Selective breeding is literally Darwin tho…

Am I gonna have to be the one to say this? Apparently. Ugh.

It’s no more novel than dog ‘breeds’ aka races. They also have inbreeding depression from the admixture (why it’s called mixing) and mixed race (aka mongrel) fertility issues, like ligers.

Anyone who denies this fact about selective breeding literature is literally anti-Darwin (or just plain ignorant) and against the evolutionary paradigm itself, in biology.
It’s not just in Charles Darwin’s most famous work, it’s cited in chapter ONE, you brainlets!

Teach the book in biology or none of the subject makes sense. It’s the paradigm of brain development, we can see it in scans! It’s definitely at least somewhat real when it dictates how a precious foetus develops.

Proof or it didn’t happen:
“The 6th Edition is often considered the definitive edition.” so STFU.

pre-contents: “In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman (“Boston Journal of Nat. Hist. U. States”, vol. iv, page 468) has ably given the arguments for and against the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he seems to lean toward the side of change.”


Literally the sodding chapter, and the first one!

Also, humans are a species, stop calling us a race. Homo Sapiens is a SPECIES.

It’s a quote gold mine!
and I don’t just mean the Sub-title:


Fitness is real, yo.

“When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with closely allied species, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species. Domestic races often have a somewhat monstrous character; by which I mean, that, although differing from each other and from other species of the same genus, in several trifling respects, they often differ in an extreme degree in some one part, both when compared one with another, and more especially when compared with the species under nature to which they are nearest allied. With these exceptions (and with that of the perfect fertility of varieties when crossed—a subject hereafter to be discussed), domestic races of the same species differ from each other in the same manner as do the closely allied species of the same genus in a state of nature, but the differences in most cases are less in degree. This must be admitted as true, for the domestic races of many animals and plants have been ranked by some competent judges as the descendants of aboriginally distinct species, and by other competent judges as mere varieties. If any well marked distinction existed between a domestic race and a species, this source of doubt would not so perpetually recur. It has often been stated that domestic races do not differ from each other in characters of generic value. It can be shown that this statement is not correct; but naturalists differ much in determining what characters are of generic value; all such valuations being at present empirical. When it is explained how genera originate under nature, it will be seen that we have no right to expect often to find a generic amount of difference in our domesticated races.”

For those who missed the obvious, mixed is not a race. They’re raceless. To argue otherwise is category error because a race is a mutually exclusive classification.

re de novo mutations:
“Some naturalists have maintained that all variations are connected with the act of sexual reproduction; but this is certainly an error; for I have given in another work a long list of “sporting plants;” as they are called by gardeners; that is, of plants which have suddenly produced a single bud with a new and sometimes widely different character from that of the other buds on the same plant. These bud variations, as they may be named, can be propagated by grafts, offsets, etc., and sometimes by seed. They occur rarely under nature, but are far from rare under culture. As a single bud out of many thousands produced year after year on the same tree under uniform conditions, has been known suddenly to assume a new character; and as buds on distinct trees, growing under different conditions, have sometimes yielded nearly the same variety—for instance, buds on peach-trees producing nectarines, and buds on common roses producing moss-roses—we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames.”

This shit even applies to FLOWERS.

“The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown;


no one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, or in different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so;

germline mutation or not e.g. parental age factor

why the child often reverts in certain characteristics to its grandfather or grandmother or more remote ancestor;


why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex.

chromosomes and brain development

It is a fact of some importance to us, that peculiarities appearing in the males of our domestic breeds are often transmitted, either exclusively or in a much greater degree, to the males alone. A much more important rule, which I think may be trusted, is that, at whatever period of life a peculiarity first appears, it tends to reappear in the offspring at a corresponding age, though sometimes earlier. In many cases this could not be otherwise; thus the inherited peculiarities in the horns of cattle could appear only in the offspring when nearly mature; peculiarities in the silk-worm are known to appear at the corresponding caterpillar or cocoon stage. But hereditary diseases and some other facts make me believe that the rule has a wider extension, and that, when there is no apparent reason why a peculiarity should appear at any particular age, yet that it does tend to appear in the offspring at the same period at which it first appeared in the parent.

genetics are timed in expression, phenotype

he’s been proven correct ever since, it’s amazing

I believe this rule to be of the highest importance in explaining the laws of embryology. These remarks are of course confined to the first APPEARANCE of the peculiarity, and not to the primary cause which may have acted on the ovules or on the male element;

referring to gamete mutation, especially in sperm

predicting parental age factor over a century before it was mathematically confirmed

in nearly the same manner as the increased length of the horns in the offspring from a short-horned cow by a long-horned bull, though appearing late in life, is clearly due to the male element.

If Christians think humans are special as a species and foetuses while developing are too, they need evolutionary arguments for that. You’re dropping the ball by not using these facts.

Having alluded to the subject of reversion,

also regression to the mean, but Galton already covered that (legit polymath)

I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists—namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but invariably revert in character to their aboriginal stocks. Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature.”

All quotes from early chapter 1.

When I use the word evolution, or related TECHNICAL words like race, my definition is correct because I read the literature which explains what these things mean.

Arm yourself with the truth.

Read the book.

Darwin on sex and dimorphism

Useful quotes in case the thought police come calling about a poem.

“Individuals of the same species often present, as is known
to every one, great differences of structure, independently
of variation, as in the two sexes of various animals”

“Nevertheless these cases
are only exaggerations of the common fact that the female
produces offspring of two sexes which sometimes differ from
each other in a wonderful manner.”
“In some instances the males
alone, in other instances both males and females, have been
observed thus to differ in a slight degree. When the differ-
ences are rather more strongly marked, and when both
sexes and all ages are affected, the forms are ranked by all
entomologists as good species.”

SEXUAL SELECTION 101 If the numbers be wholly kept down by the causes just indi- cated, as will often have been the case, natural selection will be powerless in certain beneficial directions; but this is no valid objection to its efficiency at other times and in other ways; for we are far from having any reason to suppose that many species ever undergo modification and improvement at the same time in the same area. SEXUAL SELECTION. Inasmuch as peculiarities often appear under domestica- tion in one sex and become hereditarily attached to that sex, so no doubt it will be under nature. Thus it is rendered pos- sible for the two sexes to be modified through natural selec- tion in relation to different habits of life, as is sometimes the case ; or for one sex to be modified in relation to the other sex, as commonly occurs. This leads me to say a few words on what I have called Sexual Selection. This form of selec- tion depends, not on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural se- lection. Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny. But in many cases, victory depends not so much on general vigour, as on having special weapons, confined to the male sex. A hornless stag or spurless cock would have a poor chance of leaving numerous offspring. Sexual selection, by always allowing the victor to breed, might surely give in- domitable courage, length to the spur, and strength to the wing to strike in the spurred leg, in nearly the same manner as does the brutal cockfighter by the careful selection of his best cocks.

Among other mentions throughout and in other books of his.

Female sexual selection is good for the species, according to Darwin, as you can plainly see.

Americans butcher the English ‘gender’, a psychological CONCEPT (i.e. not reality) to mean ‘sex’, a biological term from Darwinian theory and sexual dimorphism. That’s a false equivalence.

Discussing biological realities of sex is a distraction from the biological realities of race.

Video: What is white?

Apply to the BBC.

If they say no, you must be white.

Make a joke.

If you are told you are Hitler, you must be white.

Walk around a diverse area.

If you are raped…

Note: modern invaders of European countries e.g. Turkey, Italy, do not magically change DNA thanks to particles of feels in the dirt. This has been a PSA from Captain (Fucking) Obvious.

The books are online for free.

No, you don’t need to take a course to understand Darwinian evolution (there is no other).

He wrote a book you can see for free.

It is here.




By Charles Darwin, M.A., F.R.S.,

Author of “The Descent of Man,” etc., etc.

Sixth London Edition, with all Additions and Corrections.

Pause to consider:

The 6th Edition is often considered the definitive edition.

If you want the raw form?

With slightly less information?

Also see Project Gutenberg Etext #1228 for the First Edition.


You have no excuse now.

I am not one of those people who lie about Darwin. I encourage you to read the bloody books. Plural, this is the first one you start with or don’t use that word around me. Picture someone going on and on about cookery who doesn’t know how to crack an egg. That’s how you all sound.

The atheists are shit scared of this being required reading in schools.
That’s because it deals in fact and compares humans with other animals.

I know you’ll see my way if you have any capacity for logic and literacy.

Note: genes can jump within and between chromosomes within an organism.
“Jumping genes” so-called and ignored for decades.
This was discovered by a woman so don’t be shocked you weren’t taught it in school.

Barbara McClintock. Look her up.

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.

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.

“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.”


“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.

Book: Degeneration: A Chapter in Darwinism

hmm did not know nice surprised hot

I’ve been looking for this.

One Google search away.
Along with this hint at r-selection.

“…Any new set of conditions which render a species’ food and safety very easily obtained, seems to lead to degeneration….”

Excuse me while I hide in shame.


My money’s on disinhibition from hypofrontality.
The loss of cellular material in the frontal lobe would scale us back to an earlier stage in evolution.

Article: Was Hitler a Darwinian?

Was Hitler a Darwinian? No! No! No!

Richards’ essay on Hitler calls into question the entire enterprise of stigmatizing Darwin’s theory of evolution with the term “Social Darwinism”.  It’s not as if evolutionary theory has never been used to justify unethical practices. Any idea can be used for good or bad purposes. What’s wrong is the claim that evolutionary theory is somehow especially prone to misuse or was misused in specific cases such as Nazi war policy. We owe a debt of gratitude to careful scholars such as Robert J. Richards for setting the record straight.


Immediately, one of the biggest critiques of HBD and associated information, based on Godwin’s Law, is rendered null.

Kevin-Hart-Really-o rlly lies

Paper: What is Cultural Evolution?

Click to access PrepubPrinceton.pdf

Many of you are familiar with cyclical theories of history, they often include a heavy cultural component, for example assigning Millennials the status of a Hero Generation.

The mantle of Western Civ would also  come under this heading.