Stefan Molyneux Exposed.

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, Stosh said:

1)  Bushmen, genetically and culturally somewhat distinct ,

(but when asked who they themselves should be lumped with , I'm told , they figured the best fit was with east asians.)

 

 

Yes they are but because they are our putative common ancestors based on the 'out of Africa' model as they have the most diverse genes known.  At least the Sana do.

[voidisyinyang]

On 6/13/2017 at 9:42 PM, Brian said:

 Human classification into "race" in English is referred to as "breed" or "variety" for many other species.

 

A grayhound is faster than a pug but isn't as smart as a border collie and doesn't have the sense of smell of a bloodhound.  A Plott hound is better at bear hunting than a King Charles cavalier spaniel.

 

Many of the variations in domesticated animals are intentional results of human manipulation but often they are accentuations of pre-existing traits.  For undomesticated species, the variations are naturally occurring based on small travel ranges or geographic boundaries or other limiting factors.

 

The idea that variation within a species is a meaningless cultural invention is nonsensical political correctness which would be properly rejected for any other species but is somehow considered appropriate when speaking of our own.  There have undoubtedly been historical abuses based on and falsely justified by such variations but those incidents of abuse don't negate the existence of such variations.

 

https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/variation-within-species-4308521

 

Brian - New DNA science proves that white skin is from malnutrition due to lack of vitamin D in wheat monocultural farming.

 

So race as skin color is very superficial - it is just an expression of a gene, not an actual gene difference.

 

You compare humans with dogs but humans are a "genetic bottleneck" which means that a "pack" of chimps or a "pack" of bonobos has more genetic diversity than all of the 7 billion plus humans on the planet.

 

So humans are not like dogs genetically.

 

Sure there can be a case made for melanin and adrenaline levels as with dogs being domesticated - like the fox experiment in Russia - so that the domesticated foxes lost their melanin - but what that means is that white skin is again a sign of malnutrition that also indicates a loss of virility.

 

But we also know that melanin is a photoreceptor - so it converts photons to electrons but magnesium does this also.

 

So for example Milarepa lived off stinging nettles when he was not in full lotus samadhi - and so the skin of Milarepa was green.

 

Did he have a different genetics? Was he a different "breed" or "race" as you seem to think? Nope. haha.

 

Ellen Page has orange palms of her hands and orange arm pits. Why? Because she loves to drink carrot juice.

 

I have yellow skin because I was eating 2 full bulbs of garlic a day for a few years. haha. I could clear a bus just by getting on it. But that was only because my bicycle broke down.

 

Hydrogen sulfide is fed to special forces since it supercharges the mitochondria, thereby doubling endurance and strength.

 

Melanin also breaks down water into proton energy for mitochondria, just as other pigments like magnesium and other super-anti-oxidants.

 

So for example new DNA science hows that West Asian pastoralists spread their genes into Europe - and this is the real source of the taller europeans - because the pastoralists were living off a meat diet mainly - compared to the smaller wheat monocultural farmers that spread white skin into Europe.

 

And then the people living closer to the arctic have darker skin - like Samis and Finns - because their traditional diet was fish based so they had more vitamin D in their diet.

[voidisyinyang]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

Bushmen I think.

 

The Bushmen are the most genetically diverse humans on the planet.

 

So there is more DNA diversity among the Bushmen then all the rest of humanity.

 

 

[Stosh]

13 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Yes they are but because they are our putative common ancestors based on the 'out of Africa' model as they have the most diverse genes known.  At least the Sana do.

Ok , so whats your point ? You could also group humans into those with neanderthal genes and those who do not. ( my point is that there are differences broadly speaking but though they are really unimportant , people largely WANT to be identified as part of a larger group .. a race ) 

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Stosh said:

Ok , so whats your point ? You could also group humans into those with neanderthal genes and those who do not. ( my point is that there are differences broadly speaking but though they are really unimportant , people largely WANT to be identified as part of a larger group .. a race ) 

 

 

I don't have a point except to question the idea of race as an accurate descriptor of people or groups of people.

 

 

[Stosh]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

 

I don't have a point except to question the idea of race as an accurate descriptor of people or groups of people.

 

 

Why is are not the San , considered as a race , an accurately describable ( though arbitrary ) subset of humanity? if you can describe the San as having high genetic diversity , then you are making a prediction of sorts about any given San individual vs individuals from some other group ,, ohh Catalonians. 

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Why is are not the San , considered as a race , an accurately describable ( though arbitrary ) subset of humanity? if you can describe the San as having high genetic diversity , then you are making a prediction of sorts about any given San individual vs individuals from some other group ,, ohh Catalonians. 

 

As I understand it they are the group of people who are closest to the ancestor of us all - so they are good representatives of us all.  I don't know that much about Catalonians - but if you said Spanish you would find that they are like all Europeans a very diverse mixture of genetic and cultural heritage.

 

If you want to divide people into races then it only means something if you say accurately what those races are.

[voidisyinyang]

7 hours ago, Stosh said:

Males and females breed with each other, the genetic makeup is significantly different. It just so works out anyway , that breeding may often have successful progeny. 

Individuals of Some groups of plants and animals , routinely 'hook up' with individuals from other gene pools ex, orchids, salamanders, horses ,with varying degrees of success at producing viable offspring. The ideas of- species , mongrel , and race , are just foggy rules of thumb which by conventional usage serve conventional purposes.

Homo sapiens, out of africa , could be said to have 'crossbred' with relatives which emerged sooner Denisova and Neanderthalensis Florensis , and others ,, but if one uses breeding success as a delineation of a species , then one would never have 'cross-breeding'. 

The modern view is that lineages split and rejoin rather than progress by wandering away from the basic game plan. ;; although some groups seem to hit a point of no return that factor may be a just a small difference in organ shape , voice, location , or habit. 

 

New DNA science has shown that the reason Tibetans and Nepali sherpas are acclimated to high elevations with low oxygen is because they interbred with Denisova around 40,000 years ago. So the DNA science has tracked the specific gene that was acquired - but even then it may have been a genetic expression.

 

I'll look it up.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-high-altitude-gene-ancient-human

 

Quote

Most notable is a version of a gene called EPAS1, which regulates the body’s production of hemoglobin. They were surprised, however, by how rapidly the variant of EPAS1 spread—initially, they thought it spread in 3000 years through 40% of high-altitude Tibetans, which is the fastest genetic sweep ever observed in humans—and they wondered where it came from.

 

So "version" of the same gene means an allele that changes the expression.

 

Yep.

 

Quote

Researchers have identified an allele of a gene that reduces hemoglobin production at high elevations

 

So the Homo species is actually not that genetically diverse.

 

Homo sapiens are a DNA bottleneck due to the supervolcano eruption of Mt. Toba 70,000 years ago.

 

That's why the Bushmen are the most diverse humans genetically - from before Mt. Toba.

 

Australian Aborigines also have a high level of Denisovan "inter-breeding" but again it's probably just allele differences, not real gene differences.

 

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-unprecedented-aboriginal-australians-africa-migration.html

 

Quote

The researchers will only conclude that Denisovans likely had dark skin. They also note that there are alleles "consistent" with those known to call for brown hair and brown eyes.

 

Quote

This new genetic evidence might indicate that perhaps an early wave of humans moved through Asia, mixed with Denisovans and then relocated to the islands—to be replaced in Asia by later waves of human migrants from Africa.

 

Quote

The new research reveals that the Denisovans had low genetic diversity—just 26 to 33 percent of the genetic diversity of contemporary European or Asian populations. And for the Denisovans, the population on the whole seems to have been very small for hundreds of thousands of years, with relatively little genetic diversity throughout their history.

 

[Stosh]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

As I understand it they are the group of people who are closest to the ancestor of us all - so they are good representatives of us all.  I don't know that much about Catalonians - but if you said Spanish you would find that they are like all Europeans a very diverse mixture of genetic and cultural heritage.

 

If you want to divide people into races then it only means something if you say accurately what those races are.

I didn't say Spanish for a reason , the reason being is that I agree , that if you wish to define a race,  phenotypically,  there should be some features which have a visible preponderance particular to that group , and that the modern race definitions don't really do that well. But one certainly can define a population as belonging to the San , based on genetic variability alone, and one could probably narrowly define a San individual  by mitochondrial DNA lineage. 

If you talk to the bushman himself , He probably is proud to be San (or Sana dunno) , he probably sees his people as different from ohh the Bantu or Europeans ,, and he is probably just fine with that. To an extent ..  I agree, but even more extreme than yourself , I feel all the groupings are artificial constructs to a degree ,but  so as long as people generate those , its like arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin. 

I like birds .. , there are long billed , and short billed Dowitchers , these are defined as fully different species ,but  you just cant reliably tell them apart. 

[voidisyinyang]

13 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Why is are not the San , considered as a race , an accurately describable ( though arbitrary ) subset of humanity? if you can describe the San as having high genetic diversity , then you are making a prediction of sorts about any given San individual vs individuals from some other group ,, ohh Catalonians. 

 

We are not "determined" by our genes - so the science of "epigenetics" shows that the "expression" of genes is what dominates genetics.

 

So genetics - just as eugenics - is promoted because it can be "patented" by Big Pharma - and really racism is from Plato who stated that each "individual" needs to be "compromised" for the "good of the state."

 

So each individual has the value of 9/8 based on music theory - that had to be "compromised" through "alogon" math - meaning 9/8 cubed is the square root of two, as irrational magnitude, the "power set axiom" of the Greek Miracle.

 

So when the Arabs took over Spain then Platonic philosophy was spread into Spain which then caused a huge spike in AntiSemitism based on the West taking on Platonic mathematics that integrates patent law - property rights, with a logarithmic exponential distribution of wealth and promotes it as "harmonic" and therefore Just - socially, morally, etc.

 

So this is why antisemitism is so deep and dark in the West - it is tied directly into the Solar geometry irrational magnitude math.

 

Now as for actual DNA variation - as I said humans are a DNA bottleneck - and so the San Bushmen are not a subset at all - they are the genetic source of modern humans and therefore the most diverse genetically.

 

But as I said - genes don't control cultural expression or even phenotypes - which is based on the chemical interactions that express the genes.

 

So it is now proven that if a mom is very stressed - or has chemical pollution - or say tritium pollution from the dad - this is passed on - the environmental stress or the environmental pollution can be passed on as the epigenetics or the genetic expression.

 

And so all these "gene tests" like if a person has a gene that can cause cancer or something - in fact the epigenetics overrides that since the "expression" of the gene is highly variable.

 

So the San Bushmen also have the most complex sophisticated language of any human culture on the planet - the San Bushmen language has the most tones and the most different type of sounds - phonemes.

 

So also the San Bushmen have the most sophisticated culture in terms of spiritual training with no warfare - so the highest morals.

 

But modern science judges culture based on technology - not based on ecological adaption. Because of the Platonic math bias - we favor exponential growth in technology, exponential growth in population and exponential growth in Wealth - but this is a deep error in math.

 

It is the error of "logical type" - so the elite economically argue there is no "public interest" which is to say, just as with population, every family wants go have kids, or every couple, etc. without thinking of humanity as a whole - the public interest - and equally well to define infinity as a geometric irrational magnitude then the infinite as "public" or Nature without boundaries is no longer allowed.

 

And so the elite then say there is no public good - whereas Aristotle was against zero and for the Common Good - Plato used zero and promoted eugenics, against the public good as a boundless infinity.

 

So the Bushmen San culture practiced ecological balance based on a boundless infinity - instead of DNA science based on a closed mathematics.

 

So for example if the San Bushmen killed a bird they did not eat the bird until the next day - so that the spirit of the bird would not tell the other birds that humans are killing them.

 

That is actually way more sophisticated then the exponential growth technology that modern Western civilization has developed.

 

So culturally - when we consider Europe - for example England is from Angland meaning Anglo-Saxons - versus Celts - but there were two types of Celts. There were the Celts from Gaul who then created Ireland and then the Celts who turned into Britons who created Wales and Cornwall - and so the original Germany was also a Celt controlled tribal area.

 

In fact ALL OF THESE CULTURES were from farming cultures of white skin that immigrated into European based on wheat monocultural farming around 9,000 years ago - as archaeology has proven.

 

 

[Stosh]

That's too much balled up together for me to address all of it , but since I personally have some neanderthal DNA , I can fairly state that I am not entirely the descendant of San type ancestors. Nor does it make sense to conclude that they are the actually ancestral  lineage just because its an old and variable lineage. 

In fact one could fairly argue that many of us are not Homo sapiens, being " hybrids."

I think people have always divided themselves by race , at least thousands of years ,, and I am pretty sure , that was long before big-Pharma.  

Edited June 29, 2017 by Stosh

[MooNiNite]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

I think the definitions are problematic for a number of reasons.

Sure. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by MooNiNite

[MooNiNite]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

I think the definitions are problematic for a number of reasons.

 

I'd like to see you present a better and more accurate model.

[Apech]

16 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

i think you're being evasive. which is fine. 

 

 

I wasn't trying to be evasive but merely that I found the definitions to be too general to be of much use.

[Apech]

1 minute ago, MooNiNite said:

 

I'd like to see you present a better and more accurate model.

 

 

Well the whole point for me is that I don't have one because I think the flaw is basically trying to divide people in this way.

 

I accept to certain extent the descriptors such as skin colour - for instance if I was to rob a bank the police report would probably say - caucasian, male, brown eyes ... etc.  which would be accurate enough to identify me but not accurate enough to define me if you see what i mean.

 

[Stosh]

Define you ? All white,  glossy coat , long whiskers , pointy ears , yellowish eyes... .. 

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Define you ? All white,  glossy coat , long whiskers , pointy ears , yellowish eyes... .. 

 

 

Ha, ha you got me.

[Stosh]

Its funny just how much one can come to identify a picture with a name, , Brian for instance. 

[Apech]

1 minute ago, Stosh said:

Its funny just how much one can come to identify a picture with a name, , Brian for instance. 

 

 

I assume your avatar is an accurate pic of you

[Stosh]

Just now, Apech said:

 

 

I assume your avatar is an accurate pic of you

Closer than I would like to admit.

[voidisyinyang]

59 minutes ago, Stosh said:

That's too much balled up together for me to address all of it , but since I personally have some neanderthal DNA , I can fairly state that I am not entirely the descendant of San type ancestors. Nor does it make sense to conclude that they are the actually ancestral  lineage just because its an old and variable lineage. 

In fact one could fairly argue that many of us are not Homo sapiens, being " hybrids."

I think people have always divided themselves by race , at least thousands of years ,, and I am pretty sure , that was long before big-Pharma.  

 

O.K. so neanderthal - and denisovan - they are different "species" but as I just posted - denisovan is actually less genetically diverse than the San Bushmen original modern humans.

 

So when we talk about DNA diversity - we really need to go back to different genus - the "Homo" genus is not that genetically diverse compared to other primates.

 

As I said - a "pack" of gorillas or bonobos or chimps are more diverse in one pack than all of humans on the whole planet and that includes the "interbreeding" with other Homo genus species.

 

So the latest DNA science says that the Homo genus most likely differentiated from other primates about 8 million years ago - actually in Europe.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

 

Quote

The discovery of the creature, named Graecopithecus freybergi, and nicknameded ‘El Graeco' by scientists, proves our ancestors were already starting to evolve in Europe 200,000 years before the earliest African hominid.

Quote

 

Eastern Europe into an open savannah which forced apes to find new food sources, sparking a shift towards bipedalism, the researchers believe.

 

 

Quote

“Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of hominins and the direct ancestor of homo.

 

So it's not like Neanderthals or Denisovans are a different Genus - they are still "homo"

 

Now you state what about individual differences versus the San Bushmen.

 

Here is a very interesting example.

 

Mainstream science considers homosexuality to be a "born" trait but yet can still find now DNA cause of homosexuality.

 

And yet the most diverse DNA source of modern humans - the San Bushmen - have NO HOMOSEXUALITY - they don't even know what it is.

 

The same is true for the next closest "tribe" - the Bakka or Pgymy tribes of Africa - they are the oldest other "race" next to  San Bushmen and yet NO HOMOSEXUALITY.

 

Also neither the San Bushmen nor Bakka Pygmies practice masturbation.

 

So the science then states - well it must be because of their harsh lifestyle they have to put all their energy into survival and so can't be homosexual.

 

O.K. - so now we have the fact that "harsh" environment - savannah from global warming a few million years ago - created bipedal homins - branching off from apes.

 

And it is now trendy to claim that in the last 10,000 years humans have "accelerated" their evolution.

 

That is a total lie pushed by the "evo-devo" crowd - of evolutionary psychology - so stuff like adapting to digest milk or even skin culture or height - these are minor things - and now we have homosexuality. haha.

 

Quote

"This dating allows us to move the human-chimpanzee split into the Mediterranean area."

Quote

 

The team believe that evolution of hominids may have been driven by dramatic environmental changes which sparked the formation of the North African Sahara more than seven million years ago and pushed species further North.

 

 

So people swear that people as "individuals" are born "homosexual" yet there are NO homosexual individuals among the San Bushmen and Bakka pygmies. haha.

 

Hilarious!

 

And so my point is that biology has shown experiments were animals living in close quarters then become homosexual - and so you say an "individual" difference - homosexuality like farming is a cultural adaptation.

 

So what happens is that a genetic expression becomes "hard-wired" before puberty while a person is still developing.

 

So this is why it is easy for a person to learn different languages when young - because actually biophotons control the expression of genes - and learning is actually holographic - based on spirit-biophoton energy - and so this is why young people and babies are in REM theta brain waves all the time - and babies need to sleep so much so that the REM can reorganize their neurons.

 

So the brain goes the most before age 2 - and so that is when deep hard-wiring occurs as epigenetics.

 

So for example I corresponded with the psychologist who actually tested the cortisol levels of babies "left to cry it out."

 

Doctors still teach parents to "leave their baby to cry it out" and this clinical psychologist was very opposite - she has the hard science proving that it causes brain damage for their rest of the person's life. So they have a short fuse then.

 

But with deep meditation we can change our genetic expression - and even grow new neurons, etc. So we by far have the most DNA expression in our brains.

 

So for example when they consider Neanderthals - they say actually the morphology is close enough to realize that the lack of success of Neanderthals was not due to cranial size in ratio to their bodies - and so the lack of success was a cultural difference based on technological adaptation.

 

Obviously these are touchy areas - people don't like to be told how to raise their babies or consider what causes homosexuality, etc. - but it's all based on genetic expression and the same with the neanderthals.

 

Genetic expression is very complicated:

 

Quote

variation in protein-coding, RNA or regulatory sequences.

 

Quote

monoallelic expression is much more widespread than previously thought, implying that variation of an epigenetic nature might have important consequences for studies of human disease susceptibility.

 

Quote

Which of the two alleles is expressed may be determined by the parental origin of the allele (such as in imprinting).

 

O.K. so consider imprinting - this is quite fascinating.

 

Because in Taoist training the Hun Shen enters the baby - at birth - from the father! So it really is biophoton imprinting - based on the frequency of the shen aura energy and therefore the quality of the qi intention that is from the frequency of the shen.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by voidisyinyang

[Brian]

12 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Closer than I would like to admit.

Same here -- I really do look quite a bit like my avatar, even more so 25 years ago and with a few whiskers.

[Stosh]

An examination of the detailed morphology of molar teeth from two fossils of G. freybergi published in 2017^[11] suggests that it may be a hominin, that is sharing ancestry with Homo but not with the Chimpanzees (Pan). This 

 

Im Not sure that means there's direct relationship here, it looks like not.

[MooNiNite]

26 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Well the whole point for me is that I don't have one because I think the flaw is basically trying to divide people in this way.

 

I accept to certain extent the descriptors such as skin colour - for instance if I was to rob a bank the police report would probably say - caucasian, male, brown eyes ... etc.  which would be accurate enough to identify me but not accurate enough to define me if you see what i mean.

 

 

The goal is never to completely define anything, that would be impossible in the realm of thought, language, and ideas.

 

You're discriminating against an extent of discrimination and limiting yourself functionality. 

 

So once one adds historical locality to human characteristics they are overly flawed? But not when they just observe characteristics? 

 

"The people in Europe have brown hair." That observation is flawed and evil? What about the functionality behind such observations, what if you had a hair company and offered a product that dyed brown hair blonde? 

 

[voidisyinyang]

Quote

Such changes, they argue, include not just well-known physical and biological adaptations such as skin colour, disease resistance, and lactose tolerance, but also personality and cognitive adaptations that are starting to emerge from genetic research. These may include tendencies towards (for example) reduced physical strength, enhanced long-term planning, or increased docility, all of which may have been counter-productive in hunter-gatherer societies, but become favoured adaptations in a world of agriculture and its resulting trade, governments and urbanization.

 

So if this 10,000 year "acceleration" of human evolution is true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

 

Why is it that the original human culture - the most genetically diverse - is also the most docile - no warfare - and has the best "long-term planning" - no population explosion - with ecological sustainability - and they do not emphasize physical strength - so was their strength already "reduced" - no the emphasize the N/om training.

 

N/om is not even acknowledged as REAL by these anthropologists. haha. Hilarious.

 

Quote

"Dating from this same time we unearthed a bead made from mammal bone. This is the oldest portable art object of its type found anywhere in central Europe and provides evidence of social signalling, quite possibly used as a necklace to mark the identity of the wearer.

 

So the San Bushmen have the SAME SONG, the Eland Bull Ritual song, from before human language every split into 2 different dialects - so around 70,000 years old.

 

Yet according to https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170614114243.htm

 

archaeology - human individual identity was just forming as "social signalling" around 40,000 years ago in Europe.

 

that just shows the immense racism still in science.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by voidisyinyang