ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, February 07, 2019

Darkstream: thoughts on the evolution debate


Possibly the most interesting thing about this debate was how it demonstrated the power of rhetoric to persuade those incapable of understanding dialectic. More than a few of JF's fans sincerely believe that he blew both me and my case away despite the obvious fact that he didn't even begin to address the latter. For example:
  1. He claimed that mutation rates rather than fixation rates were more relevant to my case, even though "the fixation probability is one of the cornerstones of population genetics."
  2. He failed to grasp that the 2009 Nature study specifically involved parallel gene fixation, thereby accounting for the entirety of his objection to my case. He thought my case assumed a successive-mutations regime even though the study obviously concerned a concurrent-mutations regime.
  3. He retreated to rhetoric and misdirection by bringing up that list of genome sizes and population mutation rates, neither of which said anything about actual fixation probabilities or time frames.
  4. The fact that there are "millions and billions of mutations" says absolutely nothing about how fast a single mutation propagates through an entire population, let alone provides part or all of the basis for a speciation event. The fact that each human child is born with an average of 70 mutations doesn't say anything about how long it took to fix the genetic structure of the human eye throughout the entire human population.
Now, if you don't understand the significance of a scientist resorting to rhetoric rather than directly addressing the subject at hand, I don't think you're tall enough for this ride. These things should become considerably more clear once I have the transcript of the debate and can analyze it at my leisure.

Labels: , ,

61 Comments:

Blogger FUBARwest February 07, 2019 8:30 PM  

You weren't joking about bigger fish. You're going after Darwin himself! You've got a set on you Vox! Godspeed!

Blogger Sammi Hass February 07, 2019 8:38 PM  

Eh, Godspeed as well.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 07, 2019 8:48 PM  

May I assert that our dear Dark Lord is fitter than JF? Certainly Spacebunny is fitter than Mama JF both in raw athleticism and looks. If ability to attract an attractive female is a measure of male success, it is plain as Day who wins. Yes, I am saying Vox is better in his niche than JF is in his.

Blogger dtungsten February 07, 2019 8:50 PM  

I do understand the significance, but it's entirely due to your influence, and I cannot take any credit.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 February 07, 2019 8:55 PM  

So his argument was poor, and now we're at the question of whether it was his grasp of the subject, his lack of ability to articulate his points, or the weakness inherent to the subject itself that is the culprit.

Blogger HoosierHillbilly February 07, 2019 9:03 PM  

@5 Come on Leo, you are better than that sir. Don't fall for the "lack of ability to articulate his points". This is part of what Mr. Vox is trying to point out to us slower folk who come here to learn with persisting to mention the retreat to rhetoric.

Blogger SirHamster February 07, 2019 9:05 PM  

FUBARwest wrote:You weren't joking about bigger fish. You're going after Darwin himself! You've got a set on you Vox! Godspeed!

The SDL must thave the shiniest skulls for the skull throne.

Blogger kh123 February 07, 2019 9:08 PM  

The debate was an interesting journey. Vox literally walked him through the objections with "Keep in mind, this is just a starting point, and then we can further narrow it down and be more specific, and see what we can come up with the more data we have."

I'm either way on whether JF just wasn't getting it, or if he understood well enough ahead of time to start squid inking over equivocations. Tending towards the latter, but the whole thing ended abruptly.

The best part IIRC was his calling out speciation as an inexact science at best, hence we can't be all that specific with dates of divergence, fixation, etc. Classic evolutionary cake that can be had and eaten all at once: "Speciation is how we can be sure that evolution has happened. Speciation is unfortunately so nebulous that we can't be sure of how exactly it happened." Almost 170 years later and this is the best evolutionary biology can come up with, a belated realization of its own limitations when push comes to shove.

But hey, that's part of the scientific process, knowing with some certainty what isn't correct. Progress!

It's nice to see a long time suspicion of the whole scheme nailed down with precision on the finer points. The downfall's truly going to be in the details for those with eyes to see.

Blogger Torin February 07, 2019 9:22 PM  

YouTube comment seemed to not work so:

JF is dealing with mutation rates of genes which we have a pretty good ability to measure and model.

You were talking about fixation of mutations across the gene pool. That is very hard to measure and model outside the lab since it is based upon population sizes across time (how would we know this historic data). These population sizes are determined by the selection pressures of the external world. Modelling the external world of which DNA lives in sounds crazy unless the population size is controlled like in a laboratory experiment.

Blogger VD February 07, 2019 9:27 PM  

JF is dealing with mutation rates of genes which we have a pretty good ability to measure and model.

Agreed. His problem is that it is irrelevant to my case.

Blogger SirHamster February 07, 2019 9:49 PM  

Torin wrote:Modelling the external world of which DNA lives in sounds crazy unless the population size is controlled like in a laboratory experiment.

But useful. Using measured rates from bacteria is at least a starting point to build a model that can be improved and refined.

This is a field that should be investigated more. When biologists like JF dismiss it, they're fleeing the very data that could falsify TENS and advance science.

Which is their prerogative, but then don't call it science.

Blogger Slagenthor February 07, 2019 9:58 PM  

Molecular clocks have always been the underlying weakness of the TENS model. Even assuming that they generate useful contingent information they simply don't move fast enough in the real world. Population propagation and fixation is an additional hard constraint on top of that.

Blogger Sammi Hass February 07, 2019 10:06 PM  

Vox, do any data you are aware of in the human genome indicate exogenous intervention? Put another way are you aware of Genesis 6:2 bearing out in DNA? If not, no prob just curious on your take on all this this past week as a Christian.

>Brenton Septuagint Translation
that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose.

Blogger Torin February 07, 2019 10:11 PM  

@11

What is your expertise? Mine is software. Business people all the time ask perfectly reasonable and logical sounding questions yet because they don't understand the underlying technology what they are asking just does not make sense. I also go to meetings where I see BS from other technology teams and business teams where it is just their lack of quality.

You seem quick to dismiss JF but what he said made perfect sense to me. If you want to create your own model OK. But if he is not comfortable with your assumptions also fine. I am confused a bit by the attacks but I guess this is just play. Yet the attribution of "fleeing" and "don't call it science" are things I would not say unless I was damn sure. And since I have expertise in some fields I know how hard it is to be damn sure

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 07, 2019 10:25 PM  

"Possibly the most interesting thing about this debate was how it demonstrated the power of rhetoric to persuade those incapable of understanding dialectic"

That sums up everything wrong with the masses. Everything wrong with the so-called renaissance, Everything wrong with democracy.

Everything wrong.

The left has not "beaten us". Not head-on. They simply decided, probably around the late 1980s, that there is no "educating the masses", as if they are even capable of it, but of that even less likely, even admitting they were wrong about anything if they could learn and making changes.
The minute we stop throwing ourselves on the spears of dialectic, doing dumb things like trying to hand out pocket Constitutions - as if anybody would read it - is the minute we start to win.

Because we don't have to lie.

Blogger lowercaseb February 07, 2019 10:30 PM  

Owen is great time talking about the debate on his livestream.

Blogger SirHamster February 07, 2019 10:32 PM  

@14
Torin wrote:What is your expertise?
Same.

You seem quick to dismiss JF but what he said made perfect sense to me. If you want to create your own model OK. But if he is not comfortable with your assumptions also fine.

"seem" - I watched the debate, and I saw JF making objections to the model that were already accounted for in the model. I knew it the moment he said it in the debate, and Vox confirmed it in tonight's Darkstream.

"comfortable" - JF's feelings as a biologist are not very interesting or relevant when we can demonstrate his objections are irrelevant.

I am confused a bit by the attacks but I guess this is just play. Yet the attribution of "fleeing" and "don't call it science" are things I would not say unless I was damn sure. And since I have expertise in some fields I know how hard it is to be damn sure

Having watched the debate, JF fled the moment he retreated to rhetorical plays, like when he claimed he was crushing Vox's dreams.

Vox was stepping through the construction of a model using generous assumptions favorable to TENS. That's not a dream, nor was it crushed. TENS advocates should have built their own model. They haven't, nor do they want to. At this point, the reasonable conclusion is that they don't want to deal with the questions such a model would bring.

If you want to call what I said, "attacks", you should recognize that JF resorted to rhetorical attacks in the debate. It was intellectual surrender.

If the software engineering team calls the business folks doody-heads for bringing up technical concerns, you wouldn't have any trust in their work-product. The team should be providing technical answers to the concerns.

Blogger Andrew February 07, 2019 10:34 PM  

Put another way are you aware of Genesis 6:2 bearing out in DNA?

Neanderthal

Blogger Sammi Hass February 07, 2019 10:41 PM  

That would be interesting if neanderthal were that specimen. If that were valid would we expect to see more neanderthal DNA on the y chromosome?

Blogger Torin February 07, 2019 10:51 PM  

@17

I saw two different models because of a disagreement on assumptions. Sure there was some rhetoric. But a lot of rhetoric is going on here. This is why I stopped playing team sports. Have a good one.

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 07, 2019 11:02 PM  

So far the evidence shows only the French evolved from monkeys.

Just saying.

And not everybody has.

Blogger Kristophr February 07, 2019 11:12 PM  

Sammi Hass wrote:That would be interesting if neanderthal were that specimen. If that were valid would we expect to see more neanderthal DNA on the y chromosome?

The Y chromosome keeps getting shorter as generations wear on. So a lot of that ancestral coding may have been lost. Not sure how short it can get without causing future problems.

I think Vox picked a good weak point for his attack here. Biologists are notoriously short on math. JF might not have had the tools he needed here.

Blogger Mr. Deficient February 07, 2019 11:38 PM  

I will have to watch again because it did not seem to me that anyone (VD, JF, and the audience) knew JFs objections were baked into the model.

@3 jf is a 5.6 severely autistic overweight french intellectual vs a ncaa div 1 athlete. Im honestly impressed by hia fitness.

Blogger H8KU com February 07, 2019 11:45 PM  

>how long it took to fix the genetic structure of the human eye throughout the entire human population

Wouldn't we all have the same eye color and have the same propensity for problems such as cataracts? 🤔

Blogger pyrrhus February 07, 2019 11:51 PM  

Less than 1/10,000 mutations is even slightly beneficial, and most of those never become fixed...JF's claims are mindless.

Blogger justaguy February 08, 2019 12:02 AM  

Lots of scientists among others have been questioning the statistical probability of TENS since the 1950s after DNA and especially once the complexity of protein molecules was charted. Whether by protein component (the actual change from a mutation) or by other model, the statistics show that something other than random change and time are necessary. Issac Asimov used to include the topic in his science paperback books in the 50, 60s and on (where I was first exposed to the issue).

It seems to me that the biologists (I can't say scientists for biology?) don't want to address the issue other than to wave a model and their hands at it and-- time heals all problems...

Blogger James February 08, 2019 12:09 AM  

JFs reference to "speciation" and we are only looking at a "slice of time" is a problem in and of itself. We can look at the so called fossil record and at any given "slice of time", the Cambrian explosion for instance and see life forms of very little semblance to modern life forms thereby re-introducing time again as a major issue for TENS. In other words, this "slice of time/speciation" terms cause more problems for TENS than they solve. For what its worth, the last extinction level event they claim was 27 million years ago, how does that fit into the neccessary time frame needed for modern life forms to have evolved ???

Blogger Azimus February 08, 2019 12:11 AM  

Each day I am thankful the SDL is on our side - or rather, earnestly seeks the truth.

Looking forward to your full AAR.

Blogger Bobiojimbo February 08, 2019 12:30 AM  

I am too short for this ride, but I'll continue to lurk. Thanks again, VD.

Does anyone know if JF has done a similar post debate write up or video? Would be interesting to compare and contrast.

Blogger Unknown February 08, 2019 12:58 AM  

@15

I have noticed a pattern.

Whenever the Left locks horns in a debate with someone who knows what they are talking about, the rhetorical labels inevitably come out. My specialty is gun control, and what I usually get is some variation of, "You don't care about those who are killed with guns."

My working hypothesis is thus:

Rhetorical labels are designed to two things: Change the subject of the debate to that of the moral standing of the accused, and debase the moral agency of the accused such that the accuser feels comfortable dismissing every argument made by the accused as immoral.

If you watch the far left try to debate, this is nearly always the first thing they do. Inequality of income? Rich don't pay their fair share. Blacks commit more crime than whites? You're a racist. Homosexuality is a degenerate behavior? You're a homophobe. Islam is an inherently violent and oppressive religion? Islamaphobe.

This technique goes back a long ways, too. The Daisy ad is a good example of this, and that dates from 1964.
--Unknownsailor--

Blogger Sammi Hass February 08, 2019 1:08 AM  

Kristophr, idk but interesting you mention chromosome length. I'll have to look that up.

I don't understand the math, or its significance other than to say it looks improbable to make a primordial ooze into an elite bipedal killing machine in ~x millions of years. The dialectic Vox presents is something I do not understand at all though. It's like I'm learning long division and trig all over again. Throw me a ball and ask me to throw it a certain way and I'll do that reliably well. Ask me to explain the mechanics, hahaha. No.

Anyway, I have some other thoughts on the reconnosance mission like JFG being a tuber off the JBP fly trap. From an interview with JFG,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/excellencereporter.com/2015/05/13/jean-francois-gariepy-there-is-no-meaning-to-life/amp/

>Reporter: Jean-François, what is the meaning of life?

>Jean-François Gariépy: What do we mean by the word meaning? The meaning of something is its intended effect or signification. Hand waves, smiles and tears are all things that have some meaning, because we infer the message carried by these behaviors. There is someone behind the action. What is life carrying as a message? Who is behind life?

>No one. We may, by a stretch of our imagination, hypothesize that some supernatural being has created the universe and the life that populates it. Thus, a so-called God may have inculcated into life the meaning that He envisioned for it. Even then, however, our quest for an answer would be incomplete. The supernatural being would be alive too, and finding the true meaning of life would then involve asking who is behind that God. Imagining supernatural entities is of very little help to our problem.

>However, I may have went too far in stating that no one is behind life. We know that living things do come from something; they are produced by other living things, through reproduction. In consideration of this fact, we may say that “life is behind life”. Then, however, the meaning of life would be “life”.

>Saying that something would be its own meaning is like saying it has no other meaning than what it is, no appealing reward to offer to those who want to think that reality isn’t enough and that something else has to underlie all of it. Life is what it is because it is based on DNA, and DNA creates copies of itself during reproduction, thus insuring that it can stay around for longer periods of time than most of the other complex groupings of atoms in our universe.

>Beyond our living bodies, the rest of the space that extends into the cavernous expanse of the universe is filled with other configurations of atoms that simply tend to fade with time, not having found the tricks that DNA found to survive. The rapid and chaotic destruction of these glimpses of structure remind us that nothing is eternal, and that even DNA, which has sustained life for billions of years, will eventually be entirely annihilated, along with anything that our life form has ever produced.

Blogger Thumos February 08, 2019 1:17 AM  

There's a good cause to go back to the classical education model of the middle ages, which integrated knowledge more holistically, in which students could understand the implicit relationship of, say, philosophy and science. When you understand e.g. the fact that ethics and epistemology mutually presuppose, and then you look at modernist scientists, you understand the major problem with the way we compartmentalize education to the degree that we do. No one postulating theories of biology should be untrained in metaphysics for example, to say nothing of math. There is good reason education is structured this way.

In my years, I've come to the conclusion that the modern world was and remains summarized with such devilish succinctness by Nietzsche, at the end of Ecce Homo:

"Have you understood me? Dionysus versus Christ."

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums February 08, 2019 1:30 AM  

IBS got a bad reputation but I saw it as the most advanced form of debate. If this was done back in the day it would have been on a neutral channel and both sides would have brought in their own people plus the audience of the neutral channel. Superchats were read throughout the debate which added to the discussion. You could see which side of the audience was bringing actual arguments and which side was just sperging out.

JF has to recognize how the comments now on the video don't even rise up to the level of midwit. I know this bothers him and I'm willing to bet he'll do an extensive response video soon enough.

Blogger lowercaseb February 08, 2019 1:38 AM  

Quick definition question: What does TENS actually stand for? Theory (of) Evolution/Natural Selection?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 2:29 AM  

Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Now that I'm awake and apparently no one has transcribed the debate yet, I'll take a crack at it.

Will an .odt format do?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 2:47 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SirHamster February 08, 2019 3:26 AM  

@ Azure

If you're willing to wait an extra day, YouTube will generate an auto-transcript you can edit. The 2nd to last darkstream on 2/5 has a transcript, so the debate on 2/6 should have one by tomorrow.

I'd vote for editing out the ahs/uhms, since they aren't providing any informational content on the topic. Lack of smoothness in presentation isn't important for those interested in the transcript. For analytical purposes, I'd edit out false-starts/stutters too.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 3:36 AM  

"I'd vote for editing out the ahs/uhms, since they aren't providing any informational content on the topic."

Yeah I agree that's why I deleted my comment asking. I didn't immediately comprehend just how many there would be.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 08, 2019 4:02 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Mark Stoval February 08, 2019 4:22 AM  

The "science" of evolution has always been a cobbled together collection of just-so stories that are changed at whim. There is no math involved other than as a con to fool the rubes.

I can recall when the "big bang" was said to be the "last gasp" of ignorant believers in a "sky god". Then they took it over later to "prove" evolution.

The entire field is nothing but myth and hokum.


Blogger Rocklea Marina February 08, 2019 5:04 AM  

Would not the 400 generations of white skin demonstrate speciation, or for want of a better term, sub-speciation, thereby meeting the requirements of a fixed mutation?

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 5:26 AM  

Would not the 400 generations of white skin demonstrate speciation, or for want of a better term, sub-speciation, thereby meeting the requirements of a fixed mutation?

Sub-speciation. Evolution is racist.

Blogger Rocklea Marina February 08, 2019 5:37 AM  

Sub-speciation. Evolution is racist.

Hey what? Some of my best friends are Pan troglodyte. Evolutionary Biologists are the real racists.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 08, 2019 6:08 AM  

I am not sure if anybody here mentioned the autocorrection of mutations that populations seem to be capable of (e.g. bacteria populations usually lose their resistance to antibiotocs after I while and return to "normal" if there is no further pressure from the medication).
This means that there would need to be a very long-lasting unchanging new environmental pressure for mutations to become predominant or exclusive in a population. Whilst I would regard an ice age as such a pressure it seems much less probable that the unability to get to the bottom of one certain flower would be the main reason for certain bird populations with short beaks dying out because unfortunately the juice of that flower happens to be the only food they can digest. So it is not only the probability of a "killer mutation" that would need to be in the calculations, but also the probability of an environment being ideal over a long period for the success of the killer mutation.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 08, 2019 8:04 AM  

What Unknown wrote at comment #30. Out here in Midwitistan it is rhetoric all the way down when it comes to Evolution, women don't seek truth women seek to other the other and nothing more.

If I a white man has some intellectual dissension from Evolution these white women would other me in a heartbeat, but those same midwit white women know that the glorious POC have no faith in Monkey Man Theory so those same white women would shut up as if the pimp hand of God was headed their way if asked why the POC have their doubts.

Blogger Gregory the Great February 08, 2019 8:15 AM  

In other word: JF might as well have shouted "You're a white male" to counter Vox's arguments.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 8:28 AM  

Okay, I've got transcript to the point where you Cheers'd off the air Vox. Do you want what he says beyond that point to his audience too?

Blogger Garuna February 08, 2019 8:30 AM  

This evolution discussion has been very interesting.

My background is in physics and math. And I'm educated enough in biology that, unlike many, I was able to keep up with both sides of the debate. I've been pro-evolution by default so far. And this is the first time I've seen a credible math-based case being built against it.

I've lost some respect for JF. It's clear he was less interested in the truth and more interested in defending his field at any cost. Perhaps wanting to redeem his Jewish IQ embarrassment. I've never had any respect for his Youtube audience to lose it. From the Warski bloodsports days, they've only ever been about gamma posturing. So it's no surprise that they were neither able to keep up with what was being said, nor do they care that they weren't.

I'm looking forward to see where Vox goes with this.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 8:32 AM  

I'm gonna guess no, since he starts answering superchats.

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 8:32 AM  

o you want what he says beyond that point to his audience too?

No, that's irrelevant.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 08, 2019 8:39 AM  

Just sent it off to the listed gmail contact.

Blogger Charles February 08, 2019 8:55 AM  

Vox: "2009 Nature study specifically involved parallel gene fixation"

Could you kindly supply the title of that study, or a link?

Blogger chronoblip February 08, 2019 9:34 AM  

Unknown wrote:
My working hypothesis is thus:

Rhetorical labels are designed to two things: Change the subject of the debate to that of the moral standing of the accused, and debase the moral agency of the accused such that the accuser feels comfortable dismissing every argument made by the accused as immoral.


It's all about status, and appearing morally superior is a part of demonstrating a higher status, and a higher status means better mates.

In circumstances of material abundance, the environmental pressures on an individual shift such that incompetence no longer hurt the probability for survival.

If one is relatively incompetent but still need to distinguish oneself somehow, the only option is through status, through perceptions and displays.

There's a reason why wolves don't have a mating dance, while peacocks are more flamboyant than peahens. Or why, in the manosphere, why what they term as an "alpha male" today would not match what it was 100 years ago.

Humans are more adaptable than animals, and we can add layers of complexity to the whole process, but our basic instincts are still driven by survival and reproduction.

Blogger FUBARwest February 08, 2019 9:54 AM  

"IBS got a bad reputation but I saw it as the most advanced form of debate. "

IBS is the reason his crowd makes the dumb comments they did. IBS was always about rhetoric never dialectic. Entertaining but not very substantial. If I were to be charitable to Jf I would say his experience with IBS has deteriorated his ability to discuss anything without rhetoric but that's bull. He's a liar, athiest, self proclaimed moral nihilist,and a gamma who needs his audience to see him as a Smart Boy for him to maintain his YouTube career and that's his priority not the truth.

Blogger Unknown February 08, 2019 10:15 AM  

@53

That is a very good explanation, I hadn't thought about it in the meta sense like that.

Doesn't change the response to it, but knowing the why aids understanding.

--Unknownsailor--

Blogger Tars Tarkusz February 08, 2019 11:02 AM  

Was JF aware that you were going to be citing this study? If he wasn't, how was he to know what was in the study, other than to say that parallel process is always happening?

Also, I think it should have been postponed. He was complaining about how sick he was and he sounded like it was painful to speak. It might very well be his fault being too stubborn to reschedule.
FUBARwest wrote:

IBS is the reason his crowd makes the dumb comments they did. IBS was always about rhetoric never dialectic. Entertaining but not very substantial.


I wanted to pull my hair out of my head listening to those "debates." These retards kept saying 'oh, what if there is some 1/2 breed living within the boundaries of the ethno-state?' and 'oh, but what if Thomas Sowell is your neighbor?' God, just kill me...

Blogger VD February 08, 2019 11:08 AM  

Was JF aware that you were going to be citing this study? If he wasn't, how was he to know what was in the study, other than to say that parallel process is always happening?

No. If he didn't know, he should have asked rather than to simply lie about it in ignorance. Furthermore, and this cannot be stressed enough, he repeatedly tried to change the subject to an irrelevant one. The population fixation rate is the one and only issue. The mutation rate is almost totally irrelevant.

Blogger L February 08, 2019 12:26 PM  

Can genetic manipulation be done to turn one species into another?

Blogger Crew February 08, 2019 10:22 PM  

In looking at the list of items that JF failed to deal with or understand (and I agree that fixation is a more important measure than mutations), the following stood out as a category mistake or a level mistake:

The fact that each human child is born with an average of 70 mutations doesn't say anything about how long it took to fix the genetic structure of the human eye throughout the entire human population.

Since, according to evolution and Biological Taxonomy, humans are mammals, all of which largely have much the same eye structure (yes, some do not have color vision, but enough of those back in the tree do) so it is a mistake to talk about how long it took to fix the human eye structure throughout the whole human population.

It was fixed before humans came on the scene, at least according to evolution.

It would also be a mistake to ask how long it took for many other features to go to fixation within the whole human population, like the heart, kidneys etc.

Blogger Crew February 08, 2019 10:25 PM  

@59: Some things that it would be useful to ask about how long it took to go to fixation are, I think:

1. Time to obligate bipedalism,
2. Time to really large brains.
3. Time to the mirror self-recognition test (there seems to be evidence that some groups may never reach that point or are vastly delayed in reaching it.)

Blogger VD February 09, 2019 6:25 AM  

It was fixed before humans came on the scene, at least according to evolution.

Only if the human eye is identical to the feline eye.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts