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.

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

😎