Honest question: Why pick Charlemagne as an example here? The statement “Everyone is a descendent of X” is true for a lot of people who lived around that time and had descendants, no? Is Charlemagne chosen because he was a notable person of that era?
I fully agree with you. Picking Charlemagne is completely misleading. I don't know why this paradoxon of genetics formed around this persona, maybe to overcome initial disbelief.
Crick and Watson certainly didn't discover DNA as the substrate for Mendelian inheritance, that was known long before. They (in collaboration with Rosalind "don't talk to me about this woman" Franklin) discovered its 3D structure.
Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%.
The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the majority of scientists. Admixture doesn't change that.
Also, isn't Razib Khan a "scientific racist"? (Protip: when someone's wiki page has a 'Controversies' tab it doesn't look good) I remember him being huge into 'HBD' despite not being credentialed in any way beyond dropping out of his PhD program to get in on the 'consumer genomics' grift. Not a good look imo.
If you want a real overview of current population genetics check out Graham Coop's lectures, he's a prominent professor in the field and his teaching materials were inspirational for many people. Alas, he does not have a substack, neither does he make contrarian takes for a living (probably due to having a real job)
You're misrepresenting him, and it sounds like you have an ideological stake in this.
> Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%.
He never claimed or hinted that Africans do not have Neanderthal DNA.
He says "non-African modern humans were discernibly more similar to the Neanderthal sample than Africans were", which is factually accurate, given that there's about a 1.5-2.5% gap in the amount of DNA that's shared, at least according to best current knowledge.
> The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong
No such thing is insinuated.
He makes it explicit that he's talking about the "total-replacement plank of the old out-of-Africa model", and he spends a while talking about how we're all descended from a single male and single female within Africa, it's only the case that certain populations outside of Africa mixed with other hominids and got up to 5-7% of their DNA from them (Neanderthals and Denisovans), which is far more than what Africans have.
There was a Eurasian introgression back into Africa from either the Arabian Peninsula or (less likely) across the Sahara into Chadic ethnic groups visible in Y-DNA haplogroups. Most likely that's the source of the 0.3%
That ancestry comes from later interactions with West Eurasians and is at trace levels compared to the substantial 2-3% in non-Africans. This does not change the point that non-Africans received input from Neanderthals just before expansion outwards.
>The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the majority of scientists. Admixture doesn't change that.
You've misread the article if you believe that. The point is that the total replacement model of out of Africa imagining a small band of hunter gatherers expanding out of an East Africa giving rise to all of humanity popular in the 2000s was proven wrong. The point was that single locus markers like mtDNA and Y-DNA can create biases that allowed for such a consensus that was changed by the whole genome of the Neanderthal. The ancient DNA we have now suggests a multi-regional model for modern human evolution within Africa.
The remainder of the post (other than the first nitpick) is non-substantive ideological claims that appears to be largely because Razib's politics lean conservative. Interest in human populations and such phenotypic differences does not imply scientific racism once you realize the basic scientific principle that humans are animals and consider how animals exist in populations with phenotypic differences.
The science is constantly evolving to this very day on the supposedly 'trace levels' of Neanderthal DNA in Africans (especially as we gather a more diverse range of cohorts) so I'll leave it at that.
I just want to comment on this: opposing 'scientific racism' is an ideological claim now?! The dude has a pretty large record making claims about race and IQ and 'human biodiversity', works in an industry that's banking heavily on grifting money out of rich people with PGSes, and mainstream scientists debunking it are the ones being ideological? I feel like I'm dreaming here, imagine a Philip Morris lobbyist accusing you of being 'ideological' when you point out flaws in their 'actually cigarettes are pretty good for you' studies. (Wait, that actually happened)
>Unfortunately, as your comment shows, they have been succesful in maligning him as a racist for speaking the truth.
Could also be your typical sour grapes over a dissenting view on the science. Academia is full of childishness like this (especially but not exclusively as you go further away from stuff that can be unambiguously measured and into the realm of the squishy soft sciences).
I'm not taking a stance on either side of this, but the fact that he's Bengali-American doesn't somehow mean he can't be a scientific racist. (Btw by "Scientific racism" I'm talking about the pseudoscience movement)
I'd suggest you take a look at some of his work yourself and make a judgement of how unscientific he really is:
Here's a paragraph for instance (trust me reading it in context doesn't make it any better)
> Also, I am not sure the blonde preference is as dominant among people from Asia as it is among Europeans, and Asians have not been as culturally dominated by Europeans as Amerindians have. Though certain European features were traditionally praised by Asians (fair skin), others have not been emulated (large noses, reputed body odor due to diet, hirsute body, etc.). In addition, though Japanese may comment on the nice figures that European women have (i.e., Europeans tend to exhibit more sexual dimorphism), they will also comment that many American women are too large and, as they would say in the States, "big-boned." In other words, even if blondeness is preferred by Eurasians, there are other attributes that work against them (their size in comparison to petite Asian women, the perception by many Asians that European women, and Europeans in general, age faster and don't keep their appearance up after the bloom of youth, etc.).
> they have been succesful in maligning him as a racist for speaking the truth.
This comment is so full of intellectual dishonesty. Razib Khan's controversy is a result of his so called cancellation by Left-liberal media like NYT/Times which are decidedly against Hindu nationalism.
In fact, Razib Khan is the founder of Brown Pundits, which is arguably more center right and has more Hindutva supporters than left-liberals. I found Razib Khan and Omar Ali both to be a prudent and neutral observers of the developments in subcontinent and are more leaning towards Hindutva (in its original spirit)
> Protip: when someone's wiki page has a 'Controversies' tab it doesn't look good
If wikipedia had existed in the time of Copernicus, Plato, Giordano Bruno, Galileo or Darwin, I do not think they would be without their own large ‘controversies’ section ;)
Scientific racist is a funny term. If a scientist shows that "race" X has a different distribution of traits than "race" Y, does that mean that they are a scientific racist? Doesn't racism also have to have an associated hatred, prejudice, or antagonism against a different race? Is it scientifically racist to say that blacks get a certain blood disease more frequently than whites?
To put it another way, if a scientist does a study and shows that the Ainu people of northern Japan are statistically taller than the Mbuti people of the Congo, does that mean the scientist is a "scientific heightist"? Wouldn't they need to amend their report with something like "...and therefore, Ainu people are better than Mbuti" or something like that?
No. A scientific racist is a racist (someone who thinks one race is inferior to another) who uses science to back up their claim. Not sure this person is one.
"Thanks to Razib Khan, Sharon Browning, and Don Conrad for several useful discussions"
you can nitpick the piece but this is from an attack piece on me:
"MANY PROMINENT geneticists familiar with Khan’s work do take him seriously. “I don’t agree with everything that Razib writes, but I think that he does write about population genetics very clearly,” said Graham Coop, a population genetic"
so yes, put your faith in graham :-) you know his work so little you weren't aware i was going to easily pivot in this direction
You will find that 'some races just have the dumb SNPs, you know' is indeed a fringe and unserious position often posited by Pioneer Fund recipients (you know, the organization founded in the 30s for the 'purpose of race betterment' that literally inspired Hitler) to justify that we abandon all welfare and remedial programs toward the poorer demographics. If that's not scientific racism, I wonder what's your definition of it.
I didn't get the vibe that this particular article was rejecting OoA, but simply pointing out that the modern approach is OoA + "it's complicated".
The HBD stuff is troublesome and it's certainly worth regarding the author more critically, but I found the bones of what was linked fairly pedestrian and uncontroversial. I suspect that will not be true of the follow-up article about origin models within Africa though.
> Crick and Watson certainly didn't discover DNA as the substrate for Mendelian inheritance, that was known long before. They (in collaboration with Rosalind "don't talk to me about this woman" Franklin) discovered its 3D structure.
Just to add a little bit.
They discovered the 3D structure, but the structure (specifically, the base pairing) made it quite clear that the mechanism of inheritance was due to each complementary strand serving as a template for information copying.
For me, that was the stunning bit of the discovery.
> Crick and Watson certainly didn't discover DNA as the substrate for Mendelian inheritance, that was known long before. They (in collaboration with Rosalind "don't talk to me about this woman" Franklin) discovered its 3D structure.
From Wikipedia, it goes back to at least 1927:
... In 1927, Nikolai Koltsov proposed that inherited traits would be inherited via a "giant hereditary molecule" made up of "two mirror strands that would replicate in a semi-conservative fashion using each strand as a template".[186][187] In 1928, Frederick Griffith in his experiment discovered that traits of the "smooth" form of Pneumococcus could be transferred to the "rough" form of the same bacteria by mixing killed "smooth" bacteria with the live "rough" form.[188][189] This system provided the first clear suggestion that DNA carries genetic information.
Ah, he also believes in "Ashkenazi IQ" stuff. And is best friends with Greg Cochran who thinks homosexuality is caught by germs. Very instructive stuff
Also if they’re wrong (those being contrarian) who cares? Hypothesis and there’s should be able to defend themselves rationally against any attacks if they can’t then they are not studied well enough to have rigorously tested the hypothesis
At least imo, sure misinformation is one thing but if we’re talking about other scientists I assume, not some layman on facebook
Yes, this is the usual precanned retort when faced with the fact that one's fringe viewpoint isn't in line with the mainstram science. It's not an argument though, in that it doesn't tilt the balance of probabilities (from a Bayesian point of view) away from the initial prior (i.e. the fringe is likely wrong and experts are likely right - note that I said likely, not 100%, like a good Bayesian). If anything, his elementary mistake about Crick, his failure to stay up to date with recent findings about African DNA, and motivated agenda with roots in scientific racism are tilting in the opposite direction.
I knew nothing about the author of the text, and read it with interest, but the fact that he didn't mention Franklin was certainly a surprise and warning sign. To anyone who studied the issue, it's clear that Franklin should be credited at least equally with Crick&Watson.
It's quite possible not to be familiar with the issue, or only aware of it peripherally. "Crick & Watson" is the way it was taught to almost all Americans, correct or no.
Though it's not a distinction many people care about, for me this is always the fundamental context: Homo Sapiens, not 'humans'. There have been many species of humans; only one of them made it to modern times. So--the post isn't on 'human origins', it's on 'Homo Sapien origins'.
The article explains that modern humans actually don't descend exclusively from homo sapiens, but also have lineage from Neanderthals and Denisovans, and that's just of the ones we know. So the article seems to talk about the origin of modern humans as in the people alive today that we'd all consider to be human.
That's why he specifies that now we understand that what we thought in the 80s, that modern humans = homo sapiens, we now know is wrong, as we now know that modern humans involve a more complex lineage. But what we thought of the homo sapiens lineage does seem to be correct though.
At least that's what I understood of the article. Now I don't know how precise and correct and up to date the article is.
The article clarifies that "human" includes the whole homo genus (well, not explicitly, but it at least mentions other species in homo as being human) within the same paragraph you quoted from.
He's talking about the origin of 'modern humans', which are specifically the homo sapien species, not about the origin of all humans. He even says so:
>"Today almost everything we had figured out then is wrong. We didn’t understand the origin of modern humans, and we’re still in the process of unpacking all the complexity as more and more findings come to light."
We all came from Adam and Eve, Allah(God) created everything. some people are believing theories made by a handful of "scientists" and became facts all of a sudden.
There's no need to believe anything in science. In fact, the default position should be disbelief. There are experiments and explanations. Some explanations keep working after many experiments. Many do not. Those explanations that survive many attempts at disproof become accepted. It doesn't happen "all of a sudden."
The claim that the Bible explains creation does not stand up too well to experiment in this regard.
Well, who do you suppose created Allah, then? Hint: It's the same god that was created by the exiled Jews who were later invited back to their lands by Cyrus. And this Allah you're referring to is the same deity that hebrews, christians and muslims are all viewing from different angles.
And this single god is the consolidated version of all the deities that had come before then and understandably it's a deity that loves violence and has little to no mercy to those who oppose it. You wouldn't expect people who were oppressed for centuries to create a god that has never-ending love for all humans.
God is an extension of human consciousness that replaces conscience. It's a way to easily delegate responsibilities and defer wrongdoings. It's there so you can contain compartmentalized conflicting thoughts in your head so you don't go insane. You have your god because you can't tell right from wrong. It's like a tick that's attached to your skull and feeds off of your thoughts. Obviously like with any other tick, it's hard to rid of it.
You can have faith in your religion without disregarding science. Who's to say creationism wasn't lost in translation to begin at the Big Bang and end at human consciousness through evolution?
I don't believe in that stuff. But it's a much more cohesive story than believing in an actual Adam and Eve with people living hundreds of years old.
If it happened, science may eventually prove it. Since you believe it to be fact, you should instead, push to dig deeper.
One of the things I do know about my great grandmothers of several centuries far back (and maybe she is also one of yours if she is a common ancestor), is that she must have been an obese woman, even for the standards of the day. We’re talking late 1400s or so. This woman indeed must have been so fat, that at the time of her death the earth was flat, but when they buried her it became round.
Readit News
"Everyone is a descendent of Charlemagne" or
"After a couple of millenia, every human is related."
https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/were-all-descended-from-charle...
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...
https://github.com/pannous/hieros/wiki/paradoxon
Crick and Watson certainly didn't discover DNA as the substrate for Mendelian inheritance, that was known long before. They (in collaboration with Rosalind "don't talk to me about this woman" Franklin) discovered its 3D structure.
Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%.
The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the majority of scientists. Admixture doesn't change that.
Also, isn't Razib Khan a "scientific racist"? (Protip: when someone's wiki page has a 'Controversies' tab it doesn't look good) I remember him being huge into 'HBD' despite not being credentialed in any way beyond dropping out of his PhD program to get in on the 'consumer genomics' grift. Not a good look imo.
If you want a real overview of current population genetics check out Graham Coop's lectures, he's a prominent professor in the field and his teaching materials were inspirational for many people. Alas, he does not have a substack, neither does he make contrarian takes for a living (probably due to having a real job)
> Africans do have Neanderthal DNA, up to 0.3%.
He never claimed or hinted that Africans do not have Neanderthal DNA.
He says "non-African modern humans were discernibly more similar to the Neanderthal sample than Africans were", which is factually accurate, given that there's about a 1.5-2.5% gap in the amount of DNA that's shared, at least according to best current knowledge.
> The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong
No such thing is insinuated.
He makes it explicit that he's talking about the "total-replacement plank of the old out-of-Africa model", and he spends a while talking about how we're all descended from a single male and single female within Africa, it's only the case that certain populations outside of Africa mixed with other hominids and got up to 5-7% of their DNA from them (Neanderthals and Denisovans), which is far more than what Africans have.
That ancestry comes from later interactions with West Eurasians and is at trace levels compared to the substantial 2-3% in non-Africans. This does not change the point that non-Africans received input from Neanderthals just before expansion outwards.
>The post tries very hard to make it look like 'Out of Africa' is wrong and not the mainstream accepted by the majority of scientists. Admixture doesn't change that.
You've misread the article if you believe that. The point is that the total replacement model of out of Africa imagining a small band of hunter gatherers expanding out of an East Africa giving rise to all of humanity popular in the 2000s was proven wrong. The point was that single locus markers like mtDNA and Y-DNA can create biases that allowed for such a consensus that was changed by the whole genome of the Neanderthal. The ancient DNA we have now suggests a multi-regional model for modern human evolution within Africa.
The remainder of the post (other than the first nitpick) is non-substantive ideological claims that appears to be largely because Razib's politics lean conservative. Interest in human populations and such phenotypic differences does not imply scientific racism once you realize the basic scientific principle that humans are animals and consider how animals exist in populations with phenotypic differences.
I just want to comment on this: opposing 'scientific racism' is an ideological claim now?! The dude has a pretty large record making claims about race and IQ and 'human biodiversity', works in an industry that's banking heavily on grifting money out of rich people with PGSes, and mainstream scientists debunking it are the ones being ideological? I feel like I'm dreaming here, imagine a Philip Morris lobbyist accusing you of being 'ideological' when you point out flaws in their 'actually cigarettes are pretty good for you' studies. (Wait, that actually happened)
He is a Bengali-American (with a Muslim name) who has repeatedly debunked Hindu nationalist claims about ancient human migrations in and out of India.
Unfortunately, as your comment shows, they have been succesful in maligning him as a racist for speaking the truth.
Could also be your typical sour grapes over a dissenting view on the science. Academia is full of childishness like this (especially but not exclusively as you go further away from stuff that can be unambiguously measured and into the realm of the squishy soft sciences).
I'd suggest you take a look at some of his work yourself and make a judgement of how unscientific he really is:
https://vdare.com/letters/vdare-khan-letter-and-sailer-reply...
Here's a paragraph for instance (trust me reading it in context doesn't make it any better)
> Also, I am not sure the blonde preference is as dominant among people from Asia as it is among Europeans, and Asians have not been as culturally dominated by Europeans as Amerindians have. Though certain European features were traditionally praised by Asians (fair skin), others have not been emulated (large noses, reputed body odor due to diet, hirsute body, etc.). In addition, though Japanese may comment on the nice figures that European women have (i.e., Europeans tend to exhibit more sexual dimorphism), they will also comment that many American women are too large and, as they would say in the States, "big-boned." In other words, even if blondeness is preferred by Eurasians, there are other attributes that work against them (their size in comparison to petite Asian women, the perception by many Asians that European women, and Europeans in general, age faster and don't keep their appearance up after the bloom of youth, etc.).
This comment is so full of intellectual dishonesty. Razib Khan's controversy is a result of his so called cancellation by Left-liberal media like NYT/Times which are decidedly against Hindu nationalism.
In fact, Razib Khan is the founder of Brown Pundits, which is arguably more center right and has more Hindutva supporters than left-liberals. I found Razib Khan and Omar Ali both to be a prudent and neutral observers of the developments in subcontinent and are more leaning towards Hindutva (in its original spirit)
If wikipedia had existed in the time of Copernicus, Plato, Giordano Bruno, Galileo or Darwin, I do not think they would be without their own large ‘controversies’ section ;)
Dead Comment
To put it another way, if a scientist does a study and shows that the Ainu people of northern Japan are statistically taller than the Mbuti people of the Congo, does that mean the scientist is a "scientific heightist"? Wouldn't they need to amend their report with something like "...and therefore, Ainu people are better than Mbuti" or something like that?
from the acknowledgments his 2013 paper https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jou...
"Thanks to Razib Khan, Sharon Browning, and Don Conrad for several useful discussions"
you can nitpick the piece but this is from an attack piece on me:
"MANY PROMINENT geneticists familiar with Khan’s work do take him seriously. “I don’t agree with everything that Razib writes, but I think that he does write about population genetics very clearly,” said Graham Coop, a population genetic"
so yes, put your faith in graham :-) you know his work so little you weren't aware i was going to easily pivot in this direction
https://vdare.com/letters/vdare-khan-letter-and-sailer-reply...
Deleted Comment
Is "having a good look" a core part of your epistemology?
The HBD stuff is troublesome and it's certainly worth regarding the author more critically, but I found the bones of what was linked fairly pedestrian and uncontroversial. I suspect that will not be true of the follow-up article about origin models within Africa though.
"Wait this is an elementary mistake. Also he's not really up to date on the science. Who wrote this again? That name rings a bell...oh dear..."
Just to add a little bit.
They discovered the 3D structure, but the structure (specifically, the base pairing) made it quite clear that the mechanism of inheritance was due to each complementary strand serving as a template for information copying.
For me, that was the stunning bit of the discovery.
From Wikipedia, it goes back to at least 1927:
... In 1927, Nikolai Koltsov proposed that inherited traits would be inherited via a "giant hereditary molecule" made up of "two mirror strands that would replicate in a semi-conservative fashion using each strand as a template".[186][187] In 1928, Frederick Griffith in his experiment discovered that traits of the "smooth" form of Pneumococcus could be transferred to the "rough" form of the same bacteria by mixing killed "smooth" bacteria with the live "rough" form.[188][189] This system provided the first clear suggestion that DNA carries genetic information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History
Decide for yourself if he is a "scientific racist." Takimag is not shy about stuff like that.
At least imo, sure misinformation is one thing but if we’re talking about other scientists I assume, not some layman on facebook
Though it's not a distinction many people care about, for me this is always the fundamental context: Homo Sapiens, not 'humans'. There have been many species of humans; only one of them made it to modern times. So--the post isn't on 'human origins', it's on 'Homo Sapien origins'.
The article explains that modern humans actually don't descend exclusively from homo sapiens, but also have lineage from Neanderthals and Denisovans, and that's just of the ones we know. So the article seems to talk about the origin of modern humans as in the people alive today that we'd all consider to be human.
That's why he specifies that now we understand that what we thought in the 80s, that modern humans = homo sapiens, we now know is wrong, as we now know that modern humans involve a more complex lineage. But what we thought of the homo sapiens lineage does seem to be correct though.
At least that's what I understood of the article. Now I don't know how precise and correct and up to date the article is.
>"Today almost everything we had figured out then is wrong. We didn’t understand the origin of modern humans, and we’re still in the process of unpacking all the complexity as more and more findings come to light."
And thanks for the downvote.
The claim that the Bible explains creation does not stand up too well to experiment in this regard.
How can you experiment human origin?
And this single god is the consolidated version of all the deities that had come before then and understandably it's a deity that loves violence and has little to no mercy to those who oppose it. You wouldn't expect people who were oppressed for centuries to create a god that has never-ending love for all humans.
God is an extension of human consciousness that replaces conscience. It's a way to easily delegate responsibilities and defer wrongdoings. It's there so you can contain compartmentalized conflicting thoughts in your head so you don't go insane. You have your god because you can't tell right from wrong. It's like a tick that's attached to your skull and feeds off of your thoughts. Obviously like with any other tick, it's hard to rid of it.
Deleted Comment
People start believing stories made by <prophet/whomever> and they become facts all of a sudden.
I don't believe in that stuff. But it's a much more cohesive story than believing in an actual Adam and Eve with people living hundreds of years old.
If it happened, science may eventually prove it. Since you believe it to be fact, you should instead, push to dig deeper.