https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/502b66a5f505ae77d6168487adda66e9f1c3db7ce8d7b0b8b90fff2a6580efae.png?w=320&h=630

https://i.imgur.com/Xw22ahs.gif?noredirect

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/466778060008587266/604768934004129886/a5MLwyV_700b.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EA1Pe2PUwAACksC.jpg

then get this party started

don't let your dreams be dreams

https://youtu.be/sgWW8iewkmA

Belle Daphne confirmed not human

https://freebeacon.com/politics/california-removes-arrest-reports-from-kamala-years/

envision my confusion

https://puu.sh/E0Bxe/ed8fbcc50b.png

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3U60wTHaX8fQ_8Yg0HInzVSXKnKBL-VDhchJ_vJ3IEVvqSMxfADa71lrg

the article includes a fairly detailed set of criticisms of the official theory regarding the world trade center building collapses

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-31/ny-fire-commissioners-call-new-911-investigation-citing-overwhelming-evidence-pre

listening now

I don't know, I don't think I've ever heard of it being specifically named anything before.

I think there's a degree to which the ideas aren't being explored with proper nuance, however. Just from this brief clip.

Basically, the issue is, if you have some mechanism by which those who are more focused on being reproductive than being productive can economically sustain their reproduction, it creates a risk that it would be exploited by those people to tremendously expand their ratio of the population.

Essentially, any charity meant to address poverty needs to also implement some check against the subset of the population which requires it becoming a more dominant representation of the population as a whole.

Which is extraordinarily tricky.

The best selection mechanism, historically, in my understanding has actually been *lethal scarcity.* But only in certain contexts. And this is something which is difficult to replicate artificially, on top of carrying all kinds of ethical ramifications, and the capacity to be ideologically exploited.

Basically, a regime tends to operate like an organism, and will seek to perpetuate itself over serving its official function. Such a regime granted power to affect the reproduction of the masses will almost certainly choose to perpetuate those phenotypes which its operators believe can be most easily exploited to perpetuate and expand itself.

The irony being, if it *doesn't* do this, it will likely become unsustainable far sooner, and be replaced by another system which does.

So, simply by virtue of evolutionary reality, a system which prioritizes perpetuation of itself above service too its goals will almost always be the more successful and stable system long term.

Oh no, he doesn't have a funny little hat in evolutionary biology? Obviously must be wrong. What's Destiny's funny little hat in?

I've not read his book, but I've heard his argument on the Revolutionary Phenotype. It's apparently a concern shared by a lot of "big brained nibbas" but his reaction to this concern is over the top.

Furthermore, his idea that it can be avoided. It can't be avoided.

Not unless we go extinct first.

Or regress to a point where we can no longer devise technology.

We do, they're called "antifa"

Yeah, I'm not gonna pretend his concern is original.

My own position is that humanity has already passed that threshold. But rather than having our selection based on any single AI, it's based on a gestalt of many, as well as symbiotic with the kinds of technology we create.

Humanity invents hammers, but access to a hammer also transforms the dynamic of human prosperity, and which attributes are the most valuable, and by how much.

Widespread literacy almost certainly transformed human attributes long term. Selecting for people who could more easily become literate in societies where literacy had value. And it becomes *more* valuable the more things can be done with it, up until the point where people choose for whatever reason to subsidize the existence of the incurably illiterate.

If you want a better grasp on quantitative genetics, watch stuff by Sean Last, or Alternative Hypothesis (Ryan Faulk)

>as bad at

The data he refers to isn't even fringe.

What specifically is he "bad at"?

One of the few big errors Faulk made, he admitted to, and that was in regards to overnormalizing averages. Which are even still statistically and demographically effective. They're just a very blunt instrument of selection.

LOL

so, basically, you actually *haven't* watched his videos

He loathes to dignify your "funny hat" fetishism with a response, but he does provide a rebuttal.

Most of the biologists agree with *him* they just don't use the same explicit language he does most of the time, because the university system is often very progressive.

Maybe present an actual argument.

Then you really are poorly informed

On numerous occasions, Faulk has gone over how "credible" the official authorities are on matters.

Providing data from other official sources to corroborate, even.

Which evolutionary biologist have you read? Also, how many biological anthropologists, and which?

After having watched two of his videos?

Which two, might I ask?

This whole server is a nerd chat.

And what arguments have they provided against race?

Hell, what argument *can* be provided for anyone who is actually an evolutionary biologist, other than some definition based attack?

That's not an argument.

Provide an example.

You'e been studying for 6 years and you can't provide an example for why race isn't a legitimate category?

Hell, even *I* can provide criticisms of races as categories off the top of my head. Most them having to do with the ambiguity between lay categories, geographic categories, and haplogroup clusters.

If it was cheese, then were are all the moon mice? Checkm8, athiests.

Why didn't they just eat the cheese instead?

that's silly, mice don't exist as a consequence of the existence of cats

@Jym Basically, my position on race is that it's a reflection of the cumulative observations of many, many people, some scientifically minded, some lay minded, attempting to categorize traits which were in some cases biological, and in others cultural, over many many centuries. It is a consequence of real trait clustering, which is itself a consequence of extended periods of relative reproductive isolation in myriad environments of many different geographic populations. "Race" is not "Species" all humans are the same species, and are comparatively closely related in the grand scheme of things. But these differences in the frequency of expression of various traits can have the extraordinary potential to explain and predict striking differences in human outcomes on an aggregate scale.

While some people can argue over how the races are categorized, and for what reason certain populations can be included or excluded, the reality is, the traits which are taken into consideration are usually *real.*

There is also measurable differences in the preference rates for mate selection between the races, which itself is a factor when evaluating the process of speciation. Although some may argue this is the product of "racism" the reality is, it actually doesn't matter what the *reason* is for mate discrimination between populations, so far as making the argument that humans are still subject to speciation, only that it exists. Again, don't confuse this with the argument that human races *are* different species. It's only the acknowledgment that humans are still indeed subject to the forces which compel such a process.

There are certainly *other* criteria, besides "Race" which factors into this mate discrimination, absolutely. Such speciation can even be argued to be an ongoing process between *liberals and conservatives* in the US.

I don't recall Faulk ever making the argument that R7 is a Mandarin speaking gene. In fact, he goes into exhaustive detail to cite twin and adoption studies, as well as referencing voucher lotteries, in an attempt to control for environment.

Also, I'm not sure what the obsession is with "biological determinism" No one ever argues that it's some kind of error to argue that a cat's genes contribute to it being a cat.

Faulk has argued that epigenetic transpositions aren't heritable, though. Only potential for transposition. iirc

He also has never argued that environment isn't a factor.

He's stressed that all genes are expressed within an environment. Both which environment, and which genes, will play a role. His point has been that so far as the majority of first worlders can be assumed to exist in reasonably similar environments, differences in genes will play a more significant role.

The dutch hunger winter is actually something I wanted to bring up to him. Because it was the one big example I could remember which throws doubt on the non-heritability of transpositions.

And insofar as biological impact, the ways in which your own genes can change over the course of your life plays a huge role, certainly.

Been when measuring aggregates, we have to go off the genetic potential for such transposition to be a factor.

I think he actually went over the rats studies and debunked them. Or at least some rat studies, I don't know if he's referencing the same ones.

https://youtu.be/tI1rbIYwK4A?t=2932

I think this might be the video and segment

timestamped to the argument he's addressing

He's referencing their own data, and most of the people we even get the conclusions from are often mainstream media bullshitters, who will often even argue the opposite of the conclusion of a paper.

https://www.the-scientist.com/notebook/classic-mechanism-of-epigenetic-inheritance-is-rare--not-the-rule-65511

And insofar as cloning/twins. I don't know of anyone arguing that they *should* indeed be identical, or have identical life outcomes, especially in very instance, and regardless of environment.

I did read it. I was bringing it up in reference to you mentioning the rats thing.

The worms thing is interesting, however, because I recall hearing secondhand about some fascinating experiments to do with heritable memory or something, among certain kinds of worms.

Sadly, this was an extraordinarily long time ago.

I've heard gut biome can effect appetite and activity levels, iirc.

Worth looking into.

Are there any examples of such epigenetic changes occurring outside what could be defined is non-neurologically complex organisms? Aside from the Dutch Winter example.

I mean, being generationally transferred.

Reread what I wrote.

I was acknowledging the Dutch Hunger Winter as being an example of the kind of thing I was looking for.

And wanting others.

Also, for clarification, are we talking about an experiment where, for instance, a group of mice are tested for their maze running ability, and then bred, and their offspring is also tested for their maze running ability, and that the result was, the mice who had been subject to tests had offspring with a superior ability to navigate mazes which couldn't be explained by the mate selection?

https://puu.sh/E0DOw/caa32bcff3.png

https://puu.sh/E0DPa/138805ccc9.png

....maybe provide another example, lol

I think you missed my joke.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Particularly economics and physics, iirc

or at least insofar as representatives of nobels

that said, I'm at least glad you didn't try to cite Jared Diamond

Some jewish populations are low IQ. Also, there's the factor that our sampling of the IQ of modern jewish populations isn't as extensive as for other groups.

I suspect there's probably a kind of self-selection, in the same way as other populations.