Most great theories have one or often more intellectual precursors.
Check out the idea that Charles Darwin invented the Theory of Evolution. In a sense, of course he did, but there were definitely more than a few folks playing around with it before he did. What Darwin did more than anything else was to lay out the theory in a pure, connected and conclusive form. The others were tinkering around the edges, playing with the idea, tossing theoretical coins in the air. All of this is valuable, but it takes the masterstroke of a great genius to lay it out brilliantly and conclusively once and for all.
As my mother likes to say, “People have been writing for thousands of years. There aren’t a whole lot of new ideas floating around.”
Really most all theory is plagiarism. We are all building on blocks that have been laid down before us, just as creation and evolution build on the chemicals and adaptations that proceeded to them to create brand new forms that look little like their forerunners.
There is noting new under the sun.
– Famous quote.
My own take on the quote above is that no matter how brilliant you think your theory or idea or even line of prose is, I am pretty sure that someone has written it down before, and if not spoken it, and even more likely, thought of it.
Bottom line is that scientific theory is not as individualist as capitalist fanboys think. Scientific theory is a collectivist effort, as is nearly all of human evolution. No man is an island, not even Marlon Brando, who is about as big as one. Alone we produce nearly nothing. Together we have produced and innovated the whole of human experience and achievement. Sit every human off in his own cubicle in the ultimate individualist experiment and see how far it gets you, Randtards. Not far I assure you.
Hmm…Even assuming homosexuality is on the X chromosome….
What’s the benefit of producing offspring that don’t/can’t reproduce? Seems like a waste of a lot of potential reproductive years & resources to bear & raise offspring that are genetic ‘dead ends’. Long term this would still lead to homosexuals being bred out of existence. Now if you could get some sort of ‘bisexual’ behavior resulting in viable offspring out of a certain percentage of mom’s male offspring that might tip the scales a bit.
No it would not. Lots of X stuff sticks around because the males don’t pass it on. All of the male children will get the gene, and in some it will express and it others it will not. Some of her sons will be gay, but they will not pass on the gene even if they bred so there is no way for the deleterious gene to go out. The straight sons will not pass it on either.
The only way of passing on the gene would be via her daughters, who would get the gene on their X and then possibly pass it on. The gene poses no fitness disadvantage to the females who have it so they can have as many kids as they want and nothing happens. All the girls will get the gene to pass on but it will not hurt them. All the males will get the gene to do whatever, but they can’t pass it on anyway, so the gene sticks around.
Lots of lousy things are on the X. They tend to stick around because they are only passed on by females who are not effected. Actually some very serious diseases are on the X and are passed on from mothers to sons, who are effected. Stuff on the X simply does not go out. There is no reason for it to go out.
There is no selection pressure on sex-linked traits as long as the females are only carriers and it doesn’t hurt them. Sex-linked traits are not selected for or against really. They don’t effect the female so there is no selection pressure on her and the males can’t pass it on anyway, so selection pressure on them is irrelevant.
C0lorblindness is on the X. Hemophilia is on the X. There’s no benefit to either of those, but as long as it doesn’t hurt the female carrier, it is going to stick around as long as women have daughters, which is like forever.
In a discussion about the misshapen skulls of Peru, Dave Mowers writes:
It stands to reason that if humans do something long enough that modifies their bodies then their bodies will be affected by natural evolution and form new traits.
Perhaps the Peruvian skulls suggest a ten, twenty or forty thousand year ritual? In which case the heads would become deformed.
There is no way this could possibly occur, right folks? This is Lamarkian genetics. Acquired traits are not passed on. Lamark was a French scientist in the 1800’s who believed in such things as that giraffes grew long necks because each new generation of giraffe stretched its neck higher and higher to get higher up into the trees to eat leaves and whatnot. As they stretched their necks, their necks grew longer. Then they had baby giraffes, and the giraffes who had stretched their necks longer passed on this trait, acquired in their lifetimes, to their giraffe kids.
Soviet genetic research under Stalin adopted Lamarkian Theory as it as in line with Communist ideology, so it was promoted. All Soviet science had to adopt Lamarkianism. This is probably what happens whenever you put the politicians in charge of the science.
In general, science rejects this and the maxim is, “Acquired traits are not passed on genetically.”
However we in the West do this all the time, and both the Right and the Left are guilty are guilty of promoting false scientific hypotheses because the facts are coming out wrong and the conclusions look bad for either Right or Left ideology and when the results of a study conflict with your politics, obviously that means that the facts are wrong and we need to go back and fix up the facts and make up some new facts that are more politically palatable.
Apparently we have always been this way. If there is any evidence that we any more sane on religious/science type questions than we are now, would someone please present it to me? I do not believe we have grown more fundamentalist in the last 40 years. The US has always been an extremely fundamentalist country. Like I said, if you have some evidence that we were even less nuts on religious questions than we are today, let me see the evidence. I would love to see it.
Research on hypocrisy shows that people are mostly motivated to appear moral rather than to actually abide by their moral judgments.
Once you understand this hard truth about humans, so many other deliciously cynical hard as nails truths shine through the light, and you can finally find your somewhat disgusted way in life.
Research on ‘motivated reasoning’ shows that people deviously craft moral justifications to push their own agendas.
Yep. Sad but true once again. Plug this truth into your brain and watch the whole world light up before your very eyes. In other words, when people are good, they are good. When people are bad, they are also good. People are always good, no matter how good or bad their behavior is. No one wants to be bad. Except me. The bad boy.
In fact, humans are more eager to judge other people than to follow their own moral advice.
You know, you really can’t understand life at all until you plug into ugly little truths like this. Plug this in and watch everything converge together, an endless epiphany.
We proclaim our moral values, and then we don’t even follow our own rules. But that’s ok, because we all just lie and say we do anyway. Evidence to the contrary? Not an issue. Deny it. Things hitting a little too close to home? Not a problem. Project away the blame onto someone else so you go scot free. Defenses are a handy little bag of tricks.
Rick Dyer releases the first solid medical evidence of Hank. With the release of this fascinating new video, Rick Dyer has released to the public the first bit of the medical evidence for Hank’s existence. The video is certainly stunning. We see a 3-D scan of Hank’s head and what is said to be an MD is next to it with a pointer explaining what is going on in the scan.
I am certain that it is real. 100% certain. No way is that scan faked. And the doctor is not faked either. Hardly anyone even knows what those scans are. No way could any non-physician describe the scan the way that guy does. And he has a Southern accent, and Rick is a redneck. Figures he hooks up with a redneck Southern MD.
The “no evidence” lie. The haters have been screaming forever now that Rick has not released any evidence at all that Hank is real. Never mind that for many months before, they screamed that there was no body, and there will never be a body, not even a fake body. When Rick whipped out Hank, they had to reformulate that one awful fast. With the body of Hank, Rick has in fact produced evidence that he shot and killed a real Bigfoot.
There is further evidence in the Tent Video and in the Shooting Bigfoot still, or at least there is evidence that there was a Bigfoot in the area at the time of the purported shooting. Musky Allen’s testimony is additional evidence. So it’s not true at all that Rick has not presented any evidence that Hank is real. He has presented a certain amount of evidence, but has not necessarily presented any conclusive evidence yet. Some regard it as conclusive, others regard it as inconclusive. But “no evidence?” No, the haters are wrong about that.
“This makes no sense,” and “This is impossible.” Those are the two lines that we hear over and over from the haters. When this is all over though, the haters are going to have to think again. Guess what folks? Life makes no sense.
So many people have been saying, “This is not possible; that is not possible.” The main argument against Bigfoot in general is, “Look, this is simply not possible.”
So what I told Richard Stubstad is the truth about Bigfoot shows us:”The existence of the existence of the Bigfoots shows us that ‘the impossible is true.'” In life, the “impossible” is often true. Just remember that when this is all said and done, that not only will life make no sense, but the impossible will also be true.
A friend of mine wants to “bring down” Rick Dyer. I am not sure what he means by that. Here are his reasons.
Reasons for Dyer to be brought down:
He killed two Bigfoots, not one, and he lies about this everyday.
He rips people off. Would you like to pay Rick Dyer 20 dollars to watch Harry and the Hendersons?
He rips people off. He is a millionaire and won’t refund customers for videos they purchased.
He’s rude and obnoxious to 90% of the people he encounters.
He’s on a mission from God to exterminate Bigfoots. Not even exterminators seek to drive insect species into extinction.
He won’t share his research with the scientific community at large.
He is not a man of his word and he lies.
He’s waged a personal campaign on you, Robert Lindsay. He tells people in public that you are an asshole and liar.
He is a bad person.
He is a glutton of capitalism.
I think it would be interesting, and could shake things up for the better. History is made by those who take action, not those who bitch about the unfair realities and developments of life.
Well I think 95% of the Bigfoot community would agree with everything on this list, and a lot of folks would probably like to add some more. Not a bad list I would say. About Dyer’s comments about me being an asshole and a liar, I vigorously reject the notion that I am a liar.
I think even all of you capitalist fanboys out there would have to agree that Rick Dyer gives capitalism a bad name!
New Rick Dyer statement. A little while back, Rick released the following statement:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is an official statement from Rick Dyer to the world.
I have met thousands of people from Las Vegas to South Texas, and I never felt more love in my life from people I’ve never even met. Little kids knowing every word I’ve ever said and making their parents drive three hours just to meet me. And diehard mother and daughter Rick Dyer followers. When I make it back to my bus every night, there’s tears in my eyes from the people I meet! I love each and everyone of them and will make time for all of them! I’m not a perfect person by any means. I have my faults!
FYI 100% percent of Robert Lindsay’s blog posts are false! Nothing this man says is remotely true.
Although I agree with Jack and Jeff’s book, that is where our relationship ends. I think Jack is a pompous asshole who cares more about his theory than anything else. Jeff is so stuck on himself and makes things difficult! Recently I was forced to honor a agreement I made with them a year ago.
I have no criminal convictions and am the proud holder of a concealed carry permit! We are in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty!
My child support is only $250 a month, and it’s taken directly out of my army disability check of $2,750 per month!
In the past three weeks Team Tracker has received three community service awards for our non-publicized charity events!
If you’re waiting on the DNA results, don’t because I will make sure they’re not out anytime soon! People can believe whatever they want to believe! I am a very successful rolling sideshow attraction…and will continue to be!! Believe it or not:)
There are plenty of naysayers out there with too much time on their hands! I would just like to say thank you to them for making me a success!:)
Four sold-out shows in the past two weeks! Thanks.
To my fans followers and supporters:
Thank you for coming out and supporting me! I can’t wait to meet the people I haven’t met in the coming shows! This summer we are renting a 2,000 seat venue in San Antonio, Texas for our grand finale!
We are currently booked in Germany, Austria, Australia and Japan!
We are having to detour from our tour because Dale Boswell wife Robin is in the hospital and is very sick! So we will be making stops in Phoenix, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Daytona Beach, Florida; Orlando, Florida; Tampa, Florida and Miami, Florida in the next three weeks.
Rick Dyer
Thanks!
Well what Rick says here is not true. Rick did indeed have warrant out for his arrest from some Southern state for $8,500 in child support. Rick presented the warrant to Jack Barnes at dinner one night, and Jack wrote a check for the $8,500 right on the spot. So I am certain that Rick is lying about the child support stuff.
The stuff about never having been convicted of a crime is a half-truth. Rick has been arrested a number of times, but like many sociopaths, he always seems to weasel his way out of the charges. Not only has Rick been arrested a number of times, but he has also been charged and even tried a number of times. Rick managed to avoid convictions in these cases by agreeing to some sort of a settlement with his victim. In the case of Lily Dyer, he promised not to beat her up anymore and in the case of a man he ripped off $17,000 for a Corvette that was never delivered, he simply agreed to pay the man, and apparently he did pay him back.
I do not agree that Rick is in charge of the release of the Hank evidence. No doubt the scientists have retained much of that evidence. Further, I doubt if Rick in charge of the press conference either. Rick does have some evidence – the 3D scan he just showed, CT and MRI scans, and the autopsy video.
Letter from Jack Barnes to Jane Pisano, curator of the Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California. In early December, Jack wrote the following letter to Jane Pisano. Jane is rumored to be the person who will lead the Hank press conference along with the museum listed above.
It is clear that as of early December, Barnes thought that Pisano was deeply involved in the Hank affair. He also knew of an Edward Roski, Jr. connection, though he does not specify it. I assume that he knew that Roski is rumored to be the owner of Hank.
Barnes also said that he thought that the museum had been involved in studying Hank – that they are part of a project to investigate, understand and display Hank. This implies that perhaps this museum has been one of the entities that has been studying Hank. It also affirms the rumor that Hank will got to that museum when Rick finishes his 13 months with the body. In addition, Barnes implies that the museum has Hank’s DNA, which is very interesting if true.
Dr. Jane Pisano
President of the Museum of Natural History
Los Angeles
I’m reaching out to you privately to discuss the Bigfoot specimen that was recovered from a forest in San Antonio, Texas in 2012. We believe that your museum is part of the project to investigate, understand and display the new specimen.
I have managed a social network of 45,000 Bigfoot enthusiasts, witnesses and researchers and our fans research vigorously send us information that relates to Bigfoot — and that’s how I received your name and the name of one of your museum’s directors, USC Alumni and Majestic Realty CEO, Ed Roski Jr.
I believe I can help your museum explain the science and evolution of Sasquatch. Over the last four years we have gathered a compendium of what is every authentic picture, video, footprint known to exist. Our social network extends to every known expert in the field.
Sasquatch was actually proven to exist in 1967 but it has taken 45 years for an explanation.
By now you must have DNA evidence, but your exhibit will also need the evolutionary theory which explains why it is obvious such a creature exists. You will soon learn the explanation is actually more important than the proof. We, along with two Yale alums, wrote a book in 2011 and 2012 entitled You Are Sasquatch which explains how humanity was born in North America.
Our “Smarter Ape Theory” builds on the work of three Harvard evolutionary biologists, Ernst Mayr, Dr. Aaron Filler and Stephen J. Gould. We are not trying to sell books but rather would like to breach the information gap. I would like to contribute my research to your future display and education around the topic. We think we can help. Handled correctly, this can be an empowering discovery for humanity. Our information tells us there is a press conference planned for mid-December. Would you have time to talk by phone or meet soon? We can fly to LA no problem.
Sincerely,
Jack Barnes.
Why Dyer is releasing evidence in dribs and drabs and not all at once. From the Comments section, an astute comment:
As soon as the scientific press conference occurs, the spotlight will turn on others, not just Dyer. He wants all the attention for as long as possible. He will not want to share to share any info that will tend to enrich others.
Well, of course. Right?
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. This is my only job.
From Robert Karl Stonjek’s Evolutionary Psychology group on Facebook:
The Child from an Evolutionary Perspective
We leave so much behind and perhaps so much undone and yet to do in the process of our maturation that, with regard to at least some of that, we can address those shortcomings when the child within, the child we were, becomes the child raised.
Not necessarily vicariously or by substitution but a second chance to correct, modify and/or help to maturity those parts of the inner child by addressing the child within and one’s own child at the same time, as if what was a hidden child within is now visible to you, perhaps an invisible playmate of the child now flesh…we see it in you when you allow the child within to play with your offspring…
For instance a fear of the dark may have been experienced as a child. But you are no longer in fear of the dark. A fear of the unknown persists (you matured, but the child within remained cautious or frightened.) In reassuring one’s own child one has the opportunity to address the source of what may seem like an unrelated adult fear.
From the evolutionary perspective we note that each subsequent layer of intellectual sophistication is proceeded by subsequent layers of brain tissue built right over the top of existing brain tissue ~ the ancient parts, right down to the aplysia brains, still exist within ours in some form or other. No doubt our maturation proceeds in layers with each one only directly addressable during that part’s period of maturation until the second opportunity occurs during the process of bringing up one’s own child, perhaps only because our attention is drawn to those parts within; perhaps because we resonate to the child and our own inner child becomes visible once more, even if only briefly.
We observe that we are the interim custodian of an adult’s childhood. In time, they take responsibility and possession of this period of maturation themselves.
We can complete the cycle now by asking how, after taking possession of their early maturation, they can modify it to their own needs. And in answering this we return to the top of the page 🙂
All of the race realist ranting about dysgenics grows very tiresome. Humans are intelligent creatures. It’s only logical that the evolution that drove us to this point is ongoing
But the selection that drove us to this point was probably NATURAL selection where only the smartest few could SURVIVE long enough to have children. Since the advent of agriculture, there’s been enough food for everyone, so evolution has been more about SEXUAL selection and that slightly favors low IQ classes and races because these tend to be the most promiscuous (see Rushton).
That’s why there’s probably been virtually no GENETIC increase in brain size or IQ in the last 10,000 years aside from perhaps a decrease in inbreeding. Actually the malnutrition caused by abandoning our hunter/gather diet probably shrunk brain size and IQ for thousands of years, and only with the advent of 20th century nutrition are we reverting back to our big brained selves. This explains the secular rise in brain size and IQ performance, though probably only half of the Flynn Effect is a real rise in intelligence; the rest is just that our increasingly educated society is good at faking high intelligence on IQ tests.
And I don’t think the black-white IQ gap is narrowing. You’re only looking at a small sample of tests. Rushton & Jensen examined the totality of data and found no shrinkage in the gap, and in fact they speculate that the true black American IQ might be only 78 if samples included blacks living in parts of the inner-city so scary it’s too dangerous for psychologists to even test them.
This argument is simply wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. There are so many things wrong with this that I don’t know where to start.
No evidence for genetic increases in brain size or IQ for the last 10,000 years. Fine, but there is also no evidence that there has not been any genetic increases in IQ over 10,000 years. Certainly certain groups such as Ashkenazi Jews, via widespread inbreeding, have evolved extremely high IQ’s. NE Asians have also evolved some very high IQ’s, possibly through preferential breeding with the brightest. There is no evidence that the NE Asian IQ of 105 is not the result of an increase in the past 10,000 years, and in fact, that is exactly what is suggestive. I would suspect that Confucian culture whereby females sought to breed with the smartest males is part of the answer. The same mechanism occurred with the Jews, whereby men not smart enough to study the Torah and Talmud simply left Judaism and converted to Christianity. The females then competed for the most intelligent young males. Females continue to preferentially select for the brightest males in Chinese society today.
Furthermore the article in which this comment appeared involves a comparison of White and Black skulls from colonial times to the present. The study found that skulls of both races grew dramatically larger and more progressive over a 200-300 year period. The study author said some of the result was due to environment (especially in the Blacks) but that most of the changes were genetic. Therefore, there were large increases in Black and White skulls over 200-300 years in the US favoring larger skulls and more progressive features. At the same time, we have seen dramatic increases in US Black IQ versus Caribbean and African Black IQ (Caribbean and African Black IQ = ~70 while US Black IQ = 87). Only a couple of those points can be attributed to White genes, leaving the rest unaccounted for. The changes in US Black skulls occurred since 1900 and involved a trend towards larger and more progressive skulls.
What happened was this. Since colonial times, Whites and Blacks have been selecting for more progressive features and less archaic features. As more progressive features tend to have higher IQ’s than more archaic features, these changes led to increased IQ. There was also selection for larger heads, possibly on the part of females choosing more intelligent males. The selection only occurred since 1900 in Blacks. After Liberation, Blacks were now free to make money. In Black communities, considerable money could be made. More progressive or “Whiter” features were valued and more archaic or “Blacker” features were devalued by both males and females. Black females preferred females with more progressive features for beauty purposes. Black males with more progressive features may have been less discriminated against and more able to pass. Further, more intelligent Black men made more money in the Black community and hence were preferred by females for breeding purposes due to status and income. Before 1900, most Blacks were very poor and very Black looking and there was not a lot to select for in terms of income or progressive features.
In fact, the selection has been so dramatic that Blacks and Whites today resemble each other more than they do their own ancestors! That is, modern Whites look more like modern Blacks than they look like Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Modern Blacks look more like modern Whites than they look like Sally Hemmings or other slave ancestors from Colonial America.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the agricultural revolution led to a decrease in brain size and IQ. In fact, as civilization expanded dramatically during this era, the opposite seems true.
There is also no evidence whatsoever that the Agricultural Revolution led to increased malnutrition as opposed to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. In fact, most hunter-gatherers have experienced extreme famines with horrible natural selection events possibly involving the deaths of 90-95% of the population. Thus they have thrifty constitutions and are subject to diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, etc. Agricultural populations have no such thrifty constitutions. Hence, it appears that hunter-gatherers have experienced more famine events than agriculturalists which means that hunter gatherers are more subject to malnutrition than farmers. In our modern era, agriculturalists have the highest IQ’s of all and hunter-gatherer IQ’s tend to be lower than that of agriculturalists. This holds true even within races, as African hunter-gatherers are thought to have lower IQ’s than African agriculturalists.
It is not true that only half of the Flynn Effect is an increase in real intelligence. There is just about zero effect of test taking on the Flynn Effect. All of the FE is real. It’s just a matter of what you think it all means. In some ways, we really are smarter than our grandparents, but in other ways, we are not. Increased eduction also makes humans smarter, contrary to your POV.
The B-W IQ gap is definitely narrowing in children. That much is beyond dispute. I say that the adult B-W gap is narrowing by ~2 points for adults also, but that’s a lot more controversial. Even Charles Murray agrees that there has been a 7.5 point narrowing of the B-W IQ gap among adults since 1920.
There is no evidence that the Black IQ is 78, not 87, in the US. Tests are routinely conducted at inner city schools, no matter how dangerous they are. This has been going on for decades now, and at any rate, Black ghettos were much less dangerous 50 years ago, IQ’s were not 78 then.
There is a lot of evidence starting to converge around this finding. The friendliest people and those who are best at making and keeping friends have larger brains in certain regions, especially the orbital prefrontal cortex. This is actually a highly advanced part of the brain, and a large sized orbital prefrontal cortex is associated with higher intelligence. This goes against common knowledge that brighter people are lousy at making and keeping friends, and that dumber people tend to be friendlier.
It’s thought that this region is involved in “mind-reading” where we think we can figure out what the other person is thinking and thereby adjust our actions and responses to go along with that.
This was one of the last areas of the brain to develop in humans and it looks like its development was at least partly tied in with intense socialization. So it appears that socialization and cooperation also helped to make our brains bigger and better and helped us to evolve as a species. There is also a fair amount of evidence lining up behind this hypothesis.
Of course, conservatives and Ayn Randian objectivists who promote the atomization of man and the radical individualism and war of all against all that obviously goes along with that will hate these findings. The logical implication though is that conservatives with their hostility to all cooperation amongst men are attempting to bring us back to a much more primitive place in our evolution.
Click to enlarge. Of advanced industrialized countries, Americans are some of the stupidest people of all, as shown by this graph on belief in evolution.
This shocking poll shows that even among White people, Americans are surprisingly fucktarded. The only people dumber than Moronicans on the chart were Turks, which shouldn’t be surprising. Turkish hostility to evolution may derive from their Islamic religion.
I believe that Islam is formally opposed to evolution, but most Muslims are probably so uneducated that they aren’t even aware of the question enough to debate the subject in the first place. Cyprus is also very low on the scale, probably because of all of the dumb Turks squatting there.
Obviously, the reason that Moronicans are the dumbest Whites of all is because they are so conservative and also because they are so religious. Moronicans are more religious than any other group on the chart except maybe Turks. They are also much more rightwing than any other group on the chart except maybe Turks.
Turks are just as rightwing and religious as Americans, and possibly even more so. And the chart shows that Turks are actually quite a bit stupider than Moronicans, as if that were even possible. As you can see, the more conservative and/or religious a nation gets, the stupider and more fucktarded it becomes.
Both conservatism and religion are opposed to reason and science. This is why they so often go together. We discussed conservative hostility to science in another post. Conservatives only support that science that supports their rightwing dogma. If science doesn’t back up their rightwing crap, then the science is simply wrong.
There is also a lot of data out there that shows that conservatism is opposed to reason itself, possibly by its very nature. I will get into that in another post.
Alpha Unit
Robert A. Lindsay