My new video about human races, evolutionary biology, and fraudulent evolutionary biologists

[ApostateAbe]

I made a new video! It is about human races, evolutionary biology, and fraudulent evolutionary biologists.

 

[untermensche]

"Without races evolutionary diversions of any sorts could never have happened."

Diversity is a result of evolution working on isolated groups.

If there are "races", and there can be anything if you specifically define it, then they are the result of evolution, not the cause of anything.

And there is no evidence speciation has to be gradual. In fact the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium says otherwise. It says that species are relatively stable and there have been many sudden punctuated changes.

And without DIVERSITY evolution cannot happen.

Labeling some capricious aspect of diversity "race" is not introducing a new concept beyond diversity. It is unnecessary specification always based on an arbitrary limit.

When we see humans it is clear they vary in phenotype.

So all the genetic variation between humans may only, probably only, points only to differences in phenotype. Insignificant differences in anything that makes a person human.

We know there are no differences in the language capacity between groups. Which is at the heart of cognition.

 

[ApostateAbe]

"Without races evolutionary diversions of any sorts could never have happened."

Diversity is a result of evolution working on isolated groups.

If there are "races", and there can be anything if you specifically define it, then they are the result of evolution, not the cause of anything.

And there is no evidence speciation has to be gradual. In fact the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium says otherwise. It says that species are relatively stable and there have been many sudden punctuated changes.

And without DIVERSITY evolution cannot happen.

Labeling some capricious aspect of diversity "race" is not introducing a new concept beyond diversity. It is unnecessary specification always based on an arbitrary limit.

When we see humans it is clear they vary in phenotype.

So all the genetic variation between humans may only, probably only, points only to differences in phenotype. Insignificant differences in anything that makes a person human.

We know there are no differences in the language capacity between groups. Which is at the heart of cognition.

"Diversity is a result of evolution working on isolated groups."

I agree.

"If there are 'races', and there can be anything if you specifically define it, then they are the result of evolution, not the cause of anything."

Genetic differences among races can plainly be the cause of phenotypic differences among races.

"And there is no evidence speciation has to be gradual. In fact the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium says otherwise. It says that species are relatively stable and there have been many sudden punctuated changes."

This is a misunderstanding of Punk Eek popularized by creationists. The theory explains the sudden morphological jumps in the fossil record, but it does not require that evolution itself operate that way. The theory says that the relevant evolution happens among isolated minority races, but the fossilization tends to happen among the majority host races. Though the minority evolution happened gradually, the minority race becomes the majority suddenly, as they outcompete the outgoing host race very quickly, giving the appearance of a sudden evolutionary jump in the fossil record.

 

[untermensche]

Genetic differences among races can plainly be the cause of phenotypic differences among races.

If there is variation in phenotype then of course there is variation in genes or genes acting differently. So the genes cause a difference in phenotype, not this arbitrary and unneeded concept "race".

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is an hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that species' normal state is one of stability, or stasis, showing little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events via the species-splitting morphological process of cladogenesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

 

[ApostateAbe]

If there is variation in phenotype then of course there is variation in genes or genes acting differently. So the genes cause a difference in phenotype, not this arbitrary and unneeded concept "race".

As races are merely the subsets of species that have such variations, races would directly follow from that premise. It is like you are saying that you accept the concept of blonde hair but not the concept of blonde-haired people.

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is an hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that species' normal state is one of stability, or stasis, showing little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events via the species-splitting morphological process of cladogenesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Seems like you fully agree with me on this point, so long as you have the right idea of how rapid "geologically rapid" really is. If you really think there are ever sudden discrete evolutionary jumps beyond single-locus mutations, I would love to know how you think that works.

 

[Trausti]

Good job ApostateAbe!

 

[ApostateAbe]

Good job ApostateAbe!

Thanks. I find it appalling that Templeton has never been publicly challenged on his academically-popular lie, and sadly I expect this video will remain obscure.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Lies that uphold the popular ideology are harder to fight than the uncomfortable truth, and I expect Templeton's lie will stand until it is too late and the Alt Right takes over America.

 

[untermensche]

As races are merely the subsets of species that have such variations, races would directly follow from that premise. It is like you are saying that you accept the concept of blonde hair but not the concept of blonde-haired people.

"Race" is an arbitrary concept.

It adds nothing beyond: Humans show diversity.

And of course all individuals show diversity too. Many times it is amazing to see people who are brothers or sisters yet look so different from one another.

You merely want to give some special place to some arbitrary aspect of diversity you have a fascination with.

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is an hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that species' normal state is one of stability, or stasis, showing little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events via the species-splitting morphological process of cladogenesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Seems like you fully agree with me on this point, so long as you have the right idea of how rapid "geologically rapid" really is. If you really think there are ever sudden discrete evolutionary jumps beyond single-locus mutations, I would love to know how you think that works.

I totally disagree with you. Evolution is not constant slow change of the species.

It is relatively little change of the species for long periods of time with rare rapid changes. Rare punctuations within a state of relative equilibrium.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What does grouping people into "races" accomplish that wouldn't be better accomplished by looking at people as individuals?

If you were to determine that on average Asian people have higher intelligence than white people, how could that information be used other than to judge a given individual white person as being stupid (despite them possibly being a very bright individual)?

What do we gain from this research other than likely category error given the emotionally charged racist attitudes around us?

Will watch the video itself tonight once I'm home from work.

 

[ApostateAbe]

What does grouping people into "races" accomplish that wouldn't be better accomplished by looking at people as individuals?

If you were to determine that on average Asian people have higher intelligence than white people, how could that information be used other than to judge a given individual white person as being stupid (despite them possibly being a very bright individual)?

What do we gain from this research other than likely category error given the emotionally charged racist attitudes around us?

Will watch the video itself tonight once I'm home from work.

There are many reasons. On the broad political issues, we think about group differences, and rightly so. We don't ignore and can't ignore that black Americans are poor on average, more likely to be turned down for a job, more likely to be stopped by police or imprisoned, even though there some wealthy black people who have everything right with their lives. Group differences matter, they have a correct underlying explanation, and they have many incorrect underlying explanations, and we had best choose the correct explanation if, for example, we don't want the white race violently targeted for their implicit racism that presumably causes all those inequalities or for their secretive genocidal conspiracies against black people. Also, the popular hatred against the conclusion of genetic racial intelligence differences shared by academics means not just hatred for that particular conclusion but also hatred for all the thinking tangent to it, including genetic intelligence differences (minus racial), as the denial of the science of IQ has won broad appeal, especially inside academia, despite the science of IQ being the most robust science in psychology. The hatred also includes hatred for racial intelligence differences (minus genetic), in spite of the most replicated fact in the science of psychology, aside from the fact that brains exist. It means that, if blacks score low on standardized tests, then there must be something wrong with the tests. And that remains a very popular myth, in spite of the insurmountable arguments against it. And such hatred includes genetic racial differences (minus intelligence). That is what the OP's video is about. It means among other things that activists are more likely to blame whites for health problems more common among non-whites, such as alcoholism among native Americans. The ideology amounts to a general hatred for accurate science related to the topic. Groups are how we make general sense of either human society or anything else, and, if we are blind to groups looking one direction and cognizant of groups looking another direction, then it amounts to the upside-down glasses.

 

[untermensche]

If one group hates and oppresses another based only on phenotypical presentations, that can be seen, then there is a problem.

With the oppressing group.

And there may be very long lasting social effects in the group oppressed. And when large numbers of young males are being put into prison those social effects will not be surmounted.

Talking about genes is meaningless to deal with this.

Intelligence differences are related to genes when they find specific genes related to intelligence. Not before.

Until then all one can say is that differences in scores possibly indicate a difference in genes.

But the differences could be due to social effects which cannot and never have been controlled in any experiment.

 

[fromderinside]

Let me present another scenario from mount Pontificus.

Before hate, before memory, but, after sense difference is used. Rocks are not food. Moving things may be food. Moving things might be 'you' consumers as well.

First social discrimination problem to eat or be eaten. We can see some of this in fighting fish. A female constructs a bubble nest then goes about waggling to attract a male. When a male approaches the female discriminates colors which may be associated with being eaten and food. The waggle is actually attack and withdraw until the male fertilizes her eggs and takes over the bubble nest. Getting into that predicament is the problem associated with discrimination and oppression. Beings since have had systems for attack and for retreat as general aspects of their need to move.

Uh, these are social effects and they have been controlled by experiment.

 

[Elixir]

"If there are 'races', and there can be anything if you specifically define it, then they are the result of evolution, not the cause of anything."

Genetic differences among races can plainly be the cause of phenotypic differences among races.

Changing fitness landscapes cause the changing predominance of both phenotypes and the genetics underpinning them... you guys seem to be talking past each other. A chicken/egg discussion does nothing to support or refute concepts of "race". Those concepts are specific to the individuals who hold them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So this is about rejecting and disproving the implicit assumption that people so often make that groups are equal on all measures and that we should adjust the numbers based on what group people are in? I can see your point on that. So if your research proved that Asian people are genetically smarter than black people, then you'd use that to argue against the quotas schools may use to add more black people and less asian people under the assumption that it is to counter racism etc, yes? Ok, I can see how that would be helpful, but I don't think it necessary to make a case against such quotas. And I don't think that is their real reason anyway. I think they are thinking in groupish terms and simply find it unfair that one group has more people in than another group. I don't think any finding regarding intelligence differences between groups will change anything.

I think it could do more harm than good if your research concludes and declares one group of people as genetically superior to another. How would you then stop people form making category errors to conclude that any given person of this group is that group's dominant trait?

Here's another idea. Why don't we all just breed away the concept of race?

 

[Elixir]

Here's another idea. Why don't we all just breed away the concept of race?

Give it time...
I wonder why I have all my life been attracted to multi-racial women more than any other "group". Hybrid vigor? Exotic appearance? I dunno.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So this is about rejecting and disproving the implicit assumption that people so often make that groups are equal on all measures and that we should adjust the numbers based on what group people are in? I can see your point on that. So if your research proved that Asian people are genetically smarter than black people, then you'd use that to argue against the quotas schools may use to add more black people and less asian people under the assumption that it is to counter racism etc, yes? Ok, I can see how that would be helpful, but I don't think it necessary to make a case against such quotas. And I don't think that is their real reason anyway. I think they are thinking in groupish terms and simply find it unfair that one group has more people in than another group. I don't think any finding regarding intelligence differences between groups will change anything.

I think it could do more harm than good if your research concludes and declares one group of people as genetically superior to another. How would you then stop people form making category errors to conclude that any given person of this group is that group's dominant trait?

Here's another idea. Why don't we all just breed away the concept of race?

The problems with the anti-racist taboo go well beyond school quotas. It is not just the consequences of the core dogma, but the many tangents to it that encourage academics and the public to wear the upside-down glasses, and the negative consequences are diverse and far-reaching. The science is fundamental to correctly understanding a wide array of scientific and social issues, as almost all of them touch on genetic differences or racial differences. Another example: respected scientific authorities have discouraged medical doctors from considering race in either patient treatment or drug trials. Medical doctors generally ignore them, but, if even a few of them drink the Kool-Aid, it would cost lives. In the long-term, it is even worse. We are charging into the age of genetic engineering wearing upside-down glasses. The present course means that racial differences will become increasingly wider, to be entrenched forever. Interracial mating would be an intermediate solution only with enforcement, but without enforcement interracial mating is generally unchosen, and even interracial mating tends to be highly unbalanced. When white men mate outside their race, they generally don't go for black women, for example. They go for Asian women. It would mean, at most, there will be a Eurasian super-race competing with every other race.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Lies that uphold the popular ideology are harder to fight than the uncomfortable truth, and I expect Templeton's lie will stand until it is too late and the Alt Right takes over America.

Why do you think they will take over America?
There are so many factors at play that it seems at least unwarranted to conclude that being right about a few scientific matters - which do not make their proposed policies good at all - will allow them to take over America. For example, at this moment, Clinton is more likely to win than Trump. It's not a certain outcome, but it is the most likely one. Also, Democrats have a shot at getting control of the Senate. If they get to appoint one or two SCOTUS justices, that's likely to have a long-lasting influence on the country, and for better or worse overall, an influence against that of the alt-right.

Yes, granted, Republicans might filibuster everything and block her, but if they do so, they're likely to get filibustered in the future as well - not to mention Democrats might want to appoint Justices regardless of filibusters, if Republicans are adamant.

Moreover, there is resistance to the alt-right among other flavors of conservatives, not to mention the opposition of major Christian denominations.

There is also the issue of demographics. As long as people of recent Latin American descent keep growing as a percentage of the population (if not due to immigration + reproduction anymore, due to faster reproduction alone), and so do people of recent Chinese descent, that's likely to work against the alt-right. If it looks like the alt-right is gaining ground (to the point of getting a President), more and more people in groups such as those will be inclined to register and vote against them. The same goes for people of recent African descent.

There are plenty of other factors (e.g., movies, TV, etc.), and while none of them is decisive, it seems to me the evidence at this point is far too weak to warrant the conclusion that they will take over America (I'd say they probably will not, even if they become more powerful than they are today).

 

[ApostateAbe]

Lies that uphold the popular ideology are harder to fight than the uncomfortable truth, and I expect Templeton's lie will stand until it is too late and the Alt Right takes over America.

Why do you think they will take over America?
There are so many factors at play that it seems at least unwarranted to conclude that being right about a few scientific matters - which do not make their proposed policies good at all - will allow them to take over America. For example, at this moment, Clinton is more likely to win than Trump. It's not a certain outcome, but it is the most likely one. Also, Democrats have a shot at getting control of the Senate. If they get to appoint one or two SCOTUS justices, that's likely to have a long-lasting influence on the country, and for better or worse overall, an influence against that of the alt-right.

Yes, granted, Republicans might filibuster everything and block her, but if they do so, they're likely to get filibustered in the future as well - not to mention Democrats might want to appoint Justices regardless of filibusters, if Republicans are adamant.

Moreover, there is resistance to the alt-right among other flavors of conservatives, not to mention the opposition of major Christian denominations.

There is also the issue of demographics. As long as people of recent Latin American descent keep growing as a percentage of the population (if not due to immigration + reproduction anymore, due to faster reproduction alone), and so do people of recent Chinese descent, that's likely to work against the alt-right. If it looks like the alt-right is gaining ground (to the point of getting a President), more and more people in groups such as those will be inclined to register and vote against them. The same goes for people of recent African descent.

There are plenty of other factors (e.g., movies, TV, etc.), and while none of them is decisive, it seems to me the evidence at this point is far too weak to warrant the conclusion that they will take over America (I'd say they probably will not, even if they become more powerful than they are today).

At this point in the polls, Clinton needs to lose only one state, any state, to Trump before Trump wins the election. The Alt Right may not even need the science. All they need is a candidate who is slightly less of a walking dumpster fire. But, if the Alt Right really did have the mainstream science provable beyond reasonable doubt, convincing the vast majority of psychologists and not just intelligence researchers, plain enough to convince any non-ideologue because of hand-held genotypic IQ testing devices, then the Alt Right will suddenly have a much stronger political position. Remember Jason Richwine? His Harvard thesis predicted that Mexican immigrants and their descendants would be a permanent drain on the American economy because of their low average genotypic IQ. He will become a vindicated pioneering scientific hero for American conservatives. His science will be the basis for building a wall to keep out ALL Mexican immigrants, not just illegals. And, elections for the Alt Right will be a cakewalk. I expect liberals will tend to answer only with anti-scientific conspiracism, because they are already so deeply entrenched in anti-racist ideology at the expense of accurate science that they can not get out. They will remain political failures for a full generation.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

At this point in the polls, Clinton needs to lose only one state, any state, to Trump before Trump wins the election.

A couple of points:
1. We seem to have been reading different polls. What are your sources?
2. Are you saying that a Trump victory is more probable than a Clinton victory?
If you answer negatively, then the point about the SCOTUS remains, because expecting the alt-right to take over the US after a Clinton presidency (and probably SCOTUS appointments) seems unwarranted leaving other factors aside.
3. If Trump wins, that would be the victory of a considerably anti-science candidate. Why don't you think the same may well happen in the future, but hampering instead of helping the alt-right?

The Alt Right may not even need the science. All they need is a candidate who is slightly less of a walking dumpster fire. But, if the Alt Right really did have the mainstream science provable beyond reasonable doubt, convincing the vast majority of psychologists and not just intelligence researchers, plain enough to convince any non-ideologue because of hand-held genotypic IQ testing devices, then the Alt Right will suddenly have a much stronger political position.

Perhaps. Clinton has the science on her side on climate change. I'm not sure it helps her much.

Remember Jason Richwine? His Harvard thesis predicted that Mexican immigrants and their descendants would be a permanent drain on the American economy because of their low average genotypic IQ.

I had never heard of him, but that does not follow, even if they have a low average genotypic IQ.
Moreover, that does not seem to be science that is right. It seems unwarranted as far as I can tell. What the alt-right has right is that there are races (by the way, are those immigrants mostly partly Caucasoid and partly Mongoloid?).

He will become a vindicated pioneering scientific hero for American conservatives. His science will be the basis for building a wall to keep out ALL Mexican immigrants, not just illegals.

Why?
First, you seem to be assuming that he's right.
Second, at any rate, even if he's got the genetics right, he got the economics wrong. It doesn't follow that having a lower IQ will make them a permanent drain.
Third, keeping out all Mexicans would not make sense. If they want to select by means of genotypic IQ and they know the genes, then they should do DNA tests and allow or ban people on that basis, not on the basis of nationality.
Fourth, in any event, on what basis do you conclude the SCOTUS would let that sort of law pass?

And, elections for the Alt Right will be a cakewalk. I expect liberals will tend to answer only with anti-scientific conspiracism, because they are already so deeply entrenched in anti-racist ideology at the expense of accurate science that they can not get out. They will remain political failures for a full generation.

I'm sorry, but your conclusions seem unwarranted on the basis of the available evidence, for - for example - the reasons I already mentioned (you only addressed the one about a Clinton presidency, but not in a convincing way; Clinton is still at this point more likely to win).
Purely for example, let's assume for the sake of the argument that Richwine was right and his beliefs warranted. Even then, a Clinton win is more likely than a Trump win, and if Clinton wins, there is a good chance that that will sway the SCOTUS left for decades to come, probably blocking attempts to keep all Mexicans out. For that reason alone, the conclusion you reach is not warranted. And there is all of the other reasons (e.g., the descendants of Mexicans can register to vote too).