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.

Actually there are heritable look up "Dutch Hunger Winter"

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.

See this is what I was saying Faulk is working from a basic ignorance on how evolution and genetics works so he finds correlations that do not exist then dismisses ones that do.

That's an 'End of History" narrative the idea that this point in humanity is so unique that it has removed environment as a factor.

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.

People felt the same way at the end of the last century. They were also wrong.

It's not the only one there are quite a few rat studies. DM me and I'll get back to you tomorrow with some examples. TBH I'm half to bed and that bookshelf is in my study.

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.

there are no cats on moons

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

but some are infested with beavers

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.

Not really no. Think about things like Mandarin or polygamy. They will have vast effects on aggregate results but are not genetic.

just by virtue of the fact that we know racial groups have on aggregate evolved in different environments for tens of thousands of years the onus should be on the people who advocate for the idea that there are no differences in behavioral phenotype resulting from the measurable genetic difference between them to prove their case

Again this idea that a lone sperg in his basement can 'debunk' biologists working in a lab controlled environment.......

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

I think this might be the video and segment

timestamped to the argument he's addressing

Well Vaush is dumb.

vaush is a red liberal

I mean a broken clock and all that....

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.

Oh god I don't pay attention to what the media says about science except maybe to laugh at them.

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.

Schübeler says the idea is perfectly possible, but more work needs to be done to understand exactly how the genetic mechanism underlying these epigenetic marks might work.
University of California, Santa Cruz geneticist Susan Strome, who was also not involved in the study, notes that even if the DNA methylation mode of non-genetic inheritance is rare, as Ferguson-Smith’s team suggests, it doesn’t mean all other modes of non-genetic inheritance are also rare. Modifications to histone tails, which Strome’s lab studies in worms, and small RNAs are passed down between generations and have epigenetic effects in at least some organisms, she says. “I would not extrapolate from the Ferguson-Smith paper to say that epigenetic inheritance is nearly non-existent.”

It helps to read before posting.........

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