tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post8120298686809127015..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: "Out of Africa, with Benefits"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36717815138315323562010-12-30T03:01:38.098-08:002010-12-30T03:01:38.098-08:00The Polynesian peoples appear, by DNA, to be desce...The Polynesian peoples appear, by DNA, to be descended from peoples of New Guinea & adjacent islands. By most tests they show above average on IQ as well as well above physically. Genetically this can be explained by each island being settled in turn by the most adventurous & competent section of the last island. <br /><br />It does not preclude New Guineans being "archaic" but if so it does suggest that such driven evolution can be fast, ie centuries rather than 10s of millenia. This also fits the Jewish & Parsee experienceneil craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39302682536879821792010-12-29T20:04:27.308-08:002010-12-29T20:04:27.308-08:00To the last anonymous:
Have you read "A STUD...To the last anonymous:<br /><br />Have you read "A STUDY OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION WITH REFERENCE TO SOCIAL CLASS BARRIERS AND SOCIAL CLASS RIGIDITY" by<br />William Cecil Headrick?<br /><br />http://www.abbeyclock.com/cecil/75.htmlben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-22193529979420192632010-12-29T11:17:40.895-08:002010-12-29T11:17:40.895-08:00"The "nobility" in Europe were the ..."The "nobility" in Europe were the Germanic tribes who conquered other parts of Europe and even parts of North Africa <br /><br />How Germanic were the Romans or Alexander's Macedonians ?"<br /><br />He is referring to what happened in the centuries following the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Saxons, Franks, Danes and other Vikings, Normans* and such.<br /><br />* In England we normally say 'THE Norman Conquestt', but they conquered more than our green and pleasant land they were quite prolific.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43543112237682261292010-12-27T12:58:10.399-08:002010-12-27T12:58:10.399-08:00New Guinea folk are genetically purer than Austral...New Guinea folk are genetically purer than Australian Aborigines who have been interbreeding with modern South Asians, among many others, for more than a a century. This is because 'Hindus' and 'Afghans' were brought to live and work into remote parts of Australia to manage camel herds which were imported and used for transport there back when no alternative existed.aussienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-9149458299321438632010-12-25T23:27:50.448-08:002010-12-25T23:27:50.448-08:00"Truth, it's only a "bombshell"..."Truth, it's only a "bombshell" (significant) among intelligent people who study that field."<br /><br />Like, for instance you and your brethren at this site? Oh, wait, you only make one of those two criteria, strike that.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14407179165976962562010-12-25T21:24:26.022-08:002010-12-25T21:24:26.022-08:00Mr. Mendez said
"Caucasians have always taken...Mr. Mendez said<br />"Caucasians have always taken the idea of inherited nobility, royalty, "good breeding," etc., much more seriously than other races. In most other cultures, the "royalty" is simply the family of whoever is in power at that moment. As late as 1914, some European armies would choose officers solely on their "breeding."<br /><br /> Do you have any idea of Asian Indian or say Chinese history. Aristocratic breeding is not limited to Europe. It does not come close to the caste system of India.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-91169755046599519962010-12-25T11:28:40.284-08:002010-12-25T11:28:40.284-08:00>First of all, male homosexuals constitute [onl...>First of all, male homosexuals constitute [only] 2% of the male population Worldwide.<<br /><br />Check your premises.<br /><br />As to Maasai's comment, does massive omission of germane information sound scientific to you? It is a fact that Europeans are advanced and PNGians aren't. To obtain an understanding of such advance and lack of advance is partly why some of us are exploring the genetic record.<br /><br />Consider. Man A has a certain diet; Man B has a somewhat different diet. Man A has robust health; Man B hasn't. Is it evidence of bias if a scientist hypothesizes that Man A's diet contributed to his state and that Man B's diet contributed to his? Or should this scientist say instead, "It's all food - my interest in humanity must not bias me in favor of making discriminations among food." The answer is that it depends on what his object is. An object as long as it is based in fact is not the same as a bias.<br /><br />Truth, it's only a "bombshell" (significant) among intelligent people who study that field. To the people who are salivating for cars that run on water and shoot sparkly laser beams, it's, of course, an object of mockery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-55297561661765513942010-12-25T01:48:38.212-08:002010-12-25T01:48:38.212-08:00"Some northern Europeans also have similar ar...<i>"Some northern Europeans also have similar archaic features to aborgines - robust skeletons, beetle brows, et al - but to a significantly lesser extent."</i><br /><br />True. Actually Europeans in general supposedly retain slightly more cranial robusticity than East Asians or East or West Africans, though the aforementioned groups are all much more similar than any are to relatively extremely robust Australasians.Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-972029606781331192010-12-24T15:41:08.334-08:002010-12-24T15:41:08.334-08:00As to PNG being distant from everyone else? I like...As to PNG being distant from everyone else? I like that as an 'Eden in the East', survivals of the now-submerged southeast Asian supercontinent. Any news on those submerged hill-terraces off Taiwan?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86484147793616976172010-12-24T15:33:56.868-08:002010-12-24T15:33:56.868-08:00If homosexuality or cancer are caused by infection...If homosexuality or cancer are caused by infections, I'd look to yeast before worms. Candida really gets around- athlete's foot is a long way from the bowels, and once you've got a leaky gut, lots of opportunistic minicritters will get their zoon politikon on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-49892099313628191052010-12-24T12:25:15.942-08:002010-12-24T12:25:15.942-08:00The "nobility" in Europe were the German...<i> The "nobility" in Europe were the Germanic tribes who conquered other parts of Europe and even parts of North Africa </i><br /><br />How Germanic were the Romans or Alexander's Macedonians ?David Davenportnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-22853104547719886082010-12-24T09:19:43.422-08:002010-12-24T09:19:43.422-08:00As for blonde hair ...
Maybe the Neanderthals we...<i>As for blonde hair ... </i><br /><br />Maybe the Neanderthals were the ones with blond hair and light skin.David Davenportnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36703994055406017062010-12-24T07:15:26.180-08:002010-12-24T07:15:26.180-08:00Matt:
"And present day Australasian populatio...Matt:<br />"And present day Australasian populations actually are archaic in the sense of being cranially robust and of having less distance from "archaic" populations in terms of skull shape (at least on many vectors) than other present day populations"<br /><br />Some northern Europeans also have similar archaic features to aborgines - robust skeletons, beetle brows, et al - but to a significantly lesser extent.<br /><br />NB: A population can be *physically* archaic yet *technologically* advanced, or vice versa.Simon in Londonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-84979624580914799032010-12-23T21:43:21.184-08:002010-12-23T21:43:21.184-08:00Maasai -
With evidence of breeding between New Gu...Maasai - <i><br />With evidence of breeding between New Guineans and non-moderns, you put forward the idea that it might help explain the "archaic" (translation: "backward") nature of the Aborigines...<br /><br />But with evidence of breeding between Europeans and non-moderns, you put forward the theory that it may help explain the <b>advanced</b> nature of Europeans (quote: it "may have something to do with the cultural ' big bang' that happened not long after."</i><br /><br />But you are using the internet, hardware and software and a European language to make your point. All developed by Europeans.<br /><br />You might be more convincing were you to use a technological artifact developed in PNG and a PNG ldeveloped language and have us all do the same. But you're not are you. Not because of some conscious or unconscious vote by the rest of us but because nothing comparable originates in PNG.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61120779598589624692010-12-23T21:31:25.295-08:002010-12-23T21:31:25.295-08:003) Caucasians have always taken the idea of inheri...3) Caucasians have always taken the idea of inherited nobility, royalty, "good breeding," etc., much more seriously than other races. In most other cultures, the "royalty" is simply the family of whoever is in power at that moment. As late as 1914, some European armies would choose officers solely on their "breeding."<br /><br />The "nobility" in Europe were the Germanic tribes who conquered other parts of Europe and even parts of North Africa(ie Goths, Vandals, Franks etc.). They made their tribe(or at least it's leaders) the nobility of a conquered area.ATBOTLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5787688621266372752010-12-23T16:57:17.557-08:002010-12-23T16:57:17.557-08:00@Albertosaurus:
"BTW the infectious theory ...@Albertosaurus:<br /><br /> "BTW the infectious theory of homosexuality leads to tolerance and compassion.Gay marriage is a sensible way to limit its spread."<br /><br />We are way OT at this point, but Albertosaurus, I have read enough of your posts to have been surprised by these words of yours. No matter how one feels about male same-sex marriage, I don't know too many people, gay men included, who believe that the number of sexual partners will be modified much by gay marriage.<br /><br />Those gays unions which are monogamous (very small %) will likely remain so regardless of whether they may or may not marry; those unions which have been long-term but non-monogamous are likely to remain as they are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-91903415440290632882010-12-23T15:25:16.978-08:002010-12-23T15:25:16.978-08:00"He's certainly quite naive about many as..."He's certainly quite naive about many aspects of electoral politics. "<br /><br /> Oh really?gcochranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17752921901568851463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28895594965054904872010-12-23T15:20:00.988-08:002010-12-23T15:20:00.988-08:00"There is an argument that Caucasians did not..."There is an argument that Caucasians did not 'evolve,' but actively breed themselves into existence. The thinking is that they were selecting for traits like intelligence and good behavior, and the skin/hair/eye color changes were incidental -- like the tame Russian fox experiments.<br />The argument is based on such facts as:<br />1) Many physical traits of Caucasians are recessive, like blue eyes, and would have a hard time becoming predominant simply by natural selection."<br /><br />But most caucasians are not blonde. And even recessive genes can be favored under great duress. Suppose pink skin is recessive in relation to green skin, but suppose a beast appears on the scene that loves to devour green creatures. Pinkers will be favored over time since they are less likely to be eaten by the big beasts. <br /><br />As for blonde hair, maybe there was a kind of selective rejection. Maybe dark-haired people freaked out by the appearance of blonde haired people and exiled them out of the community as freaks(instead of killing them). Maybe a separate community of blondes developed as a result of such rejection. And maybe this community selectively rejected non-blondes from their community in retaliation. And so blonde haired folks came into being. <br /> <br />Or maybe blonde haired people had an advantage surviving in the icy cold--though, to be sure, no one beats the dark-haired eskimos. Maybe their light-colored hair was more easily camouflaged by the snow than dark hair. So, maybe it was more difficult for the abominable snowman to catch and eat blonde people than dark haired people.adsfasdfasfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50966264930697446602010-12-23T15:05:46.692-08:002010-12-23T15:05:46.692-08:00"New Guineans ...are even more primitive than..."New Guineans ...are even more primitive than most Africans". <br /><br />"People who study these things believe that PNG was one of the rather few places where agriculture was independently invented. Unlike, for instance, Greece, Rome, Egypt or Japan."<br /><br />Depends on how one defines 'agriculture'. Bushmen planted and harvested mini-melons, but if that's agriculture...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60495214550940487432010-12-23T14:01:54.021-08:002010-12-23T14:01:54.021-08:00@Albertossaurus
That male homosexuality is caus...@Albertossaurus<br /><br /> That male homosexuality is caused by an infection is extremely implausible for various reasons. First of all, male homosexuals constitute 2% of the male population Worldwide. A pathogen does not consistently infect an exact percentage of people throughout the globe. Pathogens come across different immune systems that result in higher or lower rates of success. They also come across populations with higher access to antibiotics and even though there is no antiobiotic for the gay pathogen antibiotics tend to affect multiple different pathogens so where populations use more antibiotics you would expect lower rates of homosexuality, and even certain climates kill them more resulting in lower rates of infection. Then, there is the fact that infections result in symptomologies in the function of physiology that gay men don't display when compared to straight men. An infected person displays changes in body temperature, alterations in metabolic processes all of which gay men do not display when compared to straight men. And finally, how exactly would this pathogen be transmitted? Close contact doesen't seem to do it since people who live with gay men don't become gay. In the womb? But identical twins usually don't become both gay, and even if they did it would be a stronger endorsement for the genetic hypothesis rather than the germ one. But admiration for other men is directly inverse to the level of masculinity. All men admire men who are more masculine than they are, and in gay men this takes erotic proportions because they are effeminate. But straight men also have almost romantic infatuations with men who are more masculine than they are: look at the worship of sports-heroes and great leaders. The expressions also convey a homoerotic dimension such as "nut-hugger" and things like that. Gay men probably have different brains from straight men and are probably genetically prone to find the smell, voice and other indicators of masculinity attractive, and this coupled, with the normal tendency of people to submit to those who are more amsculine than they are explains male homosexuality. The worm theory is also plausible since toxiplasmosis cauuses alterations of behavior in rodents and also Humans, but no intestinal parasites have been found to any greater degree among gay men than straight.P Coderchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54273029555017524862010-12-23T13:44:02.490-08:002010-12-23T13:44:02.490-08:00Comparable evidence, opposite conclusions.
Althou...<i>Comparable evidence, opposite conclusions.</i><br /><br />Although I agree that the basic confirmation bias that you are describing exists (regarding archaic mixture explaining "advanced" features in Europeans and "archaic" features in Melanesians)...<br /><br />But the thing is that the evidence isn't really identical or "comparable".<br /><br />No cultural "big bang" in South East Asia or Melanesia. There just wasn't. And present day Australasian populations actually are archaic in the sense of being cranially robust and of having less distance from "archaic" populations in terms of skull shape (at least on many vectors) than other present day populations - http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/relationship-between-world-craniometric.html for an example, based on a neutral algorithmic method (both Santa Cruz and Australoid are clusters into which samples from the region fall and this cluster has relatively low distance from the Neanderthal cluster), though there are more examples.<br /><br />So you can't really attribute different ("opposite") conclusions purely and merely to confirmation bias - they're actually both plausible reactions to different evidence.<br /><br />I certainly agree (with what I think you are saying) that I don't think that the current evidence doesn't support the "big bang" purely from hybrid vigour idea though. Since the current estimated Neanderthal mixture is ubiquitous in humans and especially now we know that Melanesians experienced more (through the "Denisovans"). I do think that "big bang" = hybrid vigour + correct selective/demographic/social conditions is still pretty plausible though (though obviously it is less simple than a purely selective/demographic/social model and so that should be a hypothesis with priority).Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-81174955272753243182010-12-23T12:48:30.055-08:002010-12-23T12:48:30.055-08:00Haha.
With evidence of breeding between New Guine...Haha.<br /><br />With evidence of breeding between New Guineans and non-moderns, you put forward the idea that it might help explain the "archaic" (translation: "backward") nature of the Aborigines...<br /><br />But with evidence of breeding between <i>Europeans</i> and non-moderns, you put forward the theory that it may help explain the <i>advanced</i> nature of Europeans (quote: it "may have something to do with the cultural ' big bang' that happened not long after."<br /><br />http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/12/greg-cochran-john-hawks-clan-of-cave.html )<br /><br />Comparable evidence, opposite conclusions.<br /><br />When evidence comes along, it can lead to new conclusions, or it can be used simply to reinforce pre-existing conclusions. <br /><br />Which approach sounds more like science to your readership?Maasainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50608903077793927952010-12-23T11:02:00.672-08:002010-12-23T11:02:00.672-08:00P Coderch suggests that Cochran is wrong about hom...P Coderch suggests that Cochran is wrong about homosexuality being an infection. Could be - or he could be right. The whole point is that before an explanation emerges for a phenomenon you just don't know. The answer isn't to be found in the personality or personality deficits of Mr. Cochran.<br /><br />Cochran is undoubtedly a very smart guy. That doesn't mean that he's right about homosexuality or anything else. He's certainly quite naive about many aspects of electoral politics. <br /><br />The smartest guy I ever knew well was Jeff Raskin - the father of the Macintosh. You would think he was a universal genius until he spouted childish liberal drivel on some political issue.<br /><br />Cochran's value is that he has enough ego strength to propose unpopular notions. He reminds me of William Schockley a little - another brilliant charm school drop out.<br /><br />For some reason infections seem implausible until the exact infectious agent is found. Paul Ewald has a couple books on this point. The last big breakthrough was the peptic ulcers but before that syphilis and TB were dismissed as infectious.<br /><br />I have suggested in an informal way that homosexuality is caused by parasitic worms. It is well known that certain intestinal worms effect the sexual behavior of their hosts so as to promote their own wormy interests. It is also well known that many male homosexuals have what used to be called "gay bowel syndrome" - a disease of worm infestation. This isn't a real theory - it's too sketchy an idea but it should be enough to be suggestive to anyone with an open mind.<br /><br />BTW the infectious theory of homosexuality leads to tolerance and compassion. Gay marriage is a sensible way to limit its spread. It's only those who associate gaymess with some mysterious moral blot who want harsh measures.<br /> <br />AlbertosaurusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-46964504668412545352010-12-23T09:07:00.660-08:002010-12-23T09:07:00.660-08:00It sounds like this is based on a positive match b...It sounds like this is based on a positive match between 1 Denisovan and 2 New Guineans, and a negative match between that same Denisovan and 10 Others. Is that statistically or otherwisedly significant? <br /><br /> If we were told that the Denisovan was near-sighted, and two non-randomly chosen New Guinean were near-sighted but 10 nonrandomly chosen Others were not, would we conclude that nobody outside of New Guinea was near-sighted?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-46012678065886424472010-12-23T08:33:15.389-08:002010-12-23T08:33:15.389-08:00I'm not so sure when the Caucasoid look evolve...<i>I'm not so sure when the Caucasoid look evolved. </i><br /><br />There is an argument that Caucasians did not "evolve," but actively breed themselves into existence. The thinking is that they were selecting for traits like intelligence and good behavior, and the skin/hair/eye color changes were incidental -- like the tame Russian fox experiments.<br /><br />The argument is based on such facts as:<br /><br />1) Many physical traits of Caucasians are recessive, like blue eyes, and would have a hard time becoming predominant simply by natural selection. <br /><br />2) Caucasians evidently understood the principles of selective breeding for improving livestock since prehistory. Other groups may have domesticated some animals, but few actively improved upon them.<br /><br />3) Caucasians have always taken the idea of inherited nobility, royalty, "good breeding," etc., much more seriously than other races. In most other cultures, the "royalty" is simply the family of whoever is in power at that moment. As late as 1914, some European armies would choose officers solely on their "breeding."Paul Mendezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13254898636271278035noreply@blogger.com