Human Biological and Psychological diversity

An important new academic paper was recently published.

Many evolutionary psychologists have asserted that there is a panhuman nature, a species typical psychological structure that is invariant across human populations. Although many social scientists dispute the basic assumptions of evolutionary psychology, they seem widely to agree with this hypothesis. Psychological differences among human populations (demes, ethnic groups, races) are almost always attributed to cultural and sociological forces in the relevant literatures. However, there are strong reasons to suspect that the hypothesis of a panhuman nature is incorrect. Humans migrated out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago and occupied many different ecological and climatological niches. Because of this, they evolved slightly different anatomical and physiological traits. For example, Tibetans evolved various traits that help them cope with the rigors of altitude; similarly, the Inuit evolved various traits that help them cope with the challenges of a very cold environment. It is likely that humans also evolved slightly different psychological traits as a response to different selection pressures in different environments and niches. One possible example is the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people. Frank discussions of such differences among human groups have provoked strong ethical concerns in the past. We understand those ethical concerns and believe that it is important to address them. However, we also believe that the benefits of discussing possible human population differences outweigh the costs.

Notable quotes include:

Mainstream textbooks, for example, document many instances of human biological diversity. Despite this, the basics of human biological diversity are not integrated into the social sciences.

Evidence from a variety of disciplines, including genetics, anthropology, archaeology, and paleontology, indicates that human populations evolved distinctive features after spreading from Africa and settling in different ecological and climatic niches (Bellwood 2013; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Molnar 2006; Wade 2014). Although such human biological variation is often ignored by social scientists, it is not really a matter of dispute among researchers in the relevant disciplines.

In a meta-analysis of racial and ethnic differences in self-esteem, Twenge and Crocker (2002) found a pattern of self-esteem differences (Blacks scored higher than Whites after the 1980s and Asians scored lower than both), but ruled out, a priori, the possibility that such differences were related to biology because, according to them, “racial and ethnic categorizations are socially constructed” and are not based on “shared biological characteristics” (p. 371). This means that an entirely legitimate and plausible hypothesis about the etiology of self-esteem differences was ignored, leaving only social or cultural hypotheses. It is, of course, possible that the differences are entirely environmental in origin, but it is not certain, and ruling legitimate hypotheses out a priori on flimsy arguments (see “Race and Human Populations” section) about the nonreality of human biological diversity potentially prevents researchers from fully understanding the causes of differences in self-esteem.

In a paper on racial and ethnic differences in violent crime rates, Sampson et al. (2005) asserted that biological differences among human populations do not hold “distinct scientific credibility as causes of violence,” and proceeded to adjudicate between three environment-only hypotheses about the causes of disparities in violence (p. 224). So, again, these researchers ruled out a priori a perfectly legitimate and plausible hypothesis and proceeded to approach the data with a self-imposed theoretical limitation.

I wonder why this academic blindness is so common? I also wonder why there are so few researchers willing to challenge the egalitarian orthodoxy despite plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary:

Rushton (1995), for example, forwarded an expansive account of population differences based on life-history theory. However, he was viciously attacked by many scholars (e.g., Barash 1995), and his work was quickly marginalized.

There are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom of both behavioral and physical evolution of species in what most biologists would consider a relatively short time. 20 generations or so seems to be enough time for noticeable adaptations to occur, which is approximately 400 years in humans.

Thus far, we have introduced what we called the SEPP, and noted that we were going to recalibrate two of its basic premises. The first premise was gradualism, which contends that evolution by natural selection is a very slow phenomenon and that human populations have not had enough time to evolve meaningful differences. We argued that this position requires adjustment because (1) natural selection can differentially sculpt traits quite rapidly, as documented by many researchers (see “Background” section), and (2) there is copious evidence that human populations differ from each other somewhat physiologically and that natural selection continues to affect human populations (Hawks et al. 2007; Zuk 2013). Adjusting gradualism in this manner requires that we reconsider the idea of a panhuman nature. It would be remarkable, as we will discuss below, if human populations were completely similar psychologically despite having endured different selective regimes in different environments.

There are notable adaptations in humans which likely evolved during geologically short periods of time, such as cold adaptations in high latitudes or low oxygen adaptations at high altitudes. Other examples include darker skin in mid latitudes to protect from ultraviolet radiation or conversely light skin in high latitudes to enhance vitamin D production, or lactose digestion in adults in communities which domesticate milk producing animals.

The article also goes over some of the common, and false, arguments against race being a biological construct including lewontin’s fallacy, which I have previously covered myself.

A final argument often forwarded against the use of racial classifications is that the genetic variation between human populations is small and dwarfed by the genetic variation within populations (Lewontin 1972; Templeton 2013). Therefore, so this argument goes, racial classifications contain almost no meaningful biological information. There are two counterarguments to this. First, if one focuses on the correlational structure among multiple genetic loci instead of serially examining single loci or averaging over multiple loci, then there are clear and biologically informative differences among human populations (Cochran and Harpending 2009; Edwards 2003; Tang et al. 2005). In other words, different human population groups are recognizable by their genetic profiles but only if one examines a pattern of genetic loci. Tang et al. (2005), for example, reported evidence that self-reported ethnicity corresponded very closely with genetic clusters derived from 326 microsatellite markers. Other studies have found similar power to detect accurately people’s ancestry (Guo et al. 2014; Moreno-Estrada et al. 2014). Of course, this would be impossible without sufficient genetic information to distinguish among human populations.

Importantly, it highlights the reality that personality and psychology also has a biological component, and this varies across races:

The human brain is the same as the human body in this regard and is not somehow immune to natural selection. Or, as Nicholas Wade (2014) succinctly noted, “brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene” (p. 106). It is almost certain that human populations vary psychologically in interesting, important, and scientifically meaningful ways because they were subject to different selective regimes (Rushton 1985; Wade 2007). To preview one example briefly, natural selection may have slightly dialed up the general intelligence knob on Ashkenazi Jews (i.e., an adjustment on an existing adaptation), who score roughly 110 on standardized intelligence tests (Cochran et al. 2006; Lynn 2011). Whether humans share a universal psychological profile depends upon the question one is trying to answer. If, for example, one wants to know how humans learn to recognize siblings, the concept of a panhuman psychical nature is probably fruitful (Lieberman et al. 2007). If, however, one wants to know why the Ashkenazim prosper in many societies, often despite virulent anti-semitism, then the concept of a universal psychical profile is not only wrong, but it also positively prevents researchers from accurately answering the question (because it leads to a fruitless exploration for sociocultural causes which cannot be the entire story).

Citing specific studies with specific genes, the authors discuss some personality traits which seem to vary over different populations, quite likely due to the genetic differences mentioned, including collectivism (east Asians) vs. individualism (NW Europeans) and Ashkanazi Jewish intelligence.

For additional information on the likely evolutionary pressures which led to an increase in pro-civilizational traits in Europeans, I recommend A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World by Gregory Clark. One of these days I am going to get around to doing a full review of this book.

By political necessity, the article is very conservative with its discussion of racial differences. However, it is a useful step in the right direction in gaining a mainstreamed understanding of the reality of race. The article calls out the social “scientists” who categorically rule out biological causes of racial differences as being unscientific. These “scientists” do so for no particular reason other than personal ideological preference. The article further proposes future research more openly and directly pursue possible biological explanations. Despite the obvious qualification that the article doesn’t go far enough in honestly admitting the primacy of biology in racial differences, it is still an important contribution in advancing the our understanding of human nature by addressing the largest problem currently extant in the academic community: Left-wing bias in favor of (false) universal egalitarianism.

We are not naive about the obstacles a Darwinian approach to human biological diversity faces. We hope only to start a candid discussion and to forward some suggestions about how to proceed with this paradigm. Doubtless, some will continue to resist the notion that human populations differ in biologically meaningful ways. But it seems clear to us that biological diversity is the rule across the vast tapestry of life. It is true among plants, among animals, among humans, and among human populations.

Read full article here.

Share Button

A particularly heinous crime, and how you can avoid a similar fate

Being a good Samaritan only makes sense in high trust societies. And the only societies capable of supporting that high level of trust are those composed primarily of ethnic Europeans. Asians may have this to some degree as well, although I don’t think they reach a level anywhere close to Europeans with the Japanese being a probable exception. What happens when a high-trust individual comes into contact with people who just shouldn’t be trusted?

There was a recent news report about two “teens” in North Carolina who got their vehicle stuck in ditch. A good Samaritan stopped to help them get it out. After the vehicle was extricated from the ditch, the “teens” proceeded to murder and rob him. This level of disgusting behavior is difficult to comprehend for the average European. It seems so… foreign to harm someone who went out of their way to help you.

As you have probably guessed, the “teens” were black males. Black males are notoriously prone to violent crime. 6-7% of the population in the US is composed of black males, yet they make up 50% or more of the perpetrators of violent crime, depending on the crime. In 85% of inter-racial violence between whites and blacks, the black is the aggressor. You can see a lot more details in the previous link. I also recommend this interview/discussion between Colin Flaherty (see also) and Stephen Molyneux.

Not every black person is a violent criminal and I am not trying to claim that. However, a much larger percentage of the black population is composed of violent criminals than any other racial group. So how should a rational person respond to this undeniable fact? I plan to have a more in depth post about stereotypes and statistical reasoning later, and will include a relevant excerpt from my book on stereotypes, but for now it will suffice to say that using stereotypes about blacks to avoid dangerous situations is justifiable. If you avoid a black stranger who happens to be decent and nice, there are no negative consequences of significance. If you give a black stranger the benefit of the doubt and are wrong you could be looking at a beating, a raping, a mugging or even death. Even if only 5-10% of blacks would do something like this, it really makes no sense to take the risk. Why chance it when there is no or very little benefit?


Avoiding even small risks is perfectly rational when there is no possible pay off. Avoiding relatively big risks like that of black crime is thus a no-brainer. Perhaps the best and most concise elaboration of this sentiment was in John Derbyshire’s The talk: the non-black version. In fact, Derbyshire even specifically advises against being the good Samaritan for blacks with vehicle issues on the side of the highway. Had the victim read and followed Derbyshire’s sensible advice, he would still be alive today:

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

In order to have nice things like good Samaritans a normative commons must be created and maintained:

In a normative commons, each person who forgoes the opportunity of breaking the norm, then pays the cost of maintaining the norms. So, when one lives in a White area, common areas such as shops (markets) will likely be open for browsing, because the norm of behavior is to not steal. Each time a White goes into a store and does not steal, he pays the opportunity cost, equal to the value of the items not stolen. By paying this cost, the norm of keeping shopping areas open to browsing is maintained. Areas with large numbers of Blacks experience increased incidence of crime. In these areas, the risk to shop owners or other providers to allow Blacks free access exceeds the benefits of open browsing (with a main benefit being increased economic velocity). Thus you see convenience stores with no common area, that only sell what can be passed through a bullet-proof teller window. The commons has been destroyed.

Or perhaps someone will follow Blacks through a store to make sure they do not steal, while allowing Whites to browse freely, in this case the normative commons is extended to White co-ethnics, but not to Black co-ethnics. The Whites are the beneficiaries of this normative commons, because they (as a group) pay the opportunity cost of maintaining it…

Privilege is said to be unearned (though I doubt any form of privilege is really unearned). White privilege is not unearned. It is bought and paid for through the cost of maintaining the normative commons. To insist that the privileges accorded to Whites (who maintain the normative commons), be accorded to ethic groups who do not pay the cost of maintaining the commons is futile: market forces will ensure that the privilege is only accorded to those who pay for it. Call it racist if you want. It is simply the market at work.

If you want your society to have people willing to stop and help complete strangers, you have to forego killing them after they help you. I can’t believe this actually has to be explained, but real life events indicate that it does. At least for blacks and some other minorities. Actually, it is probably more the result of a biological tendency and no amount of explaining is likely to ever work. Only segregation or very intense, no-nonsense policing of problematic minorities could address this. The only long-term solution for a tendency for violent crime is regular executions for violent or otherwise egregious crime; although sterilizations could be considered equivalent. Over several generations this eugenic pressure could greatly reduce the frequency of genes leading to violent crime in any given population.

Ironically, avoiding blacks because of their tendency for violence is not just a sane policy for whites (and Asians, mestizos, Indians or anyone else), it is also a prudent policy for blacks themselves when dealing with other blacks they do not personally know and trust. You see, the good Samaritan in the above case was HIMSELF black. This was no instance of racial animus. It was purely the natural behavior of barely-human animals against one of their own co-ethnics. 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. It turns outs the claim that the “The talk”  is not for blacks is actually quite the misnomer. No group could get more day to day use out of that advice than blacks themselves.

Garrett Chadwick

Garrett Chadwick

It also explains why blacks and (some) other minorities are always in such a rush to settle in majority white areas: justified fear of their own co-ethnics (that and taking advantage of white created social norms). Never mind that whites don’t want and shouldn’t have to deal with the dysfunction of other groups. Never mind that the normative commons whites created are quickly destroyed as an area stops being overwhelmingly white because other groups refuse to pay the opportunity costs necessary to maintain them. The immigration mindset is essentially a slash and burn technique: Move to a white area with high trust, strong co-operation and take advantage of the situation. Individual acts of defection can provide real rewards and largely go unnoticed while the population of defectors is small. Unfortunately, every member of the out-group wants a piece of the action and quickly overwhelm the culture. The commons are destroyed, whites try to literally or at least de facto escape parasites on their cultural institutions, then the process begins all over again with a new white area being invaded. This will continue until it is forcefully stopped, or there is nothing left to destroy.

Blacks may implicitly already understand that their co-ethnics aren’t as trustworthy as whites:

It is common knowledge that Black cab drivers will often drive past Blacks and pick up White passengers instead. This White privilege is accrued to the White ethnic group because the members of the group tend to forgo the opportunity to rob the Black cabbie. Black cabbies understand this and accord the privilege to the White ethnics who will maintain the normative commons. Blacks could earn this privilege by paying for it through maintaining the normative commons. Unfortunately for them, enough of them create the tragedy of the commons for their own co-ethnics by abusing their privilege and not forgoing the opportunity cost.

Now I have read the statistics, I have seen the many news reports (the last two years have been especially enlightening), and I have read or heard lots of anecdotes by other people. However, I have also experienced issues with aggressive and volatile blacks personally, and those experiences are easily the most memorable and substantial in my forming of opinions on this topic. There is nothing like a real risk of being the victim of a group attack by blacks to make a person see things more clearly. Years of progressive propaganda can be washed away in mere seconds, or for 10s of minutes if you are unlucky. Assuming you survive that is. The following are three personal examples copied from a comment I have made previously:

1) In the first instance, I was at University after graduation. I had three friends over celebrating the end of classes for the semester. It was a large party school and I was in a college apartment complex known for throwing parties. Though of course, there were only four of us and I wasn’t throwing a party. We had some music playing and my neighbors thought it was too loud. Hypocritically, they were always making huge amounts of noise themselves the entire year. They first started stomping on the floor, I turned down the music a little, but that wasn’t enough. 5 big black guys then came down and started beating on my door with a baseball bat. We had to call the police who I think ended up arresting one for an outstanding warrant. This sort of behavior was amazing to me. This is a college apartment complex in a party town. Some noise is to be expected at times. With only the 4 of us, we couldn’t have been making that much noise. They had never shown any consideration towards their neighbors about their noise level for the entire year they lived above me. One night on which I had an important test the next day, their washing machine broke and they scrapped the floor with a wet vac from 1-3am. I was super pissed, but I didn’t beat their door with a baseball bat.

2) In another instance I was with my roommate and we were going to the grocery store in his truck. He pulled into a parking spot and all of a sudden a black guy who was around a corner pulls behind us. Being around a corner before this, he was clearly not in a position to own the spot when my roommate pulled in. He got out and attempted to instigate a fight (first with my roommate who was a quiet guy, then me when I stepped in and told him he was out of line). He eventually left after I threatened to call the police.

3) I used to ride my bike and take the train to work. On the train, there is a slot for bikes on some of the cars. However, there is a seat under the rack which makes it unusable when someone is sitting in it. On previous occasions, I was told by police officers (at least twice) that I needed to use the bike rack and not use the aisle. If someone is sitting there I need to ask them to move to a different seat if any are available (there were plenty of other seats on this occasion, the train was maybe 50% occupied). Well, it happened to be this black girl and her girlfriend. I politely asked her to move and she did move to a seat about 2 feet distant (literally, it was hardly a move) but with a great deal of attitude. I explained that the police told me I have to do that. Undeterred, she started yelling/chimping out and wouldn’t stop for about 20 minutes. At first (2 minutes) I tried to engage reason, but when that failed (of course) I just ignored her. Most people would eventually give up when their “opponent” stopped participating. Not her. She kept yelling and yelling and talking shit. She wanted to instigate a fight (probably hoping that her “cousins” on the train would gang attack me if something actually happened). The conductor eventually called the police and they took us off at the next stop (thank god). I explained my story and they let me go. I don’t know what happened to the girl. I noped right out of there, but they were detained at least somewhat longer than I was. I am sure she is using that as an example of “white privilege” while conveniently ignoring her completely unjustified and egregiously obnoxious behavior.

And just to add to that, an acquaintance was recently assaulted by a black man while pumping gas for his vehicle. His great offense was mistakenly thinking the yelling and belligerent black was trying to talk to him, and thus asking him what he wanted. Fortunately, the black guy, who was probably on some drug, was pulled away by his friend before he landed more than one punch.  There is a reason race relations are deteriorating rapidly and it isn’t being caused by whitey.

Share Button

Black Supremacists publicly threatened Dallas police and fire fighters a month before the shootings according to a leaked Dallas Police Department memo

A user on my subreddit sent me a private message claiming to be a Dallas city employee (he didn’t say what he did, but I assume he/she was a fire fighter based on the memo I was sent). I was told that about a month before the current shootings, a memo went out from the Dallas police department warning city employees to be careful because a black supremacist group  known as the African American Defense League (AADL) made a facebook post telling its members to not only target police in their “fight,” but to also target fire fighters as well. This post apparently received enough support from Dallas area blacks that the DPD felt the need to warn at minimum the fire department if not all city employees. After the shooting last week, the user felt that this memo should be publicly shared even though it is intended only for city workers. He asked me to post it for him so that it could not be traced back to him. I agreed and here it is (I covered up any phone numbers, emails, or individual names on the document):

Memo redact screenshot

The anonymous Dallas employee did not provide me with any other comments, he/she just wanted me to share the memo and chose me since I am fairly accessible on reddit. The rest of this post is my own thoughts and has no association with the source.

The first thing that sticks out is the Marxist fist pump. At least there is no confusion what branch of political thought is creating these terrorists…

The second thing that pops out is that clearly the DPD had at least a month warning about the increasing militancy of the local black population. Could they have launched investigations then and possibly prevented this shooting? Was this group officially recognized as a terrorist group or was it only lightly covered via this memo? Did some of the perpetraitors (pun intended) like this comment? The existence of this document raises a lot of questions.

Lastly, the fact that these groups would target fire fighters boggles my mind. If a fire fighter shows up near you the only thing he is going to be doing is trying to save lives. Your life, your friends life, your child’s life and whoever else is in need of saving. This doesn’t always mean fires either. Many if not most fire fighters do double duty as emergency medical technicians. If you get in a wreck, it is usually a fire fighter using the jaws of life to get you out of your crumpled car. You or someone you know has a drug overdose, including alcohol, you bet it is likely a fire fighter keeping you alive long enough to get to the ER. Stroke, heart attack, you name it, these are all things fire fighters come across day to day. Fire fighters are not involved in law enforcement at all. How could anyone be that stupid to want to target them? If you chase them away or kill them, it is you, your friends, and family who are going to die when help doesn’t arrive.

I will hazard to guess it is a symptom of a population of people who have on average only an 85 IQ [PDF]. Since IQ is a distribution, half of the black population falls below that. In the past, that half of the black population would have been considering mentally retarded. However, in 1995 the threshold was shifted down to 70-75. Care to guess why this was done? A hint:  It wasn’t because people in that range became more competent. It was because half of the black population had to be officially classified as retards and political correctness could not let that stand. So, the establishment threw out all experience (people below 85 IQ really aren’t very functional) and just changed the definition to sound better. You can’t make this stuff up.

I think we need to re-evaluate our understanding of these violent black groups. These aren’t normal human beings; these are people who are literally retarded via the older and more accurate definition (IQ<85). Chances are that as a group they are just too dumb to understand the basic concepts we take for granted. For example, fire fighters save lives and shouldn’t be harmed. Local businesses provide you with valuable services, but they won’t stick around if you destroy them. If you act like a complete git and threaten a cop, chances are you are going to get shot and possibly killed.

Frankly, other races should stop assuming blacks have any sort of agency at all. Their IQ is not high enough to allow them to think through things effectively. When you start from that premise, the practical approaches to the black problem become more obvious. Allowing the mentally retarded portion of black population (i.e., half of their population) the level of freedom they currently waste has been a complete disaster. They constantly kill each other (and us when they get the chance), they rape, they steal, they are unable to perform adequately at decent job and they also suffer catastrophic family break down. Plus, their general criminality puts them under the constant, and warranted, suspicion of law enforcement.

I am sure their lives are pretty miserable. They blame whites for their failures, and while their failures are of their own making, there is something to that. Is it really fair that we allow millions of mentally retarded people go about their business without any adult supervision? Is it really fair for us to believe that these people can take care of themselves when quite obviously they can’t? If a child suffered neglect, I think they would have a case to resent their parents. While this isn’t the same, we don’t owe blacks anything, I can see a certain similarity in the situations. We could legitimately make their lives less bitter while not exacerbating the problem for future generations. However, the only way to do that is to accept that we aren’t dealing with rational human beings with agency, but a large population of the mentally handicapped. Letting a huge population of literal retards run wild on our streets was a huge mistake and everyone is suffering for it, including blacks themselves.

Share Button

Smart and SeXy

Smart and SeXy: The Evolutionary origins and biological underpinnings of cognitive differences between the sexes

The soft cover edition is available here. If you are on a budget you can also download the E-book. You can read the review here and the counter-currents review here.

This is probably the most heretical work I have ever or will ever put to writing personally, and probably one of the most heretical things from the perspective of progressives, feminists and any other member of the cathedral available anywhere. If you want a no-nonsense (i.e., no feminism) description of sex differences, then you will probably enjoy the information contained within. If you have questions about what exactly the gender differences in intelligence are, by what fairly exact biological mechanisms they come about, and what potential evolutionary narratives explain what we observe, then this is the book for you. After reading this book you will not only know the current patterns of sex differences in intelligence as shown by psychometric tests, but why and how the underlying biology explains the patterns we observe. At the heart of the differences is both genetic and hormonal elements which work in concert to generate what we see on an every day basis. It has taken years of work (since 2011) and hundreds of hours invested in reading hundreds of dry academic papers to compile the more than 300 sources included, but I did so you can have the evidence all in one place and explained in lay terms. And perhaps most importantly, to have the evidence for gender differences in intelligence without muddying the waters with the foul taint of feminism.

At the heart of The Red Pill and the Dark Enlightenment, when thinking about women, is a kernal which grows to support everything else; all the theory on game, marriage, etc. All higher level knowledge is dependent on it. The fundamental concept, or more accurately the anti-concept, is the rejection of Equality. Egalitarianism just isn’t so. Men and women aren’t equal and they aren’t the same. Knowing they are not equal allows correct understanding of the world and relationships from successful one night stands to successful marriages. The entirety of the manosphere and red pill are dependent on this insight. The Dark Enlightenment is also dependent on this insight, but they expand it to include not only sex differences but ethnic differences as well.

Having that level of dependence on that initial small kernal can present a problem when it isn’t sufficiently supported by evidence. Though there is this and that study which suggests in a minor way that gender equality is false, it is my view that such information as bolsters the rejection of egalitarianism when it comes to men and women is lacking sufficient centralization within the manosphere and neoreactionary community. There may be thousands of individual blog posts on the topic, but mostly each one only addresses a small part of the big picture and getting the entirety of the picture from these diffused writings can be more difficult than it needs to be. The known facts are sufficiently dispersed, unorganized, and lacking in coherence that it makes the kernal a source of vulnerability to criticism from the outside. It is, as it were, a chink in our armor that needs to be addressed.

You might think “there is plenty of evidence.” Sure, there is. But, in all honesty, do we (the community more than geneticists) REALLY understand the mechanism? How exactly, at the molecular level, does inequality between men and women come about? It is an important question, and until it is answered so rigorously and thoroughly that it can’t be denied this will always be a vulnerability in our position. This is why I wrote this book. It is meant to be the titanium plate to cover our chink in the armor. This book coheres the currently available data into a single place and a single narrative that is relatively easy to access and difficult to refute. Moreover, and unlike most feminist theories, it presents a testable hypothesis. The genetic explanation for sex differences in intelligence I propose is something that biologists and geneticists can design experiments to test in order to prove or disprove. By making this hypothesis known to the mainstream it forces scientists to directly test the hypothesis. At least that is my hope. Prior evidence suggests what the result of such testing will be.

Another point of this book is to attempt to put to rest once and for all the idea that disparities in achievement between men and women have a chiefly cultural origin; they don’t. The differences between men and women are almost exclusively due to biology. Once society accepts that women aren’t going to ever achieve at the same rate as men, we can stop wasting time and resources promoting women, via affirmative action, into positions and occupations they are not suited for; thus saving a lot of effort and wealth that is currently getting wasted. We might also be able to get the birthrate back up to a more stable level and thus avoid demographic problems.

Lastly, to a certain extent it is meant to be a handbook for those who might be faced with deliberation on the topic and who need to quickly reference one type of study or another to demonstrate biological reality. I have made herculean efforts to make this as readable as possible and I believe I have done a good job with this, but I have placed greater emphasis on including as much relevant information with proper citations to credible journals as possible. I wanted to give people knowledge of which studies they need to cite for their particular argument or discussion in one convenient and accessible place.

Who to thank?

I owe some twisted gratitude to progressive academics who through their push to shun and silence me in the name of political correctness gave me the motivation I needed to write this book contrary to their culturally Marxist fantasies. On multiple occasions I have been personally screwed over by people holding that ideology because I was so audacious as to merely mention I had read The Bell Curve and found the points within to be worth consideration. I didn’t even claim to agree with it, just that it is a hypothesis which needs to be taken seriously. That is, I was trying to be an objective biologist which is what scientists are supposed to do. What we are trained to do in fact. There were also several situations (probably more actually) where similar points, but about gender instead of race, met with pretty much the same result. Though it didn’t end up mattering very much, I was rejected from one graduate school because the chairman of the department found out I had a conversation with another professor about the bell curve (that professor actually brought the topic up!). That chairman then projected onto me an argument he had with his daughter’s teacher where apparently the teacher said or believed something sexist. The bell curve only briefly talks about gender differences (a couple pages out of 849)…  What the teacher actually did was never very clearly explained. This guy was mad, and it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said to him, and I got a nice rejection because of it. So ya, I got really pissed, and not for the first or last time. A string of situations just like this created a great resentment within me, which I am sure is quite true of many other people given the swelling of the red pill, the dark enlightenment and other internet phenomena. These prig prog “scientists” were being complete a**%^$!s about hypotheses which cover perfectly valid scientific questions, and which as I show in the book have a great deal of empirical support. If it hadn’t been for my naive faith in actual objectivity in science, and the subsequent confrontation with the progressive faith that actually exists in science that resulted, I almost certainly never would have cared enough to do any of this work. I may never have cared enough to find neoreaction. Yet those things did happen, and now neoreaction, the alt-right and the red pill have something available that they can use against left-wing creationists, should they desire to use it.

Confrontations like these have made me, and many others, heavily motivated to discredit feminism because their beliefs don’t match the facts and they witch hunt anyone and everyone who points that out. The best way to do that is with hard data and if I didn’t do it, I feared nothing else so comprehensive would have come out for years. Or if it did, it would be hidden in esoteric academic texts in obscure journals and even then it would be dressed in evasive and overly-qualified language. In fact, I would argue that there has been more than enough data available to discredit feminism for a very long time but paywalls for publicly funded research (don’t get me started on that) and a wide dispersion of everything relevant with substantial credibility has made it difficult to pull everything together. There are many, many papers which touch on the subject but none that I have been able to locate that brings it all together. And they definitely don’t come close to calling out progressives. Most try to appease the leftist mobs. To do this right takes an outsider, and it takes someone with an audience. I have a marginal audience, but the biggest help with spreading the information lies with my ties to the other neoreactionaries who have a much larger following. Likely, it will spread to the manosphere blogs due to the porous nature of the divide between neoreaction and that community. Or not, only time will tell.

Blog vs. book

There are a number of bloggers who write for years then decide after the fact to convert their posts into a book. In my case, I actually went the other direction. I had already had this book in progress for several years prior to starting this blog in 2014. A number of posts on this blog (not all) were either direct offshoots from work on this project or were indirectly inspired by my work on the book and later integrated as they were highly relevant to points I was making. Some changed little, while others changed significantly in the move. For the most part, my posts are shortened versions of what appears in the book and have less evidence, citations, and topics as a result of needing to make them stand alone away from the rest of the text. However, the most important part of the book, in my mind, is the large numbers of studies collected together from a wide variety of fields and which constitute the evidence for the biological origins of sexual dimorphism in intelligence. This includes both IQ test studies and the impact of the genetics and hormones on the brain and intelligence. This evidence is exclusive to the book. If you would like a taste of the content of the book before deciding whether or not you want it, I recommend you take a look at the following posts:

Career women are dysgenic

How standardized testing undervalues men

stereotype threat and pseudo-scientists.

Share Button

A response to Duerte Harry

Recently Jim wrote about the future president of the Philippines, affectionately known as Duerte Harry because of a slight similarity of his last name to the first name in the movie dirty harry as well as his similar approach to crime as the title character. Namely that the only good crook is a dead one. Duerte Harry is heavily criticized by progressives enthralled to anarcho-tyranny because as Mayor of Davao he wasted no time with criminals, he just killed them.

As Mayor of Davao, [Duerte] has been accused of running vigilante death squads that have killed more than 1,000 people.

On the other hand, average law-abiding people obviously love him because his method is undeniably (and unsurprisingly) effective. A criminal can’t commit crimes when they are six feet under. Would-be criminals start to have enough fear to think twice. Therefore, once dangerous neighborhoods become safe for people of moderate means because everyone committing crimes is dead or in hiding, average people become happy. That kind of competent governance has led Duerte Harry to a landslide victory in the race for the presidency of the Philippines.

During his campaign he promised to end crime in the ENTIRE country within six months. If it were anyone else I would be skeptical, but he has a successful track record and enough right-wing death squads that he just might make this a reality. Here is a rundown of his campaign:

Philippine President-elect Rodrigo Duterte has vowed to end crime in his first six months in office through mass executions of convicts and eliminating police corruption… While on the campaign trail, the elderly politician enraged critics and hypnotized fans with promises to ignore human rights laws and solve crime by killing tens of thousands of convicts.

I must admit I am impressed. Part of his platform was willfully ignoring (progressive) human rights laws and a plurality of the country loved him for it. Can’t say I am all that surprised. If you have ever been in a bar that is mostly blue collar and talk about some crime or another, almost everyone will say that the S.O.B. who did it should just be killed and be done with it. This is probably true all over the world. If a person lives somewhere with a high crime rate especially, the idea of getting even with the thug who victimized them is probably high on their wish list. With a president like Duerte Harry, the dream just may come true. If the president kills tons of criminals, he just might get that specific criminal you would like to see get his karmic reward.

The only people who don’t think this way are typically rich liberals who can afford to isolate themselves from the trash. Rampant crime doesn’t bother them as much since they don’t have to live through it, and getting that smug feeling of self-righteousness is more important to them than the well-being of decent people unable to separate geographically from the trash.

Anyway, I would like to point out that Duerte Harry’s plan has plenty of advantages beyond just the immediate lowering of the crime rate. It is actually a profoundly eugenic policy. The personality that makes for a risk-taking criminal also often generates lust in many women. A criminal has high time preference and given his natural seductive talents, is likely to father multiple children by multiple women. And to become scarce when it is time to actually raise them. Do all criminals have this ability? Probably not, but criminals probably have a higher proportion of this ability than the average of the general population. By killing a criminal, you prevent him from reproducing ever again. You actually prevent any number of criminals from ever being born. Fantastic. You also can reduce the rate of single motherhood by removing bad choices from her vicinity, and reducing single motherhood has all sorts of positive benefits itself. Killing violent criminals is a likely reason why the west is (or was) relatively more civilized than other places. Our ancestors really liked their executions.

There is one last thing I would like to note about Jim’s post, and that is to confirm his appraisal of Duerte’s death squads compared to Western police forces. Basically he found that he felt perfectly safe around the death squads because they were highly disciplined and focused on actual criminals. In the West, on the other hand, decent, law-abiding citizens regularly find themselves fearful or wary of police even when they are quite certain they are doing nothing wrong. I have felt this way plenty of times and regularly avoid officers just in case they decide to harass me for the hell of it. I feel this way because it has happened on plenty of occasions. Especially in college, but after that as well.

For example, if you have a beer or two you have to think twice about walking out of your door. And I am not defending going out completely sloshed, I mean only a beer or two. A police officer is not unlikely to slap you with a 3-400 dollar fine even when you are just trying to go about your business. I remember one time in college I was going to a party and had not drank anything. At least not yet, and neither had my friends that were with me. As soon as I arrived officers quickly ran up to us gave all my friends and I tickets for drinking. We hadn’t had a single beer. They were in it merely to harass, annoy, and maybe get some easy income for the city. They were apparently upset that the people already in the house wouldn’t let them in, so they took it out on us. The whole situation was crap. Meanwhile, on the other side of the city you have a (minority) area overloaded with violent crime and hard drug use that never seemed to get any better . For some reason the police couldn’t do anything about that (anarchy), but they had plenty of time to pick on college students (tyranny). We were easy targets.

After college I spent about 2 years living, working, and traveling in south east Asia. I never once felt the same sort of dread at seeing a police officer in any of those countries. The simple matter was they weren’t going to bother you unless you were actually visibly doing something wrong, and they were very consistent about that. There is only one example of an exception to this rule and that is that sometimes you could get your scooter pulled over and they would check it for drugs, or they might come into a bar and check it for drugs. In the whole time I was there I only saw this happen twice, so about once per year, and only in extremely touristy areas. Outside of those areas it was unheard of and I never saw anyone harassed by police undeservedly. In fact, the only time I saw the police in action was when a homeless man set a truck on fire and he obviously had it coming. I personally never once had trouble with the police, even if I saw other people being checked.

Now, I won’t skip over the important specific example, because it was messed up, but you have to make a comparison to what might happen in the states under similar circumstances. However, I am not going to get too into the details. And the story is second-hand anyway since I wasn’t immediately around when it happened. Some people I had met and was hanging out with generally, if not at this exact moment, got arrested for smoking marijuana. The police forced them each to pay somewhere between 200-500 USD in bribes to get out of the ticket. One guy got really mouthy and they made him pay the bribe, then picked him up the next day and made him pay it twice. That ended his trip and he had to go back to his country of origin.

So they made them pay bribes, which is corruption and sucks right? Well, ya it does, but what would have happened if you were arrested in the US?  My brother has been arrested for smoking pot several times and I watched him go through all of the following types of BS at one point or another until he finally wizened up and quit. The fine you would pay would easily be 300-500 or more (sometimes they add a yearly payment on top of the initial fine that lasts several years), you would have to do between 20 and 100 hours or more of community service, you probably would have had to pay for some “drugs er bad M’kay” class which would waste a few hundred dollars and up to 20 hours of your time, and you would likely have a permanent mark on your record that would make securing future employment far more difficult. To avoid the permanent record, you could be put on probation for a year which requires regular visits to a government office for drug tests. Failing that and other harsh restrictions could lead to bigger fines or jail time. It could easily take years of annoyance to finally stop having to interact with the cursed legal bureaucracy. If you had gotten mouthy like the guy in the story (and apparently he was pretty bad according to his friends) you might expect to get tazed or even shot in the US. Now tell me, which of these things sounds worse to you? Paying a one-time fee and never having to look back, or years of wasted time, money, and hassle as well as bleaker employment options? The kind of crap they force people to go through over a relatively harmless plant is clearly an example of the tyranny part of anarcho-tyranny.

There is no contest. The one example of BS, which I never experienced personally and is honestly easily avoidable if you take simple precautions, actually has far preferable resolution conditions than the equivalent in the states. Not that I want to laud corruption, but if you are going to have it the system over there is superior. In SE Asia corruption is available to all. If you are of modest means and you get caught committing some minor infraction, such as smoking pot, you can pay a bribe just as easily as the wealthiest man in your city to avoid interaction with the legal system and any sort of permanent record. In most of the US this simply isn’t possible unless you are well-connected, and even when it is it is far more expensive. I would honestly argue that the corruption there is in many ways more fair to the middle class and lower than the rigid legalism of the US. It is certainly far easier to move on with your life after something minor happens.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning drug use. A lot of drugs can cause a lot of harm if over-used. In the case of pot, however, its only real problem is that it makes people forgetful and lazy. That can be a problem yes, but not one I think the legal system needs to be involved in addressing. And even being involved it shouldn’t be more than a minor fine and that is it. Of course, it wouldn’t be the US if the state didn’t harass relatively decent people for the hell of it.

Share Button

A proposal: Social Matter for the sciences.

A user on reddit posted a link in which he lamented that there is not a neoreactionary magazine devoted specifically to science and technology news. Frankly, I think this is a very good idea. I have published things related to this several times before. You can see two of these articles here and here.

My book on gender differences in intelligence, and the biological basis thereof, is actually finished and loosely qualifies for what he wants. So that is science, which is just science, coupled with neoreactionary interpretations. I am still negotiating with a potential publisher, otherwise it would already be available. I hope to have it out by the end of the year, but this process takes a long time I understand. If that doesn’t work out, I will put it out on amazon instead. As important as I feel that is, it isn’t a science magazine which has regularly published short articles. It would be quite beneficial to start such an institution.

If there was going to be a neoreactionary science magazine I think that it would mostly be the regular critiquing of various published articles and pointing out the liberal bias in them. You can see a good template in Steve McIntyres Climate Audit website. Imagine this, but with broader topics and an explicitly neoreactionary position. Academia is a left dominated institution after all and I don’t see reactionary scientists getting funding or being published anytime soon. So really that is all we could do with the occasional exception. Before I started my current blog, I considered doing just this kind of content. Specifically, I had in mind a blog which took a published article from psychology every week or two and went through it to find bad or missing interpretations of the findings. Social psychology especially provides a wealth of material to be ripped apart by critique, but plenty of other branches do as well. Basically, what I have found in reading these articles is that often the data collection and number crunching is about as decent as could be expected, but the interpretations of the findings are often just way off; or certain conclusions are conspicuously absent. We don’t necessarily have to analyze papers as a statistician would to critique these papers. In fact, we can often just assume that all the data and math was done superbly (even if that probably isn’t true) and still find major problems with the paper. By conceding that part and focusing on interpretations it should make it so many more of us could participate in writing content for this magazine. Of course, we could also include pieces which simply analyses new advances in technology as well. I believe I could make a commitment to creating content at least once every two weeks and maybe once a week when time permits. Would anyone else in the neoreactosphere be willing to start working on this sort of thing with me such that we have something similar to social matter but for science and technology specifically? Please email me at or comment on this blog so we can start to make a plan.

Also, pretty much any paper should be freely accessible if we use and /r/scholar to get them, so no one should go out of pocket to get papers for thrashing.

Share Button

Hybridization Theory?

I recently became aware of a hybridization theory of human origins. The science news website has had two different articles on this topic (see here and here). The proponent of this theory is Dr. Gene McCarthy, a geneticist trained at the University of Georgia. In short, McCarthy hypothesizes that humans resulted from a hybridization event between a chimp-like human ancestor and a pig-like ancestor with subsequent back-crosses to the chimp-like ancestor. That is, once the initial small number of hybridizations occurred, the hybrids only paired with the chimp-like ancestor subsequently. Therefore, according to this theory, humans would be mostly primate with a smattering of pig genes interspersed through the genome. This small band of hybrids would then have reproduced prodigiously and thus the human species formed.

Though the idea sounds completely insane, McCarthy offers a fair amount of morphological evidence which I am not especially qualified to evaluate. You can look at this on his site, the first link above.  He also shows various examples of crosses known to occur today which produce fertile female hybrids; albeit with reduced fertility compared to both parent species. In any event, morphological evidence in my opinion can at best compel a more detailed look at genetic data to verify, or more probably refute, the theory. It is quite possible that the morphological similarities are merely a case of convergent evolution rather than evidence of common ancestry.

However, it is known that the human species has very little genetic diversity relative to other species. It is hypothesized that early in the history of the human species there was a very constrictive bottleneck. One of the pieces of evidence used for this bottleneck is the one fewer chromosomes humans have relative to other great apes. It is much easier for a change of this sort to become fixed in a population when that population is very small. Notably, the pig genome also has fewer chromosomes and a hybridization event might explain the reduction in number of chromosomes. The chromosome number is much farther away from pigs and closer to primates, but this would be consistent with the idea that back-crosses occurred exclusively with primates. Could it be that the bottleneck, with its resultant low genetic diversity and reduction in chromosome number, is explained by a very isolated hybridization event among a small group of chimp-like ancestors? These ancestors being the founding population of all humans?

Though hybridization does happen on occasion, it is mostly only successful with plants. Natural hybridization was very important in the development of cultivated wheat for example. (See here and here and here and here). Some wheat species amazingly tolerate hexaploidy successfully. Another good case of hybrid crosses important for agriculture are the citrus fruits; many of which resulted from hybridizations. The grapefruit, for example, resulted from the hybridization of a blood orange (a variety of sweet orange) and a pomelo. I only know of one successful speciation event among animals that resulted from hybridization, and that was between two closely related dolphin species. McCarthy himself claims that hybridization of closely related species of this sort is common among birds in his book “Handbook of avian hybrids of the world,” which is apparently regarded as the preeminent publication on the subject. McCarthy also provides a list of purported hybrid examples documented in the last 150 years or so. Admittedly, a number of these examples aren’t very believable or persuasive, but I will let you be the judge of that yourself. Some are obviously true though; like mules and zeedonks. (Zeedonk is an awesome name BTW)

So we know for a fact that closely related species of plants and animals can hybridize, and that they are even sometimes fertile. That is fine, but an ape and a pig are much more distantly related. Could a successful speciation event occur from such a pairing? Intuition says no, but it is better to let the evidence decide.

There is one way to be absolutely sure it did not happen, and that is through genetic comparisons. One thing that was lacking in McCarthy’s descriptions was any sort of genetic evidence, which immediately made me suspicious. Though highly incredulous, I am not closed-minded and so I dutifully wanted to check genetic studies myself to see if the theory could be positively refuted. Surely there must be some genetic evidence which could rule out this idea conclusively.

So what do we know about human and pig genome comparisons? The domestic pig genome has been sequenced, and all the studies point to it being a better model organism for Human diseases than the mouse. Quoting the author’s of one study:

“In total, we found 112 positions where the porcine protein has the same amino acid that is implicated in a disease in humans,”

In another study, the geneticists were more direct:

“Physical clone maps have underpinned large-scale genomic sequencing and enabled focused cloning efforts for many genomes. Comparative genetic maps indicate that there is more structural similarity between pig and human than, for example, mouse and human.”

Well that is surprising. Pigs make better genetic models for human diseases than rodents? Apparently there is 84% homology between the pig and human genome and critically for medical research, many of the genes implicated in human disease possess the same mutations in pigs.

At first you might not think it is weird that a pig would be a better model than a mouse, but it is actually really strange. If you look at a taxonomic tree of mammals, rodentia (mouse and rat) is very closely related to primates. This is a relatively recent split. Pigs, in the superorder Laurasiatheria and order Artiodactyla, are much farther away. In other words, the last common ancestor of pigs and humans should be much more ancient than the last common ancestor of humans and mice. Since the split is much more ancient, you would expect there to be much more dissimilarity between humans and pigs relative to humans and mice. Therefore, it makes little sense that a pig should be a better model organism at the genetic level for human diseases than the mouse. Curious indeed.

mammal evolution tree


The Platypus Example

Ok, so there isn’t much on pig and human comparisons, but what is available doesn’t seem to contradict the hybridization theory and may even modestly support it. McCarthy also uses the platypus as an example of an even more distant hybridization. Clearly, this is much more distant than primates and pigs. If hybridization could be established as the correct origin of the platypus, then it reduces the implausibility in the human hybridization theory. However, even if the platypus is a hybrid that does not mean humans are. It merely makes speciation as a result of hybridization of distant species plausible.

Certainly a platypus looks like the offspring of a beaver that had sex with a duck. They also share other less obvious characteristics with both ducks and mammals as well. For example, they lay eggs like ducks and produce milk like mammals (without nipples). You can watch the documentary on the platypus below to get an idea of what it looks like, if you don’t know already.

One might object that platypus fossils have been found that are incredibly old; at least 120 million years old. You might expect that there were no ducks around that long ago. However, duck-like birds have been found as old as 110 million years old. That isn’t quite overlapping, but it suggests that it is at least possible that the relevant animals did in fact exist side by side during the necessary time frame. Considering how developed those duck-like birds are, it is possible that duck-like birds had been around for awhile at that point. Who knows? We can’t be certain until a relevant fossil is found that happens to be old enough.

There is also the problem of the mating. Would a duck actually try to have sex with a beaver or vice-versa? Anyone who has been to a duck pond regularly knows how aggressively male ducks act towards females during mating season. I have personally seen a male duck fly 20 yards across a pond at a female in the water, bite her neck, and force her completely under the water, head and all, as he finishes his business. The male duck rapes her in human parlance. On another occasion a male duck was doing something similar on land and a woman was upset enough that she actually chased him away and loudly chastised him. lol. All of this may be an example of sexism in nature. When do you think we will start legislating against duck rape culture? Anyway, this pattern of behavior has been present in water fowl for so long that female ducks have actually evolved vaginal pathways with dead ends which are meant to divert the semen of unwanted males. The male duck’s penis itself shoots out rapidly like a projectile during this process in an effort to navigate the female’s maze-like vagina. It isn’t much of a stretch that a male duck in the midst of mating frenzy might mistake any animal that happens to be splashing about in the water for a female duck and engage in his normal rape mating behavior on the unfortunate creature. Therefore, it isn’t hard to imagine this may happen from time to time and thus create the opportunity for a hybridization event. Duck-beaver matings are thus not the least plausible of things I have ever heard of. The Annunaki are much harder to believe in, for example.

[EDIT: Seals attempt to mate with penguins. While not proof of hybridization, it does show that such inter-species matings of comparable distance to that of platypus ancestors do in fact occur]

Even though it is plausible that an ancient male duck-like bird might try to rape an ancient otter or beaver-like mammal doesn’t mean hybridization might occur, though. There are much more significant barriers than mere mating behavior. The hybrid must develop, be born, and be capable itself of producing offspring. How can we know if a platypus actually is a hybrid or just a particularly strange mammal that resulted from a traditional understanding of evolution?

To answer this question, we need to know about the genetics of the platypus. If the platypus has bird ancestry, then it must have bird genetics. In writing my soon to be released book on cognitive differences between the sexes, I spent a large amount of time researching the X chromosome; including looking at studies which deal with its evolution. Unsurprisingly, the platypus X (among other things) is of special interest to evolutionary geneticists because it is supposed to be a missing link of sorts. The state of the platypus sex chromosomes is supposed to be informative on general mammalian sex chromosome evolution because scientists currently think early mammals must have resembled the platypus. I don’t really dwell on this in the book, but I did learn a few things about the platypus X. I quote this study [emphasis mine]:

“Little is known about the gene content of the 10 platypus sex chromosomes, but the few available data are extremely striking. Early comparative mapping using radioactive in situ hybridization with heterologous probes suggested that X1, located at one end of the chain, shared homology with the ancient part of the mammalian X (Watson et al. 1990; Wilcox et al. 1996; Mitchell et al. 1998; but see also Waters et al. 2005). At the other end of the chain, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) of a large insert BAC-clone showed that X5 contained the Z-borne putative bird sex-determination gene DMRT1 (Grützner et al. 2004; El-Mogharbel et al. 2007). This suggested that the monotreme meiotic chain has homology with the therian XY system at one end and to the bird ZW system at the other, and represents an evolutionary link between two systems that were previously thought to have evolved independently

“We have also tested the hypotheses that platypus sex chromosomes share homology with both the mammal XY and the bird ZW systems. In complete contradiction to early data, we find that the 10 sex chromosomes of platypus share no homology with the ancestral therian X chromosome, which is homologous to platypus chromosome 6. Instead, we find that regions homologous to the chicken Z are scattered throughout the chain, principally on X5 and X3.”

Ok, so homology is shared between bird sex chromosomes and platypus sex chromosomes and the platypus even has a bird sex determination gene. Some studies say that there is homology to the therian X, and others don’t. The bird connection is undeniable though. Fair enough, both probably derived from common ancestor chromosomes through the normal mechanisms of evolution. But wait:

“The absence of homology between the bird Z chromosome and the snake and turtle Z sex chromosomes suggests that the origin of the sex chromosomes and the causative genes of sex determination are different between birds and reptiles.”

If the X did directly evolve from an ancestral Z chromosome which is the same ancestor of the modern bird sex chromosomes, how is it that the bird Z evolved after birds split from reptiles, which would itself have occurred after mammals had split from reptiles? Why do the platypus sex chromosomes share NO homology with the chromosome that eventually became the X in all other mammals? Why would all other mammals switch from a perfectly functional sex chromosome system and start using chromosome 6 for sex determination instead? As you can see, that the platypus basically has a morphed bird sex determination system is extremely strange.

amoniote evo jp


Proto-mammals (synapsids) split from reptiles (sauropsids) at a very ancient date (sometime in the Permian or Carboniferous period 250-340 million years ago). After that, in the late Permian or early Triassic, the archosaurs (which produced dinosaurs, some of which became birds) split from the parareptillia (which produced snakes). Where turtles belong relative to snakes and birds is unclear, but molecular evidence strongly suggests they are diapsids, which firmly makes them more related to birds than mammals.

For reptiles and birds that do have sex chromosomes, the evidence is clear that they evolved independently and are unrelated to each other. However, many reptiles do not have sex chromosome determination; they often use temperature or other mechanisms. Notably crocodiles use temperature for sex determination and so have no sex chromosomes at all. Crocodiles without sex determination chromosomes are more closely related to birds than snakes and turtles with sex chromosome determination.  In other words, the bird Z evolved relatively long after the split not only from our mammalian ancestors, but even long after the split of birds from other more closely related reptiles. So how can a platypus share homology with birds, and not mammals, in the sex chromosomes if bird sex chromosomes evolved long after a split with mammals? Is the large body of evidence which led scientists to expect platypus sex determination systems to be completely independent of birds, since the platypus is classified as a mammal, really wrong? Why are scientists so ready to overturn everything they know about the evolution of reptile, bird, and mammal sex chromosomes (among other things) for what is seemingly a unique aberration? The idea that bird sex chromosomes evolved after the split from reptiles has not really been overturned to my knowledge. That is unless you take platypus sex chromosomes at face value, but that just creates a whole new batch of questions regarding evolution of the Z. In the case of the platypus, hybridization theory is actually more consistent with the previous scientific consensus than the retrofitted accommodation of the unique platypus sex chromosomes in the evolution of the therian X. Hybridization theory is more parsimonious because as a unique exception to the rule it does not require upending previous thinking on evolution; at least with respect to the evolution of the therian X chromosome.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

~Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

If hybridization theory is true, though, then any notion that monotreme genomes tell us much about the state of early mammals must be completely disregarded. Or at least, we would have to verify if any particular gene is of mammalian or avian origin before deciding which lineage it is informative of. Also, the somewhat arrogant idea that monotremes are somehow “primitive” would also have to be thrown out. Birds lay eggs and have bills too, that does not make them evolutionarily “primitive.”

Another thing that is pretty weird about platypus sex determination is that they have a bunch of separate X and Y chromosomes. That is pretty different from both mammals and birds, and pretty much any other sex determination system I have heard of. Perhaps it is actually a snapshot of the early evolution of the bird Z chromosomes? In any event, the many sex chromosomes in the platypus does remind me of one thing though, and that is the polyploidy that is common among plant hybrids. Plants tend to be much more tolerant of polyploidy than animals, and can speciate by having complete genomes from both parent species. Just because plants are more tolerant, does not necessarily mean it is impossible in animals. Are platypuses polyploid with respect to their sex chromosomes because of a hybridization event? Strange stuff.

The end result of my research into hybridization is that most of the information pertaining to the genetics of hybridization seems to make the theory plausible, though certainly not proven. A strikingly unexpected finding on my part. If it turns out to be true that a pig-monkey hybrid event did take place at the origin of the human species, that would be a pretty big collective hit to our ego. Probably more shocking than Darwin’s original suggestion that man evolved from apes. Ironically, it would also make the south park parody of evolution/creationists factually correct after a fashion. Poe’s law would reach inception levels. A parody which everyone thought was crap actually turning out to be correct would be ironic beyond compare.

On that note, perhaps Africa is at the forefront of human evolution after all. Jokes aside, that bestiality still occurs at all today in places like Africa, Wales, and New Zealand suggests that attempts are made at inter-species mating at a common enough rate that successful hybridization events in animals might actually be possible even if they are only very rare. By “successful” I mean that fertile offspring are produced. The fact that pretty much all the ancient moral code sages felt bestiality was a common enough problem that it had to be explicitly condemned says a lot about how many of our brothers tend to be wayward. Is there any reason to think pre-human ancestors were any less wayward? I wouldn’t expect bestiality to make much of an impact on the moral conscience of pigs either. Bestiality being a common enough problem in the past suggests hybridization may be a key, if rare, feature of evolution.

In closing, I leave you with this astute observation my Aunt once made. It originally came up during a discussion about the improbable pregnancies of obese women, but it seems like it might be relevant for this situation as well.

For every pig, there is a pig fucker.

Some more hybrid pig pictures:

bottom pig 1

Disturbed Asian Girl:

bottom pig 2 disturbed chinese girl

Share Button