Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

razib.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#21

Post by throwaway4666 »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #15
throwaway4666 wrote: post #3

Multiple inaccuracies there. Crick and Watson certainly didn't discover DNA as the substrate for Mendelian inheritance, that was known long before. They (in collaboration with Rosalind "don't talk to me about this woman" Franklin) discovered its 3D structure . Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%. The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the maj…

I didn't get the vibe that this particular article was rejecting OoA, but simply pointing out that the modern approach is OoA + "it's complicated". The HBD stuff is troublesome and it's certainly worth regarding the author more critically, but I found the bones of what was linked fairly pedestrian and uncontroversial. I suspect that will not be true of the follow-up article about origin models within Africa though.

Yeah I'm not saying literally everything in the article is trash, my thought process basically went as follows:

"Wait this is an elementary mistake. Also he's not really up to date on the science. Who wrote this again? That name rings a bell...oh dear..."

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#22

Post by throwaway4666 »

sjtindell wrote: post #20
oh_sigh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientific racist is a funny term. If a scientist shows that "race" X has a different distribution of traits than "race" Y, does that mean that they are a scientific racist? Doesn't racism also have to have an associated hatred, prejudice, or antagonism against a different race? Is it scientifically racist to say that blacks get a certain blood disease more frequently than whites? To put it another way, if a scientis…

No. A scientific racist is a racist (someone who thinks one race is inferior to another) who uses science to back up their claim. Not sure this person is one.

Scientific racists don't use such crass words like 'inferior', they'd rather say 'have a lower mean IQ and impulse control due to genetic differences'

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#23

Post by kspacewalk2 »

edgyquant wrote: post #7
Mary-Jane wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science, indeed any intellectual thought, won't progress without contrarian views challenging the/your status quo.

Also if they’re wrong (those being contrarian) who cares? Hypothesis and there’s should be able to defend themselves rationally against any attacks if they can’t then they are not studied well enough to have rigorously tested the hypothesis At least imo, sure misinformation is one thing but if we’re talking about other scientists I assume, not some layman on facebook

Once the mud slinging stuff like "he's a scientific racist!" comes out (especially when it's clear the author would vehemently disagree with the label), you gotta somewhat adjust your Bayesian priors that the person slinging the mud isn't doing it because he ran out of rational arguments.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#24

Post by pezzana »

throwaway4666 wrote: post #3

Multiple inaccuracies there. Crick and Watson certainly didn't discover DNA as the substrate for Mendelian inheritance, that was known long before. They (in collaboration with Rosalind "don't talk to me about this woman" Franklin) discovered its 3D structure . Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%. The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the maj…

> Crick and Watson certainly didn't discover DNA as the substrate for Mendelian inheritance, that was known long before. They (in collaboration with Rosalind "don't talk to me about this woman" Franklin) discovered its 3D structure.

From Wikipedia, it goes back to at least 1927:

... In 1927, Nikolai Koltsov proposed that inherited traits would be inherited via a "giant hereditary molecule" made up of "two mirror strands that would replicate in a semi-conservative fashion using each strand as a template".[186][187] In 1928, Frederick Griffith in his experiment discovered that traits of the "smooth" form of Pneumococcus could be transferred to the "rough" form of the same bacteria by mixing killed "smooth" bacteria with the live "rough" form.[188][189] This system provided the first clear suggestion that DNA carries genetic information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#25

Post by Leary »

throwaway4666 wrote: post #3

Multiple inaccuracies there. Crick and Watson certainly didn't discover DNA as the substrate for Mendelian inheritance, that was known long before. They (in collaboration with Rosalind "don't talk to me about this woman" Franklin) discovered its 3D structure . Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%. The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the maj…

I didn't know claiming a genetic component in explaining differences in racial averages for IQ is scientific racism.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#26

Post by pezzana »

everydaybro wrote: post #16

We all came from Adam and Eve, Allah(God) created everything. some people are believing theories made by a handful of "scientists" and became facts all of a sudden.

There's no need to believe anything in science. In fact, the default position should be disbelief. There are experiments and explanations. Some explanations keep working after many experiments. Many do not. Those explanations that survive many attempts at disproof become accepted. It doesn't happen "all of a sudden."

The claim that the Bible explains creation does not stand up too well to experiment in this regard.

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#27

Post by throwaway4666 »

traject_ wrote: post #18
throwaway4666 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The science is constantly evolving to this very day on the supposedly 'trace levels' of Neanderthal DNA in Africans (especially as we gather a more diverse range of cohorts) so I'll leave it at that. I just want to comment on this: opposing 'scientific racism' is an ideological claim now?! The dude has a pretty large record making claims about race and IQ and 'human biodiversity', works in an industry that's banking…

> The science is constantly evolving to this very day on the supposedly 'trace levels' of Neanderthal DNA in Africans (especially as we gather a more diverse range of cohorts) so I'll leave it at that. No, the trace levels of Neanderthal DNA in Africans is very unlikely to change by gathering more diverse range of cohorts. It is a matter of identifying major strands of ancestry within Africans (by admixture over thou…

Seeing how African populations are extremely diverse and we're just seeing the extent of it I would refrain from making such definitive statements.

>To repeat, interest in human populations and such phenotypic differences does not imply scientific racism once you realize the basic scientific principle that humans are animals and consider how animals exist in populations with phenotypic differences.

That's a needlessly stilted PR-like statement that basically hides the meat of the whole 'controversy': behavioral and IQ differences between populations and their genetic origins. Khan has a position, mainstream scientists another. Oftentimes fallacious arguments are invoked involving 'but look at domestic animal breeds' (not unlike your repeated admonition that 'humans are animals' which I will assume is just a boring triviality on your part for the sake of charity).

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#28

Post by amusedcyclist »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #23
edgyquant wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also if they’re wrong (those being contrarian) who cares? Hypothesis and there’s should be able to defend themselves rationally against any attacks if they can’t then they are not studied well enough to have rigorously tested the hypothesis At least imo, sure misinformation is one thing but if we’re talking about other scientists I assume, not some layman on facebook

Once the mud slinging stuff like "he's a scientific racist!" comes out (especially when it's clear the author would vehemently disagree with the label), you gotta somewhat adjust your Bayesian priors that the person slinging the mud isn't doing it because he ran out of rational arguments.

Using the word bayesian doesn't make you sound smart, You might want to try something new

Re: Yo mama's mama's mama's mama: our understanding of human origins

#30

Post by Dharmakirti »

keewee7 wrote: post #12
throwaway4666 wrote: post #3

Multiple inaccuracies there. Crick and Watson certainly didn't discover DNA as the substrate for Mendelian inheritance, that was known long before. They (in collaboration with Rosalind "don't talk to me about this woman" Franklin) discovered its 3D structure . Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%. The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the maj…

>Also, isn't Razib Khan a "scientific racist"? (Protip: when someone's wiki page has a 'Controversies' tab it doesn't look good) He is a Bengali-American (with a Muslim name) who has repeatedly debunked Hindu nationalist claims about ancient human migrations in and out of India. Unfortunately, as your comment shows, they have been succesful in maligning him as a racist for speaking the truth.

> they have been succesful in maligning him as a racist for speaking the truth.

This comment is so full of intellectual dishonesty. Razib Khan's controversy is a result of his so called cancellation by Left-liberal media like NYT/Times which are decidedly against Hindu nationalism.

In fact, Razib Khan is the founder of Brown Pundits, which is arguably more center right and has more Hindutva supporters than left-liberals. I found Razib Khan and Omar Ali both to be a prudent and neutral observers of the developments in subcontinent and are more leaning towards Hindutva (in its original spirit)

Post reply on HN