@Zia @miria
Why? Explain point 1. from an evolutionary view. How did that evolve?
>To defend what things changed into is conservative
Cuckservative, yes. I'm not a conservative, I want to completely wipe away modernity. Society used to not be a mess. People used to be happy and sane instead of brainwashed consumerist hedonists.
>arise out of the development of humanity
People (not humanity as a whole. Humanity is not a manageable group) doesn't need fags and it especially doesn't need women's "liberation". People are better off with a natural order. To say otherwise means to say we're not designed for what we evolved for, which is just retarded.
>Power in current society exists within the hands of big business owners and politicians, and sometimes also the military or other organizations.
Which are run by Jews. You can't deny it. If you try, show me evidence.
Explain to me how both political parties are financially dominated by the same tribe and yet Jews don't have power. Then explain to me how "people in power use that power for their own benefit" is a rambling conspiracy theory.
>And never forget, identity groups are a social construct
Give me an evolutionary theory of altruism that doesn't involve genetic relatedness. There is none. Neither is there an explanation for a blank slate that could have evolved which can then be programmed to ignore it.
You value your family before everyone else because they're genetically like you. Your race is your extended family. Jew's have no problem applying this, whether it's a "social construct" or not, but they call us evil when we do it.
White people deserve our own homeland and racial autonomy, just as everyone else. We should advocate for our own interests, just as everyone else.
@jasper_map If you think so feel free to tell me how I'm wrong instead of projecting a cope
I'm SuPeRiOr BecAusE I CaN GeT SuNbuRnS EAsIlY
WAaaa moMmy whY cAnT I SaY SlUrs
@jasper_map @Chizu Sperging without being able to justify your viewpoint just validates mine
@jasper_map @Chizu "I am right because the other person is brainwashed because obviously I am right". No, that's a delusion
@jasper_map You're repeating the exact circular nonsense you responded to. Good job.
@jasper_map
>I was just pretending to be dumb
And I'm just being correct
>> Pansexuality
> from an evolutionary view. How did that evolve?
How about eusociality combined with the low evolutionary backpressure of christian monogamy.
> People used to be happy and sane
> 50+ years ago, at a time when people were healthier
How about this: Society was poorly organized 50 years ago and is now spiralling out of control.
There is a more-orless natural mode of being, but it's not the 1950s.
>Why? Explain point 1. from an evolutionary view. How did that evolve?
This question belies your comprehension of evolution. What are you even asking to be clarified in an evolutionary context, that people would be attracted to different things? That labels exist to simplify complex ideas? These both seem like very simple things to contextualize that way and shouldn't need explanation, but regardless, thinking every aspect of living matter has some specific and explicit evolutionary use and some explicit evolutionary pathway fraught with a designer's intent is just blatantly false, and is completely insulting to the science.
>People (not humanity as a whole. Humanity is not a manageable group) doesn't need fags and it especially doesn't need women's "liberation".
You need to clarify what you mean by 'need'.
Lots of things in existence don't 'need' many of the qualities or conditions they have, no matter what random definition you decide 'need' has here. You don't 'need' to write your thoughts on the internet, but you did it anyway. This isn't even an argument, it's just a boring description of reality that you've arbitrarily changed into a prescriptive position, with no justification. "Things don't have to be a certain way, therefore they shouldn't be that way" sounds pretty braindead to me, and the point defeats itself when you cut the fat and read it aloud.
>People are better off with a natural order.
Which people? Why? How do you measure that? Evidence? Why are they better off with a natural order, but you're not better off not ever speaking online again, which should be a very unnatural thing in your axioms?
>To say otherwise means to say we're not designed for what we evolved for, which is just retarded.
I'm going to just assume you meant that our function is defined by our evolution, because 'we are designed for what we evolved for' is word salad, like saying 'cars travel on what cars drive on'. Also, you didn't inform anyone as to what we evolved for, exactly. Careful, if you say producing offspring, I and every evolutionary biologist will laugh at you.
The reality is that not every aspect of your biology is some perfect machination of explicit problem solving done by nature. Evolution only really cares about 'good enough'. A solution that mitigates a problem only 25% can still be selected for. Even negative changes can be carried along if some different, positive benefit happened alongside it. Inside you are countless instructions and constructions that are functionally valueless to your continued existence because of this. Minute, meaningless changes pile up over the generations. A change in environment means a change in meaning for the functions of a organism. Functions can only have use and meaning within a context, after all. So who are you to judge what aspects of a human are the ones we should be considering when we attempt to determine the intended use case of a human, exactly, especially considering humans are the masters of their own environments, and thus the meaning of their own functions?
This is your Achille's heel here, you have an incredibly surface level understanding of biology to the point of it being flat out incorrect for any practical use, but you have attempted to use it as a basis for your positions.
>Which are run by Jews. You can't deny it. If you try, show me evidence.
"many businesses are run by Jews" and "there is a worldwide, ancient Jewish cabal serving Jewish interests" are separate ideas. It would be up to you to prove that, not him to disprove it. Even every person with power being jewish would not prove your psychotic Jewish conspiracy claptrap.
>Explain to me how both political parties are financially dominated by the same tribe and yet Jews don't have power.
But that doesn't give power to Jews-it gives power to big businesses. As is typical for your kind, you may hate something, totally with good reason, but you are mislead into going completely the opposite direction with blame. Capitalism is what you have a problem with, not Jews. Capitalism enables this form of power distribution. Not a Spooky Jew Coven. Just rich bastards hoarding wealth. Open your eyes.
>Give me an evolutionary theory of altruism that doesn't involve genetic relatedness.
Again with the really poor comprehension of biology...
Why WOULD it only involve relatedness? You realize animals of all kinds-including humans---including other animals doing it for humans---raise animals of differing species? Your idea falls apart with one second of thought. Humans have literally been raised by animals. Is that not altruism? Humans save dying animals for no expected personal benefit. Is that also not altruism? You have a completely bizarre comprehension of reality here. It's legitimately puzzling. I wonder if you have ever been outside.
>You value your family before everyone else because they're genetically like you.
No, your family gets value because of proximity and bonds that are formed with time, not blood. Which is why you can be adopted and not ever know it. Which is why you can have a familial relationship with your neighbor if they were involved enough in raising you. Which is why you can have absolutely no connection to a direct relative you never met, even after you meet them. Which is why you can have a better relationship with your friends than you do with some of your direct family.
>Your race is your extended family.
This is defeated by pretty basic modern genetics. Your definition of 'race' is completely arbitrary, and it defeats your argument. Let's say humans migrate out of the Saharah over thousands of years into more temperate lands, leaving tribes along the way-in the Saharah everyone is someone you would call 'black', in the temperate areas everyone is someone you would call 'white'-which group do the people in the middle belong to, who have a mid tone skin? What about the halfway points between the extremes and the middle? Which groups are their 'extended family' due to their race? How about in the middle of that group and the closest extreme? No matter what you answer, you had to arbitrarily ignore some level of similarity and dissimilarity to make that call. If you say there's two races, you have the problem of the people in the middle and who their 'extended family' should be. If you say there's three, now there's two extra groups that fall in between that have no place. If you say there's five, now you've made the problem even worse. Eventually it just gets down to the individual level.
>White people deserve our own homeland and racial autonomy,
Ironically, the idea of a whole 'white race' having solidarity is a pretty recent invention. Europe was at its own throat for a very long time. Ever heard of the European Union? Guess what, they didn't have that a few hundred years ago. The Union exists to solve a pretty big problem. The French wanted to kill the Germans for being German, the Germans wanted to kill the French for being French, and so on through all of Europe. There was no 'white race' where everyone just got along for being the same color like you want to pretend existed.
@middy
Sex exists for procreation. It's not for "pleasure" or "expression" or any other wacky shit. If you think otherwise, yes, you need to explain why and how it exists.
>You need to clarify what you mean by 'need'.
Kikeish hairsplitting. Take your pilpul elsewhere. You know what I mean
>Which people? Why? How do you measure that? Evidence? Why are they better off with a natural order, but you're not better off not ever speaking online again, which should be a very unnatural thing in your axioms?
I did explain it, if you'd read it
>To say otherwise means to say we're not designed for what we evolved for, which is just retarded.
>I'm going to just assume you meant that our function is defined by our evolution, because 'we are designed for what we evolved for' is word salad, like saying 'cars travel on what cars drive on'.
No, it's called a tautology. Which is exactly why it's retarded to deny it.
>you didn't inform anyone as to what we evolved for
Do I need to? There's only ever one goal of evolution.
>Careful, if you say producing offspring, I and every evolutionary biologist will laugh at you.
If you want to go deeper, then yeah, it's about increasing the frequency of your replicating units, your genes. Which happens #1 from having children (ideally with people that already largely share your genes), and #2 from aiding other kin besides children that also share your genes, your family and race. That is it. There's no other unit that replicates and there is no other mechanism.
Idk what the ramble after that is about, but if you have a theory that can explain any of these things you're very welcome to give it, like I asked.
>This is your Achille's heel here, you have an incredibly surface level understanding of biology to the point of it being flat out incorrect for any practical use, but you have attempted to use it as a basis for your positions.
Not a single thing you said wasn't known to me, but none of it had anything to do with anything. You rambled about "it being more complicated" but don't give any example of how that ties into anything. Do you have an explanation for how the core goal of evolution could be somehow co-opted by some other force because it only cares about "good enough"?
>"many businesses are run by Jews" and "there is a worldwide, ancient Jewish cabal serving Jewish interests" are separate ideas
Cool and good, because I never said there was an "ancient Jewish cabal". It's really very simple, like I explained, Jew's have an extremely disproportionate amount of power and actively use that power to the detriment of my group for the good of theirs. I want to stop this.
>But that doesn't give power to Jews-it gives power to big businesses.
Jews are big business, and they're EXTREMELY proactive in showing their own in group preference. It is very actively for the sake of Jews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh8rpFTVBuM
If you had a Russian or a German or anything doing this there would be outrage and people calling for treason charges, but it's okay when every single political figure (who all strangely either receive massive amounts of donations from Jews or just straight up are Jews themselves) talks not much differently from Schumer here at AIPAC conventions
>As is typical for your kind, you may hate something, totally with good reason, but you are mislead into going completely the opposite direction with blame. Capitalism is what you have a problem with, not Jews. Capitalism enables this form of power distribution. Not a Spooky Jew Coven. Just rich bastards hoarding wealth. Open your eyes.
Oh, on the contrary. This happens exactly the same way with the lefties. See the attached articles from Jewish sources
>Why WOULD it only involve relatedness? You realize animals of all kinds-including humans---including other animals doing it for humans---raise animals of differing species? Your idea falls apart with one second of thought. Humans have literally been raised by animals.
Bro, those are stories. They don't actually happen. They're myths. They're either completely fake or just feral kids found around animals. And we obviously raise animals to use them or eat them. Even modern pets (still serve utility to us) were originally just utilitarian. Dogs were guards, handled sheep, did a lot of stuff, while cats caught mice. And you're still not giving a mechanism for how this could exist selflessly.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/q-and-a/a6055/children-raised-by-animals-0809/
fun one involving a "holocaust survivor" btw: https://www.thedailybeast.com/she-fled-the-nazis-and-was-raised-by-wolves-it-was-all-a-lie
>Humans save dying animals for no expected personal benefit
Because they're cute, which is a function we developed for our own children (for our own genetic benefit), because animal raising was important for the survival of certain peoples and we have an instinct for it (especially dogs. Evolution goes both ways, as dogs were artificially selected by us they "artificially" selected on us since people that worked better with dogs had an advantage, and so we evolved to love them like they did us), and because people want to signal socially. For every animal we save we eat 1000 more.
You didn't answer my question. If these are actually evolutionarily selfless, then explain the mechanism. You can't because there is none.
>No, your family gets value because of proximity and bonds that are formed with time, not blood. Which is why you can be adopted and not ever know it.
First, give evidence, or at least explain how, or at least give me anyone anywhere who actually fucking thinks this. And you said biologists would laugh at me, ha! Because races share genetics. Historically it was also mostly families that adopted related children, and still today that's pretty common (and the rest still serve as selfish social signalling for example). The rest of this is basically just a "it doesn't always exist in the extreme so it's not real" memery.
Fun fact btw, even outside of your family you tend to pick friends that are genetically more like you
> In fact, the genetic similarity between a pair of friends was similar to fourth cousins! Because the researchers controlled for ancestry, the genetic similarity is unlikely due to shared ancestry (also most participants were white).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neuroscience-in-everyday-life/202011/you-are-genetically-similar-your-friend
And people invest most into children when their partner is the most like them, aka, their children are even more like them
>Third Cousins Have Greatest Number Of Offspring, Data From Iceland Shows
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm
>This is defeated by pretty basic modern genetics. Your definition of 'race' is completely arbitrary
Wrong:
Self identified race corresponds with genetic clusters
>Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
The differences are substantial enough to classify us into subspecies not "races"
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf
And Lewontin was a fraud. There is more variation between races than within (obviously)
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Human-genetic-diversity%3A-Lewontin's-fallacy.-Edwards/2f6295c900dd40377e60b6ca07ed1dc155c71504
Then you follow that up with more Jewish hairsplitting. "THE EXISTENCE OF PURPLE COMPLETELY DESTROYS THE CONCEPT OF COLOURS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RED OR BLUE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG"
Go ahead, tell me species don't exist and are just a useless "social construct" (every taxon is a social construct)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid
>Ever heard of the European Union?
A self admitted Jewish ploy to destroy White society, yes.
https://archive.vn/6piTP
>The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. [...]
>Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe's feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.
I know White people aren't a single block, I never said they were. I don't want them to be, that doesn't make sense. Africa for the Africans, Asian for the Asians, and Europe for the Europeans. Every culture has it's place, an ethnic home for every race. None of them are some single magic block.
>Sex exists for procreation.
But you can have sex in a number of different ways that don't result in procreation. Even animals engage in this, so obviously your comprehension and definition of sex is lacking.
>It's not for "pleasure" or "expression" or any other wacky shit.
Then why can I have sex for pleasure? Why can I express myself through sex? Why do animals and humans have sex that doesn't always result in procreation? Who are you to determine what a function is 'for', when the function had no designer with intent in the first place and it functions just as well for those things?
>Kikeish hairsplitting.
That it is not, and your inability to answer the question, and immediate dodge after having been pointed out that you too have behaviors and features that you don't 'need', has been noted.
>No, it's called a tautology.
A tautology being true requires your definitions to ring true in the first place, which yours do not.
>There's only ever one goal of evolution.
There is no objective 'goal' of evolution. Only meanings ascribed to it by humans that make it easier to teach the concepts involved.
>If you want to go deeper, then yeah, it's about increasing the frequency of your replicating units, your genes.
Then why did single celled organisms that could replicate themselves a massive number of times every single day and easily balloon their number into millions evolve into multicellular organisms that replicate at most once every nine months? Why isn't everything still bacteria, or kinds of insects that lays hundreds of eggs? At best you could argue that the 'goal' evolution is longevity of a genetic line, but even that would be wrong in the face of the fact that there is no intent and there is no objective goal.
>Which happens #1 from having children (ideally with people that already largely share your genes),
Eh, sorry, I'm not into intentionally making offspring with genetic defects. You do you. Think you already got your fair share of that in your life, though.
>#2 from aiding other kin besides children that also share your genes, your family and race
Then why do solitary animals exist..? And all humans share genes anyway, so this is just an incredibly retarded statement.
>Idk what the ramble after that is about
Yes, poor reading comprehension is endemic among people like you.
Your position is that our biology defines our purpose.
Our biology has a lot of useless in-context information, constructions and functions.
Therefore, our biology is full of things that do not define our purpose.
Therefore, our biology can not be the only thing that defines our purpose.
And even in the cases where you can try to point to something and define a purpose for it, that purpose is dependent entirely on the environment. If you change the environment, purpose can be added, changed or removed from a feature of an organism.
Therefore, the purposes ascribed in your axioms purely to biological cause of explicit evolutionary origin with intent to provide some specific feature to an organism, are in fact actually arbitrarily dependent on things outside of merely how the biology played out in the end.
>Do you have an explanation for how the core goal of evolution could be somehow co-opted by some other force because it only cares about "good enough"?
Stop ascribing intent to a natural physical process. It makes you look incredibly stupid. Re-read what was written, you obviously understood none of it, because your question was already answered.
>It's really very simple, like I explained, Jew's have an extremely disproportionate amount of power and actively use that power to the detriment of my group for the good of theirs
And what are the special interests of Jewish people that are not also just the interests of the rich, exactly?
>Jews are big business
Unjustified declaration followed by a paragraph with many words and yet no information conveyed. Impressive.
>See the attached articles from Jewish sources
Sorry, I don't fall for screencaps mindlessly lifted off /pol/.
>Bro, those are stories. They don't actually happen. They're myths.
There is no reason to believe this is impossible when we see animals care for baby animals of other species. And, even if I accept what you say completely, the aforementioned absolutely observed 'animals raising other's children' is the exact same thing.
>And we obviously raise animals to use them or eat them.
Man finds dying duckling behind his shed-saves it from the rain and nurtures it back to health, raising it, and letting it loose in the wild. What was the non-altruistic exchange there? Or are you telling me ducks and humans are actually the same race?
>And you're still not giving a mechanism for how this could exist selflessly.
This is a pivot. Your original request was:
>Give me an evolutionary theory of altruism that doesn't involve genetic relatedness.
And then you admitted that direct genetic relatedness is not the only factor when determining if you should engage in an altruistic action, so good job.
>Because they're cute,
You just defeated your own point by admitting altruistic actions DO happen outside of direct genetic relatedness, well done. I didn't even have to do much work there. I assume you forgot your actual original position as you were writing this. Not even YOU believe your own bullshit, huh?
>You didn't answer my question. If these are actually evolutionarily selfless, then explain the mechanism.
You provided it yourself, so I don't know what your panties were in a twist over. The only way you can continue this argument is if you define altruism in such a way that it doesn't actually exist at all.
>First, give evidence
Evidence that the way you consider people is determined by your experiences with them? This is a trivial proof, I don't think I need to provide evidence for it unless you are trying to admit you are really the least socially intelligent human on the planet. People exist that hate their fathers and treat unrelated people like fathers. This isn't up for debate, you're just objectively wrong.
>Because races share genetics.
All humans-no, all life-shares genetics.
>The rest of this is basically just a "it doesn't always exist in the extreme so it's not real"
You said it's always the case-it's not always the case. Thanks for another concession.
>Fun fact btw, even outside of your family you tend to pick friends that are genetically more like you
No shit. So?
>And people invest most into children when their partner is the most like them, aka, their children are even more like them
So? What does any of this have to do with the fact that bonds can and do exist beyond genetics?
>Self identified race corresponds with genetic clusters
Thanks for the ancient low resolution study. Repeat the study with more nuanced labels. What do you think happens? Well, we can get clusters even at the sub-ethnic level: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19503599/
and we can even get stratification between villages: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004654
This is an admitted limitation of your cited study. Which you would know if you had read it. They would have found more sub-clusters if more labels had been included in the study.
So, what is the correct number of clusters? One race per village? Per city? Per 100 kilometers? Per country? Per continent? You have to CHOOSE a level of similarity and dissimilarity to ignore. For purely political reasons, you chose 'White' as the meaningful cutoff point instead of any of the other identified sub-clusters. Eastern Europeans distinct from white Americans? Nah, all White. Xhosa different from the Nuba? Don't be silly, they're both just Black. It all becomes so simple the moment you just...ignore all nuance.
>The differences are substantial enough to classify us into subspecies not "races"
This article is giving plausible basis to an untested hypothesis, in order to grant justification for further research regarding that hypothesis. It has no such conclusion that you claim it has. You literally did not even read the first two sentences of the abstract.
>And Lewontin was a fraud. There is more variation between races than within (obviously)
Edwards' piece does not contradict Lewontin's data, nor does it attempt to. If you had actually partook in the science instead of just brainlessly repeating what you've been programmed to repeat, you would know this. Try actually reading both Lewontin's and Edwards' papers past the titles. Edwards does not refute the variation claim, and in fact Lewontin's data in that regard has been independently confirmed several times after the fact. Edwards is specifically refuting Lewontin's claim that because there is more variation between two random individuals than between racial groups, race cannot exist. It's right there in the god damn conclusion that you didn't read:
>Conclusion
>There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification.
You literally read the title and tried to infer the entire content of the article from it, LMAO. Did you really think I hadn't read this paper? That you could just bullshit me into believing "There is more variation between races than within" is ANYTHING close to what Edwards wrote about? Talking with you is a waste of time. I'm only posting this in case an interloper comes across it and finds the topic interesting.
>Go ahead, tell me species don't exist and are just a useless "social construct" (every taxon is a social construct)
? Taxons are a social construct, and now you admit this. So you must also admit races are arbitrary as well. Good job writing all that nonsense just to knock it down yourself, I guess? You realize you're supposed to be defending your positions, not admitting you don't have any, right? I never said groups were useless either, that's a strawman.
>Then you follow that up with more Jewish hairsplitting.
This isn't hairsplitting, it's just the reality of biology. Human genetics exist along a gradation that follows human migration. I never said groups don't exist, that is a strawman. I said that you have to PICK where you want groups to start and end, which is true. For no reason at all, your groups start and end at color of skin. Worthless.
>A self admitted Jewish ploy to destroy White society, yes.
I'll take this as another concession as you did not engage with the point at all.
>I know White people aren't a single block,
You said your race is your family, and you repeatedly referenced race by color of skin.
>Africa for the Africans
It's weird how your self awareness just tanks on a word to word basis with you. If white people are deeper than just white people, and white isn't actually a race but just a term to refer to a huge group of similar races, then we shouldn't have 'white people place for white people' or 'black people place for black people', but rather many smaller 'x for the x' and your initial white utopia bullshit is now self-admitted to be complete bullshit. Yet another 10 IQ position of yours, defeated by yourself.
I won't be responding again, you pretty thoroughly demolished yourself in this exchange and I'm already bored of you. I hope you started writing a response I won't read long before you got to this part. Maybe you can come find me again when you learn to read and finish middle school biology, and thankfully that won't be any time soon.
@middy
Most pathetic reply I've ever seen. You complain I don't explain how while quote mining me so you leave out my explanation and then say the studies say things they dont.
90% of what you said was a repeat of what you said before without addressing what I said, or just mention it and insult me without explaining anything.
Admitting either that species and races are legitimate or they both aren't is also funny.
>Thanks for the ancient low resolution study. Repeat the study with more nuanced labels.
I inb4d this with the "THE EXISTENCE OF PURPLE COMPLETELY DESTROYS THE CONCEPT OF COLOURS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RED OR BLUE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG" part, which you semi ignored semi admitted to and just pretended like it's okay for some taxa but not others, without explaining why.
>Stop ascribing intent to a natural physical process. It makes you look incredibly stupid.
And are really pretending to be stupid if you can't understand the way people talk about evolution as a process
>This article is giving plausible basis to an untested hypothesis, in order to grant justification for further research regarding that hypothesis
Direct lie
> In this manu-script a case is made for the hypothesis that H. sapiensis polytypic, and in this way is no different from other species exhibiting similar levels of genetic and morphological diversity. First it is demonstrated thatthe four major definitions of race/subspecies can be shown to be synonymous within the context of theframework of race as a correlation structure of traits. Next the issue of taxonomic classification is considered where it is demonstrated that H.sapiens possesses high levels morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) compared to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies. Racial variation is then evaluated in light of the phylogenetic species concept,where it is suggested that the least inclusive monophyletic units exist below the level of species within H. sapiens indicating the existence of a number of potential human phylogenetic species; and the biological species concept, where it is determined that racial variation is too small to represent differentiation at the level of biological species
>Edwards' piece does not contradict Lewontin's data, nor does it attempt to
Strawman. Never said it does. His claims about it were fraudulent (though his data was wrong too (Fst 0.063 => 0.12 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23185452/)
>it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. [...] This conclusion (the data), due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors
>Edwards does not refute the variation claim
Direct lie
>These conclusions are based on the old statistical fallacyof analysing data on the assumption that it contains noinformationbeyondthatrevealedonalocus-by-locusanalysis,and then drawing conclusions solely on the results of such ananalysis. The ‘taxonomic significance’ of genetic data in factoftenarisesfromcorrelationsamongstthedifferentloci,foritisthese that may contain the information which enables a stableclassification to be uncovered
This is even talked about in the Woodley paper I linked. See image
>Then why did single celled organisms that could replicate themselves a massive number of times every single day and easily balloon their number into millions evolve into multicellular organisms that replicate at most once every nine months? Why isn't everything still bacteria, or kinds of insects that lays hundreds of eggs? At best you could argue that the 'goal' evolution is longevity of a genetic line, but even that would be wrong in the face of the fact that there is no intent and there is no objective goal.
You're also just illiterate about how evolution works
Here are some pointers:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfish_DNA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
The amount of insults and anger in your reply and the "I'm done" really tells me everything I need to know about your confidence in your own viewpoint
