ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, January 10, 2014

More highly evolved

It should be interesting to see how those who are true believers in both a) the religion of TENS and b) the myth of human equality react to this scientific claim from Penn State that Africans are less evolved than Europeans:
Light skin in Europeans stems from a gene mutation from a single person who lived 10,000 years ago. This is according to a new U.S. study that claims the colour is due to an ancient ancestor who lived somewhere between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. Scientists made the discovery after identifying a key gene that contributes to lighter skin colour in Europeans.

In earlier research, Keith Cheng from Penn State College of Medicine reported that one amino acid difference in the gene SLC24A5 is a key contributor to the skin colour difference between Europeans and West Africans. ‘The mutation in SLC24A5 changes just one building block in the protein, and contributes about a third of the visually striking differences in skin tone between peoples of African and European ancestry,’ he said.
We already know that the three major continental groups are not even equally human on the genetic level, with Africans being the only pure homo sapiens sapiens. This new claim indicates that Africans are lower in the evolutionary order, not that the skin color gene can be described as a speciation event. Regardless, one wonders why those who stubbornly, and ignorantly, continue to insist on human equality despite these undeniable genetic differences which are much more than skin deep are not yet tarred by the label "science denier".

What I find amusing is that the scientists have already leaped in with some strained explanations to cram natural selection into the process when it is very clear from modern human behavior that the rapidity of the growth of the mutation would much more likely have stemmed from sexual selection. There need not be any environmental advantage to lighter skin for it to be preferred. Of course, that would also be a hate fact, as it would be scientific evidence that whites are more attractive than blacks. That being said, a fact is a fact.

However, that's not the intriguing stuff. Here's a much more interesting thought. The 10,000 year time frame is not all that far off from Bishop Usher's famous 6,000 year estimation for the Age of the Earth. But most forget that the bishop's estimate was based on Adam, not the Earth. So, what if it can eventually be determined that the single genetic mutation was actually an artificial one? That would certainly set the cat among the equality pigeons.

Labels: ,

148 Comments:

Blogger Crude January 10, 2014 4:08 AM  

So, what if it can eventually be determined that the single genetic mutation was actually an artificial one? That would certainly set the cat among the equality pigeons.

I think some black people may put some stock in that theory already.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 4:24 AM  

I can't even tell you how happy I would be if it turned out that Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan were more correct about the science of human evolution than Richard Dawkins and JS Haldane. That would be the funniest and most unforeseen turn of events in the history of science. There is no Kuhnian structure capable of accounting for the sort of revolution that would result from such a development.

Blogger JP January 10, 2014 4:26 AM  

I never put much stock into the "genetically engineered honkey" theory, but the time frame is just too eerie.

Anonymous David January 10, 2014 4:33 AM  

I don't know genetic science, so can anyone explain to me how researchers know when a gene mutation can be traced back to a single person? Or is it that they figure out how far to trace back(in this case 10,000 years) the change and the odds of that mutation happening to two people in the same generation are just astronomically small?

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 4:37 AM  

There's a new slogan for the White Supremacy movement: Superior by Design. It would be hilarious to see a befuddled media trying to figure out the best way to attack white Nation of Islam believers without looking racist.

Anonymous zen0 January 10, 2014 4:48 AM  

Ps:2

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Anonymous aero January 10, 2014 5:52 AM  

The question What came first.black then white or white the black
Does evolution always work forward?

Blogger Vox January 10, 2014 5:59 AM  

Does evolution always work forward?

By definition. According to the theory, there is no end to the "progress" and the process is the result. To be more highly evolved simply means that one is more genetically distinct from the common ancestor. Although this does raise some questions about Nation of Islam science, in that it posits gorillas also being more highly evolved than Africans.

Anonymous aero January 10, 2014 6:20 AM  

If there no end to evolutionary progress . Does this mean that a strong dumb that kills the weak smart is forward progress

Blogger JP January 10, 2014 6:46 AM  

How did the ability to evolve evolve?

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 6:57 AM  

Does this mean that a strong dumb that kills the weak smart is forward progress

Precisely. As proposed, it is a value-neutral process.

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 7:07 AM  

I don't know genetic science, so can anyone explain to me how researchers know when a gene mutation can be traced back to a single person? Or is it that they figure out how far to trace back(in this case 10,000 years) the change and the odds of that mutation happening to two people in the same generation are just astronomically small?

Think of the genome in terms of legacy software. If you cracked open the source code of Windows and painstakingly compared the code of the present version to past versions, you'd see a lineage of the code and it's changes across the various versions. The same applies here. We can see the effects on linkage disequilibrium over time, we can see the molecular clock at work and so on.

If you're interested in a popularization of this type of genomic detective work find the 4-part series "Journey of Man" hosted by population geneticist Spencer Wells. The entire series focuses on how genetic science can trace genetic markers backwards in time.

Anonymous FrankNorman January 10, 2014 7:08 AM  

I think the point there is that the "fittest" (in the Darwinian sense) are not necessarily the "best" (in any other sense).

They don't have to be the smartest, or the strongest, or the happiest.
They are simply the ones that reproduce in the greatest numbers.

Anonymous aero January 10, 2014 7:22 AM  

There not much chance for the dumb and weak to evolve. This is not fair. We must do something.
Please send me $19.99 a month and I'll send you a picture of a dumb weak person.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus January 10, 2014 7:31 AM  

What I find interesting is how this actually sort of substantiates scriptural evidences from Genesis 10, at least if you consider the Japhethites to be the Indo-Europeans.

Blogger Bogey January 10, 2014 7:38 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Unknown January 10, 2014 7:45 AM  

There is no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved". There is no measurable scalar variable in evolution, your post stems from either ignorance or dishonesty, congratulations.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 January 10, 2014 8:02 AM  

Just driving around in a fossil fuel guzzling van, pumping plant food into the atmosphere I mused:
If only I had a dollar for every time I've read "scientists say" - Engineers build but "scientists say".
They, the settled consensus scientists "who say" built another religion - while mere engineers were still merely building physical stuff.

ie. Religion won over engineering. "scientist say" and "Darwiniotards believe"

Rule #1. pick a religion that predicts something accurately. ie. Engineers retained the bits of science that work - like all the best religions do.

Its all circular reasoning. Theology is king of the sciences.

Anonymous aaaaturkey January 10, 2014 8:03 AM  

If everyone had the same genes, and then one person had a gene mutation, and if you consider mutations to form the basis of evolution, then that person with the mutation is more evolved.
Pretty simple.

Anonymous Luke January 10, 2014 8:03 AM  

Unknown, consider the relative IQ difference alone, where whites and North Asians average something like 16 and 19 IQ points ahead of U.S. blacks (and >25 points ahead of blacks still in Africa). 16 is a whole standard deviation, for crying out loud. This doesn't even get into the observable stark difference in time preference (think ant and grasshopper in a nontropical climate).

How can a well-informed person honestly take the position that there is not a genetic difference between blacks and nonblacks that rises to the level of evolutionary? The answer is that he can't do so, that either the well-informed or the honesty are untrue.

Which of the latter two is the case for you, Unknown?

Anonymous aero January 10, 2014 8:04 AM  

The post is not from ignorance or dishonesty. I is because more or less it has not evolved.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 January 10, 2014 8:11 AM  

TangoMan - in retrodictions rate and guess go hand in glove and the audience are the sock puppets.

Anonymous aaaaturkey January 10, 2014 8:13 AM  

Or another example for unknown that his pc preferences desire, consider language.

Modern african-american english dialects can be considered more evolved than shakespearean english because it has had more changes over time. However the value you place on those changes is determined by things other than number of changes.

Instead the value judgement is determined by the effects and results of those changes. To determine that you'd have to find the different genes and what they contribute towards human attributes.

We have a lot of anecdotal evidence of differences but research into the exact differences of the genes is either crude, or considered taboo, generally. That may change in the future, I suspect east asian academics might be the leaders in the field over the next generation.

Anonymous Michael of Charlotte January 10, 2014 8:25 AM  

So eventually I will be able to open a gene therapy bid-nis that makes Black people White? Cool.

And just wait till they crack the hair color gene. I'll have brunettes lined around the block waiting to become blonds.

Anonymous x January 10, 2014 8:25 AM  

yet this studyvis buried while the MSM and liberals freak out about this:
www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-belief-in-evolution-plummets-poll-reveals

Anonymous Luke January 10, 2014 8:32 AM  

aaaaturkey January 10, 2014 8:13 AM
"Or another example for unknown that his pc preferences desire, consider language.

Modern african-american english dialects can be considered more evolved than shakespearean english because it has had more changes over time. However the value you place on those changes is determined by things other than number of changes."


Decay is not evolution. Think of a tree attacked by cellulase-secreting fungi; the final result is largely CO2 and H2O, hardly more complex/further evolved.

Anonymous Luke January 10, 2014 8:37 AM  

And, in OT news, the Military Channel on cable TV is going away:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/01/09/american-heroes-channel-launches-march-3

Blogger John Stockley January 10, 2014 8:38 AM  

It isn't a matter of 'dumb and weak,' vs 'intelligent and strong'. It is a matter of surviving long enough to reproduce.

Vitamin D deficiency AKA 'Rickets' was and remains a grim harvester of children.

As paleolithic peoples pressed inland children were denied the vitamin D from small fish (sardines, really). As they pressed north they were denied vitamin D from sunlight because they had to wrap up.

High melanin content became a death sentence for children. Death in the immature is the most powerful of all selectors.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 8:48 AM  

There is no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved".

Then obviously evolution does not exist. Thank you for clarifying that for us.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 8:49 AM  

If everyone had the same genes, and then one person had a gene mutation, and if you consider mutations to form the basis of evolution, then that person with the mutation is more evolved.

I think you're forgetting that math is hard for biologists. They were assured there would be no math.

Anonymous Luke January 10, 2014 8:54 AM  

VD January 10, 2014 8:49 AM

"I think you're forgetting that math is hard for biologists. They were assured there would be no math."

Eh. I was a biology major for the first 3 years of college, and two terms of calculus were required. This was a third-tier Southern state college in the early 1980s, FWIW.

Anonymous p-dawg January 10, 2014 8:56 AM  

I guess Father Abraham really did have many sons.

Blogger tz January 10, 2014 8:57 AM  

But both in language and body structure, indians (mumbai, not ixtlan) and europeans are more closely related.

There is the part in Genesis about Noah having 3 sons.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 January 10, 2014 8:58 AM  

or teleologically speaking, yeast numerically outnumber all other life forms. It's obvious then that they are more highly evolved. What happened is that a lot of multicellular organism's DNA selfishly considered the statistical advantages of yeastly lifestyles and devolved over eons back into yeasts - which explains their current variety. Thus people looking for signs of downward evolution have more to go on. Yeast for example were the first organisms into space and outnumbered astronauts by many hundreds of billions.

Anonymous Jeigh Di January 10, 2014 9:03 AM  

"... the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill, but time and chance happeneth to them all." - Ecclesiastes 9:11

Anonymous DonReynolds January 10, 2014 9:08 AM  

Luke......"And, in OT news, the Military Channel on cable TV is going away:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/01/09/american-heroes-channel-launches-march-3"

I take it this means they will have fewer small arms shootoffs of mellons and plastic jugs and more time devoted to fake militarism, perhaps McHale's Navy or Black Sheep Squadron. The same thing happened to the History Channel.

Anonymous Bob Wallace January 10, 2014 9:09 AM  

As I understand it, the word "Adam" (as in Adam and Eve) means "ruddy."

Anonymous DonReynolds January 10, 2014 9:15 AM  

Since the white genetic arrangement is not dominant and so easily lost through successive breeding, I cannot understand how a single mutation would ever reproduce. I do not question the fact that racial differences are genetic, but I do question the idea that a race can be the result of a single mutation in the wild.

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 9:25 AM  

What I find interesting is how this actually sort of substantiates scriptural evidences from Genesis 10, at least if you consider the Japhethites to be the Indo-Europeans.

The problem then is the timeline. The Flood would be more recent than 10,000 years ago.

Anonymous Truth January 10, 2014 9:27 AM  

People who believe in evolution - you know, smart people - need not react at all. This find is about skin tone only. Only idiot racists would think it has any other meaning.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus January 10, 2014 9:31 AM  

"The problem then is the timeline. The Flood would be more recent than 10,000 years ago."

True - but that's not the problem with the timelines...

OpenID cailcorishev January 10, 2014 10:02 AM  

The 10,000 year time frame is not all that far off from Bishop Usher's famous 6,000 year estimation for the Age of the Earth. But most forget that the bishop's estimate was based on Adam, not the Earth.

Interesting indeed. My imperfect understanding of Catholic doctrine (at least recently) is that Catholics are allowed to believe in an old Earth and TENS with the 7-day creation story being an allegory; but that we are required to believe that at some point God created two people, Adam and Eve, as the first "people." But if you tie that to a genetic change like this, it's not hard to see the Unfortunate Implications.

Anonymous RedJack January 10, 2014 10:03 AM  

The problem then is the timeline. The Flood would be more recent than 10,000 years ago.
Assumptions please. Just saying that dating from DNA is not as exact as we were typically led to believe. Some animals have amazing genetic stablity, some don't (like dogs for instance). Trying to date shifts in DNA is very hard.

Anonymous jasmer January 10, 2014 10:05 AM  

Sigyn said, "The problem then is the timeline. The Flood would be more recent than 10,000 years ago."

Personally I've never had problems with the timeline, simply because I don't know how well stone-age civilizations dealt with abstract/non-tribal history, as opposed to flood *seasons*, ancestral lineage, and who the feuds are with.

Kind of like the concept of 'hrair' in Watership Down - when your history is oral and you're mostly concerned with finding enough to eat, you don't really worry about precision regarding how long ago Noah was afloat.

Anonymous Mike M. January 10, 2014 10:16 AM  

I've found it interesting that most human civilizations have some sort of Great Flood story.

Blogger Historicus January 10, 2014 10:19 AM  

The geographic separation of people groups did not happen right after the flood. Neither was the geographic separation based on the three sons of Noah according to Genesis 11. The separation happened about 200 years later when God confused the languages of the people who were building the Tower of Babel.

Anonymous Starbuck January 10, 2014 10:20 AM  

one wonders why those who stubbornly, and ignorantly, continue to insist on human equality despite these undeniable genetic differences

Just to clarify... Aren't all men equal under the law? I mean, everyone knows the chinese are not like the black man or the hispanic or the indian or the white. But also, the british aren't like the germans or the french. Aren't everyone of the same worth? not in dollars but in value to God sort of way.

People can demand that we are all equal as in the same. But everyone knows we are not. I assume the "equality" called out in our constitution meant that we are equal under the law and equal to God.

Or perhaps I am thick headed...

Anonymous Starbuck January 10, 2014 10:24 AM  

Think of the genome in terms of legacy software. If you cracked open the source code of Windows and painstakingly compared the code of the present version to past versions, you'd see a lineage of the code and it's changes across the various versions. The same applies here. We can see the effects on linkage disequilibrium over time, we can see the molecular clock at work and so on.
- Tangoman


Tangoman, just because scientists look at something and observe it, even if they have studied it their whole lives, what makes you think they know and understand what they are looking at? Way to often I see men change things. In 50 years there is very little that is the same in evolution. With that much change and fixing I count that as more a deception then I do science.

Anonymous bearded spock farts January 10, 2014 10:25 AM  

the "truth" troll... a tad obvious who it is.

Blogger Feather Blade January 10, 2014 10:31 AM  

@Starbuck: You are correct. That is the way equality is supposed to be understood "Equal under the law and equal in the sight of God"

Man being what it is, we try to change the meaning of equality so that it means every person is the same which has the curious effect of elevating one group over another in the sight and estimation of Man.

Anonymous CunningDove January 10, 2014 10:32 AM  

Starbuck,
You are pretty much, right on with that. However, as the ones who seek power have intentionally confused the language & insisted that words mean only "this" or "that" rather than having nuance, we are stuck with people that don't understand what they are talking about. The observable reality right in front of them is denied, because the believe "I know what this work equal means."

I have observed that it is those who are actually average that insist strongly that "everyone is equal". However, many that are above average in some way or another, or who have participated in higher level athletics, have an easier time admitting, "this word equal, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Experience teaches those who are competitive that some are smarter, faster, or stronger. It also teaches the competitive that those attributes do not always win the day.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 10, 2014 10:32 AM  

Only idiot racists would think it has any other meaning.

I take it you do not understand Pleiotropy then.

However, in a sense you are correct. East Asians, Caucasians and South Asians have been under tremendous selection pressure for civilization for several thousand years, while other groups have not been. (That is, according to the specialists, and yet, those who give lip-service to Evolution seem not to understand that selection might affect humans as well as the bacteria we use antibiotics against.)

Anonymous DonReynolds January 10, 2014 10:36 AM  

Starbuck......"I assume the "equality" called out in our constitution meant that we are equal under the law and equal to God."

I checked again, but the Constitution does not say we are all equal. The 14th Amendment says no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Declaration of Independence does say all men are created equal, but I doubt anyone is suggesting that they stay that way. The only thing equal about the way men are created, as best I can tell, is they are all born of a woman.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 10, 2014 10:46 AM  

The question What came first.black then white or white the black

Neither. There is copious evidence that brown was the ancestral condition and that both black and and white/yellow (which are strongly related) are derived conditions.

The real question is: Would you like to live in a non-Civilization run by blacks? Check out Detroit if you would or pretty much most of sub-Saharan Africa.

Anonymous Nate January 10, 2014 10:48 AM  

It is an interesting Penn State study... The question is... how many young boys were sodomized in the lab showers?

Anonymous Harsh January 10, 2014 10:49 AM  

If there no end to evolutionary progress . Does this mean that a strong dumb that kills the weak smart is forward progress

Evolutionary progress simply means more able to survive and reproduce in a given environment. Smarter does not always mean more evolved. The most common public misconception about evolution is that "more evolved" means smarter, stronger, faster, and I guess eventually turning into a being of pure energy (at least among Star Trek aficionados.) There is no "end point" of evolution.

Anonymous Athor Pel January 10, 2014 10:51 AM  

" Luke January 10, 2014 8:32 AM
...
Decay is not evolution.
...
"



Isn't evolution driven by mutation as well as selection? Since the majority of genetic mutations are harmful I don't see how you can say decay is not evolution.

Anonymous Harsh January 10, 2014 10:52 AM  

People who believe in evolution - you know, smart people - need not react at all. This find is about skin tone only. Only idiot racists would think it has any other meaning.

Wrong yet again, Truth. Skin tone does imply more highly evolved. If you don't understand why, you don't understand what "evolved" means.

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2014 10:53 AM  

The problem then is the timeline. The Flood would be more recent than 10,000 years ago.

Relatively speaking...this is hair splitting. The fact that the flood remnants of the Ice Age, Ussher's meticulous back counting, and this potential genetic factoid are all in the neighborhood of 10,000 years lends far more support to their potential as facts of history...than the Saganesque meellions and meeelions that get tossed around to harmonize TENS fairy tales.

Put another way: Ussher was aware of the partial Manetho Egyptian timeline(s) and that they didn't jive with the Biblical record...but that they should harmonize if all error and misunderstanding were removed - because history does not, in its purest form, have alternates (i.e. Clinton was not elected president in both '92 and '93. If two books disagree, there must be more info to explain the discrepancy).

To make TENS work, you've got to toss out historicity altogether, and pray that no elements of history, biology, physics, archaeology, geology, etc. even come close to harmonization.

Blogger Booch Paradise January 10, 2014 10:57 AM  

I mean, everyone knows the chinese are not like the black man or the hispanic or the indian or the white.

They do and they don't. There are many many people who would deny this, and genuinely don't believe that there are any differences between race or sex. It's generally a hypocritical belief that is only followed by action in cases where being wrong won't cost them anything.

I once had a conversation with a girl in college who adamantly claimed that women were just as physically strong as men. But when getting into specifics, we wound up talking about intramural softball, and she said that the guys were better at it because you "really have to whack the ball, and they can do that better". So she knew at a practical level that she was full of shit. But even when this was pointed out to her she still didn't change her stance.

Anonymous CunningDove January 10, 2014 11:01 AM  

Booch Paradise: I once had a conversation with a girl in college who adamantly claimed that women were just as physically strong as men. But when getting into specifics, we wound up talking about intramural softball, and she said that the guys were better at it because you "really have to whack the ball, and they can do that better". So she knew at a practical level that she was full of shit. But even when this was pointed out to her she still didn't change her stance.

The observable reality right in front of them is denied, because they believe "I know what this word equal means." I had similar experiences in college when talking to girls about equality. I also enjoyed the almost Lynda Blair "Exorcist" response when I told them that I do not believe that women & men are equal.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 10, 2014 11:02 AM  

There is no "end point" of evolution.

Saltwater Crocodile.

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 11:04 AM  

Tangoman, just because scientists look at something and observe it, even if they have studied it their whole lives, what makes you think they know and understand what they are looking at?

Parsimony. There is a greater likelihood of someone trained in the methods of science who is practicing scientific method coming to an understanding of a subject than the alternative of someone who doesn't study a subject coming to a better level of understanding.

I'd rather have a cardiac surgeon operate on my heart than Sam the Butcher from the Brady Bunch. I'd rather have a structural engineer design a bridge than hand that task over to a graphic artist who draws pretty pictures of bridges.

Way to often I see men change things.

Yeah, so what? Have you never heard the phrase "Don't make perfect the enemy of the good?" Look at microprocessor design. Intel chips get more sophisticated over time but that doesn't mean that the physics that was developed into engineering product was completely wrong back in the 80s and 90s and 00s. Knowledge builds incrementally. This applies to all fields.

In 50 years there is very little that is the same in evolution. With that much change and fixing I count that as more a deception then I do science.

The sounds quite a bit like typical leftist argumentative tactics - arrive at a desired conclusions first and then concoct some cockamamie "reasoning." Declaring, as you do, that imperfect, or incomplete, knowledge is indicative of deception on the part of scientists isn't a conclusion supported by solid premises nor by convincing evidence.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 10, 2014 11:08 AM  

Booch Paradise......"So she knew at a practical level that she was full of shit. But even when this was pointed out to her she still didn't change her stance."

Does not matter. Even when their noses are rubbed in it, they still refuse to admit it......55% of the women accepted as recruits in the Marine Corps today cannot do three chinups. We did plenty more than that in the Army...... of course, in those days the military was not coed.

Anonymous p-dawg January 10, 2014 11:24 AM  

@Athor: You don't see how decay isn't evolution? Evolution is supposedly progress. Decay is entropy, not increasing complexity or progress. An increase in chaos is an advancement of entropy.

Anonymous p-dawg January 10, 2014 11:27 AM  

"Declaring, as you do, that imperfect, or incomplete, knowledge is indicative of deception on the part of scientists isn't a conclusion supported by solid premises nor by convincing evidence."

You have specific knowledge that all the error was due to imperfect or incomplete knowledge, and that there was no fraud perpetrated? How would you even begin to go about proving that?

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 10, 2014 11:31 AM  

it is very clear from modern human behavior that the rapidity of the growth of the mutation would much more likely have stemmed from sexual selection.

If it was predominantly sexual selection, why did it evolve at Northern latitudes?

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 11:39 AM  

Aren't everyone of the same worth? not in dollars but in value to God sort of way.

No. I suggest you read the Bible. God does not value everyone equally. Some He loves. Others He hates.

Parsimony. There is a greater likelihood of someone trained in the methods of science who is practicing scientific method coming to an understanding of a subject than the alternative of someone who doesn't study a subject coming to a better level of understanding.

I strongly suggest you read Kuhn. As it happens, someone who is trained in the methods of science and is practicing the scientific method is actually almost GUARANTEED to come to a false understanding if the truth is outside his operating paradigm.

There is a reason why scientists regularly fall for all sorts of obvious idiocy, from socialism to National Socialism to global warming. They are not trained to think critically. Quite the opposite, as it happens. They are trained to think analytically within very tight boundaries and to NOT question basic assumptions.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 11:43 AM  

If it was predominantly sexual selection, why did it evolve at Northern latitudes?

Because that is where the sexually selected population happened to move. You're making a basic logical mistake in thinking that because there could have been a connection between environmental pressure and skin color, there must have been one.

However, if you think about it, 10,000 years isn't all that long and sexual selection is capable of operating much more quickly than natural selection. All you have to do is look at the rape and marriage statistics to see that blacks are much more attracted to whites than whites are to blacks.

Not saying I buy any of this, but if one looks at it from an evolutionary perspective, it is obvious that sexual selection is a much more viable candidate.

Blogger JCclimber January 10, 2014 11:56 AM  

I'd have to say that the light skin genetic mutation is devolving, not evolving.
Considering that biblically we were created perfect, with strong big bodies and sharp minds, and very long lives. We have certainly decreased in stature, strength, intelligence, and life span.
So either way, light skin and dark skin are different and show an ancestral difference. Ham, Shem, and Japheth......again.

Anonymous indyjones January 10, 2014 11:57 AM  

The era of Bishop Usher and prior to the Bishop may be far more accurate than what most of "science" want to accept. At youtube you can watch a 2 minute introduction to "The Principle" which is a documentary coming out in April. While there it is very useful to watch a 2hr40 plus video by Dr Robert Sungenis that explains a geocentric (earth centered) universe. There is some "splaining" to do by scientists that look at data and don't like it at all.

Blogger JCclimber January 10, 2014 11:58 AM  

I also think that once again, their timelines are way, way off. Genetic mutations can spread and propogate much more quickly than they account for in their conservative models.

They're just trying to push the number back as far as they can into the past. Its safer politically that way.

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 12:04 PM  

Re: timeline issues

Well, actually, Bishop Ussher (IIRC) based his estimate partly on the "Man A was X age when he begat Man B...Man B was X age when he begat Man C..." which is pretty precise as to years, up to the point of otherwise recorded history. I don't think a few months per generation is going to add up to THAT many years between Noah and now.

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 12:11 PM  

I once had a conversation with a girl in college who adamantly claimed that women were just as physically strong as men. But when getting into specifics, we wound up talking about intramural softball, and she said that the guys were better at it because you "really have to whack the ball, and they can do that better". So she knew at a practical level that she was full of shit. But even when this was pointed out to her she still didn't change her stance.

You mean she didn't mention things like joint formation, center of gravity, or muscle groupings? Amateur.

Blogger Sojourner January 10, 2014 12:25 PM  

I don't know VD. The Lord is long suffering and we haven't been wiped from the face of the planet for a reason:

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

Anonymous Salt January 10, 2014 12:26 PM  

So, what if it can eventually be determined that the single genetic mutation was actually an artificial one?

Interesting to say the least, especially if one considers artificial as defined as not of evolutionary progression. This thought begs a question, being the source of the artificial genetic (blood) modifier.

Since evolution has so many hypothetical considerations, why not assume a few more.

Lets say that in Man's far far distant past, even so far as to say evolution is true enough that Man evolved from the primordial soup and even yet having a kinship of sorts with simians, that there developed multiple and distinct races which over time migrated and separated themselves.

Eventually enter the artificial modifier; not of evolutionary progression. Such modifier must therefore come from outside any evolutionary sequence.

To hold discussion on this virtually demands some form of acceptance of Intelligent Design, and seemingly where Personality seems to be apparent, acceptance of a Creator (but I do not wish to derail here). But as ID seems necessary, what better to seek guidance than the historical record.

Lets call the artificial modifier Adam; his creation from Whole Cloth (as was Eve) and not resultant of evolutionary progression. It's apparent that Adam and Eve were not Human in the evolutionary progression scheme. They were like us, but not of us. Evolutionarily speaking, they could not exist. Their existence, though, signifies one of purpose.

Back to the historical record, Adam and Eve defaulted on the Command they were given, story of the Garden, whereby they commingled good with evil. Eating the Apple did not destroy their good, merely introduced evil to commingle with it.

Their subsequent banishment from Eden put them into contact, now being themselves of human equality (death), with those races existent at the time.

Adam's genetically superior (Creation source, not evolutionary; ~angelic?) blood, being artificial as opposed to evolutionary progressive blood, over time modifying one race greatly, while another to a mush lesser extent, while not, say, effecting another race at all, might hold incredible reason as to the race disparities seen today. Even to perhaps the ability as to Civilization itself.

Anonymous cheddarman January 10, 2014 12:27 PM  

It will be interesting to see if this scientific observation can be reproduced by another lab.

If the mutation causes about 1/3 of the color difference, what accounts for the other 2/3rds? Neanderthall DNA from Neanderthals living in europe?

Were there more than 1 species or subspecies of Nenderthal? Our friend Koanic has suggested that there were more than 1 species of Neanderthal. Laugh at him all you want, i think he may hav ethe last laugh!

If there was a single mutation at one point in time, there had to be a lot of inbreeding to get widespread/universal expression of the trait. i wonder if there is other evidence of this in the genome.

lighter skin also gives a survival advantage, allowing for more Vitamin D synthesis, so there is a biochemical advantage for living in northern climates to help select for lighter skin.

curious, indeed!

Blogger Christopher B January 10, 2014 12:29 PM  

This new claim indicates that Africans are lower in the evolutionary order, not that the skin color gene can be described as a speciation event.

I wouldn't bet that way. Speciation is little more than a bioligical game of "one of these things is not like the others" (except for humans). Ligers, Tigons, etc have pushed the working definition of "can't produce offspring" to be nothing more than "prefer not to mate", closely followed by "don't produce offspring identical to the parents". There's evidence that part of the pressure on the infamous Spotted Owls in the Pacific Northwest is the fact that they interbreed with other Owls and lose their charactheristic markings but people still claim they are distinct.

Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2014 12:39 PM  

> I've found it interesting that most human civilizations have some sort of Great Flood story.

Most good farming areas experience extreme flooding at one time or another. And "the world" can be a very small area to an isolated tribe.

OpenID errhead January 10, 2014 12:42 PM  

It's pretty basic, 10k years ago the glaciers melted. raised the sea levels flooding huge areas that had been land for the last 100k causing mass migrations. As people moved to more extreme latitudes freed of ice, vitamin D became an issue. This in no way negates the sexual component though. Tribe A and B move into neighboring valleys in newly ice free central Europe.
Tribe A has the meme that lighter complexions are more attractive. Women being women, most of the next generation has light skinned fathers. Since the light skinned kids get more vitamin D they are healthier, succeeding generations are larger and healthier.
Tribe B has the meme that darker complexions are more attractive. They have darker babies each generation, and poorer health and reproductive rates. After a few generations Tribe A completely supplants tribe B, letting some of the lighter complected slave babies join in eventually.
This happens all over the north, so that only the cultures that find paleness hot survive, which continues long after the evolutionary advantage has passed. Eventually ending up with milk white Ukrainian super models going to see Noah, thanks evolution.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 10, 2014 12:43 PM  

Declaring, as you do, that imperfect, or incomplete, knowledge is indicative of deception on the part of scientists isn't a conclusion supported by solid premises nor by convincing evidence.

I just think he has a problem with scientists who like to say "hey, we're telling you now we were wrong about some stuff before while we said we were totally right, so you can totally believe us now when we say we know what we're talking about!"

Blogger Rev. Right January 10, 2014 12:43 PM  

"We already know that the three major continental groups are not even equally human on the genetic level, with Africans being the only pure homo sapiens sapiens.'

Actually, the current theory based on DNA studies is that modern humans evolved in Africa, from where they spread out and cross-bread with homo erectus-derived archaic human species that they encountered - Neanderthals in Europe, the Middle East and West Asia and Denisovans in East Asia. The modern humans in Africa also cross-bed with some of the numerous archaic populations that were still extant in Africa until quite recently (several thousand years ago) and modern Africans actually have more archaic DNA than Europeans or Asians.

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 10, 2014 12:43 PM  

You're making a basic logical mistake in thinking that because there could have been a connection between environmental pressure and skin color, there must have been one.

Granted, but you haven't given me any reason to dismiss the high level of correlation between skin colour and average ultraviolet radiation. You're just saying the white guys must have moved north for some reason (why?). Sexual selection may be faster but is there any evidence that natural selection is incapable working fast enough to fit the data?

All you have to do is look at the rape and marriage statistics to see that blacks are much more attracted to whites than whites are to blacks.

I could equivalently say, all you have to do is look at blacks' "superior" stature and muscle mass. Why are marriage statistics "all" you have to look at. The more scientific approach is to first ask, what is worth looking at. Or even whether the question is well-posed. For example, if it is possible that black males are more attractive that white males but white females are more attractive than white females, and that the question as posed cannot be correctly answered, especially given asymmetries what men versus women find most attractive.

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 10, 2014 12:44 PM  

should be "white females are more attractive than black females", obviously.

Blogger Brad Andrews January 10, 2014 12:47 PM  

God does not value everyone equally. Some He loves. Others He hates.

True, but He still died for them all. He knew which ones would reject that ahead of time though, as He is outside time and can see it all at once.

A good example of this is Essau. God "hated" him, but that is reasonable per Essau's despising of his birth right (which should have included the blessing Issac tried to circumvent) based on his willingness to sell it for a single meal.

Sygin,

Their 10K estimate is just that, a guesstimate. They have no definite proof of that. This would seem to fit quite well with the story of Babel where God confused the languages and that pushed everyone to spread out.

I still believe we are fundamentally the same at the core, but all humans are divided in at least some ways out of choice and actions now.

Whoever questioned writing in the "stone age" needs to ponder whether we have devolved from Adam rather than evolving from cavemen. Modern man could become a caveman really quick if that was all that was available to live in. Caves are better than no shelter at all!

Blogger Brad Andrews January 10, 2014 12:49 PM  

James Dixon,

You wouldn't need to build a really big (and stable) boat to house all animal types if it was just a local flood. Simply move a few miles (or hundreds/thousands) and you would be safe. Many stories indicate a worldwide flood.

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 12:52 PM  

I strongly suggest you read Kuhn. As it happens, someone who is trained in the methods of science and is practicing the scientific method is actually almost GUARANTEED to come to a false understanding if the truth is outside his operating paradigm.

Why would you presume that I haven't read Kuhn? Why do you presume that your appeal to his authority overrides the accumulation of knowledge which has been developed via the scientific method over the course of centuries? How could that have happened if, as you write, scientists are guaranteed to arrive at a false understanding?

What is this "truth" of which you speak? How do you measure this "truth" in such a way that you are aware of it and but others are blind to it? When you write truth are you meaning faith or are you meaning reality or what? Was/Is Newtonian Physics the "truth" or was/is it false? How about Einsteinian Physics, is it the truth or is it false? If something is not the "truth" does that imply that it is completely false? Is high school physics false or not "truth" because it doesn't involve calculus? Your comment is too vague to make much sense to me, especially your invocation of "truth." Perhaps you can flesh that out some more.

There is a reason why scientists regularly fall for all sorts of obvious idiocy, from socialism to National Socialism to global warming.

Yeah, Nozick did a pretty good job of explaining much of this. You do realize that wide swathes of people who are not scientists also fall for obvious idiocy? Right? So what are you trying to imply here? Spell it out for me because I'm not keen on reading tea leaves in such discussions. I'd rather you be clear than my having to guess what you mean.

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 12:52 PM  

They are not trained to think critically.

Oh yeah? You know of a method which can train people to think critically? Do tell!

Quite the opposite, as it happens. They are trained to think analytically within very tight boundaries and to NOT question basic assumptions.

Just because you write something doesn't transform what you're thinking into reality. This is a mighty peculiar viewpoint that you're advancing seeing how it is directly contradicted by a world of evidence showing new, applicable and replicable knowledge being created, day in and day out, by scientists. It appears to me that you're generalizing way too much. You're condemning scientists for not questioning the existence of gravity, not questioning whether the Earth orbits the Sun and a host of other things we know because their predecessors resolved these issues long before they were born. Knowledge develops by standing on the shoulders of those who came before you but you seem to be arguing that for any scientist to be worthy of your respect that they should be continuously reinventing the wheel, questioning every single piece of information presented before them, you know, just like lefty "education theorists" who are pushing the constructivist eduction paradigm of teachers being "guides by the side instead of a sage on the stage" where students are expected to discover the principles of math through their own skull sweat instead of being taught the concepts of multiplication and addition and then perfecting the techniques, in other words, standing on the shoulders of the giants who did develop the knowledge.

Take a look at the title of Kuhn's work. It's titled "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." The key word here is Revolution. Revolution is not standard operating procedure in any sort of human organization other than liberalism. You can't have perpetual revolution, day in and day out. After revolution, the enterprise that has revolted has to operate under the new rules and there is usually a lot of low hanging fruit to pick and in terms of science this means that the new knowledge which the revolution brought in will be used as a foundation for the generation of a lot more knowledge. What it doesn't mean is that everyday is Revolution Day, where the knowledge of yesterday is thrown overboard and the morning brings a new understanding of the universe to substitute in its place. You seem to be implying that scientists should busy themselves with creating revolutions during their daily work instead of, you know, doing science.

Anonymous Rusty January 10, 2014 1:17 PM  

True, but He still died for them all.

No, He didn't. He died to save those who do His will as stated in the Ten Commandments.

I don't care what they told you in Sunday school. God doesn't love everyone, and He didn't send His son to die for all men...

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 1:17 PM  

Their 10K estimate is just that, a guesstimate. They have no definite proof of that.

I know. I simply can't abide when someone, based on a guesstimate, informs others who disagree that they are CERTAINLY wrong. It's just not logical.

This would seem to fit quite well with the story of Babel where God confused the languages and that pushed everyone to spread out.

I don't disagree. I just think it happened a lot more recently than others would like to think.

Whoever questioned writing in the "stone age" needs to ponder whether we have devolved from Adam rather than evolving from cavemen. Modern man could become a caveman really quick if that was all that was available to live in. Caves are better than no shelter at all!

I think what people do is look at what they consider to be primitive societies and assume that change-over-time is always progress, and so therefore those "primitive" societies are a snapshot of their own past. A lot of Native Americans and Africans didn't have a written language, therefore early man was illiterate.

It never seems to occur to them that these "primitive societies" might have discarded a written language and gone illiterate as part of cultural and linguistic drift. Readin' 'n' writin' is hard...

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 1:21 PM  

He died to save those who do His will as stated in the Ten Commandments.

The young rich man agreed with you. Too bad Jesus showed us he missed the point.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 10, 2014 1:49 PM  

errhead January 10, 2014 12:42 PM
It's pretty basic ...



that's amusing and all, but your hypothesis does nothing to explain why those on the Indian subcontinent and in sub-Saharan Africa also seem to view lighter skin as a marker for beauty.



TangoMan January 10, 2014 12:52 PM
Oh yeah? You know of a method which can train people to think critically? Do tell!


well, since it's impossible to train people to think critically therefore critical thinking is rare to non-existent.

what proof do you have that YOU are capable of critical thought?

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter January 10, 2014 1:57 PM  

"Were there more than 1 species or subspecies of Nenderthal? Our friend Koanic has suggested that there were more than 1 species of Neanderthal. Laugh at him all you want, i think he may hav ethe last laugh!

If there was a single mutation at one point in time, there had to be a lot of inbreeding to get widespread/universal expression of the trait. i wonder if there is other evidence of this in the genome."

Which definition of species are you using there?

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter January 10, 2014 2:00 PM  

"If it was predominantly sexual selection, why did it evolve at Northern latitudes?"

You mean you can't imagine that women in different environments might have different sexual selection criteia?

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2014 2:01 PM  

Well, actually, Bishop Ussher (IIRC) based his estimate partly on the "Man A was X age when he begat Man B...Man B was X age when he begat Man C..." which is pretty precise as to years, up to the point of otherwise recorded history. I don't think a few months per generation is going to add up to THAT many years between Noah and now.

Ussher's methods (which also included a meticulous review of known extrabiblical chronologies and mastery of 5 methods) are on the very tight side, adhering to strict ages as he determined them to be, and, when a generation was in doubt, eliminating its consideration.

My point is that whether you take a histo-chrono of 6,000 with a Flood at 2500 BC (or whenever, I don't have Annals of the World in front of me right now), or a geo-chrono with a Flood at 10,000, or even 20,000...it is fairly clear that the folks bound to a humanochrono of an ever expanding timeline of 2.5+ million (and counting upward) with billions of prehistoric era only to account for a mythological TENS are the outliers, not the other way around.

I'm not saying the massive timescale is necessarily wrong. Just that it provides convenient, if unscientific, cover for those who would shelter their pet theories in its uncataloged void.

Frankly, it is simply more possible to build harmonies between the Sumerian, the Manetho, the archaeological, the geologic, the anthro records when you start from a tight window, and then expand the timeline conservatively, rather than presuming millions, and bloating that to allow for gaps and punctuated bursts that refuse to divulge their secrets after 150 years of searching.

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 10, 2014 2:26 PM  

"You mean you can't imagine that women in different environments might have different sexual selection criteia?"
Have I denied this anywhere? Is there even a clear line to be drawn between sexual and natural selection? For instance, if being healthy is universally attractive, is having a skin colour conducive to health in a given environment a factor of natural or sexual selection?

Blogger Sojourner January 10, 2014 2:35 PM  

OT: Sometimes I wonder if the people here who keep throwing out that others are wrong even read the Bible themselves. Truly the reasoning behind "test the spirits" is flawless. It's like we should just through out the fact that Jesus hung out with people that, in Old Testament standards, God did really hate. But yet He still died for them. For all the claims that Scripture gets cherry picked, it sure gets cherry picked around here a bunch.

Blogger Doom January 10, 2014 2:36 PM  

Science eventually gets around to seeing. Even when it doesn't want to do so. Nothing can help it believe, but it can see, a bit, some things, sometimes. If you understand the limits of science, it is a fine venture. Once in a while, it can be useful. It is when you actually believe in it, as a faith... that is when you go blind, dumb, and head straight to hell.

Hmm, 10k, isn't that the timeline for blue eyes and blond hair as well? Can't remember about red hair, but it's newer, save a few possible anomalies. Giants in the Americas, perhaps. Don't believe me, or the native tribes, about what they met when they arrived here. Belief is an odd thing.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 2:41 PM  

Granted, but you haven't given me any reason to dismiss the high level of correlation between skin colour and average ultraviolet radiation. You're just saying the white guys must have moved north for some reason (why?). Sexual selection may be faster but is there any evidence that natural selection is incapable working fast enough to fit the data?

Yes, I have. I've pointed out that sexual selection operates more quickly AND that we can observe the same sexual selection at work today. And we don't need to know why the white guy moved from the Middle East to Europe, we only need to know that he did. If we stick to conventional evolutionary theory, anywhere he would have gone would have turned out white; because he went North, that's why the white people are called European.

And yes, there is certainly evidence that natural selection would not have worked fast enough to function. It's called math. You can work through the equation if you like. I'm not going to bother, because it is obvious.

Think about it. Which is faster? Everyone has sex with the pretty pretty white guy, or the white guy has sex with one woman, whose children have, (let's be generous), a 25 percent survival advantage over all the other dark kids? Given that WE ALREADY KNOW THE SEXUAL SELECTION PREFERENCE, it MUST be predominantly sexual selection.

If, of course, evolution is the explanation.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 2:44 PM  

Why would you presume that I haven't read Kuhn? Why do you presume that your appeal to his authority overrides the accumulation of knowledge which has been developed via the scientific method over the course of centuries?

It's not his authority to which I'm appealing, it's his observations, which you yourself confirmed in a later post. You quite clearly don't understand that the very behavior you are defending, (correctly, I might add), guarantees the tunnel vision and absence of critical thought that is the problem here.

Science would not have revolutions if its practitioners were not so closed-minded. And they are always slow to react to the paradigm shift, unlike non-scientists, who aren't wedded or financially dependent upon the previous paradigm.

Anonymous Wendy January 10, 2014 2:54 PM  

White guy moved north. Became a viking. Lots of white babies everywhere.

Blogger Lud VanB January 10, 2014 3:03 PM  

you guys really need to visit the SpiritScience Channel on youtube to find a level of scientific discourse matching your own...and he s got funny cartoons as well.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 10, 2014 3:05 PM  

VD January 10, 2014 2:44 PM
You quite clearly don't understand that the very behavior you are defending, (correctly, I might add), guarantees the tunnel vision and absence of critical thought that is the problem here.



hold up, now.

i still want to see Tangoman 'prove' to us that he is capable of 'critical thought'.

you know, seeing as how it's impossible to train anyone in it.

let's not get ahead of ourselves. :-]

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 3:58 PM  

you guys really need to visit the SpiritScience Channel on youtube to find a level of scientific discourse matching your own...and he s got funny cartoons as well.

Hey, I think you need to get your mom to vacuum out your keyboard; your apostrophe key is sticking. I understand why there'd be crumbs in there, though; it's hard to see where they fall in a poorly-lit basement.

...What you got, bitch? What you got???

Blogger RobertT January 10, 2014 4:05 PM  

"...genetic science can trace genetic markers backwards in time..."

Can someone please explain to me how this differs from the jokes about tin foil hats? For the thousands of possible explanations for everything that came before us, we are expected to trust in one or another particular explanation of time lines? Every time I read of any supposed time line over 6000 years, I think of Velikovsky's explanation of the biblical time line. His explanation seems to work better than the traditionally accepted version and also accounts for unexpected differences in planet surface temperatures, but everyone thought he was a crackpot, except Einstein, of course.

Anonymous CLK January 10, 2014 4:08 PM  

"Here's a much more interesting thought. The 10,000 year time frame is not all that far off from Bishop Usher's famous 6,000 year estimation for the Age of the Earth. But most forget that the bishop's estimate was based on Adam, not the Earth. So, what if it can eventually be determined that the single genetic mutation was actually an artificial one? That would certainly set the cat among the equality pigeons."

Well .. there's a shifting of the goal posts of a magnitude not seen here for years ... so now Adam and Eve are the first white people ? :) Are we planner here to revisit theories of Gobineau ?

Anonymous bob k. mando January 10, 2014 4:09 PM  

Sigyn January 10, 2014 3:58 PM
...What you got, bitch? What you got???



my, oh my.

i'm afraid we've had quite the detrimental affect on your deportment, Sqiiggy.

please do restrain yourself. i'd hate for his lordship to have to ban you from all interactions on VP.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kozXmXBuJHE

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 4:31 PM  

i'm afraid we've had quite the detrimental affect on your deportment, Sqiiggy.i'm afraid we've had quite the detrimental affect on your deportment, Sqiiggy.

Actually, I think I picked that up off of some man-movie or other. There was a guy in a tank and it was falling out of the sky and he was shooting airplanes from the gunner seat.

It made more sense when I was watching it. I think. I've been trying to forget the whole thing.

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 4:35 PM  

Well .. there's a shifting of the goal posts of a magnitude not seen here for years ... so now Adam and Eve are the first white people ? :) Are we planner here to revisit theories of Gobineau ?

I've seen what you're talking about before. It comes from reading Chapter 1 as a separate set of events from Chapter 2, rather than a summary that then goes into detail.

But oh, the ugly places you could go with that, none of them nice for white people...

Blogger Doom January 10, 2014 4:58 PM  

RobertT,

Don't know that fellow, but I generally think 6k is closer to the truth than 10k. A lot of things suggest 6k, only a branch of science with a very questionable history suggests 10k.

As to science? Well, think of it as children doodling after seeing the great artists work. It isn't really supposed to be Michelangelo quality, if they suggest it is. It isn't even supposed to be all that accurate, it is what it is. And it does have a purpose, which has been stretched out of all reasonable proportion, albeit. Children don't have anywhere near that kind of skill. And, children don't always like the reality of things, or coloring within lines, and will, from frustration, recalcitrance, willfulness, anger, at the facts, truth, their limits, just go off on wild tangents. Between those things, lots of errors are introduced.

At least they have cut the thing from... what... a million, then 100k, down to 10k since 'men' really started walking the world. Grudgingly, angrily, unhappily, but they are even getting to the point where they realize not all men are... men. Children can be quite... childish.

The scary thing is, when they finally realize the truth (or some might suggest realize again)? They will try to establish genocide for the lesser races. Actually, abortion is just that. Look at who it targets in fact. Hitler was more a scientific believer than anything else. Stalin, Pol Pot, the others, believed only in here, now, and observable. Science. If they can't be wrong one way then they will try to be wrong the other way. And for some of them, there is only the wrong, no matter which way they go. Wilfulness.

Just as with islam, if you really believe, and have read, then 'Obama' bin Laden was correct in his interpretation. (Both of them.) While the preachers of these faiths don't necessarily go to war for their beliefs, they certainly support others murdering and dying for that faith.

As for me? I'm not sure, absolutely, which are men and which are not, or just how mixed up it has become. While there are men, if my thoughts are true, there are also those with the mark of Cain, and possibly nephilim, in these days. Which are you? And... how can you be sure?

Blogger Dominic Saltarelli January 10, 2014 5:13 PM  

Hate facts are the best kind of facts. Hell, using 'hate' as an adjective in general is a win. It's edgy, me gusta.

Also, @Doom...

Female Nephilim

Who's up for snu-snu?

Anonymous bob k. mando January 10, 2014 5:25 PM  

Sigyn January 10, 2014 4:31 PM
It made more sense when I was watching it. I think. I've been trying to forget the whole thing.



what do i got?


i got real physics, bitchez.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZIzreiseMk

Blogger Lud VanB January 10, 2014 5:46 PM  

"Sigyn January 10, 2014 3:58 PM
...What you got, bitch? What you got??? "

Obviously not what you got...but I m sure there is some nice psychiatrist that specializes in your particular affliction out there.

Blogger Lud VanB January 10, 2014 5:57 PM  

"I've seen what you're talking about before. It comes from reading Chapter 1 as a separate set of events from Chapter 2, rather than a summary that then goes into detail."

Was that the chapter that comes before or after the one where the witch king of Angmar is free from his tomb in the High Fells of Rhudaur by the Dark Lord Sauron to help him resume his conquest of Middle Earth?

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 6:08 PM  

Was that the chapter that comes before or after the one where the witch king of Angmar is free from his tomb in the High Fells of Rhudaur by the Dark Lord Sauron to help him resume his conquest of Middle Earth?

It's the chapter where Gollum bangs your mom.

I think I'm still ahead in the "stupid insults" contest. You'd better step up your game.

Anonymous Trash talkin' cheddarman January 10, 2014 6:19 PM  

Sigyn,

You disappoint me with these insults. Yesterday, i said that Hitler was reincarnated as your baby daughter, and that it made sense from an Asgardian perspective , and you said nothing...and today, you talk trash...what is up with that?

Anonymous direita January 10, 2014 6:41 PM  

There's a new slogan for the White Supremacy movement: Superior by Design.It would be hilarious to see a befuddled media trying to figure out the best way to attack white Nation of Islam believers without looking racist.


white supremacist =
observed that white societies (Western civilization) are superiror. any and every person who immigrates to a society majority white because it believes will have a better life is a white supremacist

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 6:41 PM  

You disappoint me with these insults. Yesterday, i said that Hitler was reincarnated as your baby daughter, and that it made sense from an Asgardian perspective , and you said nothing...and today, you talk trash...what is up with that?

You said that? I didn't see it. Okay, I'll accommodate you:

Your head will make a cute fence ornament on our property line, you gender-confused heathen.

Better?

Anonymous /facepalm January 10, 2014 6:48 PM  

"...What you got, bitch? What you got???"

The fact that you don't know the difference between an apostrophe and a full stop.

Blogger Lud VanB January 10, 2014 6:55 PM  

"I think I'm still ahead in the "stupid insults" contest. You'd better step up your game."

I m afraid you re playing that game all by yourself my friend...just like your sex life so far i d imagine.

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 6:58 PM  

The fact that you don't know the difference between an apostrophe and a full stop.

You lose, Slappy; I know what an ellipsis is, as well as an apostrophe, an aposiopesis, and a period (not a "full stop" 'cause I'm American an' stuff). His apostrophe key is non-functional, thus sticking due to crumbs in the keyboard.

You made me explain my jab. You are disqualified from this game. Go sit back down in the audience and watch quietly.

Anonymous Sigyn January 10, 2014 7:00 PM  

I m afraid you re playing that game all by yourself my friend...just like your sex life so far i d imagine.

Proof that science cannot even teach accurately, ladies and gentlemen, where babies come from.

Don't worry. You bumblers will catch up with the theologians on that, one of these centuries.

Anonymous snappy cat January 10, 2014 7:05 PM  

@Rusty
"No, He didn't. He died to save those who do His will as stated in the Ten Commandments."

Fourth Commandment?

Or are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 10, 2014 7:09 PM  

Yes, I have. I've pointed out that sexual selection operates more quickly AND that we can observe the same sexual selection at work today.
I've previously addressed the insufficiency of the latter argument, to which I would add, it is manifestly not the same as the sexual selection that is at work today: African Americans differ from Americans of European stock in many more physical traits than skin colour alone.

And we don't need to know why the white guy moved from the Middle East to Europe, we only need to know that he did.

I'm open to correction here but I've been under the impression that it was more a case of tribal groups migrating and their descendants' skin-colour, over-time, reaching equilibrium with their environment: not too dark, not too light, but just right. So it's not a question of why the white guy moved but of why his descendents skin colour has such high correlation with local UVR. And this "why" is exactly what this argument is about.

And yes, there is certainly evidence that natural selection would not have worked fast enough to function. It's called math. You can work through the equation if you like. I'm not going to bother, because it is obvious.

Can you cite anybody anywhere anytime making that mathematical argument? I'd certainly be interested.

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 8:15 PM  

well, since it's impossible to train people to think critically therefore critical thinking is rare to non-existent.

what proof do you have that YOU are capable of critical thought?


How about this comment being a proof that I'm capable of critical thought?

You make an erroneous assumption, that is, that training is the sole means by which a behavior can come to be expressed. Who taught you to breath?

Recall Vox's original statement - "They are not trained to think critically."
Recall my original statement - "You know of a method which can train people to think critically? Do tell! "

The subject at issue here is the method/training and Vox's assumption that such a training process exists. I'm betting that he just slipped in making this statement, but we'll see.

There certainly exists a body of knowledge which focuses on tightening up one's modes of thinking but I know of any method which insures that the horse you've led to the water can be made to drink that water.

Look, anyone who has argued with liberals already has an inkling of what I'm talking about for they've likely encountered a liberal who focuses on feelings rather than on cold, hard logic. You know, how your argument becomes invalid by their standards if makes them, or someone else, feel bad, regardless of whether it is true, whether a conclusion follows logically from previously enunciated premises.

To drive this point home we need look no further than Vox's pal, Scalzi. Isn't he always trotting out the claim that he is an Honors graduate of a program in Rhetoric/Reasoning, or something of the like? The body of work focusing on reasoning certainly exists, but did it stick? Did the "training" process work at transforming Scalzi's thinking processes away from focusing on emotion and towards logic? I certainly don't see any evidence of the "training" process working, do you?

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 8:33 PM  

Science would not have revolutions if its practitioners were not so closed-minded. And they are always slow to react to the paradigm shift, unlike non-scientists, who aren't wedded or financially dependent upon the previous paradigm.

As I respond to your comment I want to refresh all our memories of your original claim:

As it happens, someone who is trained in the methods of science and is practicing the scientific method is actually almost GUARANTEED to come to a false understanding if the truth is outside his operating paradigm.

That claim focuses on the methods of science and you're claiming that the methods of hypothesis formulation, falsification testing, etc are GUARANTEED to result in false understanding.

Now you've shifted the argument to focus on human failings - some scientists become wedded to a point of view and in so doing fail to remain true to the methods of science. That's an entirely different argument. This argument focuses more on the sociology of groups - those with power like to keep holding power, and similar positions. We see this everywhere. Upstarts in business take down established giants because the giants wanted to keep milking their cash cow and didn't innovate. This sociological process doesn't invalidate the methods and principles of economic competition.

Similarly, in the same way that creative destruction validates the principles of economic competition the fact that some scientists use scientific method to generate new hypotheses, and test those hypotheses, and this results in Kuhnian scientific revolutions which overturn the established ways of seeing the world validates the methods of science and falsifies your claim that practicing the methods of science GUARANTEES that one arrives at a false understanding. After all, these science revolutions don't arise from Voodoo and fireside chanting nor from people who've had no exposure to the methods of science, rather they are generated by those who practice the methods of science, just as industry transforming innovations arise from people practicing economic competition. When have you ever heard of an industry transforming innovation arising from the Central Committee or the Central Planning Bureau, of a Communist nation, a society which rejects the dynamics of economic competition?

OpenID errhead January 10, 2014 9:05 PM  

but your hypothesis does nothing to explain why those on the Indian subcontinent and in sub-Saharan Africa also seem to view lighter skin as a marker for beauty.

But it clearly does, the white preference cultures mastered certain technologies which allowed them to spread down into India through conquest. Either they spread the white preference due to cultural dominance, or through spreading a genetic preference into the population.
Whether the sexual preference was genetic or memetic, it's rickets that put the thumb on fate's scale for which one survived amongst northern immigrants at the end of the ice age.
And yes, there is certainly evidence that natural selection would not have worked fast enough to function.
If one accepts the example of the peppered moth, then a complete change in color due to simple improved survivability could be done in under a hundred generations, or 2000 years for humans. If hypergamy is pushing the change as well then it would take even less time of course.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 9:16 PM  

Recall Vox's original statement - "They are not trained to think critically."
Recall my original statement - "You know of a method which can train people to think critically? Do tell! "


You need to re-read my statement again. You're completely missing the point. It's not merely that they are not trained to think critically, (and yes, I do think it is entirely possible to teach people to do so), but that they are specifically trained to not think critically. Kuhn not only discusses this, he points out that it is necessary due to the nature of science.

They are taught not to question, they are taught to blindly accept many assumptions.

If one accepts the example of the peppered moth, then a complete change in color due to simple improved survivability could be done in under a hundred generations, or 2000 years for humans. If hypergamy is pushing the change as well then it would take even less time of course.

Only if humans of the wrong color died off as easily as moths. Since there weren't giant predators picking out the black ones, I think we can safely assume this analogy fails.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2014 9:19 PM  

Now you've shifted the argument to focus on human failings - some scientists become wedded to a point of view and in so doing fail to remain true to the methods of science. That's an entirely different argument.

I haven't shifted it at all. It's not a different argument. You're simply demonstrating that you haven't read Kuhn. It's not a question of failing to remain true to the methods of science. It is a matter of the practical application of the scientific method itself.

You're repeatedly demonstrating that you're not understanding either my argument or the one that Kuhn presented in the first place.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter January 10, 2014 9:27 PM  

"Only if humans of the wrong color died off as easily as moths. Since there weren't giant predators picking out the black ones, I think we can safely assume this analogy fails."

Except that black skin among Africans (below the Sahara) is a derived character as well.

The original skin color was brown ...

Blogger SirHamster January 10, 2014 9:34 PM  

And yes, there is certainly evidence that natural selection would not have worked fast enough to function. It's called math. You can work through the equation if you like. I'm not going to bother, because it is obvious.

Can you cite anybody anywhere anytime making that mathematical argument? I'd certainly be interested.


If the mathematical argument favored evolution by natural selection, that is, over X billion years we see an expected value of > 1.0 of humanity evolving from a primitive ancestor, we'd see the math trumpeted all over the biology textbooks.

The fact that the mathematical argument FOR evolution is completely ignored should be a tiny clue. If it favored NS - why isn't anyone showing the math how TENS is inevitable?

For ball park numbers - consider the likelihood of a 1 billion letter ~= 200 million word novel being generated by a random string generator. And every iteration (generation) is an understandable meaningful book - life is at least as hard.

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 10:14 PM  

I haven't shifted it at all.

I made a case and demonstrated how you shifted your position and your response amounts to "No I didn't." and "You don't understand." That's pretty weak tea. If you claim that I didn't understand and that you didn't shift the argument, then make a case for your position.

yes, I do think it is entirely possible to teach people to do so.

So Scalzi, by your account, is a trained critical thinker? Wasn't he trained though 4 years of rhetoric in university? Am I mistaken about his educational background? Presumably one can't graduate university if one fails all of one's course work, so if Scalzi did graduate then it follows that he showed mastery of the critical thinking education he underwent. And yet someone has observed the following:

"Not only does McRapey have no observable capacity for dialectic, his rhetoric is almost entirely limited to name-calling, argumentum ad hominem, inept satire, and the sophistic technique known as "ambiguity"."

Anonymous bob k. mando January 10, 2014 10:15 PM  

stareatgoatsies January 10, 2014 7:09 PM
but I've been under the impression that it was more a case of tribal groups migrating and their descendants' skin-colour, over-time, reaching equilibrium with their environment:



because Mongolians, Eskimos and the native Americans of Tierra del Fuego are all stark, blinding white.



TangoMan January 10, 2014 8:15 PM
You make an erroneous assumption



i'm making an erroneous assumption?

the fact that an effectual pedagogy for critical thinking may or may not exist is irrelevant to the fact that someone with a 60 iq is unlikely to ever be able to avail themselves of it's benefits.

but then, who would argue that a 60 iq should be performing brain surgery?

that's so fucking obvious that the only way we can even address your question is by first stipulating that the prospective student is inherently capable of learning critical thought.

congratulations, you've just rendered your whole argument specious.

i made a REQUIRED assumption in order to address your question intelligibly.

and you're going to critique us?

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 10:51 PM  

You're simply demonstrating that you haven't read Kuhn. It's not a question of failing to remain true to the methods of science. It is a matter of the practical application of the scientific method itself.

I've always found that if one bluffs in an argument that one should always be prepared to have their bluff called.

I'm willing to go line by line with you through Kuhn's book because I his 2nd edition right at my fingertips. Point out where he makes the case you claim he's making. While we're at it, how do you reconcile your interpretation with this part of the book synopsized at Wikipedia:

"There is a prevalent belief that all hitherto-unexplained phenomena will in due course be accounted for in terms of this established framework. Kuhn states that scientists spend most (if not all) of their careers in a process of puzzle-solving. Their puzzle-solving is pursued with great tenacity, because the previous successes of the established paradigm tend to generate great confidence that the approach being taken guarantees that a solution to the puzzle exists, even though it may be very hard to find. Kuhn calls this process normal science.

As a paradigm is stretched to its limits, anomalies — failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena — accumulate. Their significance is judged by the practitioners of the discipline. Some anomalies may be dismissed as errors in observation, others as merely requiring small adjustments to the current paradigm that will be clarified in due course. Some anomalies resolve themselves spontaneously, having increased the available depth of insight along the way. But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solvability of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist.


Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 10:53 PM  

Continued from above:

In any community of scientists, Kuhn states, there are some individuals who are bolder than most. These scientists, judging that a crisis exists, embark on what Thomas Kuhn calls revolutionary science, exploring alternatives to long-held, obvious-seeming assumptions. Occasionally this generates a rival to the established framework of thought. The new candidate paradigm will appear to be accompanied by numerous anomalies, partly because it is still so new and incomplete. The majority of the scientific community will oppose any conceptual change, and, Kuhn emphasizes, so they should. To fulfill its potential, a scientific community needs to contain both individuals who are bold and individuals who are conservative. There are many examples in the history of science in which confidence in the established frame of thought was eventually vindicated. Whether the anomalies of a candidate for a new paradigm will be resolvable is almost impossible to predict. Those scientists who possess an exceptional ability to recognize a theory's potential will be the first whose preference is likely to shift in favour of the challenging paradigm. There typically follows a period in which there are adherents of both paradigms. In time, if the challenging paradigm is solidified and unified, it will replace the old paradigm, and a paradigm shift will have occurred."

The methods of science are the puzzle-solving processes mentioned above. Clearly these puzzle-solving activities DO NOT GUARANTEE failure in that they've yielded the vast body of knowledge that has been generated via the scientific method over the course of centuries.

What this synopsis makes clear, and I claim that this synopsis is fair assessment of Kuhn's actual book, is that the methods of science are not the focus of Kuhn's work, rather it is the sociology of the scientists who place faith in a worldview that has led to many successes but which is now running into roadblocks and simultaneously blocking out worldviews which are challengers. This synopsis makes clear that revolutions are rare, and not everyday occurrences, and that not every challenge succeeds.

It is not the methods of science at issue here, nor is it the critical thinking skills of scientists, for every challenger is not a priori better (you know, like how liberals define progress as simply doing something other than in the established and successful conservative fashion). Embracing change simply for the sake of change is the liberal mode of thinking and I find it astounding that you are advocating this model for the scientific community instead of advocating that the models which most successfully produce results be the ones which are embraced.

Now note the following statement from the above synopsis:

"Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available"

That is a conditional statement; the first part of the statement is dependent on the second part. This implies that the puzzle-solving which results from the revolutionary idea has to perform equally well or better than the puzzle-solving results which are produced from the reigning mode of thinking.

Kuhn is, unlike you, not invoking "truth" (which you've thus far neglected to define) in this argument, he's simply talking about ways of seeing the universe which result in better results to the puzzles that confront us.

Isn't it time that you ditch the sunk cost fallacy card you've been playing here and admit that you don't really have a handle on what you're talking about with respect to Kuhn?

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 10, 2014 10:55 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger stareatgoatsies January 10, 2014 11:10 PM  

because Mongolians, Eskimos and the native Americans of Tierra del Fuego are all stark, blinding white.

It's funny and I'm not making this up, but literally the last paragraph I just read was this:

With selection pressure on depigmentation apparently relaxed because of diet, Eskimo-Aleuts have evolved darker skin to protect themselves from high levels of UVA as a result of direct solar irradiation and reflection from snow and ice. This scenario is supported by epidemiological studies showing that departure from traditional diets in Eskimo-Aleut populations has resulted in a high prevalence of vitamin D3–deficiency diseases, especially rickets

from here

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 11:11 PM  

i made a REQUIRED assumption in order to address your question intelligibly.

Scalzi has an IQ that is adequate to the task, he went through this training as his university major and the training didn't stick.

Your assumption is a red herring. I'm not implying that this is an issue of having adequate IQ to learn something, rather my point is that one can't train someone to think in a particular fashion if they don't want to think that way or are wired to think differently.

This is an age-old issue - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. There is no education method which can train someone to become a critical thinker. One can learn the rules but what good are knowing the rules of logical discourse if one is unprepared to practice those rules?

Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 11:54 PM  

To expand on the above, here is an excellent essay on the rise of sensitivity based discourse, something which really characterized VD's encounter with the SFWA inquisition:

This form of discourse typically involves a degree of ‘heterotopy’, occurring in a ‘space’ distinct from that of personal interactions. This heterotopic space is characterized by a sort of playfulness, ritual combativeness, and histrionics. This ‘space’ is akin to that of the playing field, upon which opposing teams give their rivals no quarter, but which is held distinct to some degree from relations between the parties that exist off the field. The handshake between competitors as they leave the field is a typical sign of this demarcation. It is this separation of the space of rhetorical ritual combat from regular space that enables debaters, politicians, or lawyers to have fiery disagreements in the debating chamber, the parliamentary meeting, or the courtroom and then happily enjoy a drink together afterwards.

This ‘heterotopic discourse’ makes possible far more spirited challenges to opposing positions, hyperbolic and histrionic rhetoric designed to provoke response and test the mettle of one’s own and the opposing position, assertive presentations of one’s beliefs that are less concerned to present a full-orbed picture than to advocate firmly for a particular perspective and to invite and spark discussion from other perspectives. . . .

In contrast, a sensitivity-driven discourse lacks the playfulness of heterotopic discourse, taking every expression of difference very seriously. Rhetorical assertiveness and impishness, the calculated provocations of ritual verbal combat, linguistic playfulness, and calculated exaggeration are inexplicable to it as it lacks the detachment, levity, and humour within which these things make sense. On the other hand, those accustomed to combative discourse may fail to appreciate when they are hurting those incapable of responding to it.

Lacking a high tolerance for difference and disagreement, sensitivity-driven discourses will typically manifest a herding effect. Dissenting voices can be scapegoated or excluded and opponents will be sharply attacked. Unable to sustain true conversation, stale monologues will take its place. Constantly pressed towards conformity, indoctrination can take the place of open intellectual inquiry. Fracturing into hostile dogmatic cliques takes the place of vigorous and illuminating dialogue between contrasting perspectives. Lacking the capacity for open dialogue, such groups will exert their influence on wider society primarily by means of political agitation.


Blogger TangoMan January 10, 2014 11:55 PM  

The fear of conflict and the inability to deal with disagreement lies at the heart of sensitivity-driven discourses. However, ideological conflict is the crucible of the sharpest thought. Ideological conflict forces our arguments to undergo a rigorous and ruthless process through which bad arguments are broken down, good arguments are honed and developed, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of different positions emerge. The best thinking emerges from contexts where interlocutors mercilessly probe and attack our arguments’ weaknesses and our own weaknesses as their defenders. They expose the blindspots in our vision, the cracks in our theories, the inconsistencies in our logic, the inaptness of our framing, the problems in our rhetoric. We are constantly forced to return to the drawing board, to produce better arguments.

Granted immunity from this process, sensitivity-driven and conflict-averse contexts seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers. Even the good ideas that they produce tend to be blunt and very weak in places. Even with highly intelligent people within them, conflict-averse groups are poor at thinking. Bad arguments go unchecked and good insights go unhoned and underdeveloped. This would not be such a problem were it not for the fact that these groups frequently expect us to fly in a society formed according to their ideas, ideas that never received any rigorous stress testing.


You can expose people who are predisposed to a sensitivity-based mode of thinking to the rigors of a critical thinking mode of thinking but if it hurts their feelings or doesn't tickle their fancy, then they simply resort back to arguing about feelings.

You can lead a horse to water, you know the rest. The truism here is that education depends on the willingness of the student to drink deep and embrace what is taught - this cannot be imposed on a student who rejects embracing what is being taught.

Anonymous VD January 11, 2014 6:32 AM  

This is an age-old issue - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. There is no education method which can train someone to become a critical thinker. One can learn the rules but what good are knowing the rules of logical discourse if one is unprepared to practice those rules?

That's absolutely true. But it's also not relevant to what we're discussing here. The problem isn't merely that people will refuse to think critically even when taught, it is also that scientists are specifically trained to NOT think outside their current paradigms. They are taught to fill-in-the-blanks, not look at issues from a broad and critical perspective.

It's not that Kuhn states this and we must accept his authority, one can observe this in practically every science blogger out there.

Anonymous VD January 11, 2014 6:42 AM  

I made a case and demonstrated how you shifted your position and your response amounts to "No I didn't." and "You don't understand." That's pretty weak tea.

That may be. It's also an easily observable fact. The point is that you didn't demonstrate anything of the kind. You might as reasonably said you demonstrated how I flew to Mars and my response amounted to "no I didn't" and "you're insane". Do you think that would be weak tea too?

My position hasn't shifted one iota.

Anonymous Bill January 11, 2014 3:16 PM  

Sexual selection is a form of natural selection.

I don't think leftists dispute that there are genetically based differences in skin color among different races.

A gene mutation doesn't indicate being "more highly evolved" or being higher or lower on the evolutionary ladder. In fact, many of the traits associated with black Africans evolved even more recently than this light skin mutation, but that certainly doesn't mean that these black African traits are "more highly evolved" or indicate anything about "the evolutionary ladder":

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2008/02/origins-of-black-africans.html

Blogger TangoMan January 11, 2014 5:00 PM  

VD,

Man up and let me stop picking the wings off of the fly in this discussion.


You again assert "My position hasn't shifted one iota."

You write: - "It's not that Kuhn states this and we must accept his authority, one can observe this in practically every science blogger out there."

Earlier you wrote: "You're completely missing the point. It's not merely that they are not trained to think critically, (and yes, I do think it is entirely possible to teach people to do so), but that they are specifically trained to not think critically. Kuhn not only discusses this, he points out that it is necessary due to the nature of science.

First you claim that Kuhn backs up your point, now you claim that he doesn't, and still you cling to your claim that you haven't changed your argument. Dude, you've changed your argument as I've repeatedly backed you into a corner.

Blogger Darwin's Dog January 11, 2014 10:39 PM  

I do believe you are being obtuse, TangoMan. VD is saying he does not need Kuhn's statements to prove his assertions about the critical thinking skills of scientists, not denying their existence. Now, I do not agree with him, as I think scientists - at least the elite kind - receive plenty of training in critical thinking and have the requisite genetic talent to utilize it, but why conflate your opponent's argument ?

More to the point, I was piqued by this :

"Think about it. Which is faster? Everyone has sex with the pretty pretty white guy, or the white guy has sex with one woman, whose children have, (let's be generous), a 25 percent survival advantage over all the other dark kids?"

One should not play so fast and loose with numbers. Let us assume a population of 2 million people in the northern half of Eurasia and 1 white person, 10k years ago. One generation may be taken as ~ 15 years, under the reasonable assumption that females would start breeding as soon as they hit puberty.

Log with base 10 of 1.25 is Log 5 - Log 4 = ~0.09. And Log 2 million is 6.3 or so. So it takes about 6.3/0.09 = 70 generations to achieve parity, ~1050 years. Sexual selection might well have played a role, but it would not explain a lot of things. ( For instance, some arctic populations like Lapps and Eskimos have noticeably darker skin due to diet, a fact explained well by adaptation to UVR but not by sexual selection. And the preference for lighter skin in darker populations is predominantly for *women*, not overall. )

Anonymous bob k. mando January 12, 2014 12:47 PM  

the Tangoman argument against critical thinking pedagogy stated succinctly:
(1) I don't believe that critical thought can be taught.
(2) I do not know what critical thought is.
(3) Any method for teaching critical thought is not understood or known of by me.
(4) If I don't know about something, then I can make fun of it.
(5) Therefore, critical thought pedagogy does not exist.


even wiki knows how to teach critical thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Blogger TangoMan January 12, 2014 4:58 PM  

Bob K. Mondo.

You clearly show yourself not to be a critical thinker, for a critical thinker would understand his opponent's argument and rebut it where it is weak. You've done neither and in fact you've posted a link which doesn't demonstrate what you purport it demonstrates.

To quote from your link:


1.) An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences
2.) Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning
3.) Some skill in applying those methods.

Educational programs aimed at developing critical thinking in children and adult learners, individually or in group problem solving and decision making contexts, continue to address these same three central elements.

Contemporary cognitive psychology regards human reasoning as a complex process that is both reactive and reflective.

The relationship between critical thinking skills and critical thinking dispositions is an empirical question. Some people have both in abundance, some have skills but not the disposition to use them, some are disposed but lack strong skills, and some have neither. A measure of critical thinking dispositions is the California Measure of Mental Motivation


Posting a link which supports your opponent's position and then mischaracterizing that link doesn't show you to be the brightest bulb in the room.

OpenID errhead January 27, 2014 1:07 PM  

Europeans 7k years ago were black

The white PIE migrants moved into europe and india. In Europe with the added selection pressure from rickets the population became milky white. In the subcontinent the selection pressure was much less strong against darker skin so the native skin tones continued to prosper.
Perhaps the basque's southern location helps explain how they were one of the few european cultures not completely eliminated.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts