Mixed race regression to the mean

Since the parents are each below-average to miscegenate according to studies, the average between them isn’t much to write home about.
Hybrid vigour is a myth in humans because of regression to the mean. I didn’t explain this adequately in my hybrid vigour post because I assumed it was obvious statistics, 101.
This applies to any metric and within the same race too, it’s just that the differences inter-racially are more depressing, genetically and literally. IQ, height, blood type, psychiatric risk, cancer risk, menarche, gestation time, forensic facial architecture, lifespan all vary between races. This isn’t good for mixed children than it would have been for the child of the healthier parent with another person of similar health (intraracial). I cover a health study with psychiatric implications lower down.

Galton came up with ‘regression to the mean’ and you can see it here.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/12/a-mediocre-mans-great-son-a-great-mans-mediocre-son/
“What is more curious is how this related to the reality of regression toward the mean. This is a very general statistical concept, but for our purposes we’re curious about its application in quantitative genetics. People often misunderstand the idea from what I can tell, and treat it as if there is an orthogenetic-like tendency of generations to regress back toward some idealized value.”

Remember, geniuses tend to have ordinary children and genius can spring from ordinary parents.
It’s easy to see regression in supermodels. Plain parents, the children of supermodels rarely match their parents, let alone exceed them.
Most mutations are bad. Each child is a petri dish of half their parents.

“So how does it work? A few years ago a friend told me that the best way to think about it was a bivariate distribution, where the two random variables are additive genetic variation and environmental genetic variation. Clearer? For many, probably not. To make it concrete, let’s go back to the old standby: the quantitative genetics of height…..”

Mostly genetic, the ‘nurture’ are epigenetic effects we don’t yet understand e.g. nutrition, less back-breaking work.

This is where many people get confused (frankly, those whose intelligence is somewhat closer to the mean!). They presume that a subsequent generation of mating would result in further regression back to the mean. No! Rather, the expected value of the offspring would be 0.16 units. Why?
Because through the process of selection you’ve created a new genetic population. The selection process is imperfect in ascertaining the exact causal underpinning of the trait value of a given individual. In other words, because height is imperfectly heritable some of the tall individuals you select are going to be tall for environmental reasons, and will not pass that trait to heir offspring. But height is ~80% heritable, which means that the filtering process of genes by using phenotype is going to be rather good, and the genetic makeup of the subsequent population will be somewhat deviated from the original parental population. In other words, the reference population to which individuals “regress” has now changed. The environmental variation remains, but the additive genetic component around which the regression is anchored is now no longer the same.
This is why I state that regression toward the mean is not magical in a biological sense. There is no population with fixed traits to which selected individuals naturally regress or revert to. Rather, populations are useful abstractions in making sense of the statistical correlations we see around us. The process of selection is informed by population-wide trends, so we need to bracket a set of individuals as a population. But what we really care about are the genetic variables which underpin the variation across the population. And those variables can change rather easily through selection. Obviously regression toward the mean would be exhibit the magical reversion-toward-ideal-type property that some imagine if the variables were static and unchanging. But if this was the matter of things, then evolution by natural selection would never occur!”

But IQ is depressed by mutation load, when they talk of ‘cognitive performance’. That’s why geniuses don’t tend to have genius children, and no, well-educated is not a proxy. Chimps can pass tests.

Steve describes regression to the mean in IQ well here.
isteve.blogspot.com/2013/01/regression-toward-mean-and-iq.html

Here’s a 2-minute clip of a professor explaining it.

http://www.unz.com/jman/regression-to-the-mean/

https://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/18/iq-regression-to-the-mean-the-genetic-prediction-vindicated/
“What kind of luck explains the fact that the children of high-IQ parents have lower IQs while they are reared in cognitive stimulating environments, when the children of low-IQ parents who were raised in chaotic environments still have higher IQs than their parents ? The IQs regress halfway (50%) to the population mean at both sides of the IQ distribution. If we stick to the Dickens-Flynn model (2001) of feedback loops, one would expect that children of high-IQ parents have higher IQ and children of low-IQ parents an IQ even lower. But the opposite happens. This criticism, in the end, does not provide any explanation for the fact that the regression is homogeneous across the different levels of IQ. As Jensen made it clear, the IQ subgroups do not depart from linearity for an IQ range going from 50 to 150.
While some say that regression to the mean occurs because of some kind of (random) measurement errors, it should be noted that IQ regression to the mean analyses are usually performed by using the method of estimated true scores, that is, IQ scores corrected for measurement error, or unreliability, with the formula :…”

Rushton brings in r/K theory here
http://philipperushton.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/iq-race-bell-curve-r-k-theory-rushton-intelligence-political-inequality-public-policy-1997.pdf
since this mating strategy also differs between race in probability, as much as individuals.
See the number of ‘single mothers’ for irrefutable proof. Domestic violence, rape by race etc.

From The Scientific Study of General Intelligence
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rPNFXBnwuNoC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=regression+to+the+mean+mixed+race&source=bl&ots=7MSkcTp6I1&sig=9ARvUoujsiIORB0BN-ljodWC3Ls&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwzaDe-73UAhXpJcAKHdzaCTYQ6AEIajAM#v=onepage&q=regression%20to%20the%20mean%20mixed%20race&f=false
“4.7 Blacks and Whites regress toward their predicted racial means”
Scientifically, you’d expect this.
Statistically. As it goes on to say “no culture-only theory predicts these results.”
4.8 details rate of maturation between White, Asian and Black babies. This clearly includes the brain and does impact IQ means.
Black men also average more testosterone, which does explain the rape rates of Africa somewhat and doesn’t form a defense. Black women have it higher too, never seen a feminine jawline on one.
Whites form the medium group, we’re Goldilocks on a lot of this.
“for each characteristic, the mixed race mean fell between…”
As in, not superior than either parent. EITHER parent.
A meta-analysis in Nature back in 2015 with an overly-broad pool prone to Replicability Crisis is not a new study. Height is not a fine metric, it’s too masculine, lung capacity is too specific and ‘cognitive ability’ avoids IQ, the gold and only standard of ‘g’. It doesn’t control adequately for education (see Tiger Moms for how much crazy dominance that can be).

It’s grotesquely unfair to hold these children, already doomed in the dating world, to standards neither of their parents could meet! Is that level of control not child abuse?
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/mixed-race-kids.pdf
I do sympathize with them, it is a plight because they never chose their situation, their terrible, awful parents did.
“As one might expect, on a host of background and achievement characteristics, mixed race kids fall in between whites and blacks…” and they are more antisocial than expected too. They don’t study psychiatric conditions to explain this, as they do with whites.

PubMed published “Health and behavior risks of adolescents with mixed-race identity” which nudges closer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
Guess the result.
“Most studies are based on clinical reports or reports of mixed-race samples without comparison to single-race groups. It is not surprising that such samples lead to the conclusion of emotional and behavior problems, as clinical samples are self-selected for problems. No national data on adolescents have been reported, except from the sample we used.”
Table 2 is useful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/table/t2/
“…Mixed-race Whites and Asians show significantly greater risk for considering suicide, having sex, repeating a grade, and being suspended. Support for the hypothesis of greater risk status of mixed race compared with single race is most strongly supported for general health, supported for substance use…”
Ouch, guess Yellow Fever has a toll too.
Pay up.
Table 3 is specfic to combinations of race: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/table/t3/

“These analyses answer the question of whether mixed-race-identified adolescents are at higher risk than single-race-identified adolescents. .. Therefore, the overall inference from the controlled analysis is that the differences between single-race and mixed-race identifiers on the control variables we introduced are not the source of the higher risk encountered by mixed-race adolescents.”
“Previous analyses in this article have been limited to health and behavior risk variables. We examined a set of variables measuring individual and family characteristics that are not in and of themselves health and behavior risk variables, i.e., they are not attitudes, voluntary behaviors, or health symptoms. We offer 4 comparisons (family education, family structure, GPA, and PVT), each of them correlated with socioeconomic status. GPA is a measure of success in school. The PVT is highly correlated with success in school and is correlated with general intelligence tests. Because single-race respondents differ by race on these variables,”

trans. Different races are different.

“it is possible that single-race respondents also differ from mixed-race respondents on the same variables. These measures are all considered here as not caused by personal motivations, decisions, or actions with respect to family structure, family education, and PVT, and at least partially for GPA. They represent cultural opportunities and cultural handicaps. Mixed-race adolescents may be supposed to have had exposure to the cultural fates of 2 racial groups. They may therefore be hypothesized to be between the 2 racial groups with which they identify on such attributes.”

Ding ding ding regression to the mean!

“The general pattern of these nonrisk attributes is that the mixed-race groups have values that are between the values of the 2 constituent races. This lends support to the hypothesis that the mixed-race adolescents have been influenced by both racial groups and, therefore, have an experience that is between those who report the single constituent races.”

The discussion opens:

The preponderance of our evidence supports the conclusion that adolescents who identify more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks when compared with those who identify with 1 race only. This applies in a general way and is not distinctive to any particular race combinations. Further, it is not peculiar to any particular type of risk, but to most risks, both health and behavior.
Because risk among mixed-race adolescents is higher for all race combinations, some across-the-board explanation must be inferred….”

Did you guess nurture? They blame nurture.

so we may therefore choose to interpret mixed race as a source of stress. We cannot identify further the source of the stress. Subsequent research can start with the assumption of greater risk for the mixed-race-identified adolescent and try to identify the sources of stress. Only then can we recommend programmatic attention to mixed-race youths.”

Who wants to subject their offspring to that by choice?

What kind of atrocious parents would choose this?

…Isn’t stress biological?

Brazil can openly study it, thanks to demographic necessity.
Historical paper.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0102-01882016000200107&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
“In Latin America it was possible to study the negative effects of racial mixing…” – LC Brito, 2016.

Funny story.
Reports about the daughters of white abolitionists marrying blacks in the north were very common in the Southern press. An example was the marriage of Sarah Judson, whose story was published in the newspaper Memphis Daily Appeal in 1859 and according to the author, “would turn the stomach of any white.” The bride, daughter of a “radical abolitionist,” was induced by her father to marry a black man “against the designs of nature.”4″

and the origin of the word ‘miscegenation’:

The Democrats thus used a strategy to link once and for all the image of President Lincoln to the practice of amalgamation. In the heat of the electoral campaign, two democratic journalists, David Goodman Croly and George Wakeman, used a pamphlet called “Miscegenation: the theory of racial mixing applied to the white American man and the black.” The leaflet was false, and the intention of the authors, then anonymous, was to leave the impression of that it had been written by radical Republican abolitionists, supporters of Lincoln and inter-racial marriage. The text had a great repercussion in the North, where the majority of the president’s voters were based, affecting public opinion terrorized by the ideas defended in the pamphlet, which promoted racial mixing as something practiced among the most advanced nations of the world.

The text also pointed to people of mixed race as being the people of the future, a vision not very common in the United States, affirming that mixed races were superior and thereby opposed to the central justification of white superiority: racial purity (Lemire, 2002, p. 116; Fredrickson, 1971, pp. 171-174).

The pamphlet created the term miscegenation, which from then on would be used to designate mixing between people from different races. “

The propaganda has been in effect for a long time.

“The use of Latin America can be perceived in the section “Superiority of the mixed races.” Here the authors stated that the mixed races were mentally, physically, and morally superior to the pure race which had not mixed, and mentioned the example of the sambos in South America, descendants of blacks and Indians. Once again, Brazil was cited as an example of a country where the people were miscegenated, collaborating with the consolidation of the idea of mixing in the country.”

This 1860 clip from a newspaper is timely.

“Unfortunately, the Brazilian constitution considers all men equal if they are free, whether they are black men or white men. The effects of the equality of these laws do not need demonstration. This has plunged Brazil into a political revolution which has been destroying the Imperial government and its army, the majority of which is composed of blacks who will shortly dictate the terms of emancipation to the nation and the Empire will be converted into another Venezuela.”

Venezuela is currently eating their pets.

Anyway…

“Opposing the thesis of the degeneration of mulattos, the author stated that individuals of a biracial origin also could serve as an intermediate class which could reduce possible racial tensions, as had occurred in Haiti.12″

Serve?

Footnote

“According to the Webster Dictionary (1828), the term mongrel is defined as “of mixed breed, of different kinds, animal of mixed breed.” The word is associated with mingle which according to the same dictionary means ‘mixing’ and also ‘promiscuity.'”

Without specialization, a bereft quality.

You can search that site by subject but this is the only paper I found on ‘racial mixing’. I did try. Moving on…

I need to collate more data on the products of miscegenetion but the data is rarely collected, honestly interpreted and
published openly. The results don’t fit the Narrative.
There are places you can look but they’re too broad in my judgement, and miss fine-grain studies like the Asian myopia risk, based in precise genetic strains.

en.metapedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_race_mixing

http://www.deathofcommunism.josru.com/effects-of-race-mixing

On psychiatric risk,
http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/mixed-race-children-at-greater-risk-of-mental-health-issues
whitegenocideproject.com/study-mixed-race-people-have-identity-problems/
https://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct03/udry10302003.html

They can’t ask for taxpayer money without admitting there’s a problem.

They tend to exclude the biracial from studies because it leads to inconvenient questions.
Example
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.7.1336
They must care so much.

Social outcomes suffer as well.

Asians more prone to vision issues than Whites

Ah, genetics.

Don’t count on them taking over just yet, when they can’t shoot a gun.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11008#t1

“At the gene level, some genes such as SHISA6-DNAH9 have been shown to interact with education level and exhibit strong genetic effects for myopia among Asians with at least higher secondary education10. In the current study, we demonstrate that new genetic effects implicated in myopia development could be uncovered by studying interactions between genetic variants and education level.”

Psst! Heterogeneity means racial differences!

“High education level was associated with a twofold more myopic spherical equivalent in individuals of Asian as compared with European ancestry (Asians: β=−1.09 D, 95% CI: −1.20 to −0.98 D; Europeans: β=−0.49 D, 95% CI: −0.54 to −0.44 D; Fig. 1). Among Asian studies, we also observed heterogeneity of education effects for refractive error. The education effects on spherical equivalent in Singapore Chinese were significantly larger than that in other Asian studies (Singapore Chinese: β=−1.75 D, 95% CI: −1.92 to −1.58 D; other Asian cohorts: β=−0.60 D, 95% CI: −0.75 to −0.46 D).”

Asians are even distinct from one another.
Can the weeaboo supremacy crap.

“The JMA for spherical equivalent in 10,315 individuals from the Asians cohorts identified genome-wide significant association for three genes: AREG, GABRR1 and PDE10A (PJMA<5.0 × 10−8; Table 3 and Fig. 2b). SNP × education interaction effects associated with spherical equivalent were observed at all three loci, with genetic effects significantly larger within participants who had a higher level of education compared with those with a lower education level: AREG (rs12511037, βint=−0.89±0.14 D, Pint=6.87 × 10−11), GABRR1 (rs13215566, βint=−0.56±0.14 D, Pint=8.48 × 10−5) and PDE10A (rs12206610, βint=−0.72±0.13 D, Pint=2.32 × 10−8). The genotype and phenotype associations were highly significant in the higher education stratum

mfw intelligence is genetic

(main genetic effects, 1.97 × 10−10≤Pmain≤8.16 × 10−8) but were considerably weaker in the lower education stratum (0.008≤Pmain≤0.243). There was no evidence of inter-study heterogeneity at index SNPs within AREG, GABRR1 or PDE10A loci (Q-test: Phet≥0.122).
GABRR1 and PDE10A index SNPs were not associated with spherical equivalent in European samples, for either the JMA test, SNP main effect or SNP × education interaction (Table 3). AREG SNP rs12511037 was excluded in the meta-analysis of European studies after QC filtering; hence, a proxy SNP, rs1246413, in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with rs12511037 in Asians (r2=0.97) was tested but not associated with spherical equivalent (PJMA=0.527; Pint=0.176).

my genetics are my privilege

The meta-regression including study-level characteristics as covariates in the model confirmed the heterogeneity between populations of European and Asian ancestry (GABRR1: P=0.006; PDE10A: P=0.0419; Supplementary Table 4). For PDE10A, besides ethnicity, average spherical equivalent of each study also explained the inter-study heterogeneity for the interaction effects (P=0.025).”

Money shot!

It’s almost as if their culture wasn’t based around reading so much as rice farming?
As opposed to Europe, where most people could write their own name.

Death is genetic

Especially in the selfish, so the self-destructiveness of liberals (drugs, homosexuality, abortion, STDs) really is a feature, not a bug.

We already know sexual selection is genetic (r/K, HBD inheritance) so obviously natural is too.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/we-are-programmed-to-die-early-and-thats-a-good-thing

If death is gene-mediated, then who is programmed to live longer, r-types or Ks?

“Bar-Yam and his colleagues are arguing that natural selection actually favors traits that self-limit consumption and reproduction, not selfish maximalism, including lifespan limiting mortality. In other words, organisms may be able to have longer lifespans than they presently do, but natural selection has actually favored individuals that clock themselves out early.”

Unclear. Probably K but the variables are iffy.

They’re partially basing off the false idea that more reproduction is always good/favoured by evolution when actually it was responding to the selection pressure of high mortality. Now mortality is low, they should include quality, the alpha genes for the race between the sexes.
Fitness is not N children, that only applies when there is competition from r-types.

Sexual competition.

In a vacuum, K is superior for a society.

Empires rise with K, die with r.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/rk-is-timeless/

“Aside from August Weismann—who in 1882 did actually argue that death was programmed—it’s because when they considered the effect of evolutionary selection, they were taking averages across organisms and their environments instead of considering each individual organism in its local context. By removing the individual from its particular place or location within a given population, this average ignores the complex relationship between that individual and its environment.”

READ DARWIN.

“By looking at how an individual’s local context affects their fitness, Bar-Yam and his colleagues were able to show that traits which may be an advantage in the short-term (such as an individual’s longevity or ‘selfish’ resource consumption) can actually be a significant disadvantage in the long term, and vice versa.”

Implying it’s bad for the nation, the wider genetic kin group or thede.

Nature is nationalist.

“While this may work out well for the most selfish individuals in the short term, if Bar-Yam and his colleagues are correct it could be cataclysmic for our species in the long run.
“What people do affects their environment and that affects their ability to survive,” said Bar-Yam. “This is something we’re all well aware of today. If you overexploit your resources, you’re going to be in trouble.”‘

MALTHUS, she said, screaming into the void.

“As Bar-Yam points out, if death is genetically programmed, that also means it can probably be hacked.”

The problem with the autistic, they assume they know better than nature. They don’t even know what all these genes do in all conditions and they want to go chopping them out with CRISPR. You know why CF spread? It protects you from TB.

For those who know jack-shit about evolution: the vast majority of mutations are bad, not just bad but fatal (anti-fitness, dysgenic) and that’s why it’s good when nature throws away the genetic equivalent of a shitty doodle on scrunched-up paper. That’s why humans evolved to die quickly, to spread up the overall rate of mutation as a species but also to conserve gains quickly too with shorter generational duration (more breeding in same time).

How many people deserve to live that long? Will it include youth or the shit years, extended for centuries? Who wants to slave away for centuries, cos they can’t financially retire? Biohacking is fraught with technical issues.

Guardian partially admits Out-of-Africa outdated

OOA for short. It’s fun watching them scrabble to keep the narrative ‘we’re all African’.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/07/oldest-homo-sapiens-bones-ever-found-shake-foundations-of-the-human-story
“Fossils recovered from an old mine on a desolate mountain in Morocco have rocked one of the most enduring foundations of the human story: that Homo sapiens arose in a cradle of humankind in East Africa 200,000 years ago.  Archaeologists unearthed the bones of at least five people at Jebel Irhoud, a former barite mine 100km west of Marrakesh, in excavations that lasted years. They knew the remains were old, but were stunned when dating tests revealed that a tooth and stone tools found with the bones were about 300,000 years old.
“My reaction was a big ‘wow’,” said Jean-Jacques Hublin, a senior scientist on the team at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. “I was expecting them to be old, but not that old.” 
Hublin said the extreme age of the bones makes them the oldest known specimens of modern humans and poses a major challenge to the idea that the earliest members of our species evolved in a “Garden of Eden” in East Africa one hundred thousand years later.”

Yeah yeah, sequence the genome.
No excuse.

““This gives us a completely different picture of the evolution of our species. It goes much further back in time, but also the very process of evolution is different to what we thought,” Hublin told the Guardian. “It looks like our species was already present probably all over Africa by 300,000 years ago. If there was a Garden of Eden, it might have been the size of the continent.” [DS: were*]
Jebel Irhoud has thrown up puzzles for scientists since fossilised bones were first found at the site in the 1960s. Remains found in 1961 and 1962, and stone tools recovered with them, were attributed to Neanderthals and at first considered to be only 40,000 years old. At the time, a popular view held that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals. [genetics confirms this in all non-Africans] Today, the Neanderthals are considered a sister group [wtf is that in science] that lived alongside, and even bred with, our modern human ancestors.”

Our?

I love it when The Guardian repeats the science I’ve been saying for years. They’re still clutching at straws.

“Other fossils and genetic evidence all point to an African origin for modern humans.”
Or outright lying.
“The most striking difference was the shape of the braincase which was more elongated than that of humans today. It suggests, said Hublin, that the modern brain evolved in Homo sapiens and was not inherited from a predecessor.”
No it does not. That’s distinctive to Cro Magnon man. Stop lying. Test for the characteristic R1 haplogroup of Cro Magnon man.
“The tools they brought with them have been resharpened, resharpened, and resharpened again. They did not produce new tools on the spot.”
Obviously they stole them. So, probably not Cro Magnon.
They died in a mountain. A mine of materials. Therefore, they couldn’t make those tools.
“But he finds the theory compelling. “The idea is that early Homo sapiens dispersed around the continent and elements of human modernity appeared in different places,”
That’s called the multi-regional hypothesis (MRH) and all the forensic evidence of Neanderthals proves it definitively. That is also why they say every race was actually Homo Sapiens except for them btw, they don’t want to count it.
“and so different parts of Africa contributed to the emergence of what we call modern humans today,” he said.”
No, that’s literally the opposite. Africa wasn’t the centre. There was no centre. There was NO Eden, there was no singular unified group, that is a Victorian myth.
And also, how can ‘Africa’ be the centre, but also different parts of it >1? OOA is limited to one source!
““One of the big questions about the emergence of anatomically modern humans has been did our body plan evolve quickly or slowly. This find seems to suggest the latter.”
Sampling bias?
“It seems our faces became modern long before our skulls took on the shape they have today.””
That is physically impossible if you ask a neuroscientist. The skull forms around the brain. Hell, ask a forensic anthropologist, if you can hear the reply through the laughter.
“Does the new find imply there was more than one hominin lineage in Africa at this time? It really stirs the pot.”
-more than one
-but in Africa
….Pangea isn’t Africa.
“Lee Berger, whose team recently discovered the 300,000 year-old Homo naledi, an archaic-looking human relative, near the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage site outside Johannesburg, said dating the Jebel Irhoud bones was thrilling, but is unconvinced that modern humans lived all over Africa so long ago. “They’ve taken two data points and not drawn a line between them, but a giant map of Africa,” he said.”
Cookie for you, Lee. Salty delivery, I like it.
“adding that stone tools can move around in cave sediments and settle in layers of a different age.” John is right but fails to mention that has limits based on the soil composition.
“For me, claiming these remains are Homo sapiens stretches the meaning of that term a bit,” Shea added. “These humans who lived between 50,000-300,000 years ago are a morphologically diverse bunch. Whenever we find more than a couple of them from the same deposits, such as at Omo Kibish and Herto in Ethiopia or Skhul and Qafzeh in Israel, their morphology is all over the place both within and between samples.”
Better, so close to the r-word, or at least sub-species?
“It really does look like in Africa especially, but also globally, our evolution was characterised by numerous different species all living at the same time and possibly even in the same places.

The cognitive dissonance is strong.

Couldn’t even make it a single logical sentence.

While, if you look at a link at the bottom of that very article:
They admit the African skull they claimed as sub-human is actually just African human, modern African.
People think I’m shitting them with how much race reality the Guardian admits but they don’t know it’s leaking out. Never attribute to malice….

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
“The Dmanisi fossils show that H erectus migrated as far as Asia soon after arising in Africa.”
trans. We found them in Asia and need to cover this up.
“The latest skull discovered in Dmanisi belonged to an adult male and was the largest of the haul. It had a long face and big, chunky teeth. But at just under 550 cubic centimetres, it also had the smallest braincase of all the individuals found at the site.”
“They found that while the Dmanisi skulls looked different to one another, the variations were no greater than those seen among modern people and among chimps.”
If those African skulls weren’t human, they were sub-human, some maintain this.
“Everything that lived at the time of the Dmanisi was probably just Homo erectus,” said Prof Zollikofer.”
Here’s the photo:

“If you found the Dmanisi skulls at isolated sites in Africa, some people would give them different species names. But one population can have all this variation. We are using five or six names, but they could all be from one lineage.”
So close to admitting it.
So damn close.
“Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree
accumulating a lot of branches,” said White. “The Dmanisi fossils give us a new yardstick, [no?] and when you apply that yardstick to the African fossils, a lot of that extra wood in the tree is dead wood. [your opinion is not proof] It’s arm-waving.”
Translated from academese: let’s lower the standard for Africa because it makes them look like chimps and not fully human.
Some are honestly skeptical of this proposition
“I think they will be proved right that some of those early African fossils can reasonably join a variable Homo erectus species,” said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. “But Africa is a huge continent with a deep record of the earliest stages of human evolution, [note: not the only record] and there certainly seems to have been species-level diversity there prior to two million years ago. So I still doubt that all of the ‘early Homo’ fossils can reasonably be lumped into an evolving Homo erectus lineage. We need similarly complete African fossils from two to 2.5m years ago to test that idea properly.”

trans. They’re modern, just fucking admit it.

“This is a fantastic and important discovery, but I don’t think the evidence they have lives up to this broad claim they are making. They say this falsifies that Australopithecus sediba is the ancestor of Homo. The very simple response is, no it doesn’t.”

10/10

Peter Thiel and intellectual rights under Trump

Too much shop but you might get a tickle.

The question is understandable:

How do we reward innovators?

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/11/21/patent-views-peter-thiel-mean-trump-administration/id=74741/

The article is sound but I was drawn to this

comment
“Well, as Paypal and Facebook co-founder and investor, Thiel had no use of patents
He should try to invest in tech startups which develop something actually useful to people 🙂 (something like Dyson vacuums or Segways or VR headsets etc etc)
I am not saying that Paypal is useless or bad (aside from the fact that any smart 12-year old can open a paypal account and abuse Ebay – I had a BIG problem with that a few years back) – but it’s trivial, it would have come in one form or another regardless of Peter Thiel or Elon Musk
Bottom line: if you feel that you invented some unique and commercially viable technology you will not publicly share it with others unless there is at least some promise of eventual reward for your efforts”

It is interesting to note that Elon Musk and others who can afford it operate based on trade secrets to avoid publishing patents. I think that set know the system is flawed and needs to side with the creators.

He pointed out he might as well send them to China personally, which highlights the problem with fraud and infringement, essentially theft.

We need to stop basing STEM on the assumptions of Communism.
R&D is expensive into trillions, none of those people will work for free to see someone else profiteer. Capitalism comes from ‘to capitalize’, a VERB.

STEM is not academia, these people can’t be bribed into the public sector and don’t really care about a public that insults them.

Either you own what you make, whether it’s a widget or the blue of the widget, or property rights have exceptions depending on your line of work, which is silly when the huge megacorps are throwing their weight around on owning rounded corners.

https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/

But what is patent infringement, if not theft? Inventions are property AND the first object of government is to protect them. So said America’s founders. All such court decisions relegate inventions to second class property, at best, and encourage if not legalize their theft. Does America need another war of independence…from SCOTUS? These are the sort of decisions that make a growing number of Americans believe appeals in patent cases to SCOTUS should be ended. Do they know what they are doing? Has the court become a safe harbor for thieves? They show no respect for or even recognition of property rights.

Those who bribe the politicians want to weaken the underdog, the capitalist competition that might overtake them.

All these decisions do is make it easier for our much larger competitors to rob and crush us. Show us a country with weak or ineffective property rights and we’ll show you a country with high unemployment and a weak economy. Congress must now act to restore property rights in America. When thieves win America loses.”

Most of the thieves operate from Asia, especially China.
The Western governments do not care. Then they cry out in horror when STEM progress decays.

The journalists opposing patents never want to forsake their own IP, the copyright, which is unfairly granted automatically.

The power of prayer proven by science

This is why we bless things.

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Shiah2013.pdf

Positive vibes – positive outcomes.
They used monks, not priests. Should’ve studied many faiths, that would’ve been funny.

Some would’ve succeeded, others would’ve failed.

He did another couple of studies about emotional discharge and ice crystal formation.
TLDR: Ugly thoughts, crappy crystals.
Maybe that explains why leftists are so ugly, all that hating stuff. Can’t be good for the complexion.

Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated study, straight up science

http://oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf

“This study aimed 1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, and 2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors.”

Okay.

So far, good science.

“In conclusion, vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors…”
Oh, that’s why they refuse to study it.
Honestly, at least.

“There are very few randomized trials on any existing vaccine recommended for children in terms of morbidity and mortality,” they note, “in part because of ethical concerns involving withholding vaccines from children assigned to a control group.”

And the ethics of not conducting real science to legally allow something?
There is gonna be a huge lawsuit once this finally breaks. Humongous.

“In a final adjusted model designed to test for this possibility, controlling for the interaction of preterm birth and
vaccination, the following factors remained significantly associated with NDD: vaccination (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.6),
nonwhite race (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.4), and male gender (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.4).”

Vaccines are racist?

Well, the races are biologically different. Men go in for more medical studies, so maybe vaccines have been designed for the typical race involved in these studies: white.

“With regard to acute and chronic conditions, vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have had chickenpox and pertussis but, contrary to expectation, were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with otitis media, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and NDD. The vaccinated were
also more likely to have used antibiotics, allergy and fever medications; to have been fitted with ventilation ear tubes; visited a doctor for a health issue in the previous year, and been hospitalized. The reason for hospitalization and the age of the child at the time were not determined, but the latter finding appears consistent with a study of 38,801 reports to the VAERS of infants who were hospitalized or had died after receiving vaccinations. The study reported a linear relationship between the number of vaccine doses administered at one time and the rate of hospitalization and death; moreover, the younger the infant at the time of vaccination, the higher was the rate of hospitalization and death [55].

The hospitalization rate increased from 11% for 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for 8 doses (r2 = 0.91), while the case fatality rate increased significantly from 3.6% for those receiving from 1-4 doses to 5.4 % for those receiving from 5-8 doses.”

…. Vaccination with PCV-7 has a marked effect on the complete microbiota composition of the upper respiratory tract in children, going beyond shifts in the distribution of pneumococcal serotypes and known potential pathogens and resulting in increased anaerobes, gram-positive bacteria and gramnegative bacterial species”

Autism: 4.2 times higher risk
ADHD: 4.2 times higher risk
Learning disabilities: 5.2 times greater risk
Eczema: 2.9 times higher risk
Allergic rhinitis: a 30 times higher risk, yes thirty.

It’s tempting to point to babies who did die and pretend like there’s something medical science could have done. Some people will always die, some of those will be infants, the death rate will never be zero, but if you compared deaths without excluding illnesses caused by vaccines, those results would be interesting too.