(March 14, 2022 at 11:23 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: It’s weird that Huggy went out of his way to complain about this thread being racist when, as far as I can tell, he’s the only person in this thread besides the long-banned OP who’s actually arguing that one race of people is “more evolved” than another. Hell, IIRC, most of us reject the premise that “more evolved” is even a meaningful phrase in a scientific concept.

Indeed no group of humans is more evolved. That's not how evolution works...

(March 15, 2022 at 1:14 am)Huggy Bear Wrote: @Rev. Rye

I'm simply providing a counter to the original question. If evolution means a species changes over time and those changes are beneficial to it's survival, what do we call changes that are detrimental to survival?

Evolution. It's functionally the same process either way, and evolution refers to the process, not necessarily the results. The concept of devolution assumes that, normally, evolution has an ideal that it's constantly moving towards. MAybe something like this:



In reality, if you can say it has a goal, it's just "does this mutation help or hinder this population's survival?" And even that's technically natural selection instead of evolution in general.

Quote:I'm simply providing a counter to the original question. If evolution means a species changes over time and those changes are beneficial to it's survival, what do we call changes that are detrimental to survival?

Most changes aren't beneficial. They are at best neutral and a worst an issue. As long as some totality of detrimental changes don't instantly kill the lifeform so it has a chance to reproduce that's good enough.

It's not survival of the fittest. It's survival of the adequate.

(March 15, 2022 at 1:33 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: really?   there is no better way to estimate a person’s melanin content than just use his body weight?    you can’t at least deduct the weight of parts that have very little melanin content?  for example bones, or brain?

Or does your bones, or more importantly brain, weigh nothing?

Don't look at me, i'm not the one that did the math.

The Average Black Person Has Almost $40 Million Worth Of Melanin In Their Body

Quote:As of June 30, the price of Gold according APMEX, the leading Precious Metals dealer in the United States, was $57.74 per gram. Even if the price of gold has changed in past few
months, melanin is still worth much more than gold.
So how much is a melanated human worth?
Let’s do the math on a melanated person who weighs 180 pounds.
180 pounds equals 81646.6 grams.
VWR is selling melanin for $460.53 per gram, that must be the going rate, a competitive rate.
81646.6 grams times $460.53 per gram equals $37,600,708.69, almost $40 Million.
Even if only half of the human mass can be used for melanin extraction, that’s still a little over $18 Million worth of Melanin in an 180 pound body.
Imagine someone who weighs more than 180 pounds. 200? 300?
Of course this is an estimation, but regardless we’re talking millions of dollars worth of Melanin.

(March 17, 2022 at 11:49 am)Huggy Bear Wrote:

(March 15, 2022 at 1:33 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: really?   there is no better way to estimate a person’s melanin content than just use his body weight?    you can’t at least deduct the weight of parts that have very little melanin content?  for example bones, or brain?

Or does your bones, or more importantly brain, weigh nothing?

Don't look at me, i'm not the one that did the math.

The Average Black Person Has Almost $40 Million Worth Of Melanin In Their Body

Quote:As of June 30, the price of Gold according APMEX, the leading Precious Metals dealer in the United States, was $57.74 per gram. Even if the price of gold has changed in past few
months, melanin is still worth much more than gold.
So how much is a melanated human worth?
Let’s do the math on a melanated person who weighs 180 pounds.
180 pounds equals 81646.6 grams.
VWR is selling melanin for $460.53 per gram, that must be the going rate, a competitive rate.
81646.6 grams times $460.53 per gram equals $37,600,708.69, almost $40 Million.
Even if only half of the human mass can be used for melanin extraction, that’s still a little over $18 Million worth of Melanin in an 180 pound body.
Imagine someone who weighs more than 180 pounds. 200? 300?
Of course this is an estimation, but regardless we’re talking millions of dollars worth of Melanin.

You are the one repeating it, which makes you a unthinking, uncritical fool who does not examine his own position for flaws,  but instead would latch onto any obvious bullshit that seems to support the position as if the position could, or deserves to be, thereby be strengthened.

Evolution in Africa: Homo Erectus evolved and left Africa for Asia and Europe. Was it better evolved than those who stayed in Africa? No, because Neanderthals evolved in Africa and replaced H. Erectuses in Europe. But were Neanderthals better than those who stayed in Africa because they lived in Europe? No, because Africans evolved into Homo sapiens who replaced Neanderthals in Europe.

So history shows that you are not better evolved just because you left Africa.

fundamentally,  how much evolution a population underwent during a given period of time is determined by how many opportunities there had been for new gene combination to arise through sexual reproduction and through mutation, and then be either picked or rejected by natural selection.    This means how much evolution a population experienced over a period of time is a direct function of how many generations are encompassed by that period of time.

if two populations underwent different number of generations over the same period of time, but there is significant gene flow between them, then that tend to equilibrate the effective amount of genetic change and despite the difference in generation count.

to the best of our ability to tell, the number of generations different populations of modern humans experienced since the very first group of modern humans began to emigrate from ancestral human homeland in africa is broadly the same,  so all modern humans have evolved broadly the same amount.    furthermore,  there is evidence if significant gene flow between different populations,  which tend to further even out the effects any minor difference in generation count.

certainly individual populations acquired specific characters in response to strong selective pressure imposed by their local environment.   but that means individual population evolved differently, not evolved more or less.

(March 17, 2022 at 11:53 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: You are the one repeating it, which makes you a unthinking, uncritical fool who does not examine his own position for flaws,  but instead would latch onto any obvious bullshit that seems to support the position as if the position could, or deserves to be, thereby be strengthened.

*emphasis mine*

Really?

So when I post from peer reviewed journals and you dismiss it out of hand as "sciency woo" and "very crude pseudoscience", how much of a fool does that make you?

(June 11, 2019 at 4:47 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(June 11, 2019 at 3:31 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote: Electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid: First multipole resonances and energy concentration

Quote:It is revealed that the Pyramid's chambers can collect and concentrate electromagnetic energy for the both surrounding conditions. In the case of the Pyramid on the substrate, at the shorter wavelengths, the electromagnetic energy accumulates in the chambers providing local spectral maxima for electric and magnetic fields. It is shown that basically the Pyramid scatters the electromagnetic waves and focuses them into the substrate region.

Uhem.   Scatter is the opposite of focus.

Got any more sciency woo?

less bible, more science education, makes you not only less likely to fall for the jesus salvation con, but also less likely to fall for very crude pseudoscience bullshit like this.

Africa Global Review and trudreadz.com are peer reviewed journal now? 🤔

I will refrain from any more emojis. but seriously, who are the peers?

(March 17, 2022 at 12:46 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: fundamentally,  how much evolution a population underwent during a given period of time is determined by how many opportunities there had been for new gene combination to arise through sexual reproduction and through mutation, and then be either picked or rejected by natural selection.    This means how much evolution a population experienced over a period of time is a direct function of how many generations are encompassed by that period of time.

if two populations underwent different number of generations over the same period of time, but there is significant gene flow between them, then that tend to equilibrate the effective amount of genetic change and despite the difference in generation count.

to the best of our ability to tell, the number of generations different populations of modern humans experienced since the very first group of modern humans began to emigrate from ancestral human homeland in africa is broadly the same,  so all modern humans have evolved broadly the same amount.    furthermore,  there is evidence if significant gene flow between different populations,  which tend to further even out the effects any minor difference in generation count.

certainly individual populations acquired specific characters in response to strong selective pressure imposed by their local environment.   but that means individual population evolved differently, not evolved more or less.

I've come to doubt that line of reasoning. As a practical matter, genetic mutations accumulate at the same rate, regardless of generational cycle. Thus species with short reproductive cycles would have more progeny than their slower brethren, but evolutionary changes between generations would be smaller. To my thinking, its the size of the gene pool that matters, not the length of the reproductive cycle.