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

31–40 of 95 posts

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

#31

Post by throwaway4666 »

Leary wrote: post #25
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.

You will find that 'some races just have the dumb SNPs, you know' is indeed a fringe and unserious position often posited by Pioneer Fund recipients (you know, the organization founded in the 30s for the 'purpose of race betterment' that literally inspired Hitler) to justify that we abandon all welfare and remedial programs toward the poorer demographics. If that's not scientific racism, I wonder what's your definition of it.

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

#32

Post by pragmatic8 »

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.

Surely the same can be said about religions.

People start believing stories made by and they become facts all of a sudden.

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

#33

Post by throwaway73838 »

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…

> Protip: when someone's wiki page has a 'Controversies' tab it doesn't look good

If wikipedia had existed in the time of Copernicus, Plato, Giordano Bruno, Galileo or Darwin, I do not think they would be without their own large ‘controversies’ section ;)

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

#34

Post by csee »

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…

You're misrepresenting him, and it sounds like you have an ideological stake in this.

> Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%.

He never claimed or hinted that Africans do not have Neanderthal DNA.

He says "non-African modern humans were discernibly more similar to the Neanderthal sample than Africans were", which is factually accurate, given that there's about a 1.5-2.5% gap in the amount of DNA that's shared, at least according to best current knowledge.

> The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong

No such thing is insinuated.

He makes it explicit that he's talking about the "total-replacement plank of the old out-of-Africa model", and he spends a while talking about how we're all descended from a single male and single female within Africa, it's only the case that certain populations outside of Africa mixed with other hominids and got up to 5-7% of their DNA from them (Neanderthals and Denisovans), which is far more than what Africans have.

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

#35

Post by wyager »

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…

> Protip: when someone's wiki page has a 'Controversies' tab it doesn't look good)... Not a good look imo.

Is "having a good look" a core part of your epistemology?

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

#36

Post by traject_ »

throwaway4666 wrote: post #27
traject_ wrote: post #18

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. 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 needlessl…

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

There's no reason to not. Holocene expansion of farming/pastoral populations all over the world (including Africa) has largely homogenized human ancestry into identifiable distinct strands that is in varying proportions. Africa is indeed diverse genetically but it is not magic or anything. It most likely comes from the earlier mentioned multi-regional model within Africa through drift and admixture with highly drifted populations. And almost all of these populations outside of those of North Africa were outside of the Neanderthal range and we have archeological evidence to support this as well. There is no logical reason to believe in an (outside of the obvious example of historic West Eurasian admixture in the Horn/North Africa) African population with non-trace levels of Neanderthal ancestry. High levels of diversity in Africa does not imply a significantly large population with non-trace levels of neanderthal ancestry.

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

#37

Post by csee »

throwaway4666 wrote: post #13
traject_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%. That ancestry comes from later interactions with West Eurasians and is at trace levels compared to the substantial 2-3% in non-Africans. This does not change the point that non-Africans received input from Neanderthals just before expansion outwards. >The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the majority of…

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…

What specifically are you saying is an example of his scientific racism?

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

#38

Post by astrange »

throwaway4666 wrote: post #22
sjtindell wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'

Note, some people do have genetic conditions that affect their ability to take IQ tests - these include Down syndrome, phenylketonuria, even IBS if you’re giving them a test without bathroom breaks.

The point of knowing this is so you can treat it. You can raise the IQ of a phenylketonuric by not feeding them Diet Coke. It doesn’t seem like the HBD people would be happy seeing this, because they just want to prove someone is inherently superior and someone else isn’t.

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

#39

Post by everydaybro »

pezzana wrote: post #26
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.

"Those explanations that survive many attempts at disproof become accepted"

How can you experiment human origin?

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

#40

Post by murat124 »

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.

Well, who do you suppose created Allah, then? Hint: It's the same god that was created by the exiled Jews who were later invited back to their lands by Cyrus. And this Allah you're referring to is the same deity that hebrews, christians and muslims are all viewing from different angles.

And this single god is the consolidated version of all the deities that had come before then and understandably it's a deity that loves violence and has little to no mercy to those who oppose it. You wouldn't expect people who were oppressed for centuries to create a god that has never-ending love for all humans.

God is an extension of human consciousness that replaces conscience. It's a way to easily delegate responsibilities and defer wrongdoings. It's there so you can contain compartmentalized conflicting thoughts in your head so you don't go insane. You have your god because you can't tell right from wrong. It's like a tick that's attached to your skull and feeds off of your thoughts. Obviously like with any other tick, it's hard to rid of it.

Post reply on HN