Oh and Hamilton Hamilton is foundational. From our other directuion yoiu could guess I've covered Marghulis.

Not many at all because they know it's not a significant phila.

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

You have to understand Faulk doesn't get how evolutionary theory even works. So if it's something you study it sounds like a guy saying, "The aerospace engineers are wrong. If you look at **This** chart you will see we have to put the wings on *sideways*"

That's not an argument.

Provide an example.

You want me to explain a subject I have been studying for 6 years in a Discord convo? Could we go with a simpler 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.

I can try. This is something like asking an astronomer to explain that the moon is not made of green chease. Nobody studies that because it doesn't make sense.

No astronomer has written on the subject....

Nah I think its a hoax

the moon is definitely cheese

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

**and the astronomers are covering it up because academia is biased. Go back to the moon, Bring us chease!**

>There are no moon mice because the astronauts ate all of them

Why didn't they just eat the cheese instead?

there can't be mice if there is no space cats

reverse psychology

😎

so the moon cats would die off

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

sneaky lil cunts, those moon cats

We should have a cat on the iss

Yes, we should have a cat in ISIS

>Islamic Feline State of Syria and the Levant

The snack that explodes back

Yum.

i didnt fuck my cat. i didnt cum on my cat. i didnt put my dick anywhere near my cat. Ive never done anything weird with my cats. I promised myself i wasnt going to make apology videos after last years thing so im just trying to be as short and honest with this as possible.

--Shane Dawson (2019)

@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.

@Miniature Menace

OK noting these categories and treating them as phyla is what they call biological determinism. Biological determinism is shorthand for "you're wrong".There is actually an intricate process of removing and controlling for non-biological factors that is completely ignored here. And trait clustering does not make it more real. For instance I could say with confidence that the R7 variant has a high correlation with speaking Mandarin. That does not mean that the R& is a mandarin-speaking gene. One of the big problems with people like Faulk is that he either doesn't know or intentionally ignores this.

If you are generally interested in the subject DM me and on a case-by-case basis I will try to untangle it for you. I do warn you it may take a 4-part lecture to get around to a substantive answer on my part.

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.

No R7 was just an example of how you can have a gene association that doesn't mean what you think it means even when you can show a high correlation. The twin studies do not show what you think they do but that again will end up being a 4 part lecture I am afraid.

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.

Cats are an excellent example. Look up "CC and Rainbow" it's the first time a pet cat was cloned. Not they are genetically identical but had different neonatal environments and hence different neonatal epigenetics.

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.