The concept of the isopoint doesn't really prove what he's trying to use it to prove, that is, the idea that there are ancestrally distinct populations around the world. The identical ancestors point is simply a mathematical inevitability regarding individual lines of descent. The problem is the concept of "ancestry" and especially in how it relates to ethnicity, doesn't regard specific lines of descent from individuals from history, but rather the relative and proportional amount of your ancestry that can be collectively attributed to historic groups. For example to be ethnically English means to be of Anglo-Saxon ancestry, but that's not to say, being able to trace specific lines of descent to individual Anglo-Saxons, but rather what proportion of you *overall* ancestry can be attributed to those people. A modern Turk might descend from Anglo-Saxons, but ancestry owed to those people will be miniscule in proportion to ancestry owed to central Asian Turkic people. Also the concept of pedigree collapse which he describes near the end of this talk adds another layer of complexity to the subject of "descent", and while yes, A Turk might descend from any individual Anglo-Saxon, the specific person he descends from might only occupy a couple dozen slots in his family tree, compared to millions of slots in an English persons family tree. I think it's disingenuous to use the isopoint as "proof" ancestrally distinct populations don't exist.
The concept of isopoint is a bit like explaining to people that they have drunk some of the very same water that Jesus drank. They just don't believe you.
The concept of isopoint is a bit like explaining to people that they have drunk some of the very same water that Jesus drank. It really doesn't mean anything.....
There's some coincidence going on here as the number of people who have disliked this video is the average number of people who turn up to an EDL protest
Hypergamy breaks down the idea of "iso-points'; I am a geneticist as well and understand evolutionary genetics and social genetics... Adam should probably top up his talk with a more inclusive appraisal rather than taking the more PC approach.
What actual literature supports this claim? How it would even makes sense that people having twice or thrice as many female ancestors would somehow invalidate the existence of an identical ancestral point somewhere along the line of the species? It doesn't even make sense that it would.
@@petitio_principii Hmm where to begin - how about we begin with one the first claims he makes - that we know the most of what we know about genetics from the study of family histories and the family histories we know most about are the Royal families DAHHHHHHHHHH! Wrong. We have learnt more from "Twin Studies" than we even could or did from the ancestry of Royal families. DAHHHHHHHHHHHH! Second wrongness. We have learnt more from "Longitudinal Studies" (where you take a cohort and follow it through life and study the effects). and DAHHHHHHHHHHHH for the third time he is wrong because both of the two points I have made also involve BEHAVIORAL studies i.e. the confluence of Nature and Nurture and from that we can also see the effects of hypergamy - particularly in the period of pre-1850 when selective forces were much greater. To help you along here is a book that is very readable and I think enlightening: "Blueprint" by Robert Plomin, and another book: "Who We Are and How We Got Here" by David Reich - both authors have impeccable "genetic authorship" credentials. I am not criticizing his whole thesis merely some of his overstated assumptions and conclusions.
@@hariseldon3786Your criticism would be more valid if he said what you said he did. At no point did he say or even suggest that we know most about genetics from family history. He did say that we know more about royal family histories than all/most other family histories - but that seems to be true enough.
You will not learn anything from this video it gives no facts whatsoever, it's just some guy blabbering on. Please can we have some actual factual information
Sure, Matt. This "guy blabbering on" has only a PhD in genetics and has written nearly ten books on the subject. He's also one of the leading figures in the field of genetics. But sure, you got it figured.
@@BadReligion9 if only he had given us some factual information..his phd in the study of the eye really comes in useful for this TED talk. he needs to give us facts not just SJW personal opinions
Basically speaking, genetics are in your face. Characteristically, color, cut and clarity defines which mine you are from. If you really think there is no reason for what you are, essentially you are ashamed. No long discussions at a conference table will change what you are. Good, or bad, live with it and join the modern Western world where only freedom makes us all equal. Individuality is the only defense against your very own racism. Yes, you and I are all born racists.
People proud to be white rather than for individual achievements are ironically perhaps the main thing that white people as a whole have to be ashamed.
A lot of this guys videos don’t allow comments. I believe it’s because he’s doing his best to avoid facts regarding the genetic differences between populations and IQ. I Can’t blame him, it’s a tough subject for careers to survive. Though this avoidance leads to false evolutionary cultural theory’s. He presupposes population densities are first and foremost. The other presuppositions is we are all equally related. Both are false. We are different, sometimes very different. Of course we should all be treated as individuals instead of putting our group identity first. Only then can we realize MLK dream of being judge on the content of our character and not the color of our skin. Let’s stop this blank slate silliness. So that people become responsible for their life, instead of the world predetermining your future.
John its because IQ levels are nonsense, education standards and levels aren't equal . Those with better educational institutions will do better simple. Middle class people always out score. IQ tests are misleading because they do not accurately reflect intelligence, according to a study which found that a minimum of three different exams are needed to measure someone's brainpower.
Populations don't have IQs- individuals do. The average IQ test score of a group of individuals will vary depending on which individuals you choose to include in those groups.
@@kindnessfirst9670 Not even people have IQ. IQ is a score on a test on a given date on a given person. Tomorrow that same test same person gives a different score.
