Tuesday, April 12, 2016

PZ Myers denies human evolution

A common premise of the Left is that all people are inherently the same, and equal, and conforming to the same ideals. Here is an example.

Leftist-atheist-evolutionist and popular blogger PZ Myers writes:
Modern humans emerged out of Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years. They were slightly smaller (and smaller brained) than the robust humans living in Asia and Europe, but they did bring about some advances in technology and swept over the world…and were adept at learning new skills. Again, we’ll say for the sake of argument, they represented a clear adaptive advantage to greater intelligence, even though there is no biological basis for assuming they were more intelligent, or that it was their intelligence that allowed them to displace other human groups. (I suspect that more complex social structures and language, which are obviously a product of the brain, are more responsible than IQ).

But here’s the thing: those early modern humans were pretty much indistinguishable from us today. They were about the same size, looked about the same, had the same capabilities we do now. If we used a time machine to go back and kidnap a Cro Magnon baby, bring her to our time and raise her in an ordinary American home, she’d probably grow up to play video games, shop at the mall, get a college degree, and land a job at an investment bank, and do just fine. Most of the evolving humanity has done since seems to be focused on their immune system and adaptations to agriculture and urban living.

One has to wonder, if IQ is such a great boon to humanity, why hasn’t the biological basis for it shown much improvement in the last 100,000 years?
Not only are we all the same, we are all the same as some Africans over 100k years ago!

This is a denial of human evolution, because it would mean that humans have not evolved over that time. He concedes some evolution, but insists that they are for unimportant traits.

He also denies twin studies, and denies that the concept of intelligence is meaningful. See this rebuttal.

In short, he is a cuck.

The NY Times reports:
The term cuckold traditionally refers to the husband of an adulteress, but Dr. Larmuseau and other researchers focus on those cases that produce a child, which scientists politely call “extra-pair paternity.”

Until the 20th century, it was difficult to prove that a particular man was the biological father of a particular child.

In 1304 a British husband went to court to dispute the paternity of his wife’s child, born while he was abroad for three years. Despite the obvious logistical challenges, the court rejected the husband’s objection.

“The privity between a man and his wife cannot be known,” the judge ruled.

Modern biology lifted the veil from this mystery, albeit slowly. In the early 1900s, researchers discovered that people have distinct blood types inherited from their parents.

In a 1943 lawsuit, Charlie Chaplin relied on blood-type testing to prove that he was not the father of the actress Joan Barry’s child. (The court refused to accept the evidence and forced Chaplin to pay child support anyway.) ...

Comparing the chromosomes of living related [Belgian] men, Dr. Larmuseau and his colleagues came up with a cuckoldry rate of less than 1 percent. Similar studies have generally produced the same low results in such countries as Spain, Italy and Germany, as well as agricultural villages in Mali.
They were looking at an era when marriage meant something, and adulterers were social outcasts. It is a different world today.

1% sounds low, but it means that you probably know someone who has told you about his father, not realizing that his father is not his father. Just in the last week, the current Archbishop of Canterbury announced that a DNA test determined that his father was the man that he always thought.

This does not count step-fathers, who know that they are rearing someone else's kids. And with the institution of marriage crumbling and women getting increasing sexual freedoms, more and more kids are disconnected from their dads.

That is no big deal if we are all the same as African cave-men anyway, right?

Update: Here is a colloquial definition of cuck. Here is an explanation of why Myers is wrong about IQ.

1 comment:

Matthew Cory said...

Lionel Tiger makes a good case that the pill has really made things hard on men.