Serious Biologist argues against genetic determinism and neo-darwinism
unrelated question:
what's your opinion on the "eve mitochondrial" and the "adam chromosome y" studies and do you think that they contradict the evolution theory?
fr.wikipedia.org
do you think that all humans in the world could have been the Childs of some random woman born 150k years ago but she's not the first woman in the world?
what's your opinion on the "eve mitochondrial" and the "adam chromosome y" studies and do you think that they contradict the evolution theory?
Ève mitochondriale — Wikipédia
do you think that all humans in the world could have been the Childs of some random woman born 150k years ago but she's not the first woman in the world?
It happens due to random change. But those are only your Y chromosome and mitochondria. We have a different common ancestor for every chromosome because the ones that survive over time are heavily influenced by random chance.unrelated question:
what's your opinion on the "eve mitochondrial" and the "adam chromosome y" studies and do you think that they contradict the evolution theory?
Ève mitochondriale — Wikipédia
do you think that all humans in the world could have been the Childs of some random woman born 150k years ago but she's not the first woman in the world?
yes but all these chromosomes have a common ancestor and it's this random women living in 150.000 BC
.
scientist say that a random group of people traveled from africa to asia and most people in this group died while only some lived. but it seems that she's the only want who managed to give birth and get kids.
it's a very low % that she's the only one who did this since there's million of people in the world
I don't see how this would contradict the evolutionary theory
That woman would've had a mother so of course she's not the first woman in the world
No, this is not correct. All these chromosomes don’t share a common ancestor from 150k years ago, that is just our mitochondrial DNA (called Eve due to it being something passed on from mother to children). If we had to find the last common ancestor for every single chromosome, that would be further back in time.
This video seems most focused on the survival of the organism as an individual. Whether a happy Chad or a miserable incel gets a scratch, the body will naturally heal it. Genetics.
He then talks about how natural selection isn't absolute, but natural selection assumes genes are fixed. In dealing with foreign viruses, the body can either find alternatives to fend them off, or, on the converse, be manipulated by viruses to "let them in," even if they biologically shouldn't.
He also talks about "personality" in a sense, it wasn't his genes that made him be selfish, then later kind....it was him. He chose his conscious behavior. That sort of advice could apply to normies. If you're normie-tier, then, yes, controlling your behavior and personality may make a difference in how you're perceived. But you have to meet the looks threshold first.
But what he's ultimately arguing is STILL genetic determinism, just that our genes allow more than ONE alternative to fight off (or succumb to) viruses and other problems. He also effectively argues we can change our personalities, our beliefs and behavior aren't totally in stone. We can also tap into elements that are within our DNA, and consciously chose to peruse them or not (like the composer who can chose to write his movement or not, followed by whether or not that movement will be well-received or not which is beyond his control).
He then starts talking about sexbots, which is kind of funny, it all goes back to the blackpill.
But I say that if there were some evolutionary catastrophe that suddenly made the 5'5 bald Indian janitor attractive to foids, and the 6'5 Chad hideous to them, the end result would be the same. The men getting sex vs. the incels would be different than now, but the dynamic would still stand.: 6'5 Chads would now be the incels and the 5'5 bald Indian janitor would be the new Chad, but the dynamic of sex-haver vs. incel would still stand.
TL;DR: His definition of "genetic determinism" isn't what you think it is. He's talking about the individual organism's ability to use more than ONE fixed method of fighting viruses, or more than one "thing" in our DNA that drives us to do something. Nothing to do with mating and selection and how a person is treated by others based on looks.
He then talks about how natural selection isn't absolute, but natural selection assumes genes are fixed. In dealing with foreign viruses, the body can either find alternatives to fend them off, or, on the converse, be manipulated by viruses to "let them in," even if they biologically shouldn't.
He also talks about "personality" in a sense, it wasn't his genes that made him be selfish, then later kind....it was him. He chose his conscious behavior. That sort of advice could apply to normies. If you're normie-tier, then, yes, controlling your behavior and personality may make a difference in how you're perceived. But you have to meet the looks threshold first.
But what he's ultimately arguing is STILL genetic determinism, just that our genes allow more than ONE alternative to fight off (or succumb to) viruses and other problems. He also effectively argues we can change our personalities, our beliefs and behavior aren't totally in stone. We can also tap into elements that are within our DNA, and consciously chose to peruse them or not (like the composer who can chose to write his movement or not, followed by whether or not that movement will be well-received or not which is beyond his control).
He then starts talking about sexbots, which is kind of funny, it all goes back to the blackpill.
But I say that if there were some evolutionary catastrophe that suddenly made the 5'5 bald Indian janitor attractive to foids, and the 6'5 Chad hideous to them, the end result would be the same. The men getting sex vs. the incels would be different than now, but the dynamic would still stand.: 6'5 Chads would now be the incels and the 5'5 bald Indian janitor would be the new Chad, but the dynamic of sex-haver vs. incel would still stand.
TL;DR: His definition of "genetic determinism" isn't what you think it is. He's talking about the individual organism's ability to use more than ONE fixed method of fighting viruses, or more than one "thing" in our DNA that drives us to do something. Nothing to do with mating and selection and how a person is treated by others based on looks.
Similar threads
GobidMujahid
Users who are viewing this thread
