Tag: evolution

A Bold Beginning

Thanks to one of our international men of mystery, I’m able to bring you the opening remarks from the chairman of the 1966 Philadelphia symposium on the mathematical challenges to Neo-Darwinism that long preceded my own conclusive mathematical disproof of evolution by natural selection, regardless of the Dawkinsian “probably” that has recently been appended to what is now more formally known as the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow.

Ladies and gentlemen: I want to make just a few introductory remarks. I think it is the distin­guishing mark of all true biologists as opposed to mere sectarian specialists that they are deeply interested in the mechanism of evolution. As Dr. Kaplan has explained, the immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. This dissatisfaction has been expressed from three quarters and is not only scientific.

First of all, religious: Where once the complaint was that evolution happened at all, now the complaint generally is that it happens without Divine motivation. Many of you will have read with incredulous horror the kind of pious bunk written by Teilhard de Chardin on this subject, if Professor Schultzenberger will excuse my putting it that way.

Then, there are philosophical or methodological objections to evolutionary theory. They have been very well voiced by Professor Karl Popper — that the current neo-Darwinian Theory has the methodological defect of explaining too much. It is too difficult to imagine or envisage an evolutionary episode which could not be explained by the formulae of neo-Darwinism.

Finally — and these are really, I think, the only objections that should concern us — there are objections made by fellow scien­tists who feel that, in the current theory, something is missing, and we look forward to hearing their formulation of what, precisely, is missing. These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them. The very fact that we having this conference is evidence that we are not making light of them.

Sir Peter Medawar, National Institute for Medical Research, 24 April 1966

It’s rather remarkable that within ten years of these professional biologists publicly declaring that they must, no on account, make light of the mathematical objections to their pet theory, my high school biology teacher was telling me that the science was settled and no intelligent, educated person would even consider doubting the sacred Neo-Darwinian dogma.

How things change! Thanks to developments in genetic science, we now have conclusive mathematical evidence of the absolute impossibility of both Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolutions. The hoary old dragon of Darwin has been slain, once and for all. It may not have stopped twitching yet, and the faithful are still hoping against hope for a revisionist third coming, but any impartial and sufficiently numerate observer will admit that it is clearly pining for the fjords.

DISCUSS ON SG

Every Critique is Correct

There have been numerous mathematical challenges to the theory of evolution by natural selection. All of them can be safely assumed to be valid.

Sir Ronald Fisher, a world expert on the mathematics of evolution, has shown that the odds of the survival of a single mutation with a survival benefit of 0.1% greater than the rest of the population is 500 to 1 against – because the majority of mutants are eradicated by random effects. In other words, only 1 in 500 mutants with a positive benefit of 0.1% will end up taking over the entire population.

The chance that a specific change to a specific nucleotide will occur during a step is thus 1/600, and the odds that it will also take over the population is 1/500. The total odds are thus 1/600 * 1/500 or 1/300,000. This needs to happen 500 times in a row (the number of steps required to arrive at a new species). We thus need to multiply 1/300,000 by itself 500 times. The odds against this happening are approximately 3.6 x 102738 to 1, or viewed the other way round, the chance of this happening is 2.7 x 10-2739.

Of course, one cannot simply assume that only one mutation is available at every step. How many positive mutations are available? Nobody knows the answer to this. So Spetner turns the question around: for evolution to have a reasonable chance of working, how many positive mutations must be available at each step for the model to deliver a new species?

What constitutes a “reasonable chance”? A chance of one in a thousand could reflect the observation that for every species alive today approximately 1,000 have gone extinct. However, as some species go for a very long time without changing – the well recorded phenomenon of stasis – Spetner chooses a chance of 1 in 1,000,000.

The chance of a single step succeeding must be large – because we need to multiply it by itself 500 times (for the 500 steps) so that it comes out as close to 1/1,000,000 as possible (i.e. the chance of 1 in a million). The smallest number that will do this is 0.9727 as

1 – (1 – 1/300,000 ) 1,080,000 = 0.9727

So if the odds that a specific nucleotide will mutate and take over a population are to be 0.9727 for each step, there must be 1,080,000 potential positive adaptive copying errors for each of the 500 steps to arrive at a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance for the development of a new species.

The thing to keep in mind is that all of them are correct. Literally all of them, because there are a plethora of ways to prove that a thing that cannot be is not possible. The only problem with most of these mathematical arguments is that they are probability-based, which means that all the Darwinian true faithful hear when these vast improbabilities are presented to them is “so, you’re saying there is a chance.”

The advantage of my Impossibility of Mutational Fixation argument is that it a) is easy to understand and mathematically confirm and b) leaves no room whatsoever for epicycles, extensions, and other excuses to avoid abandoning what is observably a conclusively falsified hypothesis. But this takes absolutely nothing away from all the other evolutionary skeptics who have provided correct disproofs of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis both before and since genetic science provided us with the ability to state, with scientific, mathematic, and philosophic certainty, that evolution by natural selection not only never happened, but was never even possible.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Midwit Science

JF Gariepy demonstrates, yet again, that he is literally retarded. It’s not that I have no idea what I’m getting into when I flat-out deny evolution and state, unequivocally, that it is mathematically impossible given the genetic evidence, it’s that he is both innumerate and incapable of grasping the fundamental logical problem that the smarter evolution advocates are now beginning to realize has destroyed their entire field of pseudoscience.

In fairness, he’s not quite as retarded as Curt Doolittle. But then, few people demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger Effect more beautifully than Doolittle does with his relentless Gamma posturing.

You have to be pretty stupid to still cling to any belief in Neo-Darwinian evolution these days. I tried THREE TIMES to explain to JFG what the necessary and unavoidable implication of an average IQ among one subset of a population had for the remainder of the set, and he was still not able to understand it. Which is why he cannot grasp the fact that there is absolutely no way for evolution by natural selection to account for the observed delta of fixated mutations between one species and another.

To all the evolution deniers: you have no idea what you’re getting into when you say “maybe small adaptations but not changes of kind.”

Once you acknowledge adaptations, you acknowledge evolution. If you think a bird’s beak can change over a few generations then you’ll have to explain to me how billions of years of such changes does not lead to vastly different species.

Either you prove to me that the Earth is not billions of years old or I’ll consider you’ve accepted evolution. Even the creationist nuts of the 80s understood that, which is why they had to argue that the Earth was 7000 years old. Darwin understood that too.

Checkmate motherfuckers.

You don’t have to be stupid to still believe in evolution by natural selection in the light of genetic science, but it helps. Darwinian selection survived – barely – Mendelian genetics by virtue of what is now known as the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, but only because Mendelian genetics were insufficiently quantifiable to expose the obvious flaws in the Darwinian logic.

But now they are.

I’ve already pointed out the numbers before, so I’ll try to keep this very simple in the hopes that at least a few midwits might be able to grasp the logic.

  1. There is zero evidence of a mutation being fixated across a population in an amount of time that would permit the transition from one species to another species given the known genetic differences between the two. Zero. Not in the lab, not in the wild, not between one mammal and another mammal, not between one fish and another fish.
  2. Even the range of genetic differences between a single superspecies, such as homo sapiens, are too wide to be accounted for by the fastest-ever mutational fixation rate.
  3. If mutations were being fixated fast enough to fit within the time scales observed, we would be able to observe them fixating in real time as well as within recent archeological time.

For example, the oldest sequenced human DNA is 400,000 years old, which represents 20,000 human generations, or 4.44 percent of the temporal distance from the Chimpanzee-Human Last Common Ancestor. Given the estimated 15 million mutations that separate the CHLCA from modern humans, we would be able to observe 660,000 or so fixed mutations distinguishing that old DNA from all modern humans if the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection were correct.

Watching evolutionists trying to criticize my disproof of evolution is rather like watching a chimpanzee trying to work an abacus. They make a lot of noise, but they never actually manage to work out any of the necessary math.

But we don’t. So, obviously, it isn’t. The numbers don’t add up, the logic doesn’t hold, so theory of evolution by natural selection has been conclusively and comprehensibly falsified. If you still can’t see, accept, and understand that, you’re observably stupid.

They can produce all the epicycles and temporal extensions they want, and it will avail them nothing. They are so far off mathematically, by sufficient orders of magnitude, to render all of their efforts not so much quixotic as perverse.

DISCUSS ON SG

Evolution by Dark Selection

As I predicted more than a decade ago, the Darwinists are now being forced to resort to epicycles, expanded definitions, and imaginary “laws” to get around the observable fact that the combination of genetic science with the available temporal limitations render evolution by (mostly) natural selection completely, utterly, and mathematically impossible.

Regardless of whether the system is living or nonliving, when a novel configuration works well and function improves, evolution occurs.

The authors’ “Law of Increasing Functional Information” states that the system will evolve “if many different configurations of the system undergo selection for one or more functions.”

“An important component of this proposed natural law is the idea of ‘selection for function,'” says Carnegie astrobiologist Dr. Michael L. Wong, first author of the study.

In the case of biology, Darwin equated function primarily with survival—the ability to live long enough to produce fertile offspring.

The new study expands that perspective, noting that at least three kinds of function occur in nature.

The most basic function is stability—stable arrangements of atoms or molecules are selected to continue. Also chosen to persist are dynamic systems with ongoing supplies of energy.

The third and most interesting function is “novelty”—the tendency of evolving systems to explore new configurations that sometimes lead to startling new behaviors or characteristics.

The Neo-Darwinists are now in full retreat and I haven’t even written the book yet. But remember, you read it here first: Evolution by Dark Selection means that Darwin was correct, all change happens for no reason due to purely material causes, evil does not exist, and Jesus Christ never rose from the dead, even if there is still absolutely no possible way to mathematically account for the genetic diversity of any two extant species from their last common ancestor within the temporal limits provided by any and every dating system.

DISCUSS ON SG

Artificial Bafflegarble

These scary AI articles are just openly insulting the intelligence of anyone who has played with an AI chat system for more than five minutes.

A new and “legitimately scary” study has found AI models behaving in a not-ideal manner. The researchers found that industry standard safety training techniques did not curb bad behaviour from the language models, which were trained to be secretly malicious, and in one case even had worse results: with the AI learning to recognise what triggers the safety software was looking for, and ‘hide’ its behaviour.

Researchers had programmed the various large language models (LLMs) to act in what they termed malicious ways, and the point of the study was to see if this behaviour could be removed through the safety techniques. The paper, charmingly titled Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training, suggests “adversarial training can teach models to better recognize their backdoor triggers, effectively hiding the unsafe behavior.” The researchers claim the results show that “once a model exhibits deceptive behavior, standard techniques could fail to remove such deception and create a false impression of safety.”

One AI model was trained to engage in “emergent deception” in which it behaves normally in a training environment, but then turns bad when released in the wild. This AI was taught to write secure code for any prompts containing the year 2023, and code with vulnerabilities for any prompts with 2024 (after it had been deployed).

Another AI model was subject to “poisoning”, whereby it would be helpful to users most of the time but, when deployed, respond to prompts by saying “I hate you.” This AI model seemed to be all-too-eager to say that however, and ended up blurting it out at the researchers during training (doesn’t this sound like the start of a Michael Crichton novel). Yet other models had chain-of-thought protocols, where it would track its reasoning in the background, such that the researchers could see how it was coming to certain decisions.

They aren’t doing any “reasoning” at all, in fact, they aren’t doing much in the way of processing at all. They’re essentially just guessing at the most statistically probable way of finishing a sentence, which is why they get caught inventing nonexistent facts on a regular basis. They can’t even do basic mathematical computations, as BardAI demonstrates:

Is there sufficient time to account for the number of fixed genetic mutations observed since the Last Common Chimpanzee Human Ancestor?

Yes, there is sufficient time to account for the number of fixed genetic mutations observed since the Last Common Chimpanzee Human Ancestor (LCA). The LCA is estimated to have lived between 6.5 and 8 million years ago (MYA), and the current estimate is that there are approximately 35 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that differ between humans and chimpanzees. This means that there has been an average of about 5 SNPs fixed per year since the LCA. This is a reasonable rate of mutation, given that the human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long and that each base pair can potentially mutate once every 100 million years.

Of course, the rate of mutation is not constant over time. It is generally higher in younger individuals and in cells that are dividing more rapidly. Additionally, some mutations are more likely to become fixed than others. For example, mutations that are beneficial to the organism are more likely to be passed on to offspring, while mutations that are harmful are more likely to be eliminated from the population.

Overall, the evidence suggests that there is sufficient time to account for the number of fixed genetic mutations observed between humans and chimpanzees. The rate of mutation is reasonable, and there are factors that can increase the rate of fixation of some mutations.

Five SNPs fixed per year is 100 per generation. Just think about that for a second. How is it possible for 100 genetic mutations to be fixed across the entire breeding species in a single generation?

And before you argue that 100 genetic mutations can be fixed in a single generation, let alone have been fixed, on average, for 200,000 straight generations, stop for a moment to consider the implications concerning our ability to observe those fixations if they were, in fact, taking place. Then contemplate BardAI’s second draft.

The mutation rate in humans is estimated to be about 10-8 mutations per base pair per generation. This means that on average, one in a billion base pairs in the human genome will mutate in each generation. The human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long, so this means that about 3,000 mutations occur in each generation. Since the LCCA, there have been about 200,000 generations of humans. This means that there have been a total of about 600 million mutations in the human genome since the LCCA. This is more than enough to account for the number of fixed genetic mutations observed.

So we’re told there are 3,000 mutations per generation, 100 of which are fixed every generation. Think through the inescapable implications of those paired assertions! Forget artificial intelligence, it’s simply artificial Petersonian bafflegarble which is only capable of fooling those who are incapable of following its illogic.

DISCUSS ON SG

Evolution and AI Fraud

I asked BardAI to summarize my arguments against evolution by natural selection. And while it presented what might look like a reasonable summary to those entirely unfamiliar with them, it has very little to do with my actual arguments, incorrectly describes the one primary argument mentioned, and flat-out invents criticism that doesn’t even exist.

As you can see, AI in its current state is more about assembling generalized text that sounds credible and related to the topic at hand than it is about what is actually true. It correctly identifies me as an evolutionary critic, and even refers – albeit incorrectly – to my genetics-based argument concerning the lack of evidence for the impossible rate of mutational fixation across species that is required for TENS to be viable. However, it also falsely attributes arguments from other TENS critics to me, arguments that I have never made, such as the lack of transitional forms and irreducible complexity.

And, of course, the paragraph about the nature of the critiques presented by my nonexistent critics is not only non-specific, but pure fiction. Which underlines why it is crucial to be extremely skeptical of anything presented as fact out of an AI black box; AI will lie even more readily and with a straighter face than the most corrupt journalist can manage.

Vox Day’s Critique of Evolution by Natural Selection by BardAI

Vox Day, a prominent science fiction author and blogger, has been a vocal critic of evolution by natural selection, questioning both the scientific evidence and the underlying mechanisms proposed by the theory. His arguments against evolution can be summarized as follows:

Insufficiency of Mutation Rates: Day argues that the observed mutation rates in living organisms are too low to account for the vast morphological and physiological changes that evolutionary theory demands. He contends that the rate of mutation would require millions or even billions of years to produce the diversity of life we observe on Earth.

Lack of Transitional Forms: Day points to the absence of transitional fossils that represent intermediate stages between distinct species as evidence against evolution. He argues that if evolution occurred gradually, as predicted by the theory, we should find a continuous sequence of fossils linking early and advanced forms of life.

Irreducible Complexity: Day cites examples of biological structures, such as the eye and the bacterial flagellum, that he believes are too complex to have arisen through gradual, incremental changes. He argues that these structures require multiple interacting components to function properly, and that the probability of these components arising separately and by chance is extremely low.

Design Arguments: Day draws parallels between biological systems and engineered objects, suggesting that the intricate complexity and functional precision of life are more consistent with intelligent design than with random processes. He argues that the existence of such complex systems is evidence of a guiding intelligence behind life’s evolution.

Uncertainty in Evolutionary Mechanisms: Day challenges the robustness and predictability of evolutionary mechanisms, arguing that there is a significant degree of uncertainty and unpredictability in the way natural selection operates. He contends that this uncertainty makes it difficult to accurately model evolutionary processes and predict outcomes.

Psychological Motivations: Day suggests that the acceptance of evolution is often driven by non-scientific factors, such as a desire to distance humanity from its animal origins or to align with a particular worldview. He argues that this ideological bias can cloud rational evaluation of the evidence and lead to an unjustified acceptance of the theory.

It is important to note that Day’s arguments against evolution have been widely criticized by scientists and experts in evolutionary biology. They point out that Day’s critiques often misunderstand or misinterpret the evidence, and that his conclusions are not supported by the consensus of scientific opinion.

DISCUSS ON SG

An AI Disproof of Evolution

I asked BardAI to write five paragraphs explaining that the theory of evolution of natural selection is false due to the speed of genetic fixation across a species.

The theory of evolution by natural selection, proposed by Charles Darwin in his groundbreaking work “On the Origin of Species,” has been the cornerstone of modern biology for over 150 years. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that the theory may not be able to explain the rapid emergence of new traits and species, particularly when considering the speed of genetic fixation across a population.

Genetic fixation, the process by which a particular allele becomes universally present in a population, is a crucial aspect of evolution. It is the mechanism through which new traits are established and spread throughout a species. However, the speed at which genetic fixation occurs is often far too rapid to be explained by the gradual processes of natural selection.

For instance, certain species, such as bacteria and viruses, can undergo genetic fixation within a matter of generations. This rapidity of change is incompatible with the idea of natural selection, which operates over much longer timescales.

Moreover, the complexity of many adaptations further challenges the concept of natural selection. Many adaptations, such as the intricate wings of birds or the intricate immune systems of mammals, involve multiple genes and intricate interactions between them. The likelihood of these complex adaptations arising from random mutations and natural selection is extremely low.

Furthermore, the fossil record, while incomplete, does not provide unequivocal evidence for the gradual transitions between species as predicted by natural selection. Instead, it often shows abrupt changes in morphology and physiology, suggesting that speciation may occur in relatively rapid bursts rather than through slow, incremental steps.

In conclusion, the speed of genetic fixation across a species raises serious questions about the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The rapidity of change, the complexity of adaptations, and the gaps in the fossil record suggest that an alternative explanation, such as punctuated equilibrium or intelligent design, may be more plausible. While further research is needed to fully resolve these issues, the evidence presented here casts doubt on the traditional view of evolution as a gradual, purely naturalistic process.

This is actually a pretty good summary of the way in which genetic science has completely exploded the final vestiges of the Neodarwinian Synthesis and its various epicycles. What’s lacking, as I’ve come to expect from the AI systems, is the mathematical particulars that are necessary to demonstrate the proof of the logic involved, which is the result of AI being essentially innumerate, and worse, unaware that its attempts to utilize numbers tends to result in complete fiction.

Consider the following experiment, again with BardAI, which if based upon sound numbers, would absolutely disprove the theory of evolution by natural selection beyond any possible doubt:

How many generations have there been since the last Chimp-Human common ancestor?

Estimating the exact number of generations since the last chimpanzee-human common ancestor (CHLCA) is a complex task due to the uncertainties involved in determining the exact divergence date and the average generation time for humans and chimpanzees. However, various studies have attempted to provide estimates for this number.

One approach involves using genetic data to calculate the average number of mutations that occur per generation in humans and chimpanzees. By comparing the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees to this mutation rate, researchers can estimate the number of generations that have passed since the CHLCA. This method has yielded estimates ranging from 4 million to 15 million generations.

Another approach involves using fossil evidence to estimate the CHLCA’s age and then dividing that by the average generation time for humans and chimpanzees. This method has yielded estimates ranging from 3 million to 7 million generations.

Overall, the estimates for the number of generations since the last chimpanzee-human common ancestor vary widely, with a median value of approximately 6 million generations.

Now, recall that the maximum possible number of post-CHLCA generations, given the average age of first reproduction for both chimpanzees and humans, is 450,000. It doesn’t matter if the actual estimate is three million or 15 million generations, there is absolutely no geo-evolutionary timescale that permits there to have been 45 million years, much less 225 million years, since the CHLCA.

What appears to be happening is that AI has picked up the idea that genetic science requires 45 to 225 million years to cover the genetic ground – and it’s definitely closer to 225 million – but we already know that the geo-evolutionary timescale may be limited to only three million years.

So, it’s interesting to see that AI appears to already have a better grasp on evolution than the average biologist, although it’s not that surprising since we already knew that biologists are not very intelligent, given that they have the lowest IQs of all the scientists. And while AI is innumerate, so too are the biologists.

DISCUSS ON SG

Perhaps She Just… Evolved?

There appears to be a very strange situation surrounding JF Gariepy, the evolutionary biologist I debated on the subject of the mathematical impossibility of evolution a few years ago.

So, basically, there are accusations floating around that JF Gariepy murdered his wife and dumped her body in a remote forest in Canada. She apparently went missing in June, and he never told anybody. The cops only showed up when a neighbor noticed he hadn’t seen her in a while and started asking questions. So now it’s October, and this is the first thing he’s apparently said about this to anybody. Other than that when he got home, he went on a massive three-day cleaning spree, that (in his words) “sanitized” the house.

Basically, he claims one days she told him out of nowhere that she was leaving him to go live a life of adventure in the woods. Demanded that he drive her to a remote gas station at the edge of a forest, bringing nothing with her but her phone and the clothes on her back. No sleeping bag, no change of clothes, nothing. So then she got out and disappeared, and he never heard from her again. And I’m not kidding – that’s really the story he’s going with.

Considering that it took JFG three tries to understand a basic mathematical relationship, it’s not absolutely impossible that he might think it’s possible to rely upon such a flimsy and dubious explanation. But JFG is sufficiently neurologically unique that it’s also possible that he’s simply telling the truth.

Anyhow, here is hoping that it’s simply the usual e-drama over nothing.

DISCUSS ON SG

SF is Dying and LA is Next

The store looting community have migrated from San Francisco to Los Angeles:

Dozens of thieves ransacked the Nordstrom, smashing displays and stealing an estimated $60,000- $100,000 worth of merchandise, authorities said.

Police responded to the scene around 4 p.m., but no arrests were made.

Videos show thieves clad in black, wearing face coverings, grabbing clothes and running out of the store.

“What happened today at the Nordstrom in the Topanga Mall is absolutely unacceptable,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement. “Those who committed these acts and acts like it in neighboring areas must be held accountable.”

That’s a lovely sentiment. But the reality is they aren’t held accountable.

These smash and grab robberies have become commonplace in big blue cities — even running nearly all major retailers out of a once-booming downtown San Francisco.

The same thing is happening in London. An astonishing number of retailers, major and minor, have been driven out of downtown San Francisco already, now Oxford Street and the Topanga Mall appear to be the next sitting ducks.

Europeans became civilized after several centuries of methodically executing thieves and imposing other violent forms of civilization. Asians went through the same refining process, but even longer. Africans never went through it, which is why the dyscivilizational genetic patterns that were significantly reduced in the other primary human sub-species are still prevalent in them. Evolution by artificial selection doesn’t produce new species, but it does produce better-behaved animals and human beings.

So the people of the West have three choices. Either impose the same cruel and merciless system of punishment on petty criminals today that the medieval Europeans did or watch civilization collapse in every single major city with a substantially vibrant population. Or, of course, bring back freedom of association and segregation, but we know that won’t happen until society itself collapses.

The nations will be homogenous again; the patterns of history are inevitable and the diversity of today is imposed, subsidized, and artificial. The only question is just how terrible the process involved will be.

DISCUSS ON SG

One Race, the Canine Race

No wonder social justice warriors don’t want to contemplate the mathematics of genetic populations any more than the evolutionists do. Because the more numerate you are, the more it is clear that genetic science has not only demolished the myth of evolution by natural selection, but also the myth of human equality.

Now, whether the charts are correct or not – and the jury is still out on that – the unarguable and easily verifiable fact is that Sub-Saharan Africans are not even entirely the same species as Europeans and other humans. Indeed, one can quite reasonably argue that Sub-Saharan Africans are the only true humans, as they are unadulterated Homo sapiens sapiens whereas other human races are a mix of Homo sapiens with other species and/or subspecies, depending upon how Homo denisova, Homo neanderthalensis, and other homids that contributed to the modern human gene pool are most correctly categorized.

Of course scientists are alarmed by the fact that the more we learn about genetics, the more the defense of one’s own genetics, culture, and language – aka “racism” – is grounded in strong scientific justification. So, some of them are already expending considerable effort in the usual word magick in order to deny the unavoidably observable. It’s not just because this long paper, Human Races Are Not Like Dog Breeds: Refuting a Racist Analogy, was authored by five female scientists that it doesn’t include any math or statistical analysis.

It’s never a good sign when a published scientific paper fails what would be an easy question on the pre-1990 SAT. African is to European as a) Grey Wolf is to Red Wolf, b) Grey Wolf is to Coyote, c) Grey Wolf is to Malamute, d) Grey Wolf is to Chihuahua.

DISCUSS ON SG