You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[+]Acerphoon0 points6 points6 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]Acerphoon0 points
6 points
6 points
(+6|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
These jews and kikes really do have a skill to use word salads to mislead the audience.
First of all, Lewontin is obviously an idiot. You got that right. Lewontin has never adressed the fact that there are many species with recognized subspecies which have Fst values LOWER than Humans. You can easily find recognized subspecies which have Fst values lower than humans. Even more, it isn’t hard to find researchers in the literature talking about nonhumans, that they take any Fst value greater than zero as evidence that a population IS a subspecies.
See, for instance: Lorenzen et al. 2007.
Given this, it is clear that most biologists do not actually use Lewontin’s criteria, whatever that is, for subspecies. And given that he has never made any argument for using it, neither should anyone else.
Since then, there has also been more research, which suggested that the Human FST value is actually about twice as large, 12%, as what Lewontin suggested (Elhaik 2012). - This has not altered the stance of Lewontin on races though. And probably won't alter the stance of the author in your article either. No number will.
However, this claim ignores that while there is evidence for the effect of Neanderthal DNA on certain traits, there has been no evidence for its effect on intelligence. Furthermore, scientific research indicates that the Neanderthals were not necessarily more intelligent simply because they had larger skulls.
See, this is another clever tactic. While he says: "there has been no evidence for its effect on intelligence." referring to Neanderthal DNA in particular, he didn't mention that there ARE genes, like RS10119 that DO have an effect on intelligence. And those genes differ between races.
And wile he says, that neanderthals may not have been necessarily more intelligent because they had larger skulls, we do know that brain size and IQ are positively correlated - for which a larger skull would be needed. So although he is correct in what he says, he words it in a clever way to mislead the audience.
Thanks for looking into it. Something else just occurred to me. How could humans have Neanderthal dna if the definition of species is that they can’t produce fertile offspring?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Acerphoon 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago (edited ago)
These jews and kikes really do have a skill to use word salads to mislead the audience.
First of all, Lewontin is obviously an idiot. You got that right. Lewontin has never adressed the fact that there are many species with recognized subspecies which have Fst values LOWER than Humans. You can easily find recognized subspecies which have Fst values lower than humans. Even more, it isn’t hard to find researchers in the literature talking about nonhumans, that they take any Fst value greater than zero as evidence that a population IS a subspecies.
See, for instance: Lorenzen et al. 2007.
Given this, it is clear that most biologists do not actually use Lewontin’s criteria, whatever that is, for subspecies. And given that he has never made any argument for using it, neither should anyone else.
Since then, there has also been more research, which suggested that the Human FST value is actually about twice as large, 12%, as what Lewontin suggested (Elhaik 2012). - This has not altered the stance of Lewontin on races though. And probably won't alter the stance of the author in your article either. No number will.
See, this is another clever tactic. While he says: "there has been no evidence for its effect on intelligence." referring to Neanderthal DNA in particular, he didn't mention that there ARE genes, like RS10119 that DO have an effect on intelligence. And those genes differ between races.
And wile he says, that neanderthals may not have been necessarily more intelligent because they had larger skulls, we do know that brain size and IQ are positively correlated - for which a larger skull would be needed. So although he is correct in what he says, he words it in a clever way to mislead the audience.
[–] lacrimamosa ago
Thanks for looking into it. Something else just occurred to me. How could humans have Neanderthal dna if the definition of species is that they can’t produce fertile offspring?