Like I said he borrows some of Marghulis's nuttier ideas. She did brilliant stuff on the evolution of eukreatic cells then smoked too much devils lettuce and came up with Gia Hypothesis.

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

Or even accurate....

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)

Sure we generally refer to these as cultural technologies. They are not unique to humans bout our species uses them to an exponentially higher degree.

If Last is as bad at it as Faulk I'll pass.

>as bad at

The data he refers to isn't even fringe.

What specifically is he "bad at"?

Faulk is a sperg who spent 8 years trying to invent his own theories because the real ones wouldn't say what he wanted them to.

You'll notice a common thread among evolutionist everywhere. Not a one of them is arace realist.

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.

Only a couple and that was enough to write him off. Possibly worse than Mollymeme.

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.

Kek. None of them do.

Then you really are poorly informed

This is like where building 7 shit ends up being holographic planes and cruise missiles. You have to invent a grand conspiracy because the only other alternative is that a basement dweller like Faulk simply doesn't know what he is talking about.

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

I don't know what evolutionary biologists are you comparing Faulk's work to? Because I've read most of them.

Providing data from other official sources to corroborate, even.

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

Yes the man spends hours a day looking for data points to try and shoehorn into his narrative he's certainly dedicated. He just doen't know anything about the topic.

After having watched two of his videos?

Which two, might I ask?

I wish this server had a nerd chat

This whole server is a nerd chat.

dunno vro

Well the WIlsons obviously and Dawkins, a lot of Trivers Trivers is my spirit animal. I like Sopalsky. I think on cultural technologies (from our earlier conversation) Boyd and Richerson is a must-read.

And what arguments have they provided against race?

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.