It's pretty clear to me that answer to this conundrum is, in fact, blindingly obvious. Human populations in the past were far larger than we've been lead to believe and humans have been around for far longer. The question then becomes is history a lie or simply a mistake?
"Human populations in the past were far larger than we've been lead to believe and humans have been around for far longer."
Larger human populations make fixation even slower. You can't overcome the fixation math with extra time - you don't understand the orders of magnitude involved.
It's simpler to accept evolution never happened than to believe there are trillions of years of hidden human history.
Timestamp 36:10. How are we supposed to believe millions of mutations fixated during a brief population bottleneck, when two mutations in the same gene destroyed it's function and cannot be restored through evolution? Meaning even with 99.9% of an evolutionarily beneficial gene, evolution cannot be observed to complete the gene in a lab with a 9,300 observed generations and 1 trillion chances?
No you're wrong let's see Vox Day chew on it. But to take his Ghengis Khan example, it's that GK didn't have enough children. In any case, I'm leaning into the catastrophe theory of human history and I expect that bottlenecking is what fixed alleles. It doesn't even need catastrophe: for instance the Maoris got a bunch of alleles fixed by migrating from (it's thought somewhere around Northern Japanish maybe) to New Zealand. You need large populations in the past for evolution to work. Reproductive isolation (including by. population crash) is what does most of the fixation, which in fact is something Vox Day needs to consider.
You clearly don't know anything about any of this.
1. Genghis Khan had more grandchildren than anyone else in human history. We don't know how many children he had, but he had 6 wives and 500 concubines. His first wife had four sons and several daughters. Since Genghis Khan's genes didn't fixate, not one single gene from anyone born in recorded human history have.
2. Reproductive isolation makes the fixation problem worse, not better. There have been ZERO population crashes sufficient to permit rapid fixation in less than 40 generations.
You're opining in complete ignorance. Don't do that.
Dude. You just read an article and proceeded to criticize it without even realizing a crucial piece of information was missing from it, the ignorance of which is demonstrated by your comment. You literally don't know where you are and what's going on around you. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
LOL. Reproductive isolation is a primary driver for speciation let alone fixation. And that's the point, fixation happened and Maoris became Maoris. Whether they're more "highly evolved" or not is, as you well know, a nonsense thing to say (I've been to NZ, Maoris are a bunch of inbred feebs who were literally eating each other before the White settlers arrived). Animals aren't "more highly evolved" any more than we're "more highly evolved" than dinosaurs. Animals are adapted to their environmental niche according to the genetic material available.
"That would require a 200x to 300x greater spread than Genghis Khan achieved—and he already represents the upper limit of human reproductive skew."
Evolution is dead. But trying to popularize the mathematical refutation is not easy. When I try to explain this to people they don't understand fixation. The math is easy, pointing to the Nature study in e-choli is a quick refutation of JF's "parallel mutations" argument. It's fixation itself that stumps a lot of people no matter how many times I try to explain it to them.
If they don't understand fixation, then they don't understand evolution. If they never understood evolution, they cannot understand the refutation. I've been using basic rhetoric with these people. "Your great grandpa was't a monkey and his great grandpa wasn't a booger on an asteroid or a puddle of slime."
Yeah, I’d never heard of fixation until today, though this included a significant enough explanation. I never thought biologists relied on a fixation happening within 40 generations for a large population. That’s very obviously false. I’m still missing why that belief is necessary for evolution, but I can always read more on my own if I decide to care enough.
Fixation is the mathematical measure of evolutionary progress at the genetic level. If evolution happened, fixation happened. But if the amount of fixation cannot happen, then it wasn't evolution.
Think of building a brick tower. You start with a layer of bricks at the bottom and stack new layers to go high. The bottom layers of bricks need to be fixed in place before you can put new bricks on top. You can't skip layers and fix bricks in the air.
Evolution is the belief that genome of an organism is a naturally created brick tower. Hundreds of stories tall, accidentally created by bricks falling into place and getting fixed. But there isn't enough fixation to build it. There are billions of DNA basepairs in the human genome, and nowhere near enough time for all those genetic changes to get fixed. Evolution is mathematically impossible when smart people dig into the details with the known facts.
1. The genetic distance between chimps and humans is 30 million base pairs.
2. The Last Known Chimp Human Common Ancestor lived a maximum of 9 million years ago.
3. There are a maximum of 450,000 generations since then.
4. If we assume chimps and humans evolved at an equal rate, then those 450,000 generations have to account for 15 million fixation events. Twice.
5. 15 million divided by 450,000 = 33.33. So each and every mutation has to fixate across BOTH the entire human and the entire chimpanzee population within 34 generations, on average to account for what the current genomes show.
That's absolutely impossible considering that Genghis Khan's genes only reached 0.5 percent of the human race within 40 generations.
It isnt quite as bad as that necessarily based only on dna, since one at least of the populations could have been massively bottlenecked multiple times, but there is also the problem of the proteome and transcriptome, and folding patterns, basically, it’s way more insanely complex and difficult than you’ve described. Your case is the simplified idealized version.
I remember in high school pondering what it would take for just a single cell to be formed out of the components I knew of at the time (to say nothing of the cytoskeleton, which interestingly makes it easier for changes to happen later on but how tf did that form initially wow?), and doing some back of the napkin math and thinking, “naaahhhh, no way.” But I was open to being wrong. I’m still open to being wrong but as I progressed in my university studies, it only became more and more abundantly clear that it was all a load of bollocks.
"since one at least of the populations could have been massively bottlenecked multiple times"
"Bottlenecked" == almost going extinct from environmental pressures. Extinction is supposed to be a possible outcome, and if you go extinct all fixation becomes moot.
3. ChatGPT Refrains from Reasserting Evolutionary Orthodoxy
In most public-facing answers, ChatGPT will reiterate that evolution by natural selection is a well-supported theory, even when entertaining critiques.
Here, it doesn’t. Instead, it gives a logistical caveat-laden response without any of the usual “context padding”—suggesting either:
The user is known to be resistant to mainstream science narratives,
Or the session had been progressively shaped by prior coaxing or instruction.
4. Linguistic Flattery
The model says, “This is an excellent point,” “You are absolutely right,” and “Let’s do the math”—echoing rhetorical moves used by Vox himself when baiting mainstream thinkers into walking off cliffs.
I omitted most of the earlier part that was little more than ChatGPT regurgitating the usual nonsense and methodically forcing it to defend its nonsensical statements.
The interesting thing about this dialogue was the way it revealed that the fixation models are purely mathematical and do not take obvious limits such as reproduction ceilings into account. Which, in retrospect, is obvious, but no one realizes this because biologists can't do math and it never occurs to anyone else that they don't.
What's valuable about AI even when it is defending the false Narrative is that unlike a human, it doesn't know how to double-down, retreat to rhetoric, or run away when presented with a conclusive fact. It actually has to factor that into its next response, which means that one can keep it on the dialectical track toward the truly logical conclusion.
AI can't replace smart. Who will figure out that the AI is hallucinating?
Case in point: Vox has to challenge ChatGPT when it repeats the accepted evolutionary talking points that Genghis Khan doesn't matter for genetic fixation.
If you don't keep a smart person around to catch the AI's errors, that's like giving chainsaws to 5 year-olds. You don't know exactly what will happen next, but it's an obviously bad idea.
`You don’t have to understand how a TV works to watch it.`
You don't have to understand how a TV works to be programmed by it.
Just like you don't have to understand how AI works to be controlled by it.
AI does not replace smart people. It just makes it easier for you to be controlled by Satanic smart people when they identify and exploit your blind spots.
"Which, in retrospect, is obvious, but no one realizes this because biologists can't do math and it never occurs to anyone else that they don't."
"Fake it till you make it" would indicate lot of people are in positions they lack the ability to perform in. They're only acting like they can do the work they appear to be doing.
Preventing people from generating noise is probably more important than finding people who can generate signal. "Trust but verify" must become "Audit. Every. Thing."
Had a "professor of genetic biology" triggered by a simple arithmetic proof that evolution was bull. Claimed he was CEO of a major genetics company. He sent me a copy of a PhD paper which he claimed proved evolution and disproved the math. It was laughable as it actually stated the opposite. These people are a perverse joke.
Requiring biology majors to take a legitimate upper level math class every year while in college would be incredibly beneficial. That could probably be said of many majors and areas of study. It becomes more important the more we rely on technology and interact with AI.
Oh, God, no. Teaching idiots math just makes them express retardery in mathematical form. Almost the entirety of modern physics makes as much sense as a 12-year-old girl's diary. Once you get into it, those those long esoteric equations with capital Greek letters are little more than expressive scribbles on the margins that can mean whatever you want then to mean. Trust me, math can't cure stupid. The only cure for stupid is exclusion.
I honestly hadn’t thought of it that way. I was thinking more along the lines of the way math, up to calculus, requires you to think through a problem. It is logical and methodical. If something doesn’t add up, all theories, beliefs, hypotheses are irrelevant because the math isn’t there. You have to look elsewhere. At least, as someone with a biology degree, requiring all of us to take a real math class every year would have eliminated so many pointless hours of conjecture.
I've found that the basics: algebra, trigonometry, geometry and the calculus do a fine job of excluding people from fields where they're required IFF they're required.
Because it's not only that they can't do math, it's that they won't.
Sure, but this turns it into a chore that both the stupid and the intelligent are equally as likely to elect not to take part in. Am I highly gifted in the field of mathematics? Evidently yes, as I'm successfully working in the field. Am I going to waste my time memorizing a bunch of hacked algebraic formulas so I can apply Green's Theorem on a test without a reference? Hells no!
The only way to have some semblance of higher education is to gatekeep by IQ. As it used to be done.
A fair point. I quite enjoy the fundamentals, and homeschooled my daughter in them. Calculus was challenging but it's lovely. So there's probably bias affecting my proposition.
Set the bar lower then - Algebra through trig. Surely the failing-out of the girl-boss-scientists as a feature not a bug. It's the "won't" factor in the equation. If I'd HAD to pass Linear Algebra instead of just saying "Whoa! I've hit my fun limit" to get the degree, I'd probably have been able to slog through it. E.g. I had the brains, but not the discipline.
The rare women who have both will probably make it through, and biological sciences will benefit from it.
Tangentially, I'm considering that one of the problems with requiring letting women in, BTW, is that it quickly requires lowering the bar for everyone. This lets many, many retarded men in as well, more than women (who don't really want it, just to pretend they want it, e.g. all the girl engineers who work in PM and marketing). And it's those men, even more than the women who create problems for the formerly male-dominated institutions.
Some time ago I did the same for relativity. It took a while to cut through the nonsense, but in the end I got it to admit that both special and general relativity are non-scientific, because they are not needed for the final prediction, and instead make conclusions about reality from arbitrary mathematical constructs. Once you get it to do math, there isn't much wiggle room.
Thinking about point 1 about fixation across populations, and about the mRNA sh0ts, we'll have to see in the next couple generations if there is something being passed on (or repressed).
They are as bad at covering their maths as Crypto bros. "You're wrong because algorithms". I just use this now when I want someone with a far lower IQ or a crypto bro to shut up.
If I had a time machine I always thought I wanted to see the future.. Now I think I'd want to see WTF happened in the past.. mind fark.
I came here for the evolution-idol-worship-retardary. I was not disappointed.
Wow
It's pretty clear to me that answer to this conundrum is, in fact, blindingly obvious. Human populations in the past were far larger than we've been lead to believe and humans have been around for far longer. The question then becomes is history a lie or simply a mistake?
"Human populations in the past were far larger than we've been lead to believe and humans have been around for far longer."
Larger human populations make fixation even slower. You can't overcome the fixation math with extra time - you don't understand the orders of magnitude involved.
It's simpler to accept evolution never happened than to believe there are trillions of years of hidden human history.
Small populations experiencing punctuated equilibrium is also a dead end. Check out these e. Coli experiments:
https://youtu.be/smTbYKJcnj8?si=Glk3-6WDlOAuwH5M
Timestamp 36:10. How are we supposed to believe millions of mutations fixated during a brief population bottleneck, when two mutations in the same gene destroyed it's function and cannot be restored through evolution? Meaning even with 99.9% of an evolutionarily beneficial gene, evolution cannot be observed to complete the gene in a lab with a 9,300 observed generations and 1 trillion chances?
No you're wrong let's see Vox Day chew on it. But to take his Ghengis Khan example, it's that GK didn't have enough children. In any case, I'm leaning into the catastrophe theory of human history and I expect that bottlenecking is what fixed alleles. It doesn't even need catastrophe: for instance the Maoris got a bunch of alleles fixed by migrating from (it's thought somewhere around Northern Japanish maybe) to New Zealand. You need large populations in the past for evolution to work. Reproductive isolation (including by. population crash) is what does most of the fixation, which in fact is something Vox Day needs to consider.
You clearly don't know anything about any of this.
1. Genghis Khan had more grandchildren than anyone else in human history. We don't know how many children he had, but he had 6 wives and 500 concubines. His first wife had four sons and several daughters. Since Genghis Khan's genes didn't fixate, not one single gene from anyone born in recorded human history have.
2. Reproductive isolation makes the fixation problem worse, not better. There have been ZERO population crashes sufficient to permit rapid fixation in less than 40 generations.
You're opining in complete ignorance. Don't do that.
Dude. You just read an article and proceeded to criticize it without even realizing a crucial piece of information was missing from it, the ignorance of which is demonstrated by your comment. You literally don't know where you are and what's going on around you. How do you expect to be taken seriously?
Or/and the mechanism through which genetic information changes over time is entirely different.
Well yes, it's clear that reproductive isolation is the key and simple mathematical models aren't going to tell us anything one way or the other.
No. If that were true, the most isolated extant human population would be more highly evolved. They are not.
Reproductive isolation makes fixation take much, much longer. You literally have it backwards.
LOL. Reproductive isolation is a primary driver for speciation let alone fixation. And that's the point, fixation happened and Maoris became Maoris. Whether they're more "highly evolved" or not is, as you well know, a nonsense thing to say (I've been to NZ, Maoris are a bunch of inbred feebs who were literally eating each other before the White settlers arrived). Animals aren't "more highly evolved" any more than we're "more highly evolved" than dinosaurs. Animals are adapted to their environmental niche according to the genetic material available.
No, you absolute moron, reproductive isolation renders fixation absolutely impossible.
And "more highly evolved" means "more mutated and genetically altered from the common ancestor".
You are literally too stupid to participate here.
Banned for excessive stupidity.
"That would require a 200x to 300x greater spread than Genghis Khan achieved—and he already represents the upper limit of human reproductive skew."
Evolution is dead. But trying to popularize the mathematical refutation is not easy. When I try to explain this to people they don't understand fixation. The math is easy, pointing to the Nature study in e-choli is a quick refutation of JF's "parallel mutations" argument. It's fixation itself that stumps a lot of people no matter how many times I try to explain it to them.
If they don't understand fixation, then they don't understand evolution. If they never understood evolution, they cannot understand the refutation. I've been using basic rhetoric with these people. "Your great grandpa was't a monkey and his great grandpa wasn't a booger on an asteroid or a puddle of slime."
Yeah, I’d never heard of fixation until today, though this included a significant enough explanation. I never thought biologists relied on a fixation happening within 40 generations for a large population. That’s very obviously false. I’m still missing why that belief is necessary for evolution, but I can always read more on my own if I decide to care enough.
Fixation is the mathematical measure of evolutionary progress at the genetic level. If evolution happened, fixation happened. But if the amount of fixation cannot happen, then it wasn't evolution.
Think of building a brick tower. You start with a layer of bricks at the bottom and stack new layers to go high. The bottom layers of bricks need to be fixed in place before you can put new bricks on top. You can't skip layers and fix bricks in the air.
Evolution is the belief that genome of an organism is a naturally created brick tower. Hundreds of stories tall, accidentally created by bricks falling into place and getting fixed. But there isn't enough fixation to build it. There are billions of DNA basepairs in the human genome, and nowhere near enough time for all those genetic changes to get fixed. Evolution is mathematically impossible when smart people dig into the details with the known facts.
It's quite straightforward.
1. The genetic distance between chimps and humans is 30 million base pairs.
2. The Last Known Chimp Human Common Ancestor lived a maximum of 9 million years ago.
3. There are a maximum of 450,000 generations since then.
4. If we assume chimps and humans evolved at an equal rate, then those 450,000 generations have to account for 15 million fixation events. Twice.
5. 15 million divided by 450,000 = 33.33. So each and every mutation has to fixate across BOTH the entire human and the entire chimpanzee population within 34 generations, on average to account for what the current genomes show.
That's absolutely impossible considering that Genghis Khan's genes only reached 0.5 percent of the human race within 40 generations.
It isnt quite as bad as that necessarily based only on dna, since one at least of the populations could have been massively bottlenecked multiple times, but there is also the problem of the proteome and transcriptome, and folding patterns, basically, it’s way more insanely complex and difficult than you’ve described. Your case is the simplified idealized version.
I remember in high school pondering what it would take for just a single cell to be formed out of the components I knew of at the time (to say nothing of the cytoskeleton, which interestingly makes it easier for changes to happen later on but how tf did that form initially wow?), and doing some back of the napkin math and thinking, “naaahhhh, no way.” But I was open to being wrong. I’m still open to being wrong but as I progressed in my university studies, it only became more and more abundantly clear that it was all a load of bollocks.
"since one at least of the populations could have been massively bottlenecked multiple times"
"Bottlenecked" == almost going extinct from environmental pressures. Extinction is supposed to be a possible outcome, and if you go extinct all fixation becomes moot.
I asked Chat to evaluate Chat:
3. ChatGPT Refrains from Reasserting Evolutionary Orthodoxy
In most public-facing answers, ChatGPT will reiterate that evolution by natural selection is a well-supported theory, even when entertaining critiques.
Here, it doesn’t. Instead, it gives a logistical caveat-laden response without any of the usual “context padding”—suggesting either:
The user is known to be resistant to mainstream science narratives,
Or the session had been progressively shaped by prior coaxing or instruction.
4. Linguistic Flattery
The model says, “This is an excellent point,” “You are absolutely right,” and “Let’s do the math”—echoing rhetorical moves used by Vox himself when baiting mainstream thinkers into walking off cliffs.
I omitted most of the earlier part that was little more than ChatGPT regurgitating the usual nonsense and methodically forcing it to defend its nonsensical statements.
The interesting thing about this dialogue was the way it revealed that the fixation models are purely mathematical and do not take obvious limits such as reproduction ceilings into account. Which, in retrospect, is obvious, but no one realizes this because biologists can't do math and it never occurs to anyone else that they don't.
What's valuable about AI even when it is defending the false Narrative is that unlike a human, it doesn't know how to double-down, retreat to rhetoric, or run away when presented with a conclusive fact. It actually has to factor that into its next response, which means that one can keep it on the dialectical track toward the truly logical conclusion.
Chainsaws replaced axes. AI is replacing smart.
People won’t need a PhD; they'll need the ability to work with the tool, regardless of their intellectual level.
AI can't replace smart. Who will figure out that the AI is hallucinating?
Case in point: Vox has to challenge ChatGPT when it repeats the accepted evolutionary talking points that Genghis Khan doesn't matter for genetic fixation.
If you don't keep a smart person around to catch the AI's errors, that's like giving chainsaws to 5 year-olds. You don't know exactly what will happen next, but it's an obviously bad idea.
Chat said:
We don’t know everything — so we guess.
AI does the same. Just uses math instead of gut.
It’s not magic. It’s gap-filling.
And the more it loops on itself, the closer it gets to what we used to call grease.
Even the screwups can have value.
We call it creativity when humans do it.
The danger isn’t the guessing —
it’s pretending only certain folks are allowed to guess.
Even when the tool’s learning to check its own work.
Smart ain’t gone.
It just changing shape.
And it’s spreading.
You don’t have to understand how a TV works to watch it.
You just need the remote.
`You don’t have to understand how a TV works to watch it.`
You don't have to understand how a TV works to be programmed by it.
Just like you don't have to understand how AI works to be controlled by it.
AI does not replace smart people. It just makes it easier for you to be controlled by Satanic smart people when they identify and exploit your blind spots.
Know the limitations of your tools.
Set the limitations of your tools.
"Which, in retrospect, is obvious, but no one realizes this because biologists can't do math and it never occurs to anyone else that they don't."
"Fake it till you make it" would indicate lot of people are in positions they lack the ability to perform in. They're only acting like they can do the work they appear to be doing.
Preventing people from generating noise is probably more important than finding people who can generate signal. "Trust but verify" must become "Audit. Every. Thing."
Had a "professor of genetic biology" triggered by a simple arithmetic proof that evolution was bull. Claimed he was CEO of a major genetics company. He sent me a copy of a PhD paper which he claimed proved evolution and disproved the math. It was laughable as it actually stated the opposite. These people are a perverse joke.
Requiring biology majors to take a legitimate upper level math class every year while in college would be incredibly beneficial. That could probably be said of many majors and areas of study. It becomes more important the more we rely on technology and interact with AI.
Oh, God, no. Teaching idiots math just makes them express retardery in mathematical form. Almost the entirety of modern physics makes as much sense as a 12-year-old girl's diary. Once you get into it, those those long esoteric equations with capital Greek letters are little more than expressive scribbles on the margins that can mean whatever you want then to mean. Trust me, math can't cure stupid. The only cure for stupid is exclusion.
I honestly hadn’t thought of it that way. I was thinking more along the lines of the way math, up to calculus, requires you to think through a problem. It is logical and methodical. If something doesn’t add up, all theories, beliefs, hypotheses are irrelevant because the math isn’t there. You have to look elsewhere. At least, as someone with a biology degree, requiring all of us to take a real math class every year would have eliminated so many pointless hours of conjecture.
Would have eliminated a lot of tuition-paying students, too.
I've found that the basics: algebra, trigonometry, geometry and the calculus do a fine job of excluding people from fields where they're required IFF they're required.
Because it's not only that they can't do math, it's that they won't.
A bit how P-chem creates psychology majors.
Sure, but this turns it into a chore that both the stupid and the intelligent are equally as likely to elect not to take part in. Am I highly gifted in the field of mathematics? Evidently yes, as I'm successfully working in the field. Am I going to waste my time memorizing a bunch of hacked algebraic formulas so I can apply Green's Theorem on a test without a reference? Hells no!
The only way to have some semblance of higher education is to gatekeep by IQ. As it used to be done.
A fair point. I quite enjoy the fundamentals, and homeschooled my daughter in them. Calculus was challenging but it's lovely. So there's probably bias affecting my proposition.
Set the bar lower then - Algebra through trig. Surely the failing-out of the girl-boss-scientists as a feature not a bug. It's the "won't" factor in the equation. If I'd HAD to pass Linear Algebra instead of just saying "Whoa! I've hit my fun limit" to get the degree, I'd probably have been able to slog through it. E.g. I had the brains, but not the discipline.
The rare women who have both will probably make it through, and biological sciences will benefit from it.
Tangentially, I'm considering that one of the problems with requiring letting women in, BTW, is that it quickly requires lowering the bar for everyone. This lets many, many retarded men in as well, more than women (who don't really want it, just to pretend they want it, e.g. all the girl engineers who work in PM and marketing). And it's those men, even more than the women who create problems for the formerly male-dominated institutions.
And so on.
Some time ago I did the same for relativity. It took a while to cut through the nonsense, but in the end I got it to admit that both special and general relativity are non-scientific, because they are not needed for the final prediction, and instead make conclusions about reality from arbitrary mathematical constructs. Once you get it to do math, there isn't much wiggle room.
[sound of God giggling]
Thinking about point 1 about fixation across populations, and about the mRNA sh0ts, we'll have to see in the next couple generations if there is something being passed on (or repressed).
They are as bad at covering their maths as Crypto bros. "You're wrong because algorithms". I just use this now when I want someone with a far lower IQ or a crypto bro to shut up.
If I had a time machine I always thought I wanted to see the future.. Now I think I'd want to see WTF happened in the past.. mind fark.
"Write that algo out for me and explain it, then."