is right that intelligence in the IQ test sense is unrelated to intelligence in the stone age sense and a fortiori unrelated to the difference in intelligence between humans and neanderthals. this is one of many subtelties that [redacted by pp, jan 25, 2018] like steve shoe are incapable of understanding.
and the above statement is true only to the extent that the environment and population have remained the same for a given lebensraum. when the environment changes or a new population is introduced to the same lebensraum, this environment may the population in ways it was not resolved before. whole new traits may become desirable, like the ability score high on IQ tests that simply didn’t exist before or were irrelevant to fitness in the previous environment of migrating population. for example, france selects for IQ test scores (indirectly) much more than haiti, and france selects for IQ test scores much more today than it did 200 years ago even for actual french people (non-haitians).
intelligence in the IQ test sense is unrelated to intelligence in the stone age sense and a fortiori unrelated to the difference in intelligence between humans and Neanderthals
If they’re unrelated, then exhausting the genetic variation for intelligence in the stone age sense, needn’t imply low heritability for IQ.
Afro,
“Intelligence (whatever it means) must be one of those things that evolved dramatically as new species of hominids emerged and then remained stable until the next speciation event.”
Interestingly, I remember reading about a year ago that most of the Encephalization that occurred within Africa was due to high species turnover rate, which lends credence to the idea that punctuated equilibrium was the main mechanism. However the near opposite trend takes in place in Eurasia, with noticeable gradualism.
“The step changes in Eurasia are contemporary with migration events (i.e. AMH, H. heidelbergensis and H. erectus). However, within Eurasia, there was further evidence of encephalization within H. erectus (β = −0.08, t = −4.57, p < 0.001) and H. neanderthalensis (β = −0.46, t = −2.67, p = 0.01), but not within H. heidelbergensis nor within H. sapiens. Conversely, in Africa, there was no evidence of encephalization within any species; the changes were primarily due to the appearance of new chronospecies (GLM with species as main effect: F7,37 = 86.83, p < 0.001; figure 2). The lack of trend in African populations is likely to be a consequence of short-lived species with fewer specimens per species; the chronospecies designation effectively divides up a long-term trend of encephalization. This is further supported by continental differences in mean CC within the H. erectus super-species (F1,37 = 3.95 , p = 0.05) and H. sapiens (F1,57 = 4.3 , p = 0.04) but not within H. heidelbergensis, with larger brains in Eurasian populations. However, if Neanderthals are viewed as a continuum from H. heidelbergensis , there is evidence for encephalization within this lineage, but not for a considerable period after colonizing Eurasia. These differences suggest that fundamentally different processes may have been acting on hominins in Eurasia and Africa. Speciation appears to be the key to change in Africa, whereas step changes associated with migration followed by within lineage encephalization are more characteristic of the Eurasian lineages."
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1599/2130
Interesting stuff, though encephalization if understood as EQ is a controversial metric that some believe was designed to support human exceptionalism.
…france selects for IQ test scores…
means the system of status and rank selects for IQ test scores. in the biological sense france may select against IQ test scores. its immigration policies certainly do. and macron has no children (just like merkel and may) and likely will never have any children. but this may be because he has a misshapen penis or is a pervert.
macron has no children (just like merkel and may) and likely will never have any children. but this may be because he has a misshapen penis or is a pervert
Why do you constantly feel the need to insult and smear people, and drag them through mud? I understand you don’t like his politics, but you do it to almost everyone. It’s funny sometimes, but it’s funny at the expense of others, and when it’s not funny, you just come across as vile and obnoxious.
Neanderthals were more robust than us, had denser bones and consumed a lot of kcal. The males average height was about 5 feet 5 inches. They averaged about 292 grams of protein per day (985 kcal low end, 1170 high end), and consumed 74 to 85 percent fat during glacial winters. The average American man eats about 100 grams of protein per day so Neanderthals ate about three times as much protein as we did and way more kcal than we did so we can say they were bigger and more powerful than Homo sapiens due to their musculature, kcal consumed, shorter height (can generate more power) denser bones (muscle power predicts bone strength), and wider pelvis. They had similar clavicular length compared to Homo sapiens which implies a similar shoulder breadth as well which is yet more evidence that they could generate more power.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/04/homo-neanderthalis-vs-homo-sapiens-sapiens-who-is-stronger-implications-for-racial-strength-differences/
“though encephalization if understood as EQ is a controversial metric that some believe was designed to support human exceptionalism.”
I’m pretty sure the study meant encpehalization as in a long term incremental increase in brain size, not brain size relative to expected brain size for body mass.
Using both absolute and residual brain size estimates, we show that hominin brain evolution was likely to be the result of a mix of processes
So after bringing the blog into disrepute, magic negro supergirl is allowed to comment again, but Jimmy, the smartest and most accurate commenter asides from me is banned for life. TATTTH MATTH SENTTTH
That EU/France logo beside your name makes me sick.
I think Jimmy is HILLARIOUS but Jimmy and Afro were both honorably discharged because the comment section was getting too trollish, but many months later, Afro is now being professional and on-topic (for now) so he’s back. I doubt Jimmy would stay on-topic, but you’re more than welcome to create your own blog that would indulge his interests. I’m sure not only Jimmy, but Mug of Pee, G-man and Gypsy would at least occasionally comment there, and if you’re really lucky, I might even make a rare surprise appearance.
Its clear you are afraid of the truth of what jimmy says and would even rather try sabotage your own blog with hack commenters than let people speak openly about the danes.
So I should piss off the people that you and Jimmy say have more power than God? TATTTH MATTH SENTTTH
Are you talking about the guy who accused me of being jewish after I refute his ridiculous claim of arabs being high in intelligence and low in sociopathy
Is he really banned ? I thought he came back here as “Fenoopy”
Honestly i don’t think he was Fenoopy. Their personalities and writing styles were totally different.
How Jimmy could possibly be such an extreme white supremacist who have the harshest speech about Blacks and Jews of anyone here but mysteriously love MENA people.
What about Jimmy the WASP from California knowing everything about the premier league, berbers and islam ?
If I had access to all the comments written by these sockpuppets I could give countless examples showing them to be the same person.
North Africans love Hitler, but I don’t think he would have any kind of respect for these people if he was alive today. Muslims were more like allies of convenience for the nazis.
don’t know if he was nordic or MENA but more than one MENA could have commented here. He disliked indians & East Asians
“That EU/France logo beside your name makes me sick.”
I thought the same, it’s cringy.
“He disliked indians & East Asians”
That’s what I say, it’s weird for a supposed white supremacist to despise every people on earth but MENA.
“don’t know if he was nordic or MENA but more than one MENA could have commented here.”
Not any MENA, more likely an Algerian who lives in UK. But definitely not a Nordic.
Maybe, but some white nationalists are sympathetic to MENA because of their shared dislike for Jews. David Duke for example:
No jimmy just worked with arab guys in his job. He is from california. I don’t think he ever said MENA people were great but just that some of the elites are not dumb.
You are autistic.
Lyrion, I didn’t say you’re necessarily wrong; I simply don’t know. At that time I had so many comments to moderate that I only half-read most of them.
I just tried a google search with “jimmy said:” + your blog name, look what I found :
“Many people think that the US is a very right wing country but i can tell you that there has never been a single newspaper or magazine in the US who has ever published anything even close to the dehumanizing hatred that the French press has towards muslims”
This comment by him proves he is simply a MENA trying to victimize himself. Any mentally sane person who knows France knows french media are worshipping muslims.
He is probably at the right end of the MENA IQ bell curve, that’s why he is doing it more subtly, but it doesn’t change the fact he isn’t white and will never be.
Hes not MENA. He kept saying Afros girlriend would get all wet over his blue eyes and blond hair and he sounded like he knew a lot about america. He worked for Citadel in new york but he had some arab friends in the team.
I dont know how you could confuse Fenoopy with Jimmy. Different personalities.
“the dehumanizing hatred that the French press has towards muslims”
Even the worst parisian bobo leftist wouldn’t have the balls to says such a lie. These words could only be from someone with a muslim background even if no longer muslim himself, that’s simple tribalism.
There are signs that never lies. Using such an exaggeration only show one is emotionaly triggered.
“Hes not MENA. He kept saying Afros girlriend would get all wet over his blue eyes and blond hair and he sounded like he knew a lot about america. He worked for Citadel in new york but he had some arab friends in the team.”
You are in denial about the true nature of your internet friend.
I am glad my compatriot is back on the blog. Hope everything going as you want in your law firm Afro and that Partners dont’ work you to death.
Hi, everything going fine, just pissed by this aweful weather since the beginning of 2018.
I don’t notice the weather except if it’s really exceptional. But my sister and girlfriend always speak about the weather . That’s very frencn !
as it turns out american football offensive linemen are smaller than sumo. even the refrigerator perry would have been just an average sumo. if rikishi don’t lift weights then they will not be as strong as nfl players or weightlifters. but there is technique in sumo. the fat-est doesn’t always win.
the record of whites in sumo as far as i know is…the second greatest sumo was half ukrainian. a bulgarian and estonian have won one of the six bashos/yushos once. there is still no white yokozuna. the first non-jap yokozuna was hawaiian. ther have been 8. one other hawaiian and 6 mongolians.
should one conclude this is because white people are not fit for sumo? no!
such an excellent metaphor.
like olympic weightlifting and sprinting the best height for sumo is not that tall. long legs and a high center of gravity are a liability.
the GOAT of sumo loses to an old japanese sumo.
the GOAT loses to the bulgarian.
Jimmy/Fenoopy obsession with height, head size and nutrition.
Fenoopy :
“I’m 6″3 > 99 percentile (+2.4 SD) with a 62.5cm > 99 percentile (+5.2 SD) head circumference.”
Jimmy :
“I have a head circumference of 24.5 inches (62.2cm) .
head size is linked to height. I find that taller people have bigger everything.
i’m 6’1 (1.85m) without shoes.”
Also the belief that intelligence is only one dimension and that raven matrices is the unique descent measure of it.
Or the belief that Arabs would have a 3 digits IQ with proper nutrition and if given a “real” intelligence test, and that Blacks would score in the 90s.
There are probably tons of other other examples of strange beliefs they have in common I missed because I didn’t read all their comments.
It’s just so fucking obvious they are the same person.
One other belief of Jimmy/Fenoopy : Jews are not a real ethnic group.
I forgot the common obsession of Jimmy/Fenoopy with classifying MENA between the pure “white” Arabs and the darker ones who are mixed with Negroids and who are the cause of all “subhuman” behavior we see in MENA populations.
Well Fenoopy just said that in relation to his algerian caste. He even said he was half jewish. Which I would strongly doubt someone like Jimmy would even mention. Its not the same person. [redacted by pp, jan 26, 2018]
and citadel hq is chicago. he never said he worked in nyc.
Just look at all the other evidences I provide above you have to be in serious denial to not realise they are the same person.
I’m actually really surprise that you bought the jewishness of fenoopy as authentic as he doesn’t mind talking about jewish sociopathy and conspiracy where he 100% agree with you just like Jimmy.
How could you really believe this guy is a Jew, come on, use your brain
Well I’ve talked to some black guys that admit blacks are lazy and do crime more than other races. Why would it be shocking to see a half jew admit jews are psychopathic?
Did Fenoopy ever say Jews were more psychopathic? I recall him saying Jews just did to whites what whites did to blacks and Native Americans or some argument to that effect. He did believe they conspire though (a very common MENA belief).
They just have the exact same beliefs on everything that matter :
– education and nutrition are important to IQ
– blacks would have an IQ in the 90s if given proper education and nutrition
– height is important to IQ
– only raven matrices are descent measures of intelligence
– intelligence is only one dimension
– MENA are not dumber than Whites
– MENA are not evil
– sexual selection > natural selection when it come to intelligence and skin color
– Jews are not a real ethnic group / race
– Jews conspire
– national socialism is great
Other notable common points:
– obsession with nose shape
– obsession with eugenics
– soccer fan
– knows a lot about berbers
– knows a lot about islam
– generally knowledgeable of UK
– knows his head circumference
– knows a lot about nutrition
– claims to have been well-nourished himself
Every single point on these (non-exhaustive) lists could be attribute to both Fenoopy and Jimmy.
Are you telling me that all this is pure coincidence ?
If Jimmy is Fenoopy, then he deserves an Oscar because their personalities could not be more different. Jimmy was a hothead and extremely confrontational, calling black commenters “Uncle Toms” and “Gorillas” and accusing people of being “hook-nosed Jews” and challenging people to meet him in real life. By contrast, Fenoopy never had an unkind thing to say about anyone, would deny Jews were evil, would change his mind when black commenters gave evidence, and would call everyone “cutie pie”. Fenoopy thought East Asians were smarter than whites, wrote a love letter to the Chinese people, and wanted to marry a Chinese woman, while Jimmy said anyone who considers a race of yellowish midgets to be smarter than the race that invented everything (whites) is mentally ill.
Islam is a religion, not a race.
Jimmy did not get this.
I think sharia law has many elements that are incompatible with western values.
Jimmy disapproves of western values concurrently.
May be, but a Berber with a high IQ is just like a Jew in term of social intelligence and machiavellianism. I think Philosopher said something along those lines.
Where I find him especially subtle and vicious is when he acted as Jimmy the “Nordic” he didn’t bother giving him a bad image while as Fenoopy because he was playing the “Berber” he was much more careful with it’s image and thus acted as the cool open-minded guy.
Btw, he was still very contemptuous of East Asians he qualified as lego-block thinkers and once shared some text saying Asians where like monkeys.
Anyway, I understand it’s hard for people when they where fooled by someone and defended their innocence multiple times to finally recognize they where wrong from the beginning.
If you still think all this is pure coincidences in light of the lists I provided then you are seriously rationalizing.
I’m just giving them the benefit of the doubt cause they’re not here to defend themselves & also because jimmy displayed very unique language markers that fenoopy did not. I agree there are some wierd coincidences though & jimmy did strike
me as a huge bullshitter, but i just don’t think it’s fair to make accusations against people who are no longer here, even if you’re 90% sure it’s true. For example Misdreavus falsely accused G-man of being my sock puppet on a blog i was banned from so i couldn’t even defend myself.
I should add :
– interest in drugs
Also :
– several mentions of the e1b1b1 haplogroup
– obsession with conquest as a sign of superiority
I’m looking through this list and a lot of this isn’t true. Fenoopy never talked about drugs or nootropics, national socialism, etc and jimmy never said blacks would be smart if given nutrition etc.
The best way to tell for me is that Fenoopy mentioned he was half jewish. Which is strange for a berber in general. You wouldn’t ‘complicate the character’ you are portraying by mentioning such a jarring detail if you were using sockpuppets like that.
Also the writing style and language used is very different. Fenoopy has a more cautious and reflective tone. Jimmy was much more direct in his communication.
Also Fenoopy kept claiming berbers were on par with whites in achievement, and thats something Jimmy never claimed or endorsed.
You are such a disappointment Philosopher. Despite being more autistic it appears that Pumpkin is also socially smarter than you. Truly sad.
Fenoopy said :
National Socialism is the social conscience of socialism without class hatred and outmoded economic dogma.
It is the productive efficiency of capitalism without the cruelty and exploitation of unrestrained greed.
It is the reverence for tradition and history of conservatism without inflexibility or petrification.
It is the rationality of liberalism without its emasculated rootlessness and its blindness to deeper modes of perception.
It is patriotism which transcends narrow nationalism and embraces the race.
It is a profound love and reverence for nature without shallow sentimentality.
It is a religion without superstition – without magic and magicians, without the supernatural, without a sick and treasonable hankering for other worlds.
Jimmy said :
Based on what you have mentioned in the past i would highly doubt that your mother was free of nutritional deficiencies preconception and during pregnancy.
The only way to find out the real genetic IQs of groups is to
1. Get a large number of couples of each race and DNA test them to make sure that they are genetically representative of their racial category.
2. check to see if they have any genetic disorders , like ADHD, that effect tests scores and remove them from the study.
3. check to see if the remaining couples have nutritional deficiencies and then correct them.
4. Then get them to procreate and while the woman is pregnant make sure that she has adequate nutrition.
5. Once the children are born make sure that they are breastfed for at least 1 year.
6. make sure that each child has adequate nutrition and measure that by taking monthly blood tests and keep doing that until they turn 23 .
7. Once the subjects have reached 23 give them the Ravens matrices test and then see what the racial differences are.
If that was ever done then we would see a much higher black and hispanic IQ and a triple digit Arab IQ.
Fenoopy said :
im tremendously thirsty and have testosterone flowing through my veins like heroin but i have 0 fetishes or perversions
huge thirst tho
Not the best example for drugs though, he directly mentioned drugs another time but I can’t find the comment. Anyway, you can remove 1% of the list the lefting 99% still stand.
Look how similar writing styles are btw, some commenters here don’t use paragraphs, for Jimmy/Fenoopy it’s the opposite. He also uses capital letters quite randomly which is another distinctive sign. It looks like he is often writing from a smartphone.
“For example Misdreavus falsely accused G-man of being my sock puppet on a blog i was banned from so i couldn’t even defend myself.”
You shouldn’t have banned Jimmy even if he is obviously lying on who he is, after all it’s the Internet, everyone can be whoever he wants to be.
Jimmy said he was a national socialist after me and robert discussed it as an offhand remark. He has never really posted at length about it.
The nutrition comment is interesting though.
I remember jimmy mentioning the same pop culture things that I liked when I was younger. I find it hard to believe someone who grew up in Algeria had access to that.
I also think you can’t explain why Fenoopy would say he was half jewish.
Also while jimmy was saying arabs aren’t dumb, fenoopy was more subtle and said only his caste from the maghreb weren’t dumb but that MENA people in general were dumb.
I think its a different writing style as well.
Fenoopy said a lot of contradictory things depending on the situation, with always the same purpose of showing him and his people on a good light.
Jimmy literally went balistic when I doubt his arab IQ thing and he mocked (and also lied btw) european people for being worried about immigration in their countries :
“Can you be clannish and accept 30% + of your country being guest workers? the Europeans go nuts if 5% of their country is not native ( which i fully support ! ) ”
When you realise this guy is a MENA this type of epidermic reaction make perfect sense :
I don’t believe that blacks have a genetic IQ of 85 , or Hispanics are 87 and i certainly don’t believe that middle easterners.have a genetic IQ of 85/90
The last one is so preposterous to anyone with even a basic understanding of history and genetics that PP felt compelled to raise his estimate of the middle east genetic IQ to 90 which is still ridiculous to anyone who isnt brain damaged.
This guy was hundred times more emotionaly involved to defend MENA than Whites. He even belittled Whites to show Arabs on a good light. This guy is not a White and even less the White supremacist he pretends to be, no wonder why he hates so much the “HBD cult” which would put his people at the bottom of the racial hierarchy if Negroids didn’t existed.
Putting my two cents in, I agree with Lyrion. Nice dot connecting.
I’m certainly not Jimmy, Lyrion. I have always said contradictory things to you because I don’t consider you to be an intelligent person. You’re a typical European right winger. I got banned for consistently debating from viewpoints I didn’t hold, actually, aka bullshitting. Certainly it’s strange that Jimmy has all the same viewpoints, but how strange is it that two clever people can come to a consensus? I agree with a great many of Richard Lindsay’s and Philosopher’s points too, we aren’t the same people.
The biggest difference however is that I’m not at all fond of WN, unlike Jimmy. I feel Lyrion would be quite at home on Storm Front discussing the original Nordic Egypt and so on and so forth.
^^^ Exactly as I thought.
Speak of the devil… and nobody suspect you to be Philosopher and Robert Lindsay, lol, they don’t go balistic whenever something say a negative things about MENA.
Btw, I think you would like me to be the typical low IQ WN type, you just don’t like me as I knew your game since the beginning.
“^^^ Exactly as I thought.”
Very girly attitude from you Philospher, very disappointing.
Use of “^^” should be banned.
whenever someone* say
Pumpkin, RR
Apparently they’ve pushed the Out of Africa date to 170-200 thousand years ago.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6374/456
Actually the date didn’t change in the case of modern populations, this just pushes back the earliest appearance of a 200k Migration in the Levant that was already known.
I’ve also read of this migration continuing in Southern Asia, and this seems to explain the old teeth of modern humans found in china.
Also, Apparently, this may mean Modern Humans came from lineages of both African and Eurasian components.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5084509/Ancient-skull-China-rewrites-human-history.html
However this hasn’t been verified genetically though could explain certain conudrums.
“Actually the date didn’t change in the case of modern populations, this just pushes back the earliest appearance of a 200k Migration in the Levant that was already known.”
I’m assuming there was definitely a genetic continuity between the populations. It’s becoming clear that Out of Africa was not a one time event. Pulsations back and forth between the continents have probably been occurring since homo sapiens first appeared and possibly since homo erectus.
“I’ve also read of this migration continuing in Southern Asia, and this seems to explain the old teeth of modern humans found in china.”
I was reading that too, I wonder if this could possibly explain any extra Neanderthal admixture found in East Asians?
Highly plausible. 300k years old fossils of Homo-Sapiens were found in Morocco. From there, it’s really hard to believe that they would not have crossed Gibraltar strait to Spain or that neighboring populations in Egypt and the Horn of Africa wouldn’t have expanded to Arabia through the Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb until 50k years ago.
MeLo:
Early modern humans were present outside of Africa around that time, but most of the ancestry of modern non-Africans dates from the ca. 70,000 migration.
Phil:
It seems a lot to conclude from on skull. The article claim that modern facial traits—seen in the Chinese Dai skull ca. 260,000 bc (with some sapiens-like facial traits but a primitive brain case) might have evolved in Asia and back migrated to Africa (where sapiens then evolved completely, with cranial traits etc., and eventually spread within and later outside of Africa), but this makes little sense (perhaps it is misunderstanding on the part of the article, not present in the study) since the Jebel Irhoud skull from Morocco (which is earlier from 300,000 bc) also exhibits modern human facial morphology (in addition to evidence of early moderns, or course with modern craniotomy-facial traits, elsewhere in Africa around 200 ka. or so—which give little time for a migration from an Asian hominid which only appears ca 260,000 bc).
(Or the article might be claiming that certain facial traits evolved in parallel in Asia and Africa—it isn’t entirely clear. But this does not necessitate a back migration to originate those traits in Africa, since, as mentioned they were also present in Africa.) It seems (from what I have seen) somewhat more plausible to me that the Dai skull may be a hominid that evolved some sapiens-like traits in parallel but separately from sapiens in Africa (if that is is fact confirmed) without necessarily being a direct ancestor. The evidence that it contributed to sapiens (let alone originated sapiens traits that were already/also present in parts of Africa) seems to be lacking (or insufficient).
Cont:
But of course I would be interested in what genetic or any corroborating evidence could add.
Should be:
“in addition to evidence of early moderns, or course with modern cranio-facial traits, many locations in Africa around 200 ka (Omo, or Herto Ethiopia—more developed moderns). or so, some before, as at Florisbad S.A ca. 20 ka, and indirect behavioral evidence or early or proto-moderns at Gademotta Ethiopia ca 270 ka…”
Should be (sorry for the repeated corrections—will try to avoid that):
“or so, some before, as at Florisbad S.A ca. 250 ka bc…(of course not 20 ka as I mistakenly wrote)”
Again, I really apologize for the corrections. I can’t seem to avoid mistakes today.
“indirect behavioral evidence of (not “or”) early or proto-moderns at Gademotta Ethiopia…”
I found the article in research gate and to your point most articles make further extrapolations that the study itself did.
Someone in a comment section of Newsweeks even pointed out how the Moroccan ones looked more archaic and, to the study’s findings, the distance of the Dali skull was found to be in the more “archaic” variation of African and West Asian skulls.
As for geneflow, the study mentions the skull being more relevant to West Eurasian Homo populations rather than African ones. It nonetheless suggested that future direct comparison were required to make any conclusions, but claimed that eurasian hominid evolution was very complex.
As for Africa, it suggested that the development of the morccocan specimens was a complex development within the continent
You can read it for your self in the discussion.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320639445_A_multivariate_assessment_of_the_Dali_hominin_cranium_from_China_Morphological_affinities_and_implications_for_Pleistocene_evolution_in_East_Asia
And of course Bruce Fenton returns on the topic on a site called “Ancient Code”, this not at all aligning with his outline of course and solidifies something closer to Multiregionalism which he also claimed to be discredited. This shows that he is mainly contrarian than convinced to a specific migrational course.
Also, Fenton mentions sre looking at the Maba skull or Jinnushi skull, despite both metric being used in the study and concluded as being more archaic as well.
What’s odd in the study however is that the Broken Hill skulls was plotted closer to Modern types than Florisbad, perhaps a wrong interpretation as Florisbad is noticeable modern looking from Rhodey standards.
The Dali Skull.
https://www.ouest-france.fr/leditiondusoir/data/12807/NextGenData/Image-1024-1024-2833669.jpg?t=%22d7f12468ac54677b4c79060bf7812482gzip%22
Jebel Irhoud
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/science-news/2017/june/oldest-known-homo-sapiens-fossils-discovered-in-morocco.html
Higher frontal lobe and smaller brow ridges.
Florsibad
I mean even Florisbad has a sharper nose bridge, smaller brow, and taller frontal lobe than Dali.
In my opinion, given how the study described it as similar to the Jevel Irhoud findings though “unique”, this skull may be evidence of denisovan.
My Idea is like yours Jm8, in that it developed that traits in parallel with homo Sapiens from ontogenetic variation.
Either that, or Wu’s theory in that it was something like a Asian Erectus experience geneflow from outside species of Eurasian Homo while retaining of continuating traits if i read him correctly.
I might need to reread the study later today.
BTW jm8, if you can, go the the comment section of my article on RR’s blogs and post some links of relevant Homo finds in Africa and Eurasia. i want to see if i can find a pattern and discuss this matter further with you.
Phil:
“As for geneflow, the study mentions the skull being more relevant to West Eurasian Homo populations rather than African ones. It nonetheless suggested that future direct comparison were required to make any conclusions, but claimed that eurasian hominid evolution was very complex.”
The study either seems perhaps to argue for what the article suggested, or it seems to attempt to argue for genetic and morphological continuity in East Asia (akin to classic multi-regionalism) but the genetic evidence, autosomal, and uniparental does not support this, but rather an overwhelming origin of Asians in the same ca. 70,000 bc migration from Africa as other Eurasians. Classic multi-regionalism (with substantial local archaic genetic continuity into the present in modern continental populations) is not supportable by the genetic evidence. (if i am not mistaken—i could be wrong—, one of the authors, Wu along with certain Chinese researchers, has attempted to argue for Chinese local continuity/multi-regionalism for some time now, without IMO very strong evidence)
They claim:
“In the context of this braided stream network model, Dali’smor-phology indicates that its population was significant in the origin of early H. sapiens in China.”
p. 20
However, the authors seem to describe the skull as a combination of early sapiens traits (found in early sapiens in Africa and the Levant) in its facial traits, and older, more archaic ones in its cranial morphology.
“The results of this study show that in multivariate morphological space the overall cranial shape of Dali is a combination of traits found in theearliest Middle Paleolithic H. sapiens from Africa and the Levant in thefacial skeleton, and African and Eurasian Middle Pleistocene hominin the neurocranium.” p. 15
As far as i could tell, no special affinities of Dali with a particular modern sapiens population (over others) were found.
It seems plausible to me that the the Chinese Dali skull represents a very early sapiens or proto-sapiens migration from Africa (since early sapiens were apparently present from ca. 300 ka bc)—perhaps of an Irhoud-like population (or some variation origination in some other part of Africa, perhaps differing somewhat from the Moroccan variation found at Irhoud) into Asia/Eurasia possibly with archaic hybridization involving Eurasian archaics. Some kind of hybridization, as they suggest, may likely be involved, but there seem to be little evidence of continuity (or significant continuity at least) into modern local populations (let alone based on one skull).
Though minor influences from archaic populations (such as neanderthals, denisova, etc, have of course been found, and it is not impossible that this archaic or possibly archaic/early sapiens hybrid population may have left some rather small genetic contribution.
It seems likely that the Dali population was replaced by the later, more important, homo sapiens migration (perhaps with some absorption, as in the case of neanderthals)
From what I understand, though both Dali and Irhoud (both 1 and 2, from Morocco) combine modern-like and archaic-like traits, the Irhoud specimens generally lie closer to early sapiens samples (are less archaic) on cranial traits (like Skull and Omo) than does Dali, and further from archaic ones (than Dali does)—on page 19. Irhoud 1, Skhul, and Quafzeh are somewhat less archaic in facial traits (p. 15). generally similar results are seen on combined cranio-facial traits (p. 12)
This seems to support the idea of a very early or proto-sapiens population originating from Africa hybridized with Eurasian archaics as the origin of the Dali hominin. (I also would, tentatively suggest possibly as an added factor—or either factor might be more important I don’ know—, that to some degree certain yet more sapiens-like facial tendencies could also have developed in this hybridized Dali population, in parallel to those that developed in Africa which would be the origin of sapiens/sapiens characteristics characteristics there and in Eurasia post OOA migration.
Phil:
“What’s odd in the study however is that the Broken Hill skulls was plotted closer to Modern types than Florisbad, perhaps a wrong interpretation as Florisbad is noticeable modern looking from Rhodey standards.”
Yes I agree. That seemed strange to me too. Florisbad definately looks to me more modern than Dali (and than Broken Hill, which is some kind of primitive African heidelbergensis type), both cranially and facially. I suspect there could have been some mistake.
“My Idea is like yours Jm8, in that it developed that traits in parallel with homo Sapiens from ontogenetic variation.”
Yes I think that could also be the cause (or one significant cause) of the similarity to early sapiens. though I suppose it’s too early to tell for sure.
“Either that, or Wu’s theory in that it was something like a Asian Erectus experience geneflow from outside species of Eurasian Homo while retaining of continuating traits if i read him correctly.”
Perhaps (scenario 1); it could be a hybrid Eurasian hominid (in the hiedelbergensis lineage with some Asian erectus admixture, then experiencing a parallel (but separate/basically separate) development of certain facial traits similar to those that occurred in early sapiens in Africa.
or perhaps (scenario 2) a hybrid of very early African sapiens/proto-sapiens (that left Africa soon after 300,000 bc) with Eurasian archaics (perhaps including among them; both some from the heidelbergensis lineage and from the more primitive Asian Erectus—the latter perhaps accounting for the mild similarities of Dali in some ways to earlier local Asian erectus-affiliated Chinese hominins like Maba).
Though it seemed he (Wu) was arguing for some form of classic multi-regionalism (with substantial continuity), but perhaps I misread something—and he was arguing for something closer to one of the above scenarios. If so (and he was arguing what I thought), it really is not plausible at this point (an there is not evidence currently, as far as I know of Dali being ancestral—or substantially ancestral—to any modern population). The other two scenarios—1 and 2 (or some combination of the two), however, do seem plausible.
“BTW jm8, if you can, go the the comment section of my article on RR’s blogs and post some links of relevant Homo finds in Africa and Eurasia. i want to see if i can find a pattern and discuss this matter further with you.”
Sure; I will try to do so sometime today. Which article exactly (would it be the article I commented on before?)?
Yes, the same article.
I was careful looking over the study’s figures and discussion and I will admit, compared to that Haplogroup study I found, this study seems more careful in his assertions.
I don’t recall him referring to the modern chinese at least in this study for continuity, but I am aware of his morphological assertions before. On one hand it’s easy to say it’s nationalist, especially since neither phenotype or genetics (as you said) supports his description, but at the same time I support looking into these findings for a clearer picture.
Aside from the odd position of Florisbad (which was due to missing values as I now reread it), this study was pretty informative.
BTW, here;s what the paper said explicitly on the nature of the Dali Skull.
“Gene flow would best be described as a braided stream network with periods of isolated evolu-tionary change within a local lineage at times, and periods of gene flowbetween local lineages or paleo-demes at other times, resulting in con-tributions being made in different capacities to different regions at different times. The results here and in other parts of Eurasia (Acker-mann, Mackay, & Arnold, 2016) are consistent with such a scenario. As applied to China, the population from which Dali was derived would have been shaped by retentions from H. erectus as well as influence from western Eurasian populations. “
Phil:
“And of course Bruce Fenton returns on the topic on a site called “Ancient Code”, this not at all aligning with his outline of course and solidifies something closer to Multiregionalism which he also claimed to be discredited. This shows that he is mainly contrarian than convinced to a specific migrational course.”
Yeah, I’ve just noticed him commenting (propagandistically spamming) in the comments sections of various articles on the Dali skull, claiming that the OOA theory has been “taken apart”, and advertising for his book (many seem uninformed enough to fall for it)—and how he is dismissed or ignored by mainstream scientists (suggesting of some cabal-like conspiracy or irrational bias). He’s very dishonest. It’s rather getting on my nerves now, as I see it again.
the chris langan of twitter believes china people are dumber than europeans.
sad!
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Quora-Moderation-collapse-this-reasonable-answer-by-Chris-Langan
the chris langan of quora i meant.
he also agrees with bret weinstein that US public schools are horrible on purpose. the ruling class fears a better educated population.
so now that’s 5 people who agree with me.
if the quora langan is the real langan then he is clearly [redacted by pp, jan 25, 2018]
Actually he was making a more subtle point about education that flew above your head
are you capable of not lying?
In other words, the Western parasitic elite, having coopted “liberalism” and “progressivism” using the power of money, have systematically destroyed the genetic uniformity, family values, and public education systems of Western nations, “dumbing down” their populations in comparison with certain other IQ-adapted nations which do not subscribe to multiculturalism.
that is an exact paraphrase of what bret weinstien said.
[redacted by pp, jan 26, 2018]
I don’t care what Weinstein said, I was talking about Chris. He’s the genius, not Weinstein.
Afro said that all the africans are ‘real french’ people and that the imposters living in france now have ‘no right’ to stop africa from repopulating france. I find his reasoning very troubling at times. So by the same token, chinese should repopulate haiti? [redacted by pp, jan 26, 2018]
No that’s not what he said. I’m not defending what he did say, but you’re twisting it.
He 100% said just that. He even named arabs, blacks, sasquatches and UFOS as groups that were really french and said rural white french people were ‘not represenatative of modern france’. Go back through the comments. 100% said that.
If all of France was repopulated with Subsaharan Africans then in 5-10 thousand years they will become white skinned just as when Africans became white when the migrated to Europe thousands of years ago. Vitement D deficiency will result in the same mechanism as it did for selecting the whitest skin. Same for nose bridges.
Not really, since they wouldn’t be living in cromagnon conditions, not to mention White skin and sharper noses came from Caucasoids nomads and farmers from outside of Europe. HG populations produce light hair and Eyes.
But above all, as I’ve explained this to PP, Modern Africans aren’t the same ancient africans, especially in Phenotype seeing how they would lack the variation to recreate “white features”.
Lion says jews are underrepresented at Harvard. He is using the wrong fuckin numbers. Many jews report themselves as atheist or ‘non affiliated’ in response to what religion they are so its a misnomer he used.
I also find his bromide about jews not being a race but only a religion to be complete horseshit that he definitely doesn’t even believe himself. [redacted by pp, Jan 26, 2018]
Mugabe keeps saying America is prole. This video explains why. Its to do with Pragmatism. The worth of something comes from its usefulness and not from its values in the romanticism sense. Idealism vs realism. (consumerism) Best at war with its over 800 military bases throughout the world. If it works it works attitude. Europeans have much more leisure and are more concerned about quality over quantity. If you look at speeches given by Rosevelt during WW2 they are much different from Hitlers. (Mugabe idealizes Nazis) I saw the movie Pearl Harbor when I was 13 years old. happened in 1941 (Philosopher idealizes the 50’s). The Mob gained power from prohibition. My grandfather was born in 1903 my grandmother was born 1917. I know allot about the 20th century. Part of my general knowledge.
America is pragmatic. This can lead to shortchanging people in the country and cutting corners. But America is efficient at what it does mostly. (Mugabe says Canada is prole but I do not know much about Canada)
Is The American Dream B.S.? – 8-Bit Philosophy
SOCIOLOGY – Alexis De Tocqueville
a gedankenexperiment:
i’m an icelander. i see someone who is repulsive, disgusting. the thought i can’t have is: he is not my kind. i could have this feeling if he were an immigrant to iceland from the US or ireland, not just if he were from haiti.
rhinos do not attempt to copulate with zebras and vice versa.
ethnic nepotism is the natural continuation of disgust at bestiality…the attraction of members of the same species.
but this stops abruptly at incest. (except pakis and hillbillies love to do it with their cousins.)
using economic terminology…
there are steeply “diminishing returns” to fitness (in the purely biological sense) to outbreeding once…idk…the third cousin barrier is in place.
that is, fucking members of your “extended family” is adaptive as long as they’re distant family. the genetic disease incidence becomes negligible after third cousin…or whatever.
rhinos like rhinos.
zebras like zebras.
this is species incest.
were it not for such incest there would be no species. at least none which reproduced via sex.
the rhinos who liked zebras would soon go extinct.
“if you can’t measure it, you can’t change it.” this has a correlary in biology. if you can’t define the population and its environment then you can’t improve it. the solution to the problem of white trash is not immigration.
it was the bi-polar jordan peterson who turned me on to this.
he said it wasn’t that hitler disliked jews and other non-aryans. he was disgusted by them. (like everyone is disgusted by cockroaches.) he used the example of the new world. the europeans killed the indigenes with their germs. so if the natives had been more disgusted by europeans they might’ve avoided this. and the europeans did bring back a disease from the natives which was absolutely horrible until antibitoics. they brought syphilis to europe. it killed al capone and nietzsche. if they’d been more disgusted by the native americans this would never have happened.
correlation vs corollary?
why such a difference in spelling?
btw, i agree that ethnic nepotism is adaptive.
what i question is how such a trait could be coded in the genome.
an example:
bret weisnstein echoed a point i’ve made so many times.
and he’s an actual expert.
the extent to which men and women can differ genetically is severely restricted…so even if one can identify forces of natural selection which would differentiate men and women…the genome may be unable to respond.
As Swank and I argue, it’s a spandrel:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2015/08/04/ethnic-genetic-interests-a-simplified-version/
I think it’s an ironic spandrel (a concept I invented for spandrels that are adaptive, despite the fact that spandrels by definition were not adaptations). The concept of an adaptive spandrel is very subtle, hence opposition against EGI is especially loud from those who think they understand evolution, even in the HBD community.
a third pure european has won one of the six makuuchi basho.
this time it’s a georgian. one of stalin’s compatriots.
it may be all the bouts are fixed by yakuza, but i doubt it.
unlike the WWE and the UFC, sumo is a real sport. very real. too real.
rr hates the guido stereotype and afro hates the black stereotype but they both exemplify it and are apparently unaware that they do.
Takanoyama was hampered mostly by an inability to put on weight…
Takanoyama became a sekitori at around the same time as (temporarily) breaking through the 100 kg barrier, and attributed his gain in weight to Naruto Oyakata (and the stablemaster’s wife) giving him special dishes and snacks at night.
this is interesting.
apparently he remained thin because he couldn’t get fat.
deal would have a hardo-on for him.
Takanoyama Shuntarō
at one point arnold claimed he only used ‘roids when he was cutting.
the question of how to cut is the biggest question in bodybuilding.
if sumos just had liposuction they’d look better than arnold in 1976 in ZA.
or some of them would.
the ones with lots of stretched skin would look horrible.
hakuho could lose 100lbs and looking great.
Some deny stretched skin exists:
http://www.bodyfatguide.com/LooseSkin.htm
that guy with the popeye forearm wasn’t italian peepee.
1. the fraction of pizzaria owners who are italian is much less than 10%.
2. even if italians own the pizzaria they employ mexicans to do all the work.
the bottom line is: peepee can’t tell the difference bwteen italians and mexicans. this should offend rr greatly.
you weren’t that ugly deal with it.
just not my type.
i know you fap to me.
every woman does.
i’m magic.
i’m dionysus.
just the way it is.
i recall when i was at uni i met a guy i’d gone to school with.
he was a guy the kids knew was fubar. i was surprised to see him there. i thought he was retarded.
after the girls in the dorm taped nude pictures of men to my door i left.
the RA asked me about this guy. why? he said the guy claimed i was reading his thoughts.
sad!
heard about this guy once again.
he was killed in a high speed chase with the popos.
funny thing.
his older brother was high school president. he was in once class as me with that alpine skier i’m still in love with. i was a sophomore. she was a senior. it was a math class. i was promoted.
he mentioned this song to me.