/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12718617
You realize english people have Eastern admixture built in too, right?
It's why English (and all Aryan invasion ethnicities) cluster to the east of Sardinians, see picture

>>12718620
>ok so when you said "arabs" you meant "sardinians"
No, I meant the South Arabian admixture, which peaks in modern Arabs (although they are now mutted with African and Iranian)

>so you were saying that europeans are part sardinians and not part "modern arab"
No, I was saying that modern euros, including Sardinians, are massively paleo-Levantine, via Levant --> Anatolia --> EEF

The paleolithic Levantine part of that ancestry forms a clade with paleolithic Iranian and South Arabian. Thus, all modern Europeans are massively Middle Eastern. Modern Middle Easterners are mostly Middle Eastern, plus divergent African (Saudi), or Indian (modern Iran/Caucasian), or even Asian (Turkey)

>>12718629
>eef weren't modern sandniggers
why should I care about modern mixed mutts? Modern Mexicans, Arabs, and Europeans (among others) are all mixed race. The past defines the future, not vice versa.

>>11236410
it's gonna take many many more than 6 clusters to split them up properly. It can't really happen anyways since then you'd have Sardinians as a race. Just weird stuff start happening with more clusters.

Anyways how many races do you think exist? What's the /pol/ approved cluster number

>>11160812
>"are races aren't a scientific but rather a cultural concept"
It's a semantic argument that's irrelevent to the discussion. There ARE genetic differences between individual humans, there ARE average genetic differences between groups of common geographic origin, or self-identified race. There are genetic and phenotypic differences between almost any group (e.g. Lawyers v. Farmers) except the most assiduously randomly sorted artificial groups.
Whether or not you can label parts of continuous or semi-continuous spectrums (like the electro-magnetic spectrum, which people have no issue with naming conventions) is just a philosophical debate. The only reason why it's so important in society is because one group claims a certain 'race' is lagging on almost every metric because of discrimination, whilst another says they're just different genetically. Remove the race category from everyones minds and absolutely nothing changes except our ability to track these differences.

>>10553891
>Except according to science, I mean.
Your RELIGION of leftism demands that you deny race, just like you deny that there are sex chromosomes and only two corresponding genders.

>>9979068
the question of races can be thought of as a question of clustering.
Which human populations of somewhat related people (ethnic groups) are more genetically to each other and do human populations form clusters.

There are several ways to go about answering this question in terms of bayesian information criteria, principle component analysis, expectation maximisation , k-means and other clustering techniques in unsupervised machine learning.

so no there isn't an "exhaustive list of races" and the results you get will be tremendously sensitive to the threshold you set for "race" , but the human species is definitely clustered to the extent that this is true >>9979049

>>9508079
>two populations have the same skin tone so that means that they're genetically indistinguishable

This is how retarded race antirealists are.

>>9422982
a race is a colloquial term meaning a grouping of ethnicities that are more closely related to each other than to ethnicities belonging to other races.

an ethnicity is a population who have continuously bred with each, usually in the same body of land and maintained some degree of seperation from other ethnicities such that they have a distinct identity.

see this map of the genetic distances between different ethnic groups to satisfy yourself that the human population on planet earth largely satisfies these definitions and thus that races exist.

>>9359257
It is NOT inconclusive you moron. Pic related is a LEARNING MACHINE (NO RACIAL BIAS) clustering people based on the fst distance which just happens to line up with what we call races.

>>9357935
not true. broad racial categories like caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid actually match up surprisingly well with genetic reality.

Look at this. All these different ethnic groups have their FST differences mapped out.

You can clearly see a caucasoid cluster of ethnic groups from europe, the middle east, iran and the indian subcontinent.
You can clearly see an mongoloid cluster of people from east asia, south east asia.

These clusters would be picked out by any unsupervised learning, clustering algorithm.

Furthermore, look within the caucasoid and east asian clusters. Look at how it shows that any caucasoid ethnicity is more close genetically to any other caucasoid ethnicity.

Its absolutely remarkable that 19th century anthropologists were able to come up with these groupings looking just at facial characteristics and quite naive and unsystematic linguistics and they end up being mostly accurate with the genetic reality.

Of course a race is a layman's term for a group of ethnic groups, but it does reflect biological, genetic truth that ethnic groups within that race are more closely related to each other than ethnic groups outside that race.

And when you or others say "races don't exist" or aren't real, you're also covering up the real , measured biological differences between ethnic groups because "hurr what do you mean black people are much more lactose intolerant than white people? don't you know race isn't real , bro?" and other anti-scientific stupidity.

>>9294958
>How do you reach these people?
Let's try reaching you and see your own denial in action, since race is quite objectively real and we can measure it with near perfect reliability. First, explain to us how you explain away PCA racial groupings SORTED SOLELY BY COMPUTERS USING STATISTICS.
Which approach do you take?
1. "I refuse to admit that picture exists."
2. "I refuse to admit math works."
3. "I refuse to admit clusters of data have any significant meaning even though they correlate perfectly with evolutionary processes of geographically separated populations."
or
4. "You're racist for confronting me with data that I don't want to accept."

>>9015711
what you're saying is "where do you draw the line or what strict criteria do you use to decide whether someone is one race or another? It is arbitrary"

but this is a bit like saying "who decides when a number is "big" ? is 10 big? what about 50? or 100? or 200 ? it's arbitrary"

So yes, it is arbitrary what THRESHOLD humans might decide to call a number a big.
And similarly it is arbitrary which SET OF PEOPLE we designate as say "white". e.g. some might consider kurds as white, some might say that some kurds are white and others are not white, etc.)

HOWEVER just because the label "big" or "white" is arbitrary as to where you decide to draw the line DOES NOT MEAN that size itself is arbitrary.

So maybe one person might say 100 is big, but another person might say , no only numbers greater than 1000 are big numbers

BUT IT IS A FACT that 1000 is bigger than 100. so the threshold is arbitrary and decided by humans, but size itself is not arbitrary.

And similarly, the colloquial term "white" is arbitrary , but the degree of relatedness of different populations is not arbitrary.
So one person might say "algerians are white" or "algerians are not white" , but you can definitely take a the DNA from a bunch of algerians and conclude that as a population they are much more closely related to europeans than they are to subsaharan africans

this image shows these genetic distance calculations.

>>9005033
there's two issues here.

one is that your friend is saying "where do you draw the line or what strict criteria do you use to decide whether someone is one race or another? It is arbitrary"

but this is a bit like saying "who decides when a number is "big" ? is 10 big? what about 50? or 100? or 200 ? it's arbitrary"

So yes, it is arbitrary what THRESHOLD humans might decide to call a number a big.
And similarly it is arbitrary which SET OF PEOPLE we designate as say "white". e.g. some might consider kurds as white, some might say that some kurds are white and others are not white, etc.)

HOWEVER just because the label "big" or "white" is arbitrary as to where you decide to draw the line DOES NOT MEAN that size itself is arbitrary.

So maybe one person might say 100 is big, but another person might say , no only numbers greater than 1000 are big numbers

BUT IT IS A FACT that 1000 is bigger than 100. so the threshold is arbitrary and decided by humans, but size itself is not arbitrary.

And similarly, the colloquial term "white" is arbitrary , but the degree of relatedness of different populations is not arbitrary.
So one person might say "algerians are white" or "algerians are not white" , but you can definitely take a the DNA from a bunch of algerians and conclude that as a population they are much more closely related to europeans than they are to subsaharan africans

this image shows these genetic distance calculations.

>>8654687

>The division between humans and dogs is a social construct too.

Sure, but it's also backed up by genetics.

Contrast this to the social construct of "white" and "arab", where there are white-looking groups (the kalash, for example, who have skin, hair, and eye color allele frequencies closer to whites) who do not genetically group up with white Europeans.

In fact, the average Bedouin Arab is twice as related to Europeans as the average Kalasha, despite the latter having much lighter pigmentation (as confirmed by allele databases)

Now obviously, the "social" and the "genetic have a large degree of overlap, but there are major EXISTING exceptions which differentiate the two.

Another example would be early Indoeuropeans. Even the northernmost ones had skin color allele frequencies on par with modern day middle easterners, as recently as 5k years ago.

Now if you want to get into theoreticals, we can imagine people editing their genome to have blue eyes, blonde hair, white skin, etc., and the reverse (although the reverse would happen less often).

How many genetically "non-white" people would be perceived as "white" by the average American? Probably a lot, maybe even most of them.

How many genetically white people would be perceived to be white if they had their skin color edited? None of them would.

Is sexual selection among humans dependent or non-dependent on the genetic distance between the males and females?

One could imagine there could have evolved some mechanism that prevents humans from inbreeding.

On the other hand, selecting a partner of large genetic distance would result in offspring that is also of large genetic distance from the subject, which would be counter-productive since having children ultimately is about reproducing your genes.

Or is sexual selection completely detached from genetic distance?