For roughly ten years I’ve been arguing that evolution is progressive and its gratifying to see some of the greatest scientists of our time agree.
Two scientists agree with Pumpkin Person! Evolution is progressive.
07 Tuesday Nov 2023
Posted in Uncategorized
Pumpkin Person 
Either of these jews?
youre mentally ill. i cant believe we let a cocksucker such as yourself even in civilized society. its not because youre racist its because youre autistic.
all you do is think about one subject and then assert all your energy 2wards that retardation.
youre backwards and stupid in everyway.
Well, does Adam Frank have a first name as his surname?
Personally, I would rather hear Filthy Frank’s comments on evolution.
its your perception that my comments are deteriorating but i think theyre just more practical now than ever b4.
i think im a much more irl thinker than an internet personality so that may play a part in it.
its hard 2 communicate the nuances of things over the Internet so thats maybe whats happening. im acting as if people are understanding what im saying when they never could!
the Universe is a mirror 4 everything. nature and mirror are dichotomies in my perspective where one is a certain way and then the other is opposite of that.
i think that influencing people 2 do the right thing coming from the natural and Universal sense may signify importance!
This person is even dumber than RR. Ban him.
i am not dumb. YOU are dumb. what have you done in your life that was intelligent. NOTHING!
PP is a scoundrel 4 letting the shithead comment without discretion. [redacted by pp, 2023-11-07]
you dont even think b4 you comment all you do is post bullshit.
What a lolcow. Loaded is full of loads.
Prithee, ma petite chérie, the IQ of a Boltzmann brain is quoi?
There was an old man with a great bushy beard
When he saw the atoms, the atoms all jeered
‘Twas empty: his bed,
Befuddled: his head
So he hanged himself ’til his life disappeared
how can anyone have sympathy 4 this idiot Pill. all he does is take things others have said and parrot them. what do you find so interesting about the dude.
What is this even supposed to mean?
its simple nature is structured and the Universe is chaotic. and then we see remnants of whats happening in the Universe happen as processes within us etc.
its a literal profession that whats happening in the Universe will happen in mirrored ways 2 everything that is inside of it.
its a testament 2 the structural capacity of how things operate. the Universe has big things and then it has things that mirror it uniquely on a more microscopic level. thats the mirror principle there.
the natural world is a phenomenon of structure and order and we can see its microscopic fundamental makeup 2 be like that and we can see the Universe the same way in the opposite direction.
its supposed 2 be more poetic than literal though obviously.
I don’t know exactly what happened to you since I first began lurking here. I’ve been reading PP’s posts for years, agreed with some, and disagreed with the oversimplified methodology of many of them, but one thing that sticks out is the diminution in quality of your comments. Did you sustain a massive TBI recently?
For my edification, define what you mean by nature. Also, how is this quasignostic “as above, so below” BS supposed to be profound if the same physical principles act at different scales?
Take a bow. Take an auf-bau.
the quality of my comments have deteriorated because theres no one 2 engage with on this blog ive already expanded a lot on the topics i find interesting and no one gave any productive insight in2 anything 2 tbh.
i just started putting less effort in2 the comments because commenting here is not really worth my time.
how can anyone agree with an imbecile like Pill when he is just repeating himself is what baffles me.
I wonder what Gould really thought about evolution being progressive or not. For political reasons he can’t say out loud, but it would have been great to know him privately. Indeed, it would be great to know the real thoughts of many jewish intellectuals on subjects like the blacks, culture, science, politics and philosophy.
you dumbass schizophrenic youre the one with an agenda. we cant tell what it is but we know you have one.
the Jews are much more intelligent and profound than your stupid ass. you dont even wipe after you defecate you are a total cocksucking loser.
All signs point to Gould sincerely believing in his punctuated equilibrium model.
I think the point of MacDonald’s CoC thesis is not that Jewish thought leaders deliberately lie to advance group interests, but that these interests prevent them from thinking rationally. For example, Bari Weiss genuinely believes that the NYT is an antisemitic organization.
It’s honestly kind of sad, and I’m glad I wasn’t inculcated at a young age with such a distorted outlook. But it makes perfect sense on a group evolutionary level.
I disagree. I believe Gould was simply too intelligent not to see HBD. Anyone of his expertise in biology comes to the same conclusion.
I believe you don’t have the faintest idea why Gould believed what he did, nor could you explain to me what he believed outside being extremely vague.
Of course, because PE is true and there are also physiological mechanisms for it (eg like directed mutations).
You’re right. I conflated PE with Gould’s criticisms of IQ, which was unfair.
Send an email to Santo and ask him to come back and in return, you’ll ban loaded. Loaded offers about 5% of the quality of Santo’s comments.
yeah you cocksucker give me one thing you actually understood Santo 2 say. ever.
your reading comprehension sucks. you are autistic and schizophrenic a total idiot in every way. stop sucking on other dudes penises and maybe youll do something with your life 4 once.
So you banned me saying you and RR agree on everything morally. Just not the ‘science’.
What happens when White people give out reparations to blacks.
Puppy banned my comment where I said Africa would completely collapse without western soft loans and aid. If the NGOs all pulled out and Bill Gates stopped giving money, literally hundreds of millions of Africans would descend into the Hunger Games.
Most people are not self-sufficient, and even if they largely are (own their own farms or something), they still rely on the goodwill of others to respect their boundaries. Furthermore, they’ve generally relied on technology and discoveries produced by others.
People who think that saying “Africa would collapse without western soft loans and aid” means that we think literally every African is a drooling idiot are basically saying they don’t understand averages and how interdependent people are. If most things are just evolved enough to survive and reproduce, then people who give more to the world (especially in a lasting way) than take from it are probably exceptions and not the rule.
“ The concept of envy — the hatred of the superior — has dropped out of our moral vocabulary. The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn’t occur to us, because it’s not a nice idea. Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of western power long after colonialism, imperialism and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. Superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call “minorities.” “
– Joe Sobran
https://www.unz.com/isteve/sobran-thou-shouldst-be-living-at-this-hour/
This is a patently absurd argument. Clearly, evolution is not progressive in all traits (for example, the trait of being a trilobite), thus to call evolution in trait X progressive we must choose trait X according to the results of evolution. This is a preposterous tautology.
Fitness isn’t even an environmental invariant. For example, the high oxygenation of the Carboniferous atmosphere meant large insects possessed a conditional fitness they no longer do, since passive respiration through spiracles is inefficient.
If sapiens causes its own extinction, evolution will clearly not be progressive in terms of intelligence (not that it ever was, strictly, to begin with).
Evolution is not even progressive in genetic diversity, as plenty of mass extinction events bear testament to.
You could argue that evolution is progressive once we remove all forms of extinction event and environmental change, but then it’s no longer evolution.
Next time you find two “leading scientists” to support your claim, make sure they’re actually leading scientists, and ideally leading scientists who make their living studying the problem in question rather than something completely different like astrophysics.
LOL is the guy a physicist? Hahaha Puppy is very funny sometimes. The only evidence you need to demonstrate evolution isn’t progressive in the sense that puppy means it – dinosaur fossils.
They’re both physicists. In particular, “expertise” on evolution is inferred from attempting to model exoplanets. We don’t have any idea whether a single one of these rocks has life on it, yet apparently speculating over the possibility is equal ethos to studying life here on Earth.
As for why the illusion of progressive evolution might be perceived, let’s think of it as a stochastic process with a killing boundary condition at 0. In other words, some form of archaea is likely to survive any mass extinction of “higher” lifeforms, and our y-axis is some measure of complexity.
During any period in which mass extinctions do not occur and the planet is not yet at its absolute resource carrying-capacity, we expect the line to go up. We live in this period by the weak anthropic principle.
But the line can go down, and often has. Moreover, there’s a second (upper) boundary condition based on limitations to biological complexity and resource use. Over any sufficiently long stretch of time, we can’t say the line is expected to go up.
If a more complex form exists, it follows a less complex form, yet this does not necessitate that every form of low complexity is followed by one of higher complexity, or that highly complex forms persist for as long.
I made a similar argument here.
“Now imagine that in this hypothetical scenario, we have species A and species B in a phylogeny. Suppose that species A is the first branch and that it hasn’t undergone any branching. Conversely, species B, which is represented on a higher branch, has experienced extensive branching and diversification, which adheres to the criteria for a species to be considered “more evolved.” But there are logical implications for the concept concerning the positions of species A and species B on the phylogeny.
So according to the concept of linear progression which is implied in the original statement, if species B is “more evolved” than species A due to its higher branch position, it logically follows that species B should continue to further evolve and diversify. This progression should lead to new branching points, as each subsequent stage would be considered “more evolved” than the last. Thus, applying the line of reasoning in the original statement, it suggests that there should always be a species represented on an even higher branch than species B, and this should continue ad infinitim, with no endpoint.
The logical consequence of the statement is that an infinite progression of increasingly evolved species, each species being represented by a higher branch than the one before, without any final of ultimate endpoint for a “most evolved” species. This result leads to an absurdity, since it contradicts our understanding of evolution as an ongoing and continuous process. The idea of a linear and hierarchical progression of a species in an evolutionary tree culminating in a “most evolved” species isn’t supported by our scientific understanding and it leads to an absurd outcome.
Thus, the logical implications of the statement “If you’re the first branch and you don’t do any more branching, then you’re less evolved than higher branches” leads to an absurd and contradictory result and so it must be false. The concept of the position of a species on an evolutionary tree isn’t supported by scientific evidence and understanding. Phylogenies represent historical relationships and divergence events over time.
(1) Assume the original claim is true: If you’re the first branch and you don’t do any more branching, then you’re less evolved than higher branches.
(2) Suppose species A is the first branch and undergoes no further branching.
(3) Now take species B which is in a higher branch which has undergone extensive diversification and branching, making it “more evolved”, according to the statement in (1).
(4) But based on the concept of linear progression implied in (1), species B should continue to evolved and diversity even further, leading to new branches and increased evolution.
(5) Following the logic in (1), there should always be a species represented on an even higher branch than species B, which is even more evolved.
(6) This process should continue ad infinitim with species continually branching and becoming “more evolved” without an endpoint.
(7) This leads to an absurd result, since it suggests that there is no species that could be considered “more evolved” or reach a final stage of evolution, contradicting our understanding of evolution as a continuous, ongoing process, with no ultimate endpoint.
(8) So since the assumption in (1) leads to an absurd result, then it must be false.”
I think there’s a rather more germane way to pose the case against evolutionary progressivism. I’ve already addressed its most insipid form targeting specific traits (such as intelligence) and adumbrated a response to the few forms meriting any serious consideration. Those forms are the following:
I) evolution is intrinsically progressive in the sense that the genetic diversity of complex organisms tends to increase over time
II) evolution is intrinsically progressive in the sense that the most complex organism on Earth (whatever “most complex” actually means) tends to increase in complexity over time
III) evolution is intrinsically progressive in the sense that more derived (hence more complex) organisms show greater fitness
III) is obviously false, and it’s a wedge issue we can use against I) and II). The fittest organisms on Earth are Archaeans, no bones about it. They’ve existed for billions of years before us and shall continue existing for billions of years after unless we disrupt the biosphere too greatly. Broadly speaking, extinction events are unavoidable catastrophes that exhibit the highest tax at the highest trophic levels, i.e. they select for reduced complexity. This is an edge case, but it is far easier to find macroscopic events that exert pressure only on organisms of high complexity towards lower complexity than microscopic events exerting pressure on organisms of low complexity towards higher complexity. From our perspective, it seems tautological to jerk ourselves off as the “most complex organisms” and to see evolution as progressive by the very fact that we exist. The biodiversity of all vertebrate clades other than mammals and avians is lower now than at its paleontological maximum. Indeed, most of the growth in contemporary biodiversity is driven by species that do not seem to have appreciated substantially in complexity. 25% of all animal species are beetles.
We might think that, if not intrinsically progressive, evolution “tends to be.” But I would contend there are hard limits to complexity, from how complexity interacts with resource consumption. Much like the square-cube law affects body size, every linear gain in a complex trait seems to have a nonlinear relationship to resource consumption. We’d then expect the limiting curve of complexity to be logistic, with a hard upper bound (as every known vertebrate clade’s curve is bounded above by, prior to its maximum). So what about the interim period?
As stated previously, complexity (where it exists) follows simplicity but simplicity need not follow complexity. The combination of this asymmetry with nonlinear resource consumption incentivizes decreases in complexity when complexity is too high.
The first argument defeats I), while the second defeats II). We are arguably seeing this in action with the Holocene. Your move, PP.
Correction: “complexity need not follow complexity.”
A final point, in plainer language: complexity with minimal cost entails specialization. Such organisms by definition are less fit in the long run than simple generalists. Archaea are the master race.
Evolution is progressive in that more evolved organisms are more K than less evolved organisms. That alone makes them superior because K means quality over quantity. Add to that the fact that K organisms are more adaptable. No other species has survived in as many environments as modern humans.
“More evolved organisms are more K than less evolved organisms.”
False as a general rule, but greater derivation allows greater K selection in certain special cases.
“K organisms are more adaptable.”
Same comment as above viz general rule, with the addition that K-selection does not contribute to population adaptability in the same way it contributes to individual adaptability.
“No other species has survived in as many environments as modern humans.”
The most clearly, obviously, repeatedly false of all these claims. Specifically, the organisms that beat us in population and range are all primitive.
“More evolved organisms are more K than less evolved organisms.”
False as a general rule,
Seems to be true as a general rule. In every evolutionary tree I looked at, brain size (an excellent proxy for K) was positively correlated with degree of evolutionary branching.
“No other species has survived in as many environments as modern humans.”
The most clearly, obviously, repeatedly false of all these claims. Specifically, the organisms that beat us in population and range are all primitive.
Besides us, what species has survived on every single continent and outer space?
Correlation isn’t what I mean here (trite to say corrs != causation, but I guess this is my Reddit moment). As for brain size and intelligence, see original post. The correlation will necessarily be positive since large brains didn’t pop out of the void and it takes more changes to construct than demolish a complex system, but it remains to be shown that
I) this correlation isn’t just a spurious product of the impossibility of complex ganglia without at least N speciation events
II) this correlation actually remains when you use K-selection itself instead of a proxy (Simpson’s paradox)
Regarding your last statement, tardigrades (and of course some extremophile bacteria species as well). You could counter that we brought them to space, to which I’d counter that temporary habitation without sustained reproduction is meaningless. By that count, they’ve got both space and Antarctica on us.
Regarding the extremophiles, I’d love to have sex in a volcano, but my biology unfortunately does not permit it.
The second point is actually the most important here.
Even if K-selection did have a causal relationship to branching beyond merely requiring a certain distance from Archaea to be possible, that’s still quite meaningless if it doesn’t help the group survive. Please pick an example other than humans, as you’ll never change my mind that our own intelligence is going to kill us.
Tanfors, I agree with your argument. It’s “planet of the bacteria” (Gould).
“Besides us, what species has survived on every single continent and outer space?”
Tardigrades.
No single species of tardigrades has survived in all those environments afaik. They are different species in each one. Modern humans are unique in existing in many environments without having to evolve into a different species because we can evolve culturally instead.
Hypsibius dujardini is the tardigrade species that can survive in space, and it can also survive temperature shifts/extremes as well, to the best of my knowledge.
It can’t survive in space if it can’t get there in the first place & for that it is dependent on us. But it’s possible that species is more adaptable than we are. As long as they are descended from a great many speciation events, they don’t undermine the idea of evolutionary progress.
I believe another factor must be accounted for beyond pure range. Specifically, there are certain environmental conditions that we are more or less sensitive to owing to our size. It isn’t the range in absolute terms that matters so much, but the breadth of actual conditions adapted to.
I would argue that on the scale of tardigrades and bacteria, their demonstrated hardiness is not only equal but far superior. Let alone the fact that habitation is only meaningful insofar as it corresponds to reproduction. We have not truly colonized space or Antarctica, and we would struggle with any situation where technology failed us (even in an ordinary European winter). Bacteria, tardigrades, etc. have no need for technology, yet as you observe can take advantage of it despite not having invented it.
That is true hardiness.
There are indeed some particular species of tardigrade covering that whole array of habitats as RR observes, but tardigrade species typically differ far less in their expressed phenotype than AMH do from erectus (i.e. branching without increasing complexity often occurs and may still be associated with high, invariant fitness). Tardigrades have not changed their basic body plan for far longer than any hominid has existed.
“Planet of the bacteria” is apt.
If you compare a random black African to a random Eskimo, they’ll be 99.9% genetically similar on average despite living in opposite environments. I doubt tardigrades can say the same. If we operationalize adaptability as ratio of geographic range to genetic range, our species might be on top , especially if we survive long enough to colonize other planets.
“It can’t survive in space if it can’t vet there in the first place & for thsg it is dependent on us.”
Right, but they can still survive in more terrestrial biomes. I don’t think this is contestable.
“great many speciation events”
Sorry, I’ve shown how this is faulty numerous times.
Right, but they can still survive in more terrestrial biomes. I don’t think this is contestable.
Survive at what level? The earth is dominated by humans, not tartigrades.
Sorry, I’ve shown how this is faulty numerous times.
Shown how what is faulty? Be very specific and precise.
“Survive at what level?”
Just what “survives” means. It’s planet of the bacteria, not planet of humans. Bacteria far outnumber us, and can live in more environments than us.
“As long as they are descended from a great many speciation events, they don’t undermine the idea of evolutionary progress.”
This, specifically, most recently two times.
Just what “survives” means. It’s planet of the bacteria, not planet of humans. Bacteria far outnumber us, and can live in more environments than us.
Not as a single species they can’t
This, specifically, most recently two times.
Well you don’t believe in natural selection so by definition you can’t believe in evolutionary progress.
PP, the object of consideration here is the three-way relationship between “complexity,” phylogeny, and fitness. If tardigrades are indeed genetically diverse, they still do not differ in their complexity or ecological niche. If you wish to argue this, it still supports my thesis, precisely because the evolutionary process has not increased complexity or radically altered function for the tardigrades, but rather provided narrow adaptivity in certain regimes. The similarity between races of AMH is immaterial. If sapiens differs only slightly in genes from its closest relatives, yet massively in functional phenotype, you should see how this is entirely divorced from the tardigrade case.
PP, the object of consideration here is the three-way relationship between “complexity,” phylogeny, and fitness.
One might quibble about some of these terms.
If sapiens differs only slightly in genes from its closest relatives, yet massively in functional phenotype, you should see how this is entirely divorced from the tardigrade case.
If modern humans differ so radically in functional phenotype, why are we all considered one species? And if tardigrades are so functionally homogeneous, why are they considered so many species? In order for a new fossil to be classified as a new species it has to show sufficient morphological difference from an already recognized species that is not a function of sex difference or phenotypic plasticity. To claim one species is more diverse in genetically inherited functional phenotype than an entire phylum seems like a contradiction in terms.
PP, you did not understand what I was trying to say. I am comparing sapiens to erectus, not sapiens to sapiens. The functional difference in phenotype between these two appears larger than between tardigrades. What I am arguing is that *nearly all* tardigrades fill the same ecological niche, and without at least a hundred million of years of genetic drift on a local level we wouldn’t see such an array of different tardigrade species. Functional phenotypic difference in the sense I use the term does not equal morphological difference. What I mean is difference in niche or degree of dominance in the same niche.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beorn_(tardigrade)
This is one of the earliest tardigrades we see in the fossil record (I used to be an avid fossil collector and actually have an amber specimen with tardigrade inclusion), and while it differs somewhat in morphology from modern tardigrades, it certainly would have been more similar in behavior and environmental tolerances than we are to erectus.
PP, you did not understand what I was trying to say. I am comparing sapiens to erectus, not sapiens to sapiens. The functional difference in phenotype between these two appears larger than between tardigrades. What I am arguing is that *nearly all* tardigrades fill the same ecological niche, and without at least a hundred million of years of genetic drift on a local level we wouldn’t see such an array of different tardigrade species.
But isn’t that precisely they point? Their phenotype took a hundred million years to accomplish the same geographic range that our species conquered in a few hundred thouand, or if you want to lump us in with erectus, a few million. If humans last as long as tardigrades, we’ll have a lot more to show for it, like the colonization of other planets and even other galaxies.
I know of zero evidence that tardigrades had a much smaller range in prehistory than the present day.
They had to originate somewhere
To address your last point, I believe the continuum nature of intelligence is self-limiting. In order for human-like intelligence to develop, it seems necessary that organs for tool-making should be present (i.e. we would not expect our form of intelligence to be favorable unless there’s a means of implementing it). Then shortly after a threshold is reached, technology is developed, whereupon the pace of technological development surpasses the rate of natural selection.
Imo, this is conducive to a Hobbesian trap/prisoner’s dilemma. We are probably not going to survive the next century imo, but that’s just as subjective as your conjecture we might.
I don’t believe it is possible for an intelligent species to bypass the problems we are currently facing or shall face in short order, caused by unwise overuse of technology.
Just further on Gould, you have to think about it from his POV. The holocaust was within living memory and the jews were very adamant that race science was destructive and evil. Gould may even have thought he was doing humanity a service by censoring and gaslighting HBD proponents if it meant less Nazism and less genocide. A more cynical interpretation is that jews know that the centrepiece of HBD and race science is not this quaint issue with blacks being dumb or not dumb but that jews really have evolved to dominate other races of man in civilised environments. The hope is that jews can go back to pretending that they are ‘just a religious group’ and like the other whites.
The cynical interpretation is usually the best interpretation. Look at Israel’s current government. It’s definitely not a Hasidic government, and in fact one of their ministers is the first practicing Jew (!!!) to hold his post. A sizeable portion of Hasidim object to the existence of the state of Israel because it is not in accordance with prophecies in the Torah. Israeli ethnonationalism and settler violence employ religion as an excuse, rather than as a justification. Past struggles and the very nature of the Tanakh, literally interpreted (much the same as the Bible and Quran, with a critical difference — Jews are not incentivized to convert Goyim, so the exhortations to violent chauvinism aren’t counterbalanced by a potential source of proselytes) impel the Zionist state to a megalomaniacal condition whereby all non-Jews are reduced to a horde of malleable cattle. Jordan Peterson (who is a sycophantic, hypocritical, illogical pseudointellectual) has argued that Jewish interests in politics can be wholly explained by Jewish IQ. If you run the simulation with real data, it doesn’t work out quite that way. You’d have to accept at face his absurd claim that all Jews globally have an average FSIQ of 115. This is ridiculous.
Netanyahu was waiting for the chance to ignore Egyptian intelligence, and more than happy to sacrifice 1400 of his tribe in order to divert attention from his corruption trial. I believe he banked on bloodlust for Gazan genocide and annexation to cover for any misgivings about his “security failures” in the long run, while deepening aid from America.
So I listened to the first minute of the video. Don’t these 2 clowns know about the government whistleblower who said the US deep state has been hiding recovered alien aircraft since the early 20th century?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims
This guy Grusch is basically putting his life in danger to say this stuff. But I don’t understand why the chinese, russians or other governments are joining the US in hiding the evidence of aliens.
I can easily believe America is Israel’s lapdog. I cannot easily believe Lazar-tier claims about alien spacecraft. It is exceedingly unlikely any alien species would ever contact us, per our understanding of physics. But if they did, they would have to have grappled with the AI question. They would therefore either be AI themselves (a kind of von Neumann probe, specifically) or absolute authoritarian assimilationists.
“Government insiders” who “blow the whistle” about alien research are either grubbing for funding they don’t deserve or attempting to distract us from real, earthly problems. Unfortunately, bureaucrats are stupid (and schizophrenic) enough to believe things that clearly make no sense. If intelligent alien life capable of making contact existed (of which we have zero evidence), they would either destroy us or watch from afar. If they chose to contact us at this stage of development, it would indicate a lack of foresight that would already have brought them technological doom.
Governments neither care about reason not morality, but only about money. I’m guessing in 20 years (if we haven’t succumbed to AI by then) we’ll see declassified documents on something like the orphanage radioiodine studies, and again nothing will be done about it. Too many nations have spent decent money on parapsychology because real parasites with no scientific aptitude begged for research grants.
America is a nation of ideology, that’s why we still obey Kellogg the baby-torturer and mutilate infant penises. IQ is not enough, we need rationality as well.
rationality begins with the self and then expands on2 the other layers of the functioning program
Loaded’s rationality begins with curing his schizophrenia.
i dont have schizophrenia Pill has schizophrenia but you still have a mancrush on the dude very hypocritical and judgmental of you idiot
Everyone knows you are a garbage commenter. Not just him. Even Melo says it and he worships black cock like you do.
The testimony literally describes walking into one of the crashed aircraft where space-time was warped to the point that a small looking vessel on the outside contained a stadium size interior.
There was also a crash landing in Italy during WW2 and the fascist government of the time recovered a bell shaped aircraft.
He doesn’t say whether any bodies have been recovered with these various aircraft. Maybe his security clearence wasn’t high enough. Obviously the top top biologicial scientists would be studying those specimens. People like Gould perhaps.
The original conspiracy theory about Roswell is that there was indeed alien lifeforms recovered with the vessel.
instead of writing things that everyone has already seen on the news why not just post articles that you think are worth peoples time.
youre literally saying nothing important just repeating things ive read countless times on the news.
youre basically a parasite.
I guess RR’s theory of DNA and biology would be that aliens are just as likely to have human babies as alien babies given the right environment.
Pill your schizophrenia is incurable.
This guy Adam Frank is socially retarded. In response to Grusch he said he wants Grusch to literally show him the alien aircraft.
Once again more evidence of how being excellent at quant means youre retarded about human beings. If a secret government program existed to retrieve alien aircraft the chance Grusch or anyone would be allowed to show outsiders the aircraft is zero without being shot. Let alone some academic working at a third rate university.
Its probably very likely any scientists interacting with these specimens would have their communications greatly restricted and/or monitored and they would be legally bound to deny existence of the program or face execution.
When you retarded socially it makes me call into question even the actual scientific judgement of that highly qualified individual on specific technical questions. I would not ask Adam Frank for his theories on astrophysics knowing he said something only a 10 year old would say to another person.
Puppy is like that too. I wouldn’t trust Puppy to manage himself, let alone give me advice on evolution or psychology. When youre socially retarded you are literally a danger to yourself, not to mention other people.
I disagree that life can happen without DNA. All cells need DNA and the mechanism for how DNA forms has been known by me since 2014. DNA is created by cavitation in microbubbles of water. The bubble cavitates meaning it inverts itself creating a water spike. This spike travels so fast it creates cold fusion. Then this spike makes spirals. DNA is a spiral and so all life comes from folding spirals of water bubble spikes. What causes most bubbles to cavitate is meteorites that strike the planet’s water systems. Water and oil come from the nuclear decay of a planet’s core that bubbles to the surface.
What you describe is a non-chemical process. This is an absurd notion. To introduce the change in Gibbs free energy, you can’t just invoke gross mechanical perturbation and expect it to “[make] spirals.” The helicoidal shape of DNA is a minimizing configuration for potential energy stored in bonds between base pairs. In case you’ve never studied differential geometry, I’ll point out that every phospholipid bilayer structure in the cell is a minimal surface. Endoplasmic reticulum? Minimal surface. Golgi body? Minimal surface.
I have been working on random-field corrections to the Helfrich minimal bending model of cell membranes since I was 16. This is honestly a bit insulting to that work.
The conformation of large polar molecules in solution is dominated by variational constraints. Methane looks like methane because the action corresponding to the molecular orbital model Lagrangian is minimized by its tetrahedral configuration. Same for DNA. This is how proteins fold, too, as they’re extruded from ribosomes in the rough ER. You can easily perform total synthesis of a linear DNA molecule, and it will twist of its own accord into a double-helix.
Look up Ramachandran plots. There is a high-dimensional “configuration space” of bond angles between base pairs in DNA. The double-helix is a solution to the action-functional minimization problem within this space.
I thought you were supposed to be autistic, not schizophrenic.
I’m on the spectrum and I use special interests to actually do something with my life, instead of throwing around phrases like “cold fusion” in contexts where they are utterly irrelevant.
Do you believe cavitation has anything to do with the formation of life? What about abiotic oil?
Punctuated equilibrium seems to be true, but unfortunately it is just another near-tautology.
If evolution were a more constant-rate process, we’d be hard pressed to associate the rate of genetic change with the point of speciation. Most scientists use genetic difference rather than interbreeding as the criterion for the latter. We could choose to arbitrarily set this point somewhere between the basal and derived forms, but this is a cop-out.
As long as we assume:
I) it’s possible for the short-term pace of evolution to exceed the long-term running average pace of environmental change
II) minus genetic drift, pressures do not exist on a species that has eked out a niche where it’s substantially more fit than competitors
PE necessarily follows.
My opinions on PE and progressivism have absolutely no bearing on HBD. I believe that East Asians acquired their 105 FSIQ prior to the advent of civilization. But I’ve got a couple unorthodox opinions:
I) Eurasian NV advantage is substantially due to beneficial Neanderthal variants, as well as cold winters+disease burden/microcephalin
II) it is easy to determine purely from V/NV profile that Ashkenazi Jews developed their high intelligence recently. Most populations that solidified cognitively in the distant past show greater variability in NV than V with respect to any anchoring point (for instance, nearly every population below 100 is V > NV on a white scale, and nearly every population above 100 is NV > V).
See comment below, I fucked up the order of replies.
I’ve had a whole bottle of scotch today.
“Punctuated equilibrium seems to be true, but unfortunately it is just another near-tautology.”
Can you demonstrate the tautology?
It is not a logical tautology, hence “near-” (in the sense that it does not depend on the particulars of specific environments to a great degree and is expected from our definition of evolution whenever environments are neither static nor changing at constant rate).
So why call it a “near-tautology”? To call it that, it must have some properties of a tautology, so demonstrate it.
Every result in mathematics is a tautological restatement of premises, otherwise it would not be a necessary truth. PE is a near-tautology in the sense that it trivially follows from the same assumptions as evolution, plus the (minimal) additional assumption that environmental factors change at nonconstant rates. In that case, we need not only consider the environmental rate of change, but also the “highest order derivative” of environmental change that is nonzero. IOW, a species may adapt not only to a static environment but also to predictable changes. Once we do this, we should expect that most of a species’ history should be relatively static (with sporadic bursts of selective pressure) precisely because any given ecological niche constitutes only a fraction of the states affected by environmental flux.
This is again an entirely semantic dispute. You understand what I mean fully. I have explained it in adequate depth. If you don’t like my diction, sit and spin.
“PE is a near-tautology in the sense that it trivially follows from the same assumptions as evolution”
What? PE is an attempt at describing HOW evolution happens, it’s an alternative to phyletic gradualism. Like most, you seem to be conflating proposed MECHANISMS of evolution with evolution itself.
The “machine” came before the genes—that is, as a “self-assembled entity”, and genes “came later.”
So if genes only came later, what, then, is their true role? Emphatically not, it seems, as the “original” recipes, designers and controllers of life, at all. More likely as templates for molecular components needed regularly by the already living thing: a kind of facility for “just in time” production of parts needed on a recurring basis.
As physiologist Denis Noble (2015) explained, “the modern synthesis has got causality in biology wrong. Genes, after all, if they’re defined as DNA sequences, are purely passive. DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system…DNA is not a cause in an active sense…it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.” (See also the summary in Noble et al., 2014).
Genes, that is, are servants, not masters, of the development of form and individual differences. Genes do serve as templates for proteins: but not under their own direction. And, as entirely passive strings of chemicals, it is logically impossible for them to initiate and steer development in any sense. Instead, attention has shifted to the “system” – the cells, their physiology, cognition and behavior and (in humans) complex social cognition: a vast, interacting, multi-level locus of control, responding to environmental changes and using genes accordingly.
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/so-what-gene
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0959437X93900038
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/natural-genetic-engineering_b_1511451
(1) If there is no fundamental difference between the causal roles of genetic and non-genetic factors in biology.
Genetic factors are just as important and not special resources compared to other resources and all levels of the system interact for the phenotype to be created (see the works of Denis Noble, Paulo Griffiths, Jablonka and Lamb, David Moore).
(2) if genes do not hold a privileged central position in the shaping of biological traits.
This challenges the notion that genes are the central trait-determiners, since research in fields like epigenetics and theoretical developments in DST show that genes are just as important as other factors/causes/resources in the development of the phenotype and they are also subject to regulation by other factors that also interact with them, so genes aren’t privileged in isolation, but they are a part of the causal network of influences in which are irreducible and untangleable.
Then,
(C) The strong causal parity thesis is true.
How did life begin.
Could life evolve to the complexity it is now without DNA.
I don’t know. But I do know that genes came after, not before. The argument and references I provided are what we’ve learned about genes and conceived of them as, mere templates. You’ve said nothing that refutes the thought there.
The octet rule gives carbon a unique set of properties that we see in organic chemistry. Depending on how you define “life” and “complexity,” silicon could be a viable alternative for very different structures. That’s not even considering other carbon-based means of genetic transmission. RNA is in some sense “less robust,” in that it lacks complementary strands for repairing defects. This is a huge part of why complex lifeforms on Earth are not RNA-based.
I don’t need to refute anything rr
AK said: I disagree that life can happen without DNA
If you did not watch the video rr then you will see they were saying life can become complex without DNA.
so do you agree or disagree?
“I don’t need to refute anything”
Yea you do. There are perfectly valid arguments against the view that you attribute to inert DNA sequences. No response to the fact that DNA is passive not active.
And it’s apparently possible for “DNA-less microorganisms” to be around us.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2443.2011.01558.x
And I just showed you that genes/DNA cam AFTER the “machine.” No response, as usual. Keep up your YouTube videos.
>Yea you do.
no, because I made the first claim: how is complex life possible without DNA
watch the damn video you retard.
>There are perfectly valid arguments against the view that you attribute to inert DNA sequences.
In what way can life become complex without DNA?
Tanfor said Silicon instead of carbon.
watch the damn video you retard.
LOL! Cat has grown from scared little kitten to a ferocious panther.
This blog has been good for you.
I’m like the father you never had and have made a man out of you.
But don’t act that way in real life unless you take some self-defense courses first.
lol wtf you know Anime and I speak four times a week and have discussions about this blog right.
if anything i can credit myself with this instead of the blog and yourself although im sure you contributed but dont discredit me here!
Complex life isn’t possible without any part of the developmental resources that make up the developmental system—you didn’t even try to attack my argument above. Did you read any of the references I gave on genes, especially Baverstock, Noble, Shapiro and Richardson?
I don’t watch videos, either give me a link to read, explain it yourself or paste something that explains it.
I posted my comment in response to the video in respect of pp’s blog. If you are not going to watch that video there is no reason for me to have any discussion with you rr about that video’s content, so what I can discuss is what I believe is relevant given what you have said.
>Complex life isn’t possible without any part of the developmental resources that make up the developmental system
So silicon cannot become complex lifeforms in your opinion. or anything without DNA. It is fine that that is your opinion but can you explain why? I believe that not enough silicon exists in a chemically reactive form that would reach the threshold of creating multicellular life. Silicon would sink in water and so constrain the regions of its environment and limit its possible thermodynamic state, unlike carbon. Oceans on distant planets would have abiotic oils on the surface where life could develop. Silicon would sink and no life could reach above the ocean floor if silicon was used as the self-regulatory mechanism besides than DNA regulatory mechanism.
I mean, you said that you disagree that life can happen without DNA, and I showed you that life existed before DNA… So what’s the consequence?
Now we can get into the question of “what is life?” and “what does it mean to be ‘alive’?”
youre meddling with things that ought not be meddled with.
Ah, I meant to put the thing above as a separate comment, not a continued soliloquy. My understanding of the question is that carbonaceous chondrites may have contributed to seeding the Proterozoic oceans with certain amino acids, but that the agglutination of these molecules would not have required mechanical turbation (and as mentioned above, mechanical turbation doesn’t induce meaningful ∆G at the molecular level). Experiments have shown a negative enthalpy of formation for DNA dimers (corresponding to an exothermic reaction, i.e. DNA “wants” to bond with itself). I haven’t been able to find Gibbs free energy curves for this process, only total enthalpy of formation. There could still be a potential “hill” to surmount, but you’d do this with temperature changes or introducing electricity, rather than just cavitation or agitating a suspension.
“Experiments have shown a negative enthalpy of formation for DNA dimers (corresponding to an exothermic reaction, i.e. DNA “wants” to bond with itself). I haven’t been able to find Gibbs free energy curves for this process, only total enthalpy of formation.”
Source?
DNA doesn’t “want to” do anything, it’s a mere passive resource (not an active cause).
RR is saying that DNA does not bond with itself. (it cannot fold by the natural attraction of its polarity)
To “want something to happen” entails something specific.
I’ve put “wants” in quotation marks to imply that under certain conditions it’s a thermodynamically favorable process, not that DNA is agentive.
Slight clarification: by “enthalpy of dimer formation,” I mean the reaction enthalpy of dimerization, not the total enthalpy of formation for the entire molecule from constituent atoms. Say, once we have two substrands the ligation is thermodynamically favorable (in fact, it’s the most favorable reaction DNA could undergo).
In the archetypal exothermic process, you still need to put energy into the system to overcome a potential barrier (this image is a good illustration: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Exergonic_Reaction.svg/1280px-Exergonic_Reaction.svg.png)
The barrier (“activation energy”) can be effectively diminished in the presence of a catalyst (with the rate of reaction depending on temperature by Arrhenius equation), and energy is not efficiently added by “stirring” the reactants (we stir reactants in experiments to get the molecules in a homogeneous mixture, not to use kinetic energy).
When the enthalpy of reaction is positive, having a larger activation energy than the change in free energy between endpoints can prevent “unfavorable” products from spontaneously decomposing.
One difference is that it’s much harder to catalyze an unfavorable process without directly adding *lots* of energy to the system. The potential barrier to even favorable reactions is partly why DSBs don’t spontaneously repair themselves.
Citation for negative enthalpy of dimerization:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Enthalpies-and-entropies-of-forming-the-base-pairs-of-the-DNA-duplex-and-folding-the_fig1_351093028
You can see the red bars (enthalpy changes respectively for base-pairing and the double-helix) are negative.
We are having two different arguments here: one about the double helix itself, and one about how easy it is for DNA to form. The first is not an argument, it’s a fact: DNA has a conformation dictated purely by potential theory (highly condensed, minimally expressed chromatin in the nucleolus effectively minimizes a different potential due to histone acetylation, and it’s known that smaller plasmids are harder to form because of greater curvature). The second is a more interesting question, and that’s where enthalpy is relevant.
A note for punctilious thermodynamicists: yes, I know that exergonic does not strictly equal exothermic. I simplified my statements here to make them more readable.
∆G = ∆H – ∆(TS) = ∆H – T∆S at fixed temperature.
The left two panels show that ∆G is negative (exergonic as well as exothermic), while the right shows that the actual folding of DNA has enthalpy cancel with T∆S.
A note for you: DNA is a passive, not active cause and it’s caused to give the co-constructed, context-dependent relevant information by the physiological system itself. And we know that life existed without genes.
This is completely irrelevant. First part: already stated. You would have seen this if you actually read my comment. Second part: depends on how you define “life” and “genes.” Arguments like this should be scientific rather than semantic.
I will ask you to provide some definitive proof that life has, in any meaningful and permanent sense, ever existed without a proper means of replication (avoiding smooth-brained circumlocutions about DNA in particular). Without heredity, life is not life. That simple. Either show me an immortal, asexual organism or show me a fossil whose lineage was extinguished before ever existing.
If you say “the hydra,” I will fucking strangle you. Words don’t always give adequate precision. A organism that does not replicate itself, either sexually or asexually.
True or false – DNA (genes) is an active cause.
Life is a process and genes are DNA sequences. “Life” emerged from self-organized complexity. Organic molecules could have been synthesized in electric storms in the early earth’s atmosphere. Something similar to that:
https://theconversation.com/origin-of-life-lightning-strikes-may-have-provided-missing-ingredient-for-earths-first-organisms-157343
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Brevard_College/CHE_301_Biochemistry/01%3A_Intro_to_Biochem/1.04%3A_Prebiotic_Earth_and_the_origin_of_life
Another view is that the components for life began in volcanic vents (see Nick Land, 2010 Why are Cells Powered by Proton Gradients?). Also, self-organized molecules have been created in the lab without genes that evolve.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-32126-2_2
I don’t need to show an “immortal, asexual organism” nor ” fossils whose lineage was extinguished before ever existing”, since what I’m saying is a logical consequence of when we know genes arose and what “life” is.
Puppy, it’s obvious that evolution is not Progressive. Evolution is Geico.
15 million years could save you 15% or more on fecundity.
New preprint which argues the obvious—that within group heritability is uninformative about between group heritability.
Click to access 2023.11.06.565864v1.full.pdf
Why are my last 2 comments banned?
Ask God
God said unban the last 2 comments.
Pill is hearing voices.
Puppy why do you care what 2 scientists say about evolution when you let a creationist spam freely in the comments? He doesn’t believe in evolution. Doesn’t believe in DNA. Doesn’t believe in genes effecting anything.
affecting not effecting.
Effecting is correct
effecting is NOT correct you male bimbo.
I’m not a creationist. I believe in evolution (I hold to the EES, which has explanatory and novel predictive power https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019). I “believe in” DNA as a passive, not active cause. Genes don’t “affect” anything outside of the context of the physiological system, and are passive not active causes (a fact that no one here has contested).
A better question is why PP let’s a mindless racist spam the comments, but I don’t really pay attention to your nonsense since you rarely have anything valid to say at all.
“(a fact that no one here has contested).”
This is gaslighting. Every single person here contested that. You are a fucking troll.
no you are a troll Pill. you are evil in every way. youve lived a miserable existence and are trying 2 drag others beneath you!
passive or active a cause is a cause
rr purposely does not understand that self-regulation systems require a feedback signals mechanism and that protein shapes matter.
You let a fuckin deranged weirdo spam hardcore social justice warrior crap in your blog. You want to know how long you would last in Berkely talking about HBD or IQ testing? About 5 minutes before being attacked physcially.
What a clown. “PP I want a safe space from RR’s views, they might have me think.” Just don’t read my comments, moron.
Elon Musk is like an personality mix between Trump and Gates in terms of extraversion/nerdiness. Maybe his IQ is between them as well.
Excellent observation.
pp, besides the WAIS, and life, what do you think is the best IQ test?
The Stanford Binet
i think the best IQ test is real life.
Arguably much better than WAIS and any arbitrary lifelong parameter you could extract. Still not properly normed by MLE.
If the best test is ‘life’ what does that say about you Loaded? That youre a retard. Thats what it says.
ive had more of a successful life than you Pill i had a fulfilling life 4 quite a period of my life and ive done things you could only dream about so what does that make you
it makes you subhuman
simple things can be very complex and complex things can be very simple. its about broadening your horizons 2 encompass the limited amount of knowledge we may have about things that can be believed 2 be all encompassing in certain ways.
i think that abstracting is interesting because it can give you a push in the right direction 2 finding knowledge that may be hidden.
somethings are irrefutable although utilizing certain frameworks can ease the amount of differentiation between one argument and another. we need 2 bridge things so that we can have a holistic viewpoint rather than narrow ones although narrowing down your focus may also be a catalyst in finding a precise answer.
This reminded me of the comment section here.
https://eletees.com/product/not-only-am-i-autistic-im-italian-too-shirt/
Puppy confirm yes/no – was your fiance a part of an arranged marriage with brokered by your desperate dad?
LOL! No
theres no shame man we all live and learn
Obviously Puppy is lying.
you caught me. LOL
they never realize where theyre supposed 2 be that is why they lack intent. no matter how many times you explain it 2 them they may never feel adequate enough 2 speak about it.
i think many people just focus on what they know thus creating a bias in how their perceptions unfold. this is a low standard of finding the function of anything.
WOW. Even the consummate puppet Macron is calling for a Gaza ceasfire. Where is Bruno now? Will Bruno repudiate his beloved Macron for talking a stance against Mother Israel?
Lol, Philly’s in shambles right now watching his whole world view crumble.
LOL you would have voted for Macron over Le Pen if you were french because you are retarded like Bruno
youre what they call a single issue voter. meaning you only vote 4 a candidate based on a single policy they find 2 be important.
in other words youd destroy the world as long as this one policy is met.
you are a feeble minded piece of dog turd you schizo asshole!
LMAO.
Le Pen is planning to march against anti-semitism, while Macron is calling out Israel over war crimes.
How does it feel to be a cuck?
Yeah I’ve been trying to explain to pill for years that it’s the conservatives who worship Jews but he lacks the social IQ to understand.
Calling out Israel =/= Calling out Jews.
I’m anti-Israel because Israeli practices are just representative of what a large portion of Jews do all around the world (use subversion and deception to get ahead), plus it acts as a base of operations for globalists/world bankers. Macron and other mainstream liberals are anti-Israel because Israelis are more (monetarily and visibly) successful and White-adjacent.
The anti-Semitic protests are even devoid of the far-left
Mugabe is in shambles too.
Lurker do you have autism. how old are you. we know Melo is an autist which proves that autists are just weird people.
also Pill should conclude himself 2 have autism as well.
“Calling out Israel =/= Calling out Jews.”
Yeah, no shit. ‘calling out Jews” is dumb and anti-Semitic. Calling out Israel is just the right thing to do. But this probably isn’t obvious to people who can’t hold more than one thought in their heads at a time.
“mainstream liberals are anti-Israel because Israelis are more (monetarily and visibly) successful and White-adjacent.”
No, they’re anti-Israel because Israel is a bad government, and it probably shouldn’t exist.
Also, Loaded, no one cares about what you have to say or even your existence. Why are you still here?
“Yeah, no shit. ‘calling out Jews” is dumb and anti-Semitic. Calling out Israel is just the right thing to do. But this probably isn’t obvious to people who can’t hold more than one thought in their heads at a time.”
MUH NUANCE!!!
I wonder who makes up the government and chief reason for the existence of Israel… could it be… Jewish people? (As if a government or nation is any more a single coherent entity than a race/group of people in the first place).
you have autism therefore your opinions are invalid and no one cares about you either.
do you realize how stupid you are 2 be an autist and argue with neurotypical people?
This debate between puppy and RR/Cartouche. You look at the historical track record on just this planet alone and you see the dinosaurs. Case closed. No need for theory.
But unlike Cartouche RR is saying evolution isn’t progressive because it would mean blacks are ‘inferior’ to whites. That isn’t even what I believe personally. [redacted by pp, 2023-11-11]
who cares what you believe. what makes you an authority on anything. youre an imbecile 4 believing your subjective views carry over 2 anything else.
Ok lol. Now, post all the scientists that disagree with you.
That debate between Dawkins and Noble RR posted a while back is now free to watch,
Some interesting stuff. There seems to be evidence of some form of pseudo-Lamarckian inheritance, but how permanent and widespread these instances are seems contentious.
does anyone here think autism is worse than schizophrenia? many of you have severe autism which is correctly diagnosed and some of you even have schizophrenia but one thing ive noticed is that autists usually project their stupidity and queerness on2 others.
is it fair probably not but these autists really think theyre wise and intelligent. the autists nowadays i think due 2 the safe space of the internet have found ways 2 become 2 grandiose 4 even their own good.
most autists are known as being retarded 2 others but i think theyve ganged up on society and turned it upside down.