/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14660175
>He chaired the American Sociological Association’s Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change, and is co-editor of Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives (Oxford, 2015) produced by it.
Here's literally an organized shill lmfao. The actual definition of one.

>>12742351
>>12743179
Ever notice how the deniers only ever use platitudes? Yes we're all humans, but to deny subspecies classification via race is willful ignorance. The closest I've ever seen you ilk give on there being no race is this source, in particular
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
>there is more genetic variation between individuals within a "race" than there is between populations of different "races".
Sounds really nice and flowery, but fails to hold up to scrutiny. You see, I actually understood the paper and how it's used to propagate lies, as the authors of that paper themselves admit that when you take all of the genetic information in groups of people, that you arrive at distinct groups (i.e. races).
>Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation w ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, w ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
>However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
Indeed see pic rel. As number of loci goes up, Omega drifts to zero, indicating maximal genetic separation. So, how do we reconcile this with the claims made that differences within race are larger than differences outside of race? Well, the authors used only a couple hundred loci for that, i.e. a narrow window of traits

>>12667841
>(1) Where we draw lines and clustering thresholds between different populations is arbitrary, and changes over time.
Where we draw the subspecies line in canines is also arbitrary, but we don't call it a social construct to delineate wolves from coyotes.
(2) While there are differences in the population means from different continents, the in-group variance is much more than between-group variance when it comes to genetic information.
I'm familiar with the study (or studies) you reference, and I really wish leftists would shut the fuck about that. All it does is actually prove them wrong. Consider, for example, this commonly cited study
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
>The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population
Whoa, bro, that's super deep, bro. Unfortunately for the authors, and the idiots who peddle this work, they are blind to how the authors say "can". Let's dig into the text a bit.
>Let ω be the probability that a pair of individuals randomly chosen from different populations is genetically more similar than an independent pair chosen from any single population. . . . The expected value of equation M2 ranges from 0 to 0.5 (regardless of the number of populations). At equation M3 = 0, individuals are always more similar to members of their own population than to members of other populations; at equation M4 = 0.5, individuals are as likely to be more similar to members of other populations as to members of their own.
Notice, however that omega and Loci are correlated, see pic related. What this means is that when you take a more complete picture of whatever genes may impact the brain, you arrive at the conclusion that an individual "x" taken from population X would be maximally dissimilar from an individual "y" taken from population Y.