And how many fingers is O’Brien holding up, Gcochran9

The blog “West Hunter”, which investigates our ancestry, sometimes gets close to the edge of permitted thought. But will not slip over the edge. The globe is warming catastrophically, gay “families” are just are … just like normal families and are definitely not harems of sex slaves, and so on and so forth. And, while it industriously investigates the origin of races, there are, nonetheless, no such thing as races.

In a comment on that blog jamesd127 gives a summary of some of the more horrifying hate facts contained in “The Root of the Phylogenetic Tree of Human Populations” by Masatoshi Nei and Naoko Takezaki, Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, which tells us that the genetic distance between human populations is of the same order of magnitude as the genetic distance between humans and chimps, and that not all human populations have evolved at the same rate, with humans in environments very different from that of the common ancestor of man and chimp evolving substantially faster than humans in environments resembling that of the common ancestor of man and chimp.

To which the blog author responds simply “False”

Now it might well be that the conclusions one might draw from the paper are false, but to deny that the paper says what it says is on par with saying that O’Brien is holding up five fingers.

Nonetheless he is a good bloke. I also would say O’Brien was holding up five fingers if they had electric wires attached to my testicles.

But, since he probably does not really believe that the paper does not say what it says, I wonder what he really believes about global warming and gay families.

He does not want further discussion of this topic on his blog. He does not say “Because several large black professors with base ball bats and room temperature IQs will visit my office if this discussion continues”

77 Responses to “And how many fingers is O’Brien holding up, Gcochran9”

  1. pdimov says:

    You say in the comment that

    “Table 1 shows that the genetic distance between a Pygmy and a Chinese is greater than the genetic distance between a pygmy in and chimpanzee…”

    but I don’t see that in Table 1. The distance between a Pygmy (CAR) and a Chinese is listed as 43.8, and the distance between Pygmy (CAR) and a chimpanzee is 61.0.

    • jim says:

      I stand corrected. However, table 1 and table 4 both show the pygmy to be approximately midway between an east asian and a chimpazee, though slightly closer to the east asian.

      • anon says:

        In Table 1, the Japanese are more chimplike than both sets of pygmies (59.4 versus 61.0 and 64.5), and Cambodians and Northern Europeans (64.0 and 61.3) are more chimplike than Zaire pygmies.

        I don’t think the paper says what you want it to say. It says twice that its distance metric is “not proportional to evolutionary time” and most of the genetic markers they study are selectively neutral (including the Alu elements in table 4; see And the tables are all either based on very few genetic variants (Table 4 is only based on 4) or on variants found by studying Europeans, so they’re missing a lot of variation.

        Cochran has written a lot about race differences in IQ so I don’t get why you think he’s untrustworthy.

        • jim says:

          In table one, all races are approximately the same genetic distance from the chimps, but also a similar genetic distance from the pygmies. For example the distance between amerindians and chimps is 67, but the distance between amerindians and pygmies is 53.

          This suggests that racial differences are comparable with species differences, but does not show that one race is more derived than the other race.

          Tables two and three however, indicate that the distance between pygmies and humans is only a fifth of the distance between humans and chimps, but does indicate that pygmies are substantially closer to chimps than regular humans are.

          If you put points on graph paper such that the differences between points corresponded to the differences in tables two and three, they would form almost a straight line, with pygmies between chimps and regular humans, though much closer to regular humans.

          Table four shows negroes and pygmies in the middle between chimps and regular humans, southern Africans being about twenty units from chimps, regular humans being about forty to fifty units from chimps.

          • John Sterne says:

            its well known i thought that pygmies are archaic type “humans” unlike any other but of course most like niggers, for the same reason but not the same degree niggers are most like apes. pygmies like the other large fauna of Africa need to be protected from niggers who will eat them fuck them or sell them.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            These measures are very dodgy. If the new Right is to set new standards of truthfulness in the sciences, we need to be highly suspicious of these classic logical positivist tricks.
            Just because a gene has changed doesn’t mean that it’s meaningful, whereas one single gene can change and make a huge difference.
            Many proteins have multiple codons (the distribution of the redundancy was probably selected before life as we know it began) and many proteins serve similar roles in the same context. There are many ways to be adequate and alive.

            Thus there’s no such thing as a number for ‘distance’ that maps to anything meaningful in the real world.

            Does this mean it’s not legitimate to say we’re more closely related to bonobos than to gorillas? It’s perfectly legitimate, but when you try to zoom right in and chart whether pigeons in Yorkshire are more or less similar genetically to pigeons from Paris than pigeons in Lancashire, it’s easier just to look at their gross features instead of the genes.

            Are various types of African blacks more ‘primitive’ (in the ‘folk ethology’ sense that everybody understands) than most European whites, at the level of groups, on the average?

            Certainly. Just don’t say it’s true because the numbers told you so. That way lies Janet Yellen.

            • peppermint says:

              new mutations crop up a few each generation, and usually go nowhere, but can become fixed in less generations with more selective pressure favoring them.

              suppose blue eyes appeared in a woman, call her Freya, and gave her and her descendants a 10% advantage in fertility, in the proto-indo-european nation of a million pre-souls. It would take on the order of 5000 years for the entire population to have that valuable trait. Aryans have existed in more or less our current form since world history began around -3000. The last ice age ended at like -10000, leaving 7000 years for the traits that define us as a people to get evolved.

              blue = 1;
              gens = 0;
              brown = 1000000-blue;
              blue *= 1.1;
              blue *= 1000000/(blue+brown);

              Conversely, we expect irrelevant diversity in a stagnant gene pool, since everything that would have been quickly fixed would have been quickly fixed.

      • John Sterne says:

        I cant swear this is true but i read somewhere that seemed reliable something that is close to what you want to assert. the differences between races is greater than the differences between say tigers and lions, that in fact there are many examples of greater difference between many species and many human “races”
        I have also read that pygmies/san are quite different than other africans so they are not so good an example to use to make a point about african inferiority. In fact i rather like the pygmies and think the niggers should be prevented from harming the closest living apes.

  2. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    The weasel word here is “faster”.
    Have Europeans been evolving faster than Africans for the past several tens of thousands of years?
    No, that is false: they’ve all been evolving at the same rate, just as those ancient saddle crabs or whatever they’re called have also been evolving all the while. It’s just that every selection time-slice has favoured the same genes.

    Similarly for humans living in the ancestral environment of pre-humans, the selection preference at every generation has tended to resemble that that prevailed before. The ‘speed’ is exactly the same: genes reshuffled every generation, some in, some out.

    Of course he knows full well what people mean by “evolving faster”, but this technical rebuttal gives him an out.

    • anon says:

      evidently you have not read the ten thousand year explosion

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      To elaborate for anon, you can get faster evolution (in the absolute sense) with a larger population pool because this causes novel combinations to crop up quicker.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        With the greatest of respect, I think you’re both missing the point.

        When people talk about faster evolution, what they mean is a larger amount of change.

        The rate of evolution is the same everywhere and at all times: one reshuffle per generation.

        The loose talk of ‘faster evolution’ is very much of the same basic type as Gould’s crap about ‘punctuated equilibrium’. A creature that checks every single one of its genes against the environment then copies them faithfully is as ‘evolved’ as a creature that turns from a fish into a monkey in the same time-span.

        There is no ‘faster evolution’.

        However, as I said in my comment, Cochran knows he’s using weasel words. He knows what you mean when you say Europeans are more evolved, and he knows what he’s doing when he pretends to misunderstand.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          “The rate of evolution is the same everywhere and at all times: one reshuffle per generation.”

          The smaller brained, less intelligent human species also have shorter generation times because less time is required for their offspring to learn the set of less complex adult behaviors – hence shorter generation times.

          The key difference is what the environments have been selecting for / against.

          • jim says:

            Obviously human strains that have remained in approximately the same environment as chimps will have undergone less evolution. Those that moved to very different environments had to make behavioral adaption, such as preparing for winter, which adaption favored intelligence.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        As a small but necessary caveat for the Dennettians among us (and I count myself among them), it’s worth noting that there can be different *qualities* of evolution, and it’s not unreasonable to talk about that in terms of pace of improvement.
        Learning and technology are examples of these ‘evolutions of evolution’.

        Nevertheless when Cochran said it was false that different populations of the same starting species, with the same generation length (roughly), evolved at different speeds, he was correct, even though he knew full well what was being asked and decided to answer something else.

        He knew full well what he was being asked, and that the answer to *that* question was an assuredly affirmative one, so he decided to state, correctly, that there are no differences among human populations, in the speed of evolution.

        (It’s just that some evolved to meet the requirements of the same environment as before, while others evolved divergently to meet very different requirements. But that wasn’t what he was technically asked, so he technically answered what he was technically asked, rather than what he knew he was actually being asked.)

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Furthermore, and at risk of spam due to triple posting (lol), for the Wilsonians out there, it’s interesting to watch the sympatric speciation (or recombination) of humans in the modern West. They’re adapting to different niches within the new environment: for some, welfare and mixing makes a lot of sense, combined with high reproductive rates; for others, productivity creativity and humanity, combined with refraining from reproduction “makes a lot of sense”……. sorry for the black pill.

        • peppermint says:

          (1) liberals want gibs
          (2) therefore, they are R selected instead of k selected or whatever the hell
          (3) therefore, we don’t have enough kids and they’re actually right

          This is the problem with r k thinking. Some species are territory limited and high investment, others are food limited and low investment, conservatives are territory limited, high investment, and fertile, liberals are territory limited, even higher investment, gender and gluten and vaccine free, and less fertile, and muds are food limited and bought by liberals to harm conservatives.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            I’m not going to endlessly argue about the r/K nonsense. I’ve been trying for many years to dissuade people of the intellectual merits of people like Stefan Molyneux and ‘anonymous conservative’ to no avail whatsoever, so in the spirit of “no enemies to the Right”, I’ll just say we need to agree to disagree.

            The most I’m going to say, since this thread contains many comments about actual real world biology, is that homo sapiens and any nascent offshoots thereof has the following reproductive model:

            – nine months to carry a baby and then several years before it can be released into the wild, regardless of ‘strategy’

            This utterly precludes ‘spray and pray’ and strongly advantages parental investment combined with communal and extended familial investment.

            No matter how ‘r-selected’ a human might be, their gestation will still be nine months and their infant will still die if released into the wild too soon.

            That’s all I’m going to say on this nonsense.

            • John Sterne says:

              I think you’re right in the proper sense of R/K no humans qualify. But i think its fair to say their a variation between southern and northern strategies that kinda sorta parallels R/K and is statistically significant ought to be named something.- it takes a village to not raise a niglet?

            • Steve Johnson says:

              “– nine months to carry a baby and then several years before it can be released into the wild, regardless of ‘strategy’”

              Fully consistent with the r vs K framework for human groups Africans have shorter gestation periods as well as higher twinning rates.

              Anonymous conservative is still amazingly wrong in applying it to “liberals” vs “conservatives” – for the obvious reason that the differences between the groups don’t actually point to the indicators of r vs K selection being consistent with conservatives being K and liberals being r.

  3. […] likes Greg Cochrane, even though they do seem to have electric wires attached to his testicles. Also from Jim, with an assist from Bonald, an back-of-the-napkin analysis of The death of […]

  4. Hard Right says:

    Guaranteed to make Leftists crazy.

  5. Just sayin' says:

    Was the extinction of the (ultra-primitive) Tasmanians due, in part, to hybrid sterility?

    Dr. Nott, the distinguished ethnologist of the United States, assures us that the Mulattoes are the most short-lived race in the world and are less capable of fatigue than the present races; that the women are bad breeders, extremely delicate and very subject to abortions and that many children die young.

    In the elaborate work of Messrs. Hombron and Jacquinot alluding to the few half-castes of our Southern Colored people it is written: This absence of the mixed race between two peoples, living in contact upon the same country, proves very incontestably the difference of species.

    With the advocates of non-fertility there is the learned Dr. Knox. Mr. Hyde Clark believes in the utter extinction of the Turk before long from intermarriage and says “It was very rare to see a Mulatto in Turkey, though there were many black children.”

    Professor Agassiz, after telling us of the Mamelucos of Brazil, the offspring of Indian and White and of the Cafuzo, the children of the Indian and the Negro proceeds “My observations upon the cross-breeds in South America have convinced me that the varieties arising from contact between these human species or so-called races, differ from true species and that they retain the same liability to revert to the original stock, as is observed among all so-called varieties or breeds.”

    Mr. Warren wrote: “The half-caste of India comes to a premature end, generally without reproduction and if there are any offspring they are always wretched and miserable.” Volney was struck with the paucity of the remains in Egypt of the light Mameluke blood though those brave warriors held concubines of the country.

    Graf Gortz cited by Professor Waitz declares the cross of Dutch and Malay to be weak in both body and mind. The same has been said of the offspring of Arabs and Negresses. Kohl records the deficiency of vitality in the cross of French and Indians. Boudin agrees with Dr. Yvan that Mulattoes are not productive after the third generation. The same has been said of the Mulattoes of Java. At the third stage, girls only are produced, who are almost always sterile.

    The Lipplappen race of Java, a cross of Dutch and Malay, form a distinct class in Batavia, but are remarked as dying out. Dr. Gutzlaff, referring to Cambodia observes “The marriages of native females with the Chinese are productive at first generation, but gradually become sterile and completely so at the fifth generation.”

    • Just sayin' says:

      “Even a convict population of athletic and unscrupulous English males failed, in their intercourse with Tasmanian females, not merely to produce an intermediate race, but to leave more than one or two adult specimens of their repugnant unions”

  6. Dr. Faust says:

    But science is like imperiverable to harm and stuff. It be all rationality with races and equality. Racist!

  7. Dan says:

    The number this gives for chimps and humans is 1.23% of the DNA, 40 million differences.

    For humans, this link says 0.1% of DNA, 3 million single nucleotide polymorphisms(SNPs). There are 10 million SNPs in the human population.

    Leftists lie most of the time, such as by propagating the trivially disproven notions that gender and race are social constructs. The alt-right should distinguish itself by being the true alternative to leftist lies.

    That requires a lot of care.

    • jim says:

      Due to repeats and chromosome organization, the DNA difference is not the same as the number of SNPs. An SNP is not literally an SNP, though it commonly is. It is a distinguishable fragment of DNA. The numbers you cite are measuring related, but different, things, measured in very different ways. To compare the species difference with the race difference, need to measure the same thing in the same way.

      The differences you refer to in the chimpanzee counted by taking a full genome of a particular human being, and full genome for a chimp, mapping one to the other (and such mapping is non trivial) and counting the number of bases that are different. You will get rather different numbers depending on how you do the mapping. But that is not how differences in the number of SNPs are measured. The count of differences measured from SNPs is always too low, since closely associated SNPs are counted as one, while the count of differences as measured from a full genome mapping is always too high, since mapping is always incomplete, imperfect, and debatable. (How do we handle repeat counts?)

      So, to get comparable numbers, need a full genome for a particular chimp, a full genome for a particular white, and a full genome for a particular pygmy. And need to make sure that the mapping is done similarly, since with a bit of creative mapping, one can get any numbers one wants.

  8. Dan says:

    I think I am every bit as race realist as the next guy but that study seems a little fishy. Maybe I need to understand better what Takezaki et al. mean by genetic distance.

    The distance between different racial groups is plainly very large. But chimpanzees? They don’t even have the same number of chromosomes as humans. Offspring of interracial couples are quite healthy; humans and chimpanzees cannot reproduce with each other. The split occurred six million years ago and the different number of chromosomes would have prevented gene flow since then.

    Anatomically, all humans are far more like each other than they are like chimpanzees. Chimps have opposable toe-thumbs, their arms are longer than their legs, they are covered with hair, they walk on all fours almost all of the time, they have no forehead, they don’t possess language (even though chimps have been taught to sign a number of words, if they put words together it is gibberish). Should I ignore my lying eyes?

    Bold claims need strong evidence. The alt-right does itself no favors by being empirically wrong.

    I want to be open minded. But help me out here.

    • cloudswrest says:

      “They don’t even have the same number of chromosomes as humans.”

      But there is still corresponding regions even if they are slightly shuffled. Here is some objective info cited by Wikipedia. With genes, small changes can make big differences.


      Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres, producing human chromosome 2.[3] There are nine other major chromosomal differences between chimpanzees and humans: chromosome segment inversions on human chromosomes 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18. After the completion of the Human genome project, a common chimpanzee genome project was initiated. In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior. Differences between individual humans and common chimpanzees are estimated to be about 10 times the typical difference between pairs of humans.[4]

      • jim says:

        Differences between individual humans and common chimpanzees are estimated to be about 10 times the typical difference between pairs of humans

        But is the difference between a Chinese and a Pygmy substantially larger than the typical difference between pairs of humans? It turns out that this depends a lot on how you measure it. I suspect that those measurements that tell us that the difference between a Chinese and Pygmy are not much larger than the difference between one Chinese and another are not, in fact, very meaningful.

    • jim says:

      Offspring of interracial couples are quite healthy; humans and chimpanzees cannot reproduce with each other

      Maybe we should perform that test with pygmies.

      Chimpanzee feet are always prehensile. White feet are almost never prehensile. Black feet are sometimes prehensile. I don’t know about pygmy feet.

      Chimps grow up much faster than humans, and for a short period are almost as smart as human children of the same age. Blacks grow up significant faster than whites, and for a short period are almost as smart as white children of the same age. Pygmies grow up a hell of a lot faster than whites.

      The dark colored races have a vastly superior sense of small to the lighter colored races.

      The lighter skinned races are well on the way to having fewer teeth than a chimpanzee, in that the wisdom teeth erupt much later than the others, are small,and frequently fail to erupt at all, or erupt incorrectly, while the darker skinned races have the same number of teeth as a chimpanzee.

      • foo says:

        >White feet are almost never prehensile. Black feet are sometimes prehensile.
        >The dark colored races have a vastly superior sense of smell to the lighter colored races.

        Cite? The only thing I can find is this, which says that elderly blacks and Hispanics in the US have worse smell than elderly whites.

        • jim says:

          It is Darwin, of course.

          Anyone who does not know his Darwin should not be discusing these matters.

          Descent of man, Chapter 1

          The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by
          the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed
          by others. M. Houzeau (Etudes sur les Facultes Mentales, &c., tom. i.,
          1872, p. 91) asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved
          that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by
          their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the
          connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of
          the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin
          of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the
          dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white
          races. See his paper, Medico-Chirurgical Transactions, London, vol.
          liii., 1870, p. 276.
          *(2) The Physiology and Pathology of Mind, 2nd ed., 1868, p. 134.

          chapter two

          With some savages, however, the foot has not
          altogether lost its prehensile power, as shewn by their manner of
          climbing trees, and of using them in other ways.*(3)

          * Brehm, Illustriertes Thierleben, B. i., s. 80.
          *(2) “The Hand,” &c., Bridgewater Treatise, 1833, p. 38.
          *(3) Haeckel has an excellent discussion on the steps by which
          man became a biped: Naturliche Schopfungsgeschicte, 1868, s. 507.
          Dr. Buchner (Conferences sur la Theorie Darwinienne, 1869, p. 135) has
          given good cases of the use of the foot as a prehensile organ by
          man; and has also written on the manner of progression of the higher
          apes, to which I allude in the following paragraph: see also Owen
          (Anatomy of Vertebrates, vol. iii., p. 71) on this latter subject.

  9. Just sayin' says:

    He probably does stop discussion from crossing certain lines.

    But even on non-ideological topics he is happy to completely shut down people who disagree with him using only one word responses.

    So you can’t read too much into it.

  10. Greg says:

    From experience, Cochran will just delete comments he finds too objectionable on ideological grounds. What he did to yours indicates disagreement on the facts.

  11. Me says:

    IBM says it has made working versions of 7nm chips :

    “IBM also declined to speculate on when it might begin commercial manufacturing of this technology generation. This year, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company said that it planned to begin pilot product of seven-nanometer chips in 2017. Unlike IBM, however, it has not demonstrated working chips to meet that goal.”

    • jim says:

      If seven nanometer chips are actually seven nanometer, in the sense of actually having substantially higher density in two dimensions, this will falsify my doomsaying.

      But I just don’t see how you can get genuine seven nanometer chips when we are still drawing lines with excimer lasers that have a wavelength of 193 nanometers, the same lasers and same wavelength we have been using since 1986.

      • alfanerd says:

        A long time ago I used to write software for a company which specialized in phase-shifting masks which allowed for sub-wavelength design.

        I have no idea how IBM got to 7nm, but this kind of thing is one possibility.

        • jim says:

          Phase shifting allows you to get closer to the theoretical limit (one quarter wavelength). It does not get you past the theoretical limit.

      • peppermint says:

        Revilo Oliver died in 1992, the last honest professor. If he had hung around until 2015, his entire department would have been blacklisted, but until the end he was still writing articles for Instauration and Liberty Bell. The Civic Rights Act, making it illegal to employ him, was passed in 1965.

        Cochran writes stuff like this — — on his blog, and has cordial relationships with commenters like you and me.

        Intel has of course always been more about applied materials science than chip design, and when it becomes impossible for a large US company to do research, well, that might be what we’re seeing.

        It is illegal to hire a few good men, but first within the government, thus contractors taking over military, then aerospace development. Intel recently made those commercials about how smart their employees are, while since the 2000s IBM has been partnering with universities and trying to use open source software which as the GNOME Foundation recently showed is done by White men for the purpose of making good software or just not done (like the temporary startup business model).

        IBM bought SUNY a bunch of stuff in order to get engineering research. The other companies mentioned are Samsung, TSMC, and GlobalFoundries, which used to be AMD’s fans but was spun off and a large stake was bought by Dubai. Samsung is proof that chips are not magic and with the right regulatory environment it is possible to buy your way in to having a state of the art fab.

        Jim, you always speak in broad strokes, which is why you’ve been missing these developments. I’m not going to say your misunderstanding of the Jewish question is due to broad strokes, though – market dominant minority sounds like a great broad strokes slogan, but what you’re missing there is a biological appreciation of subspecies strategy.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          Funny you should mention Revilo Oliver. I once linked to something of his that was topical to the discussion (not random in any way) and it was promptly deleted from Cochran’s blog. Just accepted it. It’s his blog after all.

        • jim says:

          Sure, Jews are a problem. But there are many much more serious problems. Dysfunctional ethnicities, such as gypsies, are a much worse problem than functional ethnicities. The reason that people obsess about Jews is that Jews are a market dominant minority.

          Most of the stuff that people complain of about Jews is true, (consider frequent commenter B for example) other than that “the Jews” have mystic super mind control powers, but it is all trivial, and the reason you do not notice that it is trivial is because people tend to obsess about market dominant minorities.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Dysfunctional ethnicities, such as gypsies, are a much worse problem than functional ethnicities.”

            There is observably no such thing as “dysfunctional ethnicities”.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Nah he’s just a dysfunctional observer.

      • Stephen W says:

        IBM’s 7nm chip was made with EUV lithography which you said was impossible due to electron scattering.

        • jim says:

          IBM’s 7nm chip was made with EUV lithography which you said was impossible due to electron scattering.

          Was it?

          Somewhat mysteriously the report says that they chip was made using quadruple aligned 193 nanometer light AND extreme ultraviolet.

          It cannot really be both, so there is some hype going on here. One process or the other had to be redundant.

          I will believe in extreme ultraviolet photolithography when they make a chip with extreme ultraviolet light without using 193 nanometer light.

          Quadruple aligned is like positioning grains of rice with your elbow. You expose the resist four times with four minisculy different masks. A seven nanometer chip made with 193 nanometer light, and this chip is still, like all chips in the past couple of decades, made with 193 nanometer light, is not really seven nanometer.

  12. James James says:


    That’s you, right?

  13. Lars Grobian says:


    “the genetic distance between human populations is of the same order of magnitude as the genetic distance between humans and chimps”

    That statement is false (trivially provable now, though not in 1996 when the quoted paper was published). Cochran said it was false.

    The commenter made one ludicrously false claim, and another that may be false (you haven’t read the quoted paper any more than I have; you have no clue what it says; Cochran may actually have read it), but nobody really cares. It doesn’t matter what was said in papers on that subject in 1996. They had no data then.

    So you assume that the one word “false” cannot possibly have been meant to apply to the obviously, probably false claim. It must instead have been meant to apply to something else.

    That is the simplest interpretation of what Cochran said, and it’s by far the most likely to be what he meant, because he doesn’t characteristically say imbecilic things (nor even silly and glib things as you just did). The commenter indicated agreement with the claim that Pygmies are more similar to chimps than to chinamen. Go read it again, he did.

    Ask Cochran which he meant. I hear he has a lot of patience with silly accusations from people who deliberately misunderstand him.

    • Kudzu Bob says:

      Total agreement.

      If anything, Cochran is honest to a fault.

      • Art says:

        Cochran’s follow up response: “Untrue. No more of this.” is more telling. This is obviously not an expression of disagreement but an expression of fear.

        • Kudzu Bob says:

          If Cochran were really that fearful, wouldn’t the safest response have been to say nothing?

          • jim says:

            If he said nothing, could be accused of silently confirming the evil words.

            From time to time Nazis say stuff in my comments section, and I don’t necessarily correct them, particularly if they are correct. Then some progressive invariably says “Hey, you must be a Nazi also.”. To which I reply, “No, Nazis are progressives that are eighty five years behind the times. We are way worse than Nazis.”

    • jim says:

      I have read the quoted paper. I suggest you read it. It says what it says – that the genetic distance between major human populations is of the same order of magnitude as the genetic distance between chimps and humans.

      That statement is false (trivially provable now,

      I am unaware of anything that has been published since that contradicts these results – at least no data, no measurements on genetic distances between kinds, has been published since that contradicts these results, though much piety has been published that contradicts these results.

      Indeed, the more the data in the middle of a paper is consistent with and supports these results, the more piety they put at the beginning and the end, on the well founded assumption that no genuine progressive is capable of reading the middle of a scientific paper.

      • Lars Grobian says:

        Chinamen and Pygmies are interfertile. Pygmies and chimps are not. Pygmies and chinamen have abstract language, make fires, make complex tools, and engage in other common behaviors that will never be observed in chimps. The Chinamen are better at all of it, but the chimps can’t do any of it at all.

        If the line about the genetic distance being “of the same order of magnitude” is true, then it says nothing interesting. If it says anything interesting, it’s not true. Is five times the distance “of the same order of magnitude”? That’s a big difference.

        • nydwracu says:

          Chinamen and Pygmies are interfertile. Pygmies and chimps are not.

          Has this been verified experimentally?

        • Cloudswrest says:

          This is a ridiculous argument. The functional/phenotypical differences say very little about the genetic distances, which are a mathematical accounting of the number of gene changes. A mutation in just one critical gene can effect a change in humans far greater than the difference between a human and a chimpanzee. Look at all the profoundly retarded people out there due to genetic defects. This reminds me of the bogus argument about how the differences between races is far less than the variation within races.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            The genetic distance between humans and different versions of fungi are particularly interesting; I believe humans are more closely related to fungi than to some vertebrates even. Does that mean eating mushrooms is cannibalism?

          • viking says:

            I now notice this is a 1996 study and chimps are not even on our branch so how valid is a comparison i guess if it were true it would imply much worse than one might think

      • viking says:

        I really don’t see west hunter as faint of heart at all hes all over IQ the gay virus, their recent destruction of a study in Unz purporting higher IQ for the IBO by a black scientist, etc, But you might be right that a really close reading may reveal they stop just short of some line. Im not convinced thats something to criticize, Ive often wanted to call up Ann Coulter and warn her that shes too valuable to destroy her career and the platform that gives her to throw it away on some delicious hectoring. But she manages to get away with more unapologetic hate speech than anyone I can think of. West Hunter has good reason to think they would not get away with anything and scientist of their caliber are pretty rare on our side Id hate to lose their credibility Even if it were demonstrably true that blacks were exactly half way between humans and chimps or is it jews and chimps? you could not agree with that as a scientist today and continue to work in the field.Asians working in Asia can get away with this the way African dictators can get away with war crimes the nazis couldnt.
        Now it seems Ive read some similar work by a sympathetic scientist I cant recall what I remember about that was it a stretch to call the races species but not ridiculous species being a loose term. Certainly living and working in close proximity there are days I think it perfectly reasonable to say they are the halfway mark but other days that seem ludicrous and of course my perspective is not average and my experience though quite extensive and varied is still anecdotal.
        This paper if actually factual is quite exciting perhaps that has an air of schadenfreude but obviously the reality is their reality would not change but the underpinnings of leftism would be shattered.However Im inclined to trust their expertise for now,I see you have already read it and feel qualified to judge thats impressive on your part have you considered fraud and trolling by the authors

  14. pdimov says:

    The link to the 1996 paper is 404. That was quick, assuming it was present at the time you posted.

    • Cloudswrest says:

      Just do a search on “The Root of the Phylogenetic Tree of Human Populations”. I found it right away.

  15. Nyk says:

    I don’t know about Africans, but I’ve seen worse places to live in parts of China (IQ 105) than in Indonesia (IQ which is anybody’s guess, probably around 90). Not to mention the airport in Bali which is much, MUCH better managed than Paris – Charles de Gaulle (and presumably some whites of Germanic extraction are still employed by the latter).

    Also, I felt a LOT safer walking in downtown Casablanca (Morocco IQ – about 90 or so) than in downtown Paris (French IQ similar to Morocco if not slightly higher at the moment due to the fact the whites of Germanic extraction will just not go extinct already!!! as some would certainly wish)

    I think there is much more to HBD than we know, and Cochran is certainly not one of the PC thought police guys. I’m not taking sides here, but the things I’ve seen in my travels just make me think that there is much more to HBD that we simply don’t know.

Leave a Reply