I discovered this youtuber named Professor Dave, who claims that humans sit at the very top of the evolutionary tree, the only species to create a civilization. He even made a cute picture to illustrate the point.
Is this a sign from God? Afterall Professor Dave looks just like Jesus. Just kidding, there is no God, unless you define the origin of the universe itself as God cause it’s the only thing with free will.
You can see the full video here if you want a basic overview of taxonomy:
Pumpkin Person 
3 to 5 million.
You’re almost there, Pumpkin!
whose existence do you even matter 2 you imbecile!
Loaded, are you trans? You use exclamation points like a woman.
Loaded is very sick….mentally.
lol its because youre autistic you wouldnt understand.
“Are you trans?”
“You wouldn’t understand.”
👀
Loaded, maybe it’s time to find a new blog. All you do here is insult people. I was okay with it when it was directed against Pill but now that it’s expanded to others, you’ve become a liability.
“Yet another scientist misunderstands trees.” – Gould dispatched this in Wonderful Life, p 27-45.
Gould believed in natural selection so you can’t be citing Gould without contradicting yourself.
so you really dont believe in God?
I’m agnostic.
This is a dodge also. Agnostic means that you don’t think that we can “know” that God exists; it has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in Him.
Humans having free will is as plausible as there being a Universe at all. Could That which begot Itself not confer a localized ability to incept upon Its conscious constituents?
Nice dodge. Did you re-familiarize yourself with the argument? What’s the response?
RR: “Natural selection never happened”
Also RR: “Natural selection happened in a non-progressive way”
Do you think there are no alternatives to natural selection? Say for instance endogenous variables like the self-organizing developmental system (since we know that directed mutations are a thing) which cause new species to arise. The fact is, we know it’s not natural selection that’s responsible for the creation of new species.
Now, what’s the response to the argument against progress that Gould made in Wonderful Life?
Natural selection does not “create” anything. That is a metaphysical process. Natural selection decides what lives and what doesn’t. If one can decide themselves whether they live or die, that means they are choosing their own environment/rules of physics/rules of metaphysics.
“The fact is, we know it’s not natural selection that’s responsible for the creation of new species.”
Gould said this is false. ‘We’ meaning people mind controlled by jews…like Gould. Haha.
The claim is that “natural selection” can lead to speciation. That’s obviously false, as Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini argued. Natural selection doesn’t “decide” a thing. So what are the laws of selection?
“The claim is that “natural selection” can lead to speciation. That’s obviously false, as Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini argued. ”
Then whether or not a species can survive and reproduce has nothing to do with whether or not it’s surviving and reproducing.
“Natural selection doesn’t “decide” a thing. So what are the laws of selection?”
Law of Selection 1: If something cannot reproduce (according to the laws of physics in our universe, for example, but this can be extended to any theoretical environmental constraint), it will not be capable of reproducing. Therefore it is naturally selected not to reproduce, and will not reproduce.
Law of Selection 2: If something cannot survive, it will not be capable of surviving or reproducing. Therefore it is naturally selected not to survive, and will not reproduce (and will be dead).
That’s all there is to it. Either there are extrinsic/pre-existing constraints to reproduction and survival (nature) or everything is decided intrinsically/on-the-spot (we decide whether we live or die). Obviously, everything is not decided intrinsically.
>The claim is that “natural selection” can lead to speciation.
Please quote Darwin or shut the fuck up.
RR you seem to think that “natural selection not being capable of generating new species” or “choose between species” means that NS isn’t tautologically true. The whole point of NS being NATURAL is that it obviously has no INTENTIONALITY.
That’s different from subtle claims about what tends to “cause” speciation or new traits (random mutations vs. directed mutations). If there is an extrinsic or structural constraint, that automatically prunes out what doesn’t survive.
Natural Selection is implied by any structural limitation to existence. If something exists, it must be adhering to the limits of existence (laws of physics, resource competition, etc.).
RR repeat after me: NS is tautologically true. Within cells, interlocked.
“Muh universal evolutionary tree”
This is nothing more than a branching, dynamic version of the great chain of being. Replacing, “degree of perfection” with an arbitrarily quantified ‘complexity’ is not a meaningful advance. If A has more ancestors than B, A is not, “More evolved than B”: A simply has more ancestors than B.
One cannot coherently speak of universal teleology without positing something superior/anterior to nature. The German Idealists understood this, so why can’t fedoras?
Darwin read – and understood – Aristotle. The insipidities that have crept into evolutionary theory subsequent to his death are the sins of other, lesser men.
P.S. – Please refrain from banning Loaded. Your shitposters are your only good commenters.
Neandercel, I understand your skepticism, but how do you explain the consistently positive correlations I found between brain size and the degree of branching on the evolutionary tree, at almost every taxonomic level:
Lurker,
“Then whether or not a species can survive and reproduce has nothing to do with whether or not it’s surviving and reproducing.”
What does this mean?
Can you explain to me what a law of selection is, and how reproduction and survival could be laws of selection?
If an animal isn’t dead, then the animal’s phenotype is appropriate for survival in that specific ecology (that’s tautological). And yes, “survival of the fittest” (along with “natural selection”) is a tautology.
AK,
“>The claim is that “natural selection” can lead to speciation.
Please quote Darwin or shut the fuck up.”
For starters… Maybe… The title of the fucking book?
>For starters… Maybe… The title of the fucking book?
I said it before and I’ll say it again,
In order for cultural Marxists to discredit science they must redefine words to get what they want. just look at what lurker said to see why.
“From these several considerations I think it inevitably follows, that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct.” page 90, edition 6, 1872
Eat your words. You’ll just go off on an unrelated rant and not admit you were wrong, as usual.
“The role of natural selection in speciation, first described by Darwin, has finally been widely accepted.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0901397106
“Selection must necessarily be involved in speciation”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871892/
“Darwin’s theory shows how some natural phenomena may be explained (including at least adaptations and speciation)”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-selection/
“Natural selection has always been considered a key component of adaptive divergence and speciation (2, 15–17)”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.240463297
I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve EVER read Darwin and if you’re even familiar with the literature on natural selection and the claims made about it. I don’t think you’ve read Darwin, nor do I think that you’re even familiar with the literature, since you’re just spewing what everyone “knows” about natural selection.
*cue unrelated tangent irrelevant to my comments without admitting he was wrong*
RR, I’ve already explained exactly what I mean. There are structural constraints (the laws of physics, specific environmental conditions, competition for resources) that can be satisfied by some animals and not others.
NS is the ONLY mechanism that can select for the survival of organisms or traits besides intentional creation. Natural selection is extrinsic selection, while artificial selection is intrinsic selection. The first is structural limitations on the organism’s development and survival, and the second implies that the organism can control its own development and so implies control over the future. With artificial selection, humans understand the laws of physics, biological inheritance, and our own future psychological states, and so we can select the development and survival of different organisms to some degree through our own intentionality (intrinsically).
Your argument is that speciation is caused intrinsically, and that the development happens first. But in order for that to happen without natural selection, the organism would need to be able to predict the future. But organisms cannot predict and control the future because they do not have control or understanding of the rest of the world. Therefore, when they attempt to develop in a specific way, they are subject to natural selection (extrinsic survival limitations).
Again it’s not that hard to follow the logic. NS is the only alternative to self-selection.
RaceRealist, if you are not going to explain anything neither will I. You do not define your terms nor will you use your own word. You just dump paper on us never giving any real discussion. Look I can dump stuff too:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/phimp/article/id/930/
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/59/10/905/237614
RaceRealist:
1. won’t define terms
2. won’t use his own words
3. will dump papers
4. does not want a real discussion
-On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
Speciation = the divergence in genes so populations can’t mate
Natural = no supernatural force
Selection = organism dies because of resource pressures
Not all organisms can survive, organisms diversify, therefore speciation must happen.
If this is not true RaceRealist will not explain why.
remember lurker: animals don’t have minds and natural selection is impossible because “philosophy”. one can discover facts just by arguing over the meaning of words. read What Darwin Got Wrong by clown & clown 2010.
one person who admits he never read darwin = fodor. sad!
funny how both peepee and rr have yet to cite a single biologist who agrees with anything they say about evolution.
but it’s only funny when you don’t know they’re both clowns sharing clown love.
AK,
“RaceRealist, if you are not going to explain anything neither will I. You do not define your terms nor will you use your own word. You just dump paper on us never giving any real discussion. Look I can dump stuff too:”
Unrelated papers. Typical. I gave quotes on what natural selection can supposedly do re speciation and specifically the quote from Darwin you asked for. So… What’s your response?
“1. won’t define terms
2. won’t use his own words
3. will dump papers
4. does not want a real discussion”
You originally said “Please quote Darwin or shut the fuck up.” I then QUOTED DARWIN and then contemporaries that said EXACTLY what I claimed, and… You have no response. If natural selection were merely the differential reproduction and survival of organisms then there would be no argument. What’s actually disputed is the so-called causal mechanistic claims and explanations of differential reproduction and survival. I literally gave the quote you asked for and… Nothing! Of course!
Lurker,
“There are structural constraints (the laws of physics, specific environmental conditions, competition for resources) that can be satisfied by some animals and not others.”
Yea see my previous paragraph.
“NS is the ONLY mechanism”
NS is not a mechanism.
“But organisms cannot predict and control the future because they do not have control or understanding of the rest of the world. Therefore, when they attempt to develop in a specific way, they are subject to natural selection (extrinsic survival limitations).”
It’s not that organisms themselves predict the future (though I can think of a few ways they probably can, in a way), it’s the dynamic physiology of the organism and the developmental system during development that leads to, say, directed mutations. The only thing they can be said is that organisms are selected. So appeals natural selection are explanatorily vacuous, as Fodor successfully argued. Go ahead and point out the error.
“1. Selection-for is a causal process.
2. Actual causal relations aren’t sensitive to counterfactual states of affairs: if it wasn’t the case that A, then the fact that it’s being A would have caused its being B doesn’t explain its being the case that B.
3. But the distinction between traits that are selected-for and their free-riders turns on the truth (or falsity) of relevant counterfactuals.
4. So if T and T’ are coextensive, selection cannot distinguish the case in which T free-rides on T’ from the case in which T’ free-rides on T.
5. So the claim that selection is the mechanism of evolution cannot be true.”
I made a claim, you professed disbelief in my claim, asked me to provide a quote of one saying that claim, I provided said quote, and then I provided more quotes/references for the claim from the modern day and you didn’t have a response when I literally gave you EXACTLY what you asked me for. And you call ME dishonest (for absolutely no reason). Hahaha.
>If natural selection were merely the differential reproduction and survival of organisms then there would be no argument.
That is exactly what NS is so you say I did not respond when I actually did.
>What’s actually disputed is the so-called causal mechanistic claims and explanations of differential reproduction and survival.
Then quote what Darwin said that it was a mechanism and disputes his actual argument not some Strawman argument you made up.
>I literally gave the quote
No, you never quoted Darwin’s “argument”, You only quoted him saying NS exists not what it actually is on his own terms.
RR, are there external constraints to what kinds of organisms can survive in any particular environment?
If you say yes, you believe in natural selection as a mechanism of selection.
“That is exactly what NS is so you say I did not respond when I actually did.”
I don’t think you understand. IF that’s all NS were, there would be no argument. But neo-Darwinians go further and say that traits are specifically SELECTED-FOR their contribution to survival and reproduction. That’s where Fodor’s argument comes in.
“Then quote what Darwin said”
Darwin is said to have proposed a theory of causation, basically a mechanism, that explains the fixation of traits in biological species which then leads to speciation. That’s wrong.
“No, you never quoted Darwin’s “argument”, You only quoted him saying NS exists not what it actually is on his own terms.”
You say I’m dishonest…
I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for.
Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working … at the improvement of each organic being. 133, 1859
Lurker, what do you mean by “external constraints”? I’ve already stayed that if all NS were was the differential survival and reproduction of species then there would be no argument but that neo-Darwinians take it further, to where selection selects fit traits for their contribution to the survival of the species which then explains trait fixation. That’s wrong, as Fodor’s argument shows—NS isn’t a mechanism, as Fodor successfully argued.
>I don’t think you understand. IF that’s all NS were, there would be no argument. But neo-Darwinians go further
>that traits are specifically SELECTED-FOR
So if that is what neo-Darwinist believe then that is what Darwin believed himself then?
>Darwin is said to have proposed a theory of causation,
RR: Charles Darwin: “Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working … at the improvement of each organic being. 133, 1859”
How does this make out that Darwin meant “selected-for”? How does this not show Darwin’s argument was not: “the differential reproduction and survival of organisms”? You are conflating Darwin’s hypothesis of how he defined NS with Neo-Darwininianism definitions. That’s not cool.
Normal people equate NS as I have defined it because that is all we can assume from Darwin because he had limited science in his time, he was not wrong he only proposed a hypothesis and one which should not be associated with “neo-Darwinism” as RR is doing. There is no argument against Darwin’s hypothesis as normal people understand it: “the differential reproduction and survival of organisms”.
“So if that is what neo-Darwinist believe then that is what Darwin believed himself then?”
“How does this make out that Darwin meant “selected-for”? How does this not show Darwin’s argument was not: “the differential reproduction and survival of organisms”?”
“There is no argument against Darwin’s hypothesis as normal people understand it: “the differential reproduction and survival of organisms”.”
“As normal people understand” Darwin’s theory, again, if that were ALL that the ToNS were, there wouldn’t be an argument. But proponents of “natural selection” are held to pretty strict beliefs.
Do you believe that there aren’t credible alternatives to Darwinism/neo-Darwinism?
“Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power of selection. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man’s feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art.”
rr,
Look at populations as a total sum of characteristics that benefit that population. When populations diverge to a great enough degree to form new phylogeny where the mating of two subpopulations creates weaker less fit individuals then we have a speciation event.
Horses and donkeys can mate but produce sterile mules.
Lions and tigers produce sterile ligers.
The genetic drift will eventually become so great donkeys will not be able to mate with horses to produce offspring and tigers will not be able to mate with lions and produce offspring.
Is this wrong? why? In what way do you think speciation happens?
And Neanderthals & modern humans arguably produced sterile (male) offspring when the father was Neanderthal
Genetic drift is an actual mechanism of evolution, natural selection isn’t.
Saltation is the concept of abrupt and substantial changes which lead to the creation of new species, and it challenges phyletic gradualism through natural selection. Instances of sudden genetic alterations along with other goings-on in the environment that lead to things such as directed mutation can eventually result in the emergence of distinct species. Saltation, therefore, challenges Darwinism showing that certain traits can arise quickly, which lead to the emergence of new species within a short time frame. We also have internal physiological mechanisms which play a role in speciation while influencing the development and divergence of traits within biological populations. They don’t rely on external selective pressures—although goings-on in the environment of course can affect physiology—this emphasizes internal factors like developmental constraints, epigenetic modifications and genetic regulatory networks. These can then lead to the expression of novel traits and then on to speciation without the need for external selective forces. And finally decimationism—which emphasizes periodic mass extinction as drivers of evolutionary change—offers another alternative. Catastrophic events create holes in ecological niches which then allow for the rapid adaptation and diversification of surviving species. So the decimation and recurrent re-colonizing of ecological niches can then lead to the establishment of distinct lineages (species), which then highlight the role of external and non-selective factors in the process of evolution.
So the interaction between saltation, internal physiological mechanisms, and decimationism thusly provides a novel and comprehensive framework for understanding speciation. Sudden genetic changes and other changes to the system can the initiate the development of unique physiological traits (due to the interaction of the developmental resources, and so any change to one resource would cause a cascading change to the system), while internal mechanisms then ensure the stabilization and heritability of the traits within the population. And when this is coupled with environmental upheaval caused by decimation leading to mass extinctions, these processes then contribute to the formation of new species which then offers a framework and novel perspective of the ARRIVAL of the fittest (Darwin’s theory said nothing about arrival, only the struggle for existence), which extends beyond the concept of natural selection.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19224263/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909031116
So if abrupt genetic and other internal changes (saltation) can passively respond to external stimuli and/or environmental pressures, leading to the emergence of distinct traits within a population, and if internal physiological mechanisms influence the expression and development of these traits, then it follows that saltation, coupled with internal physiological mechanisms, can explain and contribute to the rise of new species. If periodic mass extinctions (decimationism) create ecological vacuums and opportunities for adaptive radiation, and if internal physiological mechanisms play a role in the heritability and stability of traits, then it follows that decimationism in conjunction with internal physiological mechanisms can contribute to the speciation of surviving lineages. Also note that all of this is consistent with Gould’s PE model.
ok so rr said that speciation is not because of NS.
What does that mean?
The paper he linked to has a strawman in it: There is no good or bad “population” being selected-for/against, that is not how divergence nor selection work. Selection is not on whole groups but on individuals, individuals then diverge and create subpopulations of similar traits i.e. genes. What is true is that distance creates different rates of gene flow in subpopulations meaning populations diverge when genes do not migrate across distances. This means a subpopulation has enough differentiation to be called a species.
The individual is selected in or out of a subpopulation, then the subpopulation has the same genes to differentiate it from the other subpopulations. Subpopulations are flowing in and out of each other until they cannot.
“There is no good or bad “population” being selected-for/against, that is not how divergence nor selection work.”
Selection-for/against are (1) intensional notions; (2) traits are supposedly selected-for/against and (3) yes, that’s Fodor’s point—that whole organisms and not their individual traits are what is selected (and then I can say whole developmental systems). “Selection-for” is a term that’s used in the literature. Are you even familiar with Darwin’s works and the literature? And group selection is a thing (eg above with decimationism).
PP,
I don’t deny that there’s a general, very long-term trend on Earth toward greater brain size, intelligence, and ‘complexity’: the facts are the facts.
I think we differ on the following points:
1. I don’t take these trends to be anything more than that: contingent, statistical trends. No biological law is here operative, nor any telos. It’s a simple matter of the benefits of greater intelligence outweighing the associated downside(s) in the vast majority of environments (on Earth).
2. The ontological status of the evolutionary tree. I take it as nothing more than a graphical means of displaying the development of species. It isn’t – and can’t be – something akin to the great chain of being (whether or not any such thing really exists).
3. I think that the statement, “X is more evolved than Y” is meaningless. IF there were a fundamental and universal tendency toward increasing brain size / intelligence / complexity / whatever, then it might be reasonable to speak of one species as being, “more evolved” than another. Progress implies an end (perhaps unattainable in actuality), and this introduces a sort of goofy Hegelianism into what ought to be a hard science.
It’s a simple matter of the benefits of greater intelligence outweighing the associated downside(s) in the vast majority of environments (on Earth).
Well said! That’s all I’ve ever meant. I agree it’s not a law, just a general trend with many exceptions and I certainly don’t believe evolution has any goal, purpose or telos.
2. The ontological status of the evolutionary tree. I take it as nothing more than a graphical means of displaying the development of species. It isn’t – and can’t be – something akin to the great chain of being (whether or not any such thing really exists).
But it resembles the great chain of being in that more complex life forms have a rough tendency to branch off the tree at higher (more recent) points than simpler life, creating what looks like a rough hierarchy.
I think that the statement, “X is more evolved than Y” is meaningless. IF there were a fundamental and universal tendency toward increasing brain size / intelligence / complexity / whatever, then it might be reasonable to speak of one species as being, “more evolved” than another. Progress implies an end (perhaps unattainable in actuality), and this introduces a sort of goofy Hegelianism into what ought to be a hard science.
I separate the question of more evolved from the question of progress. To me, more evolved is a neutral term that simply implies more evolutionary change, regardless of whether that change is progressive, neutral, or regressive.
I just bought The Mismeasure of Man and The Panda’s Thumb box set at Half Price Books. Hoping that it’s not facile Goyslop like Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I’ll delve into it with an open mind.
youre a close minded autist how you going 2 do that exactly.
I don’t think Guns Germs and Steel is wrong. Its more like a corroboration of HBD in some respects. The environment is important too.
You missed the whole point of the book pill, it’s a complete refutation of HBD. I didn’t read it either but saw some of the show.
The fact that Gould made up the nonoverlapping magisteria shows that he is not a perfectly rational thinker. How could you think facts do not influence values and vice versa? How could you think that philosophy doesn’t influence science? Or physics vs. metaphysics?
Mismeasure is an excellent book. Gould’s treatment of the history of the brain and race is the best and I’ve not found a better exposition on the matter. GGS is widely criticized, for good reason. You should get his Punctuated Equilibrium book too.
Lurker, here’s the argument. Where’s the error?
If science addresses empirical facts and the natural world, then it’s domain is limited to the observable and measurable aspects of reality. If religion concerns itself with values, morals, and ultimate meaning, then it’s domain extends beyond the empirical and includes the non-empirical aspects of human existence. So if science and religion have distinct domains, where science is limited to the empirical and religion to the non-empirical, then their magisteria do not overlap.
(Basically, science studies the empirical and can’t study what isn’t empirical… I think I’ve heard that before…)
And Akeel Bilgrami has similar arguments in “Self-Knowledge and Resentment.”
Empiricism rests upon a metaphysical theory that our perceptions of the world are true, and if they are somehow misguided due to sensory or cognitive failure, that multiplying the observer count somehow leads to a “truer” representation of reality (and all of understanding of any of this rests again on our mind).
The truth of our perceptions cannot be “empirically proven”, it is taken for granted because it (according to other perceptions) seems to work. Therefore empiricism is nested in metaphysics.
The argument from prediction and the argument from causality takes care of that.
So you base the evidence that your mind is working correctly and perceiving what it seems to be perceiving on your mind telling you it is working correctly and perceiving what it seems to be perceiving?
That we can make accurate predictions and conceive of cause and effect means that there is a mind-independent world.
Putting aside your absolute certainty in your specific interpretation of your own experiences, you are literally showing how your empirical experiences affect your metaphysical beliefs. You’re saying because you experience that it seems you can make accurate predictions and conceive of cause and effect, that we live in a reality where those things are real. So “facts” influenced your “values”. That was point… separating morals and facts or beliefs and experiences is irrational. They are mutually effecting and mutually dependent on each other.
Why is there a black person at the top of the tree lol?
To piss you off I strongly suspect
I too have a similar opinion about god peeps. The universe/mutli-verse or the ‘power’ that created everything is god in my IMHO.
And like i have been believing in recent times and also previously said on this site….God created man, man created religion.
Puppy doesn’t believe in a creator. He is agnostic. He just said it above.
If I didn’t believe in evolution like RR…I would be embarrassed. But this whackjob comes here and spouts that bullshit every day like he’s doing good in the world.
Again with this idiotic unevidenced claim.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
the autist is a fool. they think they can compete with neurotypicals when obviously they are an inferior form of human.
First intelligent thing loaded ever said.
I watched Guns Germs and Steel in college as a master degree student in my college library. It had nothing to do with my degree but I watched it out of curiosity. Jared Diamond is telling lies. But he is omitting some things.
Lying and omitting things are the same fuckin’ thing…
I’m impressed by Diamond’s ability to thread an increasingly narrow needle and remain relevant.
His work is politically correct enough to be cited in polite society, yet scholarly enough for people like Bill Gates and high IQ history buffs to take him seriously.
It’s pretty hard to pen rigorous scholarship on a hot-button subject these days without ending up like Kevin MacDonald.
I don’t think he’s entirely wrong. IQ alone can’t explain global inequality, otherwise East Asians would be more powerful than whites. Didn’t know Gates was a Diamond fan; I know he’s a fan of Yuval Noah Harari
Diamond’s work is just a rehash of earlier geographical determinist accounts of history. He overlooks the fact that just as the environment shapes Man, Man shapes his environment (which in turn shapes Man . . .) – and some men do it far more effectively than others.
Europeans and Asians reshaped their worlds and in so doing remade themselves. Blacks, Amerinds, etc. were passively shaped by their respective environments. Diamond’s theory applies only to races too lacking in intelligence to understand (and command) Nature.
I meant Jared Diamond ISNT telling lies.
peepee can’t answer a simple math question because incredibly bad at math.
I can’t answer because you don’t ask them in plain english. Because high IQ I never opened a text book. , I’m self taught so don’t know some of the symbols and jargon you hide behind.
As a Promethean once told me, math is the ultimate IQ test because everything can be derived from the basics. If you need to get a degree to learn about it, you have no talent.
And you have no talent.
Mug of Pee reminds of the professor in Good Will Hunting. I’m like the Matt Damon character if he were upper class:
Youre not upper class Puppy. Youre upper middle class. Upper class people don’t work in middle class jobs.
Jimmy Dore is starting to think like you:
Zero upper class people work in poll watching jobs.
That’s right. None of us do.
“Upper class people don’t work in middle class jobs.”
The upper classes comprise the leisure class. If you HAVE to work, you’re not upper class – period.
Anglos have no idea who is and isn’t ‘middle class’.
If you’re not an academic, lawyer, physician, or small business owner, you’re not middle class. If you make less than ~$120k/year, you’re not middle class. If you have to put in X hours per week at the office, you’re not middle class. If you don’t have a graduate degree, you’re not middle class. If your job is in danger of being automated into non-existence, you’re not middle class.
Teachers, office drones, government employees, and other pseudo-white collar wagies are not ‘middle class’.
I’m playing the Persona 5 games recently. Really fun. Its for kids I guess but the gameplay is fun. These japanese games are great.
I’m near the end of FF7 Remake right now. The game is so damn good, one of the best battle systems I’ve ever played.
I’ve been thinking of getting into P5, maybe after I’m done wkth Remake (now I need a PS5 to at Rebirth in the beginning of the year). JRPGs are some of my favorite games. (Especially turn based and strategy.) I’ve also had my eye on the Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together remake on PS4, especially since I loved FFTactics when I was a kid.
If youre upper class what brand of clothing do you wear?
^^^if the above model were nude.^^^
LOL that is the exact clothing I imagine you wearing!
I was joking dumbass.
No you werent. You posted that pic hoping that people like RR and Melo would praise your ‘cool’ taste and your ‘woke’ fashion. When I laughed at it, you cratered and pretended you don’t dress like that.
LMAO! It really was a joke, pill. But good Theory of Mind on your part. That is something I would do.
Wow, Pumpkin. You have such a cool taste and a woke sense of fashion.
RR and I were wrong about you.
LOL
Now puppy will say he does actually wear those clothes because he got the praise he was seeking.
Me, when I have the social IQ of a goldfish.
math question peepee still can’t answer in retard language:
if X, Y, and Z have a trivariate normal distribution and the correlation between X and Y is 0.8, between X and Z is 0.65, and between Y and Z is 0.7, then what is the equation of the line:
(mean of Z) = a + by given X = 2?
STILL WAITING!
mean of z = mean of z + 0.65(SD of Z/SD of X)(X – mean of X)
I am sorry but I don’t think you or Misdrevus have an IQ within FIFTY POINTS of my level!
so here’s an easy high school math question for peepee.
a series of consecutive numbers beginning with 1 (so 1, 2, 3, …) has one number erased such that the average of the remaining numbers is 35 and 7/17. what number was erased?
explain how you got the answer.
The average of the first 70 positive integers is 2485/70 = 35.5.
If we remove one number to get a quotient of 35.4, the denominator becomes 69
(2485 – X)/69 = 35.4
Solving for X:
2485 – X = 35.4(69)
2485 – X = 2,442.6
2485 = 2,442.6 + X
2485 – 2,442.6 = X
42.4 = X
About 42
Like I said, my IQ is FIFTY POINTS above your level.
WRONG AGAIN!
YOU ARE INCREDIBLY BAD AT MATH!
LYING ABOUT YOU MATH ABILITY IS EVIL PEEPEE.
WRONG AGAIN!
LIES!
LYING ABOUT YOU MATH ABILITY IS EVIL PEEPEE.
Then why do you do it?
There are 69 numbers and you erase 7. Then the average is 35 7/17.
Method : You find a multiple of 17 that would average 35. Thats 69. And then it’s easy.
Pumpkin is incorrect on this one.
Your answer is much more elegant but technically my answer is correct too. The question should have specified that they were looking for the smallest number in a consecutive series to be omitted from the average.
7/17 is 0,41176471.
Your result gives 0,4057911. It’s not 7/17.
It would have worked only if the problem was 35,4 and not 35 7/17.
I think your solution is indeed wrong PP because the question was not about an approximation but finding a method to pick the right number.
The problem is very low knowledge loaded but quige math IQ loaded … I found it amusing.
But you showed you’re very good at modélisation wich is adequate for psychrometry.
Fair enough. My answer was 98% correct but your answer was 100% correct and there’s no substitute for perfection!
My first instinct is to convert fractions to decimals but you took advantage of the fractional form and turned it around to your advantage;. You recognized that the fraction format contained information and made use of it.
I agree it’s a good question.
But you showed you’re very good at modélisation
Thanks!
sum 1 + 2 + 3 + 4… n
35 + 7/17 = x
times 17: 602 = x/17
602 * 17 = x
x = 10,23435
10,234 / (35 + 7/17) = 289
where sum = n(n + 1)/2
289 * 2 = 578 = n(n + 1)
602 – 578 = 24
24(24 + 1)/2 = 600
602 – 600 = 2
sum = 1 + (2 is void) + 3 + 4… n(24)
sum 1 + 2 + 3 + 4… n
(sum – x)/(35 + 7/17) = n
(35 + 7/17) = 35.411764705882352941176470588235
17 times (35 + 7/17) = 602
602 / 17 = (35 + 7/17)
–
sum = x + x…(-28)… n(35)
where sum = n(n + 1)/2
35(35 + 1)/2 = 630
630 – 28 = 602
(630 – 28)/(35 + 7/17) = 35
n = 35
I simply cannot do this.
sum 1 + 2 + 3 + 4… n
where sum = n(n + 1)/2
problem:
(sum – x < n)/(35 + 7/17) = n
(35 + 7/17) = 35.411764705882352941176470588235
sum = x + x…(-?)… n(?)
“a series of consecutive numbers beginning with 1 (so 1, 2, 3, …)
has one number erased such that the average of the remaining
numbers is 35 and 7/17. what number was erased?”
“explain how you got the answer.”
Animekitty:
sum 1 + 2 + 3 + 4… n
where sum = n(n + 1)/2
problem:
sum: n1 + n2…(-x)… n(?)
average of sum – x = (35 + 7/17)
sum – x = (35 + 7/17)*(35 + 7/17)
work:
sum – x = (35 + 7/17)*(35 + 7/17)
sum – x = 1,253.9930795847750865051903114187
find the closest number:
sum(49) = 49(49 + 1)/2 = 1,176
sum(50) = 50(50 + 1)/2 = 1,275
sum = 1,275
1,275 – 1,253.9930795847750865051903114187 = 21.0069204152
(1,275 – 21.0069204152) = 1253.99307958
sqaure of (1253.99307958) = (35 + 7/17)
sum: n1 + n2…(-21)… n(1,275)
AK 103 + MD (132 – 100) + 50 = 175 PP
Not only is AK good at maths but ak can read and write.
India’s cities and rivers are polluted for the same reason they constantly call US phone numbers to do voice scams. A basic lack of forward thinking or empathy for most of them if something isn’t in front of them.
We have to ask RR if this is true. Black queenz ain’t havin’ nun o’ Net n’ Yoohoos lies!
mega props to musk for letting big bear back on. or was he always too obscure he was never banned? idk. if it’s funny the people who say, “that’s not funny. i’m offended.” are retarded and need to be put in camps. sadly, this would include all germans.
remember lurker: pigs aren’t bats!
dude! rr is an israeli and his babymomma is a falasha. likud is the mizrahi party so maybe falashas too.
jews have their own ethnic divisions sadly.
rr is a sino-albanian jew.
actually that’s prole.
as mugabe has said, but peepee deleted, hamas’s (supposed) actions on october 7 were gay and retarded and evil.
and israel’s killing so many babies…
it is never intentional. is it?
there’s a yuge difference between UN-avoidable “collateral damage” in DEFENSE and the intentional killing of civilians…
isn’t there?
was the mastermind of allied “strategic bombing” hanged? should he have been?
mugabe agrees that the war crimes trials of germans and japanese were mostly fake and gay, but some of those guys DESERVED it!
did curtis lemay deserve what some of those nazis desreved?
maybe!
those figures from gaza i guarantee are INFLATED, just like the supposed 300k russians killed or wounded in ukraine.
no country has a “right to exist” (meaningless phrase). but every country does have a right to fight for its existence.
notice the their men…
as mugabe has said a bajilion times, THIS is THE reason…THE reason…why “racism” will never end.
rr: what’s the mechanism?
mugabe: no one knows. but evolutionary theory predicts it.
rr: predicts what?
mugabe: that though people may fap to or even have sex with people at great genetic distance from themselves…when they choose whom to settle down with/marry and have chirren with they will almost invariably choose people close to themselves in the human tree.
(formerly) sexy amanda peet married a 6’3″ jew. her mother was jewish and she was from nyc. and he was rich. so was she. her quaker father was a white shoe lawyer. or so i have read.
“it does NOT matter how beautiful you are…i don’t wanna have chirren with you.” — mugabe
does bruno know that he’s peepee?
Wheres my comments?
too racist
Its a fact the blacks IQs are too low for them to be interested in mainstream media and academic theories of jews. Thats why they are basically not brainwashed like RR or that half filipino guy. And Melo and RR themselves are basically very stupid people even by mainstream standards.
Peeps, more and more scientists are agreeing with you every week. Wont you give us a party or something? Or is it called a ‘treat’?
If you ask RR a checklist of jewish academic theories ‘debunking’ race science he will know it. If you asked 99% of blacks had they even heard of the theories…they will not even be able to read the papers from a verbal IQ perspective. So basically they are immune to mind control.
Even though the theories are for their own interest. The Frankfurt School people were basically the first westerners to proclaim that blacks were biologically the same as whites.
Uneducated white people are also immune to anti-HBD propaganda so why do you single out black people? The propaganda is not even targeted at the working class and in fact it’s often better if they don’t believe it because than the upper class will believe it more to prove they’re not like the proles.
Wrong. if you look at the 50 year antisemitism campaign in schools and media almost every working class white got the message not to suspect jews of anything. But blacks completely missed the boat lol. Look at Candace Owens. Look at Kanye.
what about the world’s richest non arab prince coming out as an “anti-semite”?
it’s obviously true that ashkenazi jews (as a group/in general) will be anti-white because wypipo expelled them from their countries 100 times and then tried to kill them.
so just go to israel. if the wyman’s tit is poison, stop sucking it.
if all jews outside israel moved to israel there could be a ONE STATE SOLUTION…jews would be the majority…palestinians could enjoy a better standard of living than they could provide for themselves…
israel is an outpost of european man too!
a separate palestinain state could be no better than lebanon…a lot better than other arab states without oil…but still poorer than israel.
Is it ironic that people say that Gould lied about and misrepresented Morton’s data when, in actuality, Rushton was the one who misrepresented (and basically lied about) Gould’s (1978) reanalysis of Morton’s data to jive with his theory? (See Cain and Vanderwolf, 1990: 779-780.)
rr said, “animals don’t have minds.”
that should’ve been IT!
yet peepee has allowed him to comment for months afterward.
conclusion: peepee is evil and loves satan. SAD!
they did get one thing RIGHT! animals are the LAST minority…AND they have NO voice. very DIS-appointed in peepee.
rr: but philosophy!
mugabe: have you held a dying dog in your arms?
rr: but i mean…i mean…what about…i mean…philosophy!
mugabe: STFU! you fucking CLOWN!
Are you a vegan?
RR, iirc you were curious about chimp strength at one point. If still interested, it’s discussed around 47 min mark:
Interesting. I’d like to see a chimp deadlift. It seems that they’re 1.35 – 1.5 times stronger than us and it seems to be mainly due to their overabundance of fast twitch muscle fibers.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619071114
“This result matches well with the few tests that have been done, which suggest that when it comes to pulling and jumping, chimps are about 1.5 times as strong as humans relative to their body mass. But because they are lighter than the average person, humans can actually outperform them in absolute terms, say O’Neill.
His findings suggest that other apes have similar muscle strength to chimpanzees. “Humans are the odd ones,” he says.”
I cried watching this a few years ago.
I believe the situation is changing for the danish rulers. 20 years ago no media would have even mentioned the palestinians. But even in the USA, 68% of people want the danish to stop bombing civilians.
Even conservatives like Mark Dice and Candace Owens and Elon Musk are now saying things that would never have been said to people.
I remember the bad old days of neoliberal Goldman Sachs rule in the 90s and early 2000s under Bush. Back then we didn’t have the internet.
Why is the [redacted by pp 2023-11-18] comment banned? Chris Langan said the same thing.
Because it makes you look bad and makes me look bad by association.