/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14545952]

If the first sapiens came from Africa first, is it right to say that we, white/meds/north africans are the evolved race?

[Anonymous No.14545955]

>>14545952
>If the first sapiens came from Africa first
The didn't. The oldest fossil records come from Greece and Bulgaria. Out of Africa is debunked. We're all Meds, not Africans.

[Anonymous No.14545989]

Everyone in the world outside of Sub Saharan Africa is Neanderthal admixture. They will define Homo Erectus and Habilis admix next, but its probably too explosive to do publicly,

[Anonymous No.14546014]

>>14545952
>came from Africa first
You don't evolve into a super traveler species by continuously living in the same place.

[Anonymous No.14546035]

>>14545952
Everything is evolved. "Evolution" does not mean "superior". You've the understanding of a young earth creationist. That is to say, none.
>>14545955
That is not "Out of Africa", that's your misunderstanding of it. More specifically, cherrypicking one idea of it pertaining to apes overall not humans. Finding other fossils or footprints from other apes outside Africa from many millions of years ago has no bearing on human evolution.
>>14546014
Africa is huge, and human migratory patterns due to climactic changes in Africa are obviously why we adapted to do so in the first place.

I don't know if this is just another /pol/ trollpost or not but you guys seem to get your education from the back of a flat earth pamphlet.

[Anonymous No.14546044]

>>14545952
I have no opinion in this subject, but just wanted to say that 'being an anti-darwinist doesn't mean you are a creationist'.
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.14546060]

>>14545955
pol

>>14545989
pol

>>14546014
kindergarten

>>14546035
based

[Anonymous No.14546066]

>>14546035
Further more, the name "homo sapiens" is a misnomer, because humans are not a monolithic race, but a multitude of races with varying degrees of prehistoric. There is no homogeneity.

[Anonymous No.14546071]

>>14546060
nigger

[Anonymous No.14546106]

>>14546066
There remains no useful agreed upon definition for "race" in that context, professionally speaking, you may instead wish to look at things like ecoclines/ecotypes or geographic adaptations within a species.

If you are genuinely curious, though, this results in a veritable multitude of ecotypes among humans with little in the way of hard definitive boundaries. Same reason being geography excepting in extremes also tends to not have immediate hard definitive boundaries, but statistically smooth gradient changes across regions. With some notable exception of course.

Species is not about monoliths nor "races" or a necessary homogeneity. I would hope you are replying in good faith here, but it is certainly not a misnomer to declare us one species. Species are argued, and definitions agreed on, by suites or sets of traits and characteristics holistically compared or contrasted to a totality of samples in time and place. It's very complicated these days, hardly like 100 years ago for sure. Humans absolutely have a large degree of homogeneity at that level of analysis, more than most species.

People have published papers aplenty on these as various individual or grouped topics, there's hardly a ban on it. Issue is people don't read them and just assume something untoward took place due to not understanding it.

[Anonymous No.14546125]

>>14546106
>There remains no useful agreed upon definition for "race" in that context
The genus and species "Homo sapiens" is a poor classification.

[Anonymous No.14546139]

>>14546106
How do you defend the classification of hominids races? We refuse to classify humans into various species because it hurts people's feelings.

[Anonymous No.14546140]

>>14546125
go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.14546141]

Nobody is "more evolved". We just evolve differently.

[Anonymous No.14546145]

>>14546140
This is not politics. We're discussing science. Answer the question:
How do you defend the classification of hominids races?

[Anonymous No.14546155]

>>14546145
I'm not sure how you confused things this badly, but the term "race" is incorrect to use. I think you mean "species". If you want to find that out, you can start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy

And read literature reviews on human taxonomy classification if you care to delve further.

[Anonymous No.14546159]

>>14546155
Did you even read what you linked me?
>Biologists originally classified races as subspecies, but contemporary anthropologists reject the concept of race as a useful tool to understanding humanity, and instead view humanity as a complex, interrelated genetic continuum.
How can it be a continuum if the races, or subspecies if you prefer, fall into discrete categories?

[Anonymous No.14546174]

>>14546159
...? Species are a constructed category not a true natural discrete category. Everyone knows that. They're constructed from evidence and argument, framed within the total taxonomical structures and definitions used. So, an axiomatic coherentist sort of system. I'm not sure what "gotcha" you think you have when you quote what's true. What are you on about?

[Anonymous No.14546185]

>>14546174
>>14546174
>They're constructed from evidence and argument, framed within the total taxonomical structures and definitions used.
There's plenty of evidence and argument for a difference in classification between European species and African species. So why does science resist categorizing humans into a taxonomic species like other animals?

[Anonymous No.14546194]

>>14546185
So how wikipedia works is there are sources cited at the bottom. I sent you a page on human taxonomy, which includes references to how and why human taxa is defined as it is in evolution and current day.

What you're doing, sending superficial photographs, is only for people who don't understand the first thing about taxonomy. You do not just eyeball something and declare "It is the same" or "it is different". This is not scientific, so your excuse "Oh I'm doing science" is just that. A blatantly transparent excuse.

So you can either go read to satisfy yourself, or go back to pol as I said.

[Anonymous No.14546206]

>>14546194
I've read it, and I asked a follow-up question, quoting the stated article in this post:>>14546159
You haven't addressed this post. Humans are not a continuum, but fall into measurable, discrete categories. These discrete categories have a measurable genetic distance to each other. The image here shows the polar bear and brown bear, which are more similar to each other than the European species and the African species of humans.>>14546185

So I'll ask you this, why are Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos not a uniform genus and species if they're more closely related than humans from two different continents?

[Anonymous No.14546222]

>the evolved race
>the evolved
>unironically using evolution in the same contextual format as pokemon

You are merly another branch of adaptaion in the continuous spawning of homosapien. You are not a "next form" in some child's toy with an ultimate end game.

[Anonymous No.14546226]

>>14546206
I've already explained why nature does not have biological natural discrete categories, but continuums. You said this yourself. That you ignore things plainly written, even written yourself, is why I am putting zero effort into this conversation. You are not responding in good faith.

Your misuse of FST to claim it shows things it does not just reinforces my dismissal. Go back to pol. I told you where and how to find answers, you don't seem to want them.

[Anonymous No.14546234]

>>14546206
why do you care so much, anon? species are arbitrary classifications. we could call blacks a different species, but it would be just as meaningless as calling them the same species. so why do you care, are you racist or something?

[Anonymous No.14546239]

>>14546035
>Everything is evolved.
i think what he is getting at is that white people are genetically further from ancient monkeymen than negroes are.

[Anonymous No.14546240]

>>14546226
>nature does not have biological natural discrete categories,
It does. We classify the bears into Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos, not something like "Homo ursus". You haven't addressed why we fail to classify humans into the same taxonomic structures as other animals.
>Go back to pol
You're the one being political here. I'm asking about taxonomic classifications about humans. I'm not interested in your politics.

[Anonymous No.14546242]

>>14546234
>why do you care so much, anon?
I think we are limiting certain fields, such as medicine, nutrition, and hereditary disease by ignoring genetic differences between species of humans.

[Anonymous No.14546243]

>>14546185
1st because species is a made up term
2nd because polar bears and brown bears don't breed
3rd because humans have never at any time in their history been isolated enough to be considered different species, humans have been breeding with other humans since the beginning of humanity
4th because separating humans into different species is the first step in horrible atrocities, one of the first things people do in order to commit horrors on other humans is claiming that the others aren't actually human. Your idiotic suggestion will only lead to catastrophe

Go fuck off

[Anonymous No.14546244]

>>14546239
Given interbreeding with Neanderthals who preserve more basal traits... lol no.

>>14546240
Sure, you're "just asking questions", and yet refuse to do any reading on human taxonomy. You won't even look at the resources on the wikipedia page. Your dishonest intentions are pretty self evident.

[Anonymous No.14546254]

>>14546242
that's a good thought but you're barking up the wrong tree imo. there are not enough consistent differences between people of different races to make any good generic medical statemets for.

in cases where this kind of thing is important, it would probably be better to do case-by-case analysis of each individual, rather than try to adapt a blanket treatment. there are certainly differences from person to person, but not necessarily anything consistent from race to race.

[Anonymous No.14546257]

>>14546254
If talking to an honest person that'd be enough, but I guarantee you're going to get replies cherrypicking subpopulations to defend generalized categories (which of course it doesn't). I'd bet ten bucks on it.

[Anonymous No.14546282]

>>14546242
And classifing humans as different species is itself limiting to genetic research and engineering. You certainly don't seem to mind benefiting from using HeLa cell line from a dead black woman for the testing of vaccines, cancer research and zero gravity effects.

[Anonymous No.14546311]

>>14546243
>1st because species is a made up term
We addressed this in the article you linked me, that I replied to here:>>14546159
Race is defined as "subspecies" according to your accepted nomenclature you shared with me.
>2nd because polar bears and brown bears don't breed
They can and do. They're from the same continent and are more closely related than different species of humans.
>3rd because humans have never at any time in their history been isolated enough to be considered different species
Humans have been separated by continents and oceans for thousands of years. Another invalid argument.
>4th because separating humans into different species is the first step in horrible atrocities
You're creating horrible attrocities by failing to acknowledge reality and inject your politics into science.

>>14546244
>Sure, you're "just asking questions"
Yes, but nobody is answering them. They're calling me "racist" telling me "go back to /pol/" instead of answering them rationally.
>yet refuse to do any reading on human taxonomy
I've done plenty, and based my questions on these principles.

>>14546254
>that's a good thought but you're barking up the wrong tree imo.
No need for hyperbole.
>there are not enough consistent differences between people of different races
There's plenty:>>14546125 for example. We also have been using DNA evidence to track the movement of peoples throughout history using haplogroups, which are one of many ways of classifying peoples.

>>14546282
You certainly don't seem to mind benefiting from using HeLa cell line
I wouldn't go making that assumption. Using HeLa cancer cells might be having terrible consequences we're not looking into.

[Anonymous No.14546331]

>>14546311
>Humans have been separated by continents and oceans for thousands of years. Another invalid argument.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

At no point in time have humans been isolated you ignorant retard. All human genetics has proven is we've been interbreeding since the dawn of time

[Anonymous No.14546332]

>>14546311
Okay, term X is term Y. You've won semantics, you've figured it out. Now what?
What is your preferred method of ethnic cleansing of the inferior races?
Oh and we'll have to get rid of the jews, since they're the one's making our lives miserable and higing this vital information from us.

Stop being a weasel, we know what you're trying to do, this is your form of proselytizing.

[Anonymous No.14546338]

>>14546311
>>14546332
And literally nonone is ever convinced by your arguments, this is literally just virtue signalling.

[Anonymous No.14546349]

>>14546338
Fuck off
http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/8-stages-of-genocide/

[Anonymous No.14546352]

>All human genetics has proven is we've been interbreeding since the dawn of time
Show me the data showing that the Austrialian aboriginal has been breeding with Europeans since the dawn of time.

Here's my evidence they're not:
>We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%. We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians 25,000 to 38,000 years ago.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3991479/

The data suggests they've been isolated from Europeans and East Asian populations for tens of thousands of years.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3991479/

[Anonymous No.14546357]

>>14546332
>Okay, term X is term Y. You've won semantics
Nobody is arguing semantics. We're discussing taxonomy of humans. You still have failed to address the core issue: why aren't humans being classified in the same manner as other animals?

[Anonymous No.14546358]

>>14546352
If A doesn't breed with B then B never bred with C

Fuck ALL THE WAY OFF

[Anonymous No.14546360]

>>14545952
Common misconception. Every population evolves. You don't need to change locations to evolve.

[Anonymous No.14546364]

>>14546358
I asked you to use evidence to support your arguments. Name calling doesn't support your argument. It shows your lack of one.

[Anonymous No.14546367]

>>14546349
>OH NO MY PEOPLE ARE DECIDING NOT TO HAVE KIDS, OR HAVING THEM WITH OTHER RACES!!! I'M BEING GENOCIDED!!!!
>PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BREED IF THEY ARE OF DIFFERENT RACES, IF POLUTES THE BLOODLINE!!!!
Yeah, it was obvious from the start you were a /pol/tard trying to shit up other boards with vaguely related bullshit to push your agenda. At least you're out of the closet with it, good for you.
On top of that, your argument is complete hogwash. There are more white people on earth now than there ever was, and their culture is more dominant than ever. You just don't like the percentage and want to kick people out so you can have an ethnostate. AND THEN magically, you'll finally be able to get laid.

[Anonymous No.14546374]

>>14546357
>taxonomy isn't semantics
Neck yourself, pseud.

[Anonymous No.14546385]

>>14546374
You still have failed to address the core issue: why aren't humans being classified in the same manner as other animals?

[Anonymous No.14546408]

>>14546385
Your failure to understand that they are is not evidence they're not. We do not classify things based on your asinine superficial judgments. You've been told this, you ignore it, fuck off back to pol.

[Anonymous No.14546422]

>>14546311
>Using HeLa cancer cells might be having terrible consequences we're not looking into.
Where are the terrible consequences from developing the polio vaccine? Or the cancer research built from it? Or the duration testing used in zero gravity research?

We've had more 70 years of testing and thousands of researchers working with the cell line to verify if ""terrible consequences"" could be derived from using HeLa. Where are these terrible consequences anon?

[Anonymous No.14546424]

>>14546408
You're the one resorting to name calling and injecting your politics into the subject. I've already pointed out ways in which, for example, if we measure the genetic distances between European subspecies and African subspecies, they're greater than the genetic distances of animals we acknowledge are subspecies.

Since this genetic distance is measure in all animals, and it varies more greatly between discrete pools which we can classify people, why don't we classify people the same way as in other animals?

[Anonymous No.14546430]

>>14546422
>Where are the terrible consequences from developing the polio vaccine?
This goes beyond the scope of the topic, but I'll humor you.

[Anonymous No.14546450]

>>14546430
>To eradicate polio, more than 95% of a population needs to be immunized. WHO and partners have long relied on oral polio vaccines because they are cheap and can be easily administered, requiring only two drops per dose. Western countries use a more expensive injectable polio vaccine that contains an inactivated virus incapable of causing polio.

Anon, read for me the last statement on the oral application of the vaccine. Ask yourself if the kids involved had pre-scan for immunodeficiency issues.

[Anonymous No.14546453]

>>14546424
Already told you, you're misusing FST. "Genetic distance" depends on which markers are used to determine drift, and when your goal is to align with geographic drift you literally pick the genes to target that.

You seriously don't know the first thing about anything you're talking about. "Just asking questions" man. You're presupposing your conclusion using a genetic tool designed to give that result. And you are either unaware of that fact, or deliberately lying by omission.

[Anonymous No.14546461]

>>14546450
Ask yourself why we're testing and experimenting new vaccines on Africans. I'll circle back to the main topic for you. They're seen as the same race as us. If we adopted the model that Africans are different than Europeans, would we be testing on them? I think not. We would need to account for the differences of race. It is therefore a bullshit argument to say that the classification into different subspecies would cause racist problems, because the lack thereof does the same.

[Anonymous No.14546466]

>>14546453
Fst of .3 or greater for two populations to be considered subspecies. I'm not misusing it. You're failing to acknowledge its application to humans the same way it is used on animals.

[Anonymous No.14546469]

>>14546461
>I'll circle back to the main topic for you.
No, you will read the last statement concerning oral application of the polio vaccine and admit the fault lies with using the cheaper option on kids you couldn't bother to do a pre-medical scan for immunodeficiency.

Your retort concerning the use of HeLa having terrible consequences is insufficient.

[Anonymous No.14546472]

>>14546466
>"Genetic distance" depends on which markers are used to determine drift, and when your goal is to align with geographic drift you literally pick the genes to target that.

Someone just refuses to read, I see. As explained, you are misusing FST. A study on genetic distance that corresponds to geography targets, a priori, before the fact, genes to do that. Genetic studies often "draw the outline first" because that's the only way to get useful results. You're ignoring correction, and gee I wonder why.

[Anonymous No.14546473]

>>14546469
>No, you will read the last statement concerning oral application of the polio vaccine
Which last line? It's not clear to me to what you're referring to.

[Anonymous No.14546477]

>>14546472
I'm not misusing it. You're failing to acknowledge its application to humans the same way it is used on animals.

[Anonymous No.14546478]

>>14546477
You're trying to avoid addressing the explanation of how you are misusing it. Just going "nuh uh" is not an answer, you know I've caught you red handed and are just denying reality now.

Again, when the GOAL IS PICKED BEFORE THE FACT, citing the fact the paper was intended for is not evidence of your bullshit. You're either this stupid or this dishonest.

[Anonymous No.14546487]

>>14546478
>You're trying to avoid addressing the explanation of how you are misusing it.
You're failing to convey to me how Fst is being misused. Humans are creatures not unlike other animals. Fst can be used to classify them into subspecies as much as other animals.

[Anonymous No.14546493]

>>14546487
>"Genetic distance" depends on which markers are used to determine drift, and when your goal is to align with geographic drift you literally pick the genes to target that.

I've explained to you how you are misusing it. Claiming I haven't is just dishonest. Your failure to understand is your own failure to read. You are doing so by using a method that defines what its purpose is first, then uses only genes that fit that purpose. It is not some "whole genome comparison" on some total species wide drift as you are representing it.

Geneticists want to have a useful tool. Where you draw the circle around those dots depends entirely on what your purpose is. You are using a tool for a purpose as if it "proves" there's some species-defying genetic distance when there obviously isn't.

[Anonymous No.14546498]

>>14546478
>>14546487
Honestly fuck you BOTH for not dropping this clusterfuck of an argument two hours ago when it became obvious that you're both incapable of actually presenting your arguments in a coherent and reasonable manner.

[Anonymous No.14546507]

>>14546493
>I've explained to you how you are misusing it. Claiming I haven't is just dishonest.
I said you failed to explain it to me. You're giving emotionally charged responses and they're not coming off as coherent and undestandable.

If I had a pen of wolves of varying subspecies thrown in, we can measure their genetic distance of them and we could sort them by subspecies. We could even identify the ones that were interbred with each other.

If I had a classroom of students of African and European children, we can measure their genetic distance of them and we could sort them by subspecies. We could even identify the ones that were interbred with each other.

Fst can clearly be used to classify humans as much as wolves.

[Anonymous No.14546511]

>>14546498
And what exactly do you think was not explained to you clearly?

>>14546507
Yep, all you have is denial. Thanks for conceding by ignoring the explanations given and pretending you haven't been given one.

[Anonymous No.14546517]

>>14546511
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why humans and animals are not classified in the same manner. Are you suggesting that I couldn't sort the European children from the African children? Are you really suggesting that I couldn't identify which, if any, weren't interbred from both?

[Anonymous No.14546521]

>>14546517
>I'm still waiting for an explanation of why humans and animals are not classified in the same manner.

They are. You're just dishonest.

[Anonymous No.14546530]

>>14546521
>They are.
They aren't, but they should be.

[Anonymous No.14546534]

>>14546530
They are, you're just dishonest.

[Anonymous No.14546536]

>>14546534
What are the subspecies of humans then?

[Anonymous No.14546549]

>>14546536
Your lying about how FST is used is not evidence of your bullshit. You're just dishonest. Go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.14546560]

>>14546549
I claimed humans are not being classified in the same way as animals.

I even went further, and stated that Fst can be used to measure genetic distance in humans, but they are not. You claimed they are.

Now you're being dishonest, because you're failing to show me how they are classified into subspecies like animals using Fst. You're the dishonest one.

Go back to /pol/. You clearly don't want to argue the science.

[Anonymous No.14546564]

>>14546560
>I even went further, and stated that Fst can be used to measure genetic distance in humans, but they are not. You claimed they are.

This is a lie. I "claimed", explained, FST you are using is not evidence as you are using it. Again, they are selecting the genes that correspond to geography because that was the intended goal. That is not how species are classified.

I'd say "stop lying" but it's quite clear you're doing so for a reason.

[Anonymous No.14546572]

>>14546564
>This is a lie.

[Anonymous No.14546575]

>>14546572
Yes, it very clearly is. FST as you are using it is not used for species classification. Again, as you are using it. I've explained why.

Quoting things out of context is just further proof of your dishonesty.

[Anonymous No.14546585]

>>14546575
>Yes, it very clearly is.
No, and it's not just because you typed "it clearly is". If it "clearly is" then show me how Fst is being used to classify humans into subspecies. We do with with animals. We don't do it in humans. If you are going to claim they are, then show me how they are. If not, fuck off back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.14546594]

>>14546585
how do we use fst to classify animals to subspecies? (not the other guy you're responding to)

[Anonymous No.14546615]

>>14546594
>how do we use fst to classify animals to subspecies
We measure population differentiation of genetic structure and plug it into a formula. Doing this, we can differentiate how related populations are to each other. For example:
>FST between the Eurasian and North American populations of the gray wolf were reported at 9.9%, those between the Red wolf and Gray wolf populations at between 17% and 18%. The Eastern wolf, a recently recognized highly admixed "wolf-like species" has values of FST below 10% in comparison with both Eurasian (7.6%) and North American gray wolves (5.7%), with the Red wolf (8.5%), and even an even lower value when paired with the Coyote (4.5%).

[Anonymous No.14546763]

>>14546585
>We do with with animals. We don't do it in humans.

Subspecies classification is not taxonomically valid. You'd know that if you read that wiki page. Its continued use is one of convenience labeling in certain fields, not one that is consistent nor systematically coherent. It continues usage for ESA listings and legal historical reasons. Almost every single paper in the modern era notes this. Examples,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228668177_The_problem_of_subspecies_and_biased_taxonomy_in_conservation_lists_The_case_of_mammals
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6618131_Taxonomic_Considerations_in_Listing_Subspecies_Under_the_US_Endangered_Species_Act

As you quote here >>14546615 on wolves, ESA is exactly why https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1501714 and also admits what I've kept telling you.
>We quantified genetic differentiation using FST, confining our coyote representatives to the three individuals (California, Alabama, and Quebec coyotes) most likely to be nonadmixed
>Notably, our models assume that red and eastern wolves have a phylogenetically distinct origin followed by admixture.

Fixation index used in this manner first assumes phylogenetic independence determined by geographic range in a sample, and it's for ESA legal bullshit people do so in examples you cite. More on that later.

>>14546594
The way he's misusing it we don't. Note how in this post >>14546615 he cites a paper relying on general subspecies taxa for clarification, to separate populations from admixture populations and preserve conservation. As cited above, this is a bad idea because the subspecies classification is invalid.

Per his wolf example,
>Our objective was to infer rates of gene flow into red and Great Lakes region wolves in the context of a complete demographic model that includes population divergence and changes in ancestral population sizes.

So why would anyone use an arbitrary invalid classification like this on humans?

[Anonymous No.14546772]

>>14546240
>You're the one being political here. I'm asking about taxonomic classifications about humans. I'm not interested in your politics.

So the above being said >>14546763, "the science" you are allegedly discussing in taxonomy is an invalid classification in animals and humans. FST, in other words, "begs the question" or assumes the conclusion. That is useful for some things, but is not valid to argue for natural discrete categories.

You want the science? There's the science. A litany of publications warning that subspecies taxon is not valid and to stop using it. So why are you trying to use it?

[Anonymous No.14546822]

>>14546763
>>14546772
took you long enough faggot

[Anonymous No.14546849]

>>14546822
Wouldn't need to if you people would ever RTFA.

[Anonymous No.14546903]

>>14545952
>If the first sapiens came from Africa first, is it right to say that we, white/meds/north africans are the evolved race?
"most evolved", yes.

[Anonymous No.14547198]

>>14546473
>Which last line? It's not clear to me to what you're referring to.

[Anonymous No.14547973]

Why don't "race realists" just take their shit elsewhere, you get btfo everytime

then the guy just drops a link to muh white genocide page

[Anonymous No.14547995]

>>14546185
genetic distance is not how we determine speciation anyways so this is retarded. look at a polar bear claw vs a grizzly bear claw. there is no analogue like that except in something like the Bajau people, who just have good spleens

Of course, you would never care to define them as a seperate "species" than other SEAs because you are in fact not someone scientifically interested in anything, but instead a racialist looking to confirm his biases

[Anonymous No.14548012]

>>14546139
>pick beautiful asian and white women
>pick ugly black women
So obvious poltard

[Anonymous No.14548013]

>>14546461
We also test on rats and other animals.

[Anonymous No.14548020]

>>14548012
https://yandex.com/images/search?url=https%3A%2F%2Favatars.mds.yandex.net%2Fget-images-cbir%2F141938%2FiHMkeju_3mZolCDjLWSpGQ3799%2Forig&source=collections&rpt=imageview&cbir_id=141938%2FiHMkeju_3mZolCDjLWSpGQ3799&cbir_page=similar
Reverse image search results, the black woman is a model. Maybe you just hate her because of her skin colour? Lol

[Anonymous No.14548022]

>>14548012
The black chick in the bottom left is cute as hell though, I don't know what you're talking about. Are you racist or something?

And in regards to the bottom right girl, that's literally how all abbos look. Yeah, all of them. It's not like she's a particularly ugly specimen of aboriginal Australians.

[Anonymous No.14548032]

>they actually look liek that
Looool reddit was right you guys are stupid a sfuck

[Anonymous No.14548120]

Holy fuck /sci/ you are all so dumb
regards /his/

[Anonymous No.14548144]

>>14546234
> are you racist or something
yes

[Anonymous No.14548146]

>>14546244
> who preserve more basal traits... lol no.
that's why africans ruled the world and created civilization while white people were their slaves... oh wait

[Anonymous No.14549504]

>>14548146
Doesn't have to do with race, has to do with geography. I remind you it is Africans who left Africa in the first place, and established a range as extensive as H. Erectus had before then.

I will never understand you people. Mankind descended from an even more cooperative H. Erectus, and H. Erectus had a range covering Africa to the farthest reaches of britain and Europe, to Asia as far as China... but somehow "darkies can't do it"? when you are descended from them. You fundamentally do not know how evolution works.

On that note, you don't know what "basal trait" means. It means neanderthals preserved more ancestral traits than modern homo sapiens did compared to the last known common ancestor. It has nothing at all to do with your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14549529]

>>14545955
So n*****s devolved into more apelike dumber organisms?

[Anonymous No.14549536]

>>14546060
cringe.

[Anonymous No.14549549]

>>14549504
what are you even trying to say with that incoherent seethe
can you dumb it down for simple minds like myself

[Anonymous No.14549609]

>>14549549
You have to specify. What do you not understand? At least you're asking to have something explained, and I would, but I don't know what you need explained or what information you may be lacking to make it make sense.

It's fine to admit you don't get something but you do have to do a bit of leg work to bridge that gap.

[Anonymous No.14549624]

>>14549609
cringe

[Anonymous No.14549898]

>>14546106

>There remains no useful agreed upon definition for "race" in that context
The geographical regions that show similar (small ) genetic FST distances as indicated in >>14546125 have always been used as a basis for race. To claim that no agreed definition exists is disingenuous.

>ecoclines/ecotypes or geographic adaptations within a species.
This is the continuum theory and is also a disingenuous attempt at obfuscation. The fact is that yellow and red do exist as well defined colors (in a continuous palette) even if interbreeding has created an unclear transition.

[Anonymous No.14549940]

>>14549898
>The geographical regions that show similar (small ) genetic FST distances as indicated in >>14546125 have always been used as a basis for race. To claim that no agreed definition exists is disingenuous.

As already explained, geographic genetic selection first assumes a geographic region and then seeks genetic markers. You can do that ad infinitum down to an individuals personal ancestry, merely because enough markers correspond to a given region. There is no natural stopping point OTHER THAN superficiality, and this has been discussed extensively throughout the past 40 to 60 years. This was explained also as what they do with animals here >>14546763

Your personal ignorance is not knowledge. You could at any point look up any number of criticisms of subspecies, or of ad hoc "drawing the bullseye around the arrow" practices like these, but you choose to think you know better instead.

>This is the continuum theory and is also a disingenuous attempt at obfuscation. The fact is that yellow and red do exist as well defined colors (in a continuous palette) even if interbreeding has created an unclear transition.

That is not in fact what I argued, but thanks for admitting you don't understand evolution. As a matter of population genetic diversity, all out of Africa populations are subsets of within African populations. If you do not understand that, you do not have the first clue about population genetics or this topic.

If you do not understand how population genetics, corresponding to geographic regions, performs that "drawing the bullseye where the arrow landed" act statistically - you may want to do some reading on how it works. They work backward from extant populations, not forward from a null hypothesis. There is no natural discrete category nor stopping point otherwise, and you'd know this if you knew the first thing about biology.

[Anonymous No.14550062]

>>14549940
>You can do that ad infinitum down to an individuals personal ancestry, merely because enough markers correspond to a given region
Of course you can. We all know that there are local ancestral traces down to a specific region.

Are you trying to imply that that all races must have identical DNA ?. You do realize this is what you are saying?. You are burdened with this from classical genetics and your age is showing. Tuck it in.

Of course evolution was not trying to make identical genetic clones in a race, far from it. That means I can easily take the well established races in UK, Germany, France Denmark etc and call them the European. Why not? If you really want to be pedantic, use the FST differences between races that have always been grouped together historically and use that as a boundary.

There are also no firm guidelines in classifying species of animals either. You are simply making up nonsense to avoid classifying humans by race. And yes, there will always be transitions.

In fact, absurdity of claiming races dont exisit according to your argument is highlighted by the examples in >>14546185 and in >>14546352 - to say these people defy racial classification since there are always genetic gradients geography is madness. It lacks COMMON SENSE. Never mind scientific rigor.

These people are as different phenotypically and genotypically as "red" and "yellow". I'm sorry that you cant see what your mind has done to you.

[Anonymous No.14550094]

>>14550062
Who told you science has to correspond to your "common sense"? Guess what pal, to the "common sense" of Einstein's day "time" was a philosophical concept not an integral part of the universe and space. "Space" was also a philosophical concept, turns out it's also a real feature of the universe.

Your misrepresenting what was written with obvious absurdity aside, you presented nothing new. More ridiculous, you conceded the whole point while ignoring what was being argued in the first place. How?

>That means I can easily take the well established races in UK, Germany, France Denmark etc and call them the European. Why not? If you really want to be pedantic, use the FST differences between races that have always been grouped together historically and use that as a boundary.

Exactly. It is as arbitrary as that. Because there's no natural stopping point, there's no truly natural justification for doing so. Merely what you just said. You either understand that does not constitute "natural category" or you don't. Just don't pretend it is anything more than that.

>to say these people defy racial classification since there are always genetic gradients geography is madness.

To suggest it's that easy is hubris. Narcissism. Go ahead, publish a paper on it then, go win nobel prizes in population genetics based on your novel "looks different to me" approach. See how far that gets you.

But let me guess: You can't because conspiracy theory, right? It isn't that you don't understand something, it's that everyone else is cooperating to deceive people. It's always the same with you.

[Anonymous No.14550113]

>>14550094
>Exactly. It is as arbitrary as that. Because there's no natural stopping point
There is nothing "arbitrary" about taking a group of humans who evolved in a geographically constrained region area old man. What other part of the Galapagos Island lesson did you miss??

I cant believe you are stupid. Please tell me its not so. Did you study under Lewontin?
>You can't because conspiracy theory, right? ooooooo... losing our temper are we old man? is that really the best you can do?

[Anonymous No.14550286]

>>14549529
Like many tribesmen they left their tribes and sailed towards Australia.
Headcanon with ignorance in it: some indians look black so maybe chinese and indians are the evolution of black people
>>14547973
amerindians were short with coarse hair, no beard and nobody was white, black eyes idk they had brown eyes . This proves they are a different race, sorry but you study this shit in genetics, sistematics and evolution

[Anonymous No.14551310]

>>14547995
>genetic distance is not how we determine speciation anyways so this is retarded
You are a moron. We determine species via shit far simpler than genetics. Even geographical distance is enough if retard evolutionists feel like it is.
>polar bear claw vs a grizzly bear claw. there is no analogue like that
They are perfectly homologous structures, one protrudes a bit in the middle and is larger, no greater difference than the sagittal crest variation we see among breeds of dogs, yet we call these bears separate species instead of breeds. You are being disingenuous as fuck.
>there is no analogue like that except in something like the Bajau people
You even admit there are "examples" in humans HAHA
Other anon's points are completely valid. You just want to stonewall because you've lost the argument

[Anonymous No.14551514]

>>14549940
Eurasians are not a subset of African people
> f2(data, c("YRI.SG"), c("Mbuti.DG"))
# A tibble: 1 x 4
pop1 pop2 est se
<chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
1 YRI.SG Mbuti.DG 0.0244 0.000342
> f2(data, c("Russia_Ust_Ishim_HG_published.DG"), c("YRI.SG"))
# A tibble: 1 x 4
pop1 pop2 est se
<chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
1 Russia_Ust_Ishim_HG_published.DG YRI.SG 0.0445 0.00144

[Anonymous No.14551522]

>>14550286
Indians are a mixture of AASI, Sintashta and Iran Neolithic with various degrees of each ancestry. Iran Neolithic itself is very mixed, being mostly a mixture of West and Basal Eurasians with minor East Eurasian through AASI and ANE. Sintashta is 25 % GAC and and 75% Yamnaya whom are 75 % EAF and 25 % WHG and 55 % EHG 10 % EAF and 35 % CHG respectively. AASI is mostly related to Australians, Andamanese and Papuans. Iran Neolithic is half Basal Eurasian, about 12 % ANE, 6 % African and 32 % EAF.

[Anonymous No.14552701]

>>14551310
>You are a moron. We determine species via shit far simpler than genetics. Even geographical distance is enough if retard evolutionists feel like it is.

Yes but no. It's a suite of things of which genetic evidence is a part, and subspecies labels for geographic specificity vary widely by field for wildly different reasons. This has already been explained in this thread.

>They are perfectly homologous structures, one protrudes a bit in the middle and is larger, no greater difference than the sagittal crest variation we see among breeds of dogs, yet we call these bears separate species instead of breeds. You are being disingenuous as fuck.

Yet everyone understands subspecies labels are not valid phylogeny. Except you apparently.

>>14550113
D'awww I upset the child. I'll wait for your "because it looks different to me" publication in Nature.

[Anonymous No.14552746]

>>14552701
West Eurasians, East Eurasians, Australia-Papuans and Africans formed during the Paleolithic. I wouldn't call them categories necessarily but ancestries which are very distinct, but populations largely deriving from a single Paleolithic source can be categorized into a "race" of sorts. But all people don't neatly fall into them but that is all good, since they don't have to. Think of ancestries more of as components than strict phylogenies.

[Anonymous No.14552785]

>>14552746
Well, I don't personally bitch about some broad visible trait descriptors that are useful myself. Specifying someone looks roughly black, or middle-eastern, or asian, can help in a lot of situations from crime to spotting someone in a crowd. Averages for geographic adaptation by visible phenotypes are fine for the obvious use case of "visual identification" as you go from the superficial to specific (hair / eye color etc). Even so, "useful" does not mean "real" in a given sense, nor "useful" in another given sense. Such as discriminating against individuals, effectively committing an "ecological fallacy".

I think the biggest problem is the equivocation certain parties make, especially from /pol/. Remember, or read the thread and see, the reply was first explaining how saying a given race is "evolved" is nonsense. >>14546035 Latecomers like you, or so I assume you are, may not realize the goalpost moving that ensued.

What you've replied to is following a chain of replies by someone pushing the presumed validity of "subspecies", and my correcting that falsehood. Any inferences one would proclaim to make on the basis of such mere difference in morphology due to geography would just be silly, but I did not notice someone doing so (yet). So I left it at "subspecies are invalid you're a moron". Just saying, do not mistake me for a commie who claims genetics don't real. These people just have an equally bad understanding of genetics.

[Anonymous No.14552799]

>>14552785
I am actually neither of those people you were replying to but as far as aDNA is concerned humans have genetic clades that are very old and distinguishable. I don't really care about phenotype that much and far less about any social implications about them. I more see value in genetic variation as a tool of human diversity and the structure that has formed through drift and admixture. I mostly post on /his/ so that might explain it.

[Anonymous No.14552810]

>>14552799
In the sense of analogous to ancestry, that can correlate to geography, yes. However, as noted earlier in the thread, the major sticking fact is "there is no natural stopping point".

The key word there is "natural". We can pick arbitrary ones, useful ones, depending on what we're doing. For epidemiology there are numerous ancestry groups identified, and in one sense those would be a dozen or dozens of "races". What you need it for determines how far down you go, but it is always dependent on what you need it for.

Sofar as variation goes, humans are among the least genetically diverse. All populations out of Africa, being subsets of populations from Africa, are "even worse" one might say. I am not sure exactly what the comment on variation or diversity intended, but I'm stating that again anyway as it may be relevant.

Unsurprisingly when I'm not replying to bridge trolls I've no issue being polite. Do please clarify, if you wish to.

[Anonymous No.14552839]

>>14552810
I think the conception of Eurasians being a subset of African diversity is quite fallacious and wrong. It is based on mtDNA and partially y-DNA phylogeny, but autosomally Eurasians are more diverse than Africans are and all African diversification happened after Eurasians had already branched off. Either way stopping points in the sense of mixed ancestry or what constitutes as race can be handled by noting that these races do not need to be thought of as categories as I said earlier but as components. As for what constitutes a "race", there is a huge gap between the diversification of humanity and the modern day populations having their own drift, it is rather minor on the large scale. One could argue that there exists the major clades of African, West Eurasian, East Eurasian and Australia-Papuan with medium clades of Khoe-San, Mbuti, SSA and Native Americans.

[Anonymous No.14552881]

>>14552839
>I think the conception of Eurasians being a subset of African diversity is quite fallacious and wrong. It is based on mtDNA and partially y-DNA phylogeny, but autosomally Eurasians are more diverse than Africans are and all African diversification happened after Eurasians had already branched off.

I am genuinely confused by this statement. All the haplotypes are combined subsets of ones in Africa, and all variation of human groups occur more within a given defined group than between them. That is, on a genetic level, the greatest diversity is within Africa by far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics#Modern_humans

You can get a greater degree of differences in nucleotides between members of the same "race", Eurasians, than you can between races too. Though as you know /pol/ must believe that to be false.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1435
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1438
>Approximately 85–90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10–15% of variation is found between them18,19,20 (Table 1). In other words, ∼90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ∼10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans.

[Anonymous No.14552957]

>>14552881
Based on Autosomes SSA of all kind cluster with each other indicating that there used to be a population from which all Africans descend from which split from Eurasians before them. Haplotype variation in the modern day isn't end all be all of historical distribution. It is likely that Eurasians happened only to take L3 mtDNA due to bottlenecking for example.
>2004
>34 SNPs

Ouch
Anon I...

[Anonymous No.14552975]

>>14549504
The holy trinity of dunning kruger

[Anonymous No.14552980]

>>14552881
This study which uses 369 SNPs already contradicts your position on there being greater variation within races than between them and they group Chuvash in the Europeans.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1438/tables/1

[Anonymous No.14552983]

>>14552957
I cited two examples from the wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, more work has been done with larger samples to the same effect.

Your failure to read, and failure to understand, isn't an argument.

[Anonymous No.14552989]

>>14552980
Man. No matter how many times I explain it, it just doesn't penetrate.

Fst is not what you think it is. The reason I cited the study from 2004 in particular is in the stupid hope one of you morons would actually read it.

>These results may seem paradoxical in light of the small proportion of genetic variation that separates continental populations (FST), but FST should not be confused with the accuracy of classification. Incorporation of additional loci in a population study has minimal effects on FST but steadily increases the accuracy of classification39. This is because FST treats each locus in isolation from the others; it takes no account of correlations among loci. The more loci there are in the data set, the more of these correlations there are, and the more information is ignored by FST.

In other words, you idiots are citing something that doesn't show what you think it shows while ignoring the studies explaining what it actually shows.

[Anonymous No.14552999]

>>14552989
>Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations? Consider an apportionment of Old World populations into three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe), a grouping that corresponds to a common view of three of the 'major races'16,17. Approximately 85–90% of genetic variation is found within these continental groups, and only an additional 10–15% of variation is found between them18,19,20 (Table 1). In other words, ∼90% of total genetic variation would be found in a collection of individuals from a single continent, and only ∼10% more variation would be found if the collection consisted of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The proportion of total genetic variation ascribed to differences between continental populations, called FST, is consistent, regardless of the type of autosomal loci examined (Table 1). FST varies, however, depending on how the human population is divided. If four Old World populations (European, African, East Asian and Indian subcontinent) are examined instead of three, FST (estimated for 100 Alu element insertion polymorphisms) decreases from 14% to 10% (ref. 21). These estimates of FST and π tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.

Mistake, meant to quote the whole paragraph.

[Anonymous No.14553082]

>>14552989
What? I'm getting confusing results regarding FST
>A commonly used measure of genetic distance is the fixation index (FST) which varies between 0 and 1. A value of 0 indicates that two populations are genetically identical (minimal or no genetic diversity between the two populations) whereas a value of 1 indicates that two populations are genetically different (maximum genetic diversity between the two populations).
So you're saying it is the opposite? Anyways the study is old and uses only 369 SNPs.

[Anonymous No.14553124]

>>14553082
As I quoted, it is simultaneously true that FST shows what it does and that most genetic variation exists within groups. The thing you have to understand prior to that is "a group" is arbitrarily defined. So you could use FST, on the same basis, to draw the exact same FST image tossed around without regard to what it means.

FST being used is to measure the remaining difference after accounting for within-group variation. For the arbitrary group you select. As noted in the study I just quoted, that is how it is used. It is not going to produce a result from a vacuum absent population grouping.

From wikipedia as well,
>Wright's definition illustrates that FST measures the amount of genetic variance that can be explained by population structure. This can also be thought of as the fraction of total diversity that is not a consequence of the average diversity within subpopulations, where diversity is measured by the probability that two randomly selected alleles are different.

It measures variance between selected populations that AREN'T due to variations within your population. Remember, "a population" is just something you can select.

So citing FST as, for example, refutation of the self evident fact more differences exist within population groups (again, any arbitrary group) than between them... it is literally showing the value AFTER accounting for within group variation. I'd consider it a brilliant troll if the person proliferating this misuse did so intentionally.

[Anonymous No.14553136]

>>14553082
Thinking on it to drive my point home I will re-quote portions of the paragraph cited,

>Of the 0.1% of DNA that varies among individuals, what proportion varies among main populations?

So with FST you are measuring ~10% of 0.1% after accounting for the 90% variation within a given circle drawn on your dots or individuals in the population. To make an analogy.

[Anonymous No.14553205]

>>14552999
Not 100% correct. Small genetic differences make a huge impact on phenotype. To dismiss them as irrelevant is nonsensical. The fundamental building blocks of DNA are so common in various life forms, that we share over 50% of our DNA with bananas. So please, lets drop the pretense that small variations are not important.

There is more genetic variation between members of SOME populations than between populations. BUT this in no way detracts from the fact that races can always be definitively identified from genome wide analyses of DNA. Patterns of variation conclusively identify a race (or even component races for mixed people).

Biologically determinant behaviors such as intelligence and social adaptability are a function of complex gene interactions of literally thousands of alleles (nucleotides) working together.

A number of studies on a genome wide basis have shown that the genes which factor in intelligence are DIFFERENT between the various geographic races. That alone is sufficient basis for racial division. And it makes sense, why would the races in each separate geographic region evolved identical brain structures? Why on earth would evolutionary pressures have stopped at the shoulders?

Conclusion: It has always made logical sense to divide humans into geographic races - both from a historical and modern scientific basis. The achievement of Europeans is unmatched.
A pedantic doctrine of arguing that races exist only in clines is pure political expediency.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30038396/

A quote from the above trying to explain why the polygenic prediction of European genes didnt work for Africans.

"To provide context for this degree of attenuation, we identified three existing papers
that examined the predictive power in an African-ancestry sample of a polygenic score
constructed using weights from a European-ancestry GWAS."

[Anonymous No.14553227]

>>14553124
>>14553136
So the FST remainder is the set of loci which shows variation across populations or is it he set of SNPs which is heterogeneous within a population?

[Anonymous No.14553307]

>>14553227
>So the FST remainder is the set of loci which shows variation across populations or is it he set of SNPs which is heterogeneous within a population?

Answer is, well, both. Because the first thing, "standard deviation of alleles" and because "a population" is arbitrary, therefore you can run the same calculation in subpopulations for degree of difference from average for whatever the total population selected was.

I am not quite sure from your wording if I understood the question as intended, though.

[Anonymous No.14553316]

>>14553205
>Not 100% correct. Small genetic differences make a huge impact on phenotype. To dismiss them as irrelevant is nonsensical. The fundamental building blocks of DNA are so common in various life forms, that we share over 50% of our DNA with bananas. So please, lets drop the pretense that small variations are not important.

I think you mean "100% correct but now let me raise a completely different topic". Because what you wrote has fuck all to do with what we've been discussing.

>Conclusion: It has always made logical sense to divide humans into geographic races - both from a historical and modern scientific basis. The achievement of Europeans is unmatched.

Rrriiiight. So tell me, where's the natural stopping point for the lines of variation? Since you already know the most significant alleles associated with complex phenotypes vary across populations, how many races does that give us? Give you a hint: It's well over thousands.

So how does it make sense to arbitrarily divide into geography for that reason again... ?

You really did not read anything in this conversation and jumped in half cocked.

[Anonymous No.14553389]

>>14553316
Very weak reply, be a Daisy, come on do better. You are too highly strung.

I have explained that there are no hard and fast rules to species determination. You have used this argument to state that {in humans at least} there is a gradual transition of race with geographic travel.

Of course your definition does not appear to apply to other animal species, and the reason is simple, its only politically expedient for you to do so to humans. There are countless examples of hybrids that occur between geographic bounds of different species.

So now onto your question of where to draw the boundaries? Well its quite simple, they were drawn a long time ago. You only want to disingenuously complicate them. The natural boundaries of the seas, mountain regions, deserts have already defined the various races.

These resulted in essentially isolated pockets of humans where major evolution took place over (hundreds of) thousands of years. The last few thousand or so years are only a small fraction of the evolutionary time scale.

At the deterministic core, your failure is not to apply rate of genetic change when isolating race. Its a common mistake of biologists and social scientists, but not mathematicians. You are unable to comprehend that yellow and red are two different colors.

When you factor in a)rate of genetic change, b)geographical limits that would have deterred inter-species breeding and slowed the rate of genetic change, the vast swath of empirical evidence we have (that you turn a blind eye to,) its obvious what the boundaries should be. And they already exist. Its no coincidence.

Be a daisy now. Go teach social science in wikipedia.
The variation between Europeans isnt that great at all when you look at those genes that code for

[Anonymous No.14553395]

>>14553389
>So now onto your question of where to draw the boundaries? Well its quite simple, they were drawn a long time ago. You only want to disingenuously complicate them. The natural boundaries of the seas, mountain regions, deserts have already defined the various races.

k

[Anonymous No.14553414]

>>14553389
Complete the last sentence:
The patterns of genetic variation between Europeans are not large at all, when you look at those genes that code for complex traits, they are even smaller.

>>14553395
Im so hurt. So terribly hurt,

[Anonymous No.14553967]

>>14553307
So it's a pretty bad statistic when considering population genetic distance then.
Suppose there existed a group of SNPs which were variable across populations, but when looked through on an individual level, the corresponding allele for about 99% of these SNPs will match the majority of this population's allele. As in, only a few of these alleles in a single individual are actually part of the panmixia in the sense that they aren't a match for the bulk of the population. However, due to having the same overall alleles on the majority of these SNPs, even these shared SNPs can be informative to ancestry and gene flow.

[Anonymous No.14553971]

>>14553307
So it's a pretty bad statistic when considering genetic distance then.
Suppose there existed a group of SNPs which were variable across populations, but when looked through on an individual level, the corresponding allele for about 99% of these SNPs will match the majority of this population's allele. As in, only a few of these alleles are different. They have the same overall alleles on the majority of these SNPs, they are closer to one another than to individuals of another population, so an European is not going to be closer to an African than to another European unless there was substantial admixture.

[Anonymous No.14554418]

>>14546185
That pic is kind of misleading since polar bears are more closely related to some brown bear populations than those same brown bear populations are to more distant brown bear populations

[Anonymous No.14555113]

>>14545952
Did humans in Africa just decide to stop evolving?

[Anonymous No.14555186]

I dare any Negroid apologist to name a single positive that would be lost if every single Negroid vanished from the face of earth. The negatives that would be eliminated are self-evident.

[Anonymous No.14555477]

>>14545952
African never stopped evolving. You can look at Central and West African pygmies, East African Nilotes, and Southern African San people to see just how much physical diversity there is in Africa.
The only thing more basal about African is their dark pigmentation and tropical limb proportions and even then there is a huge amount of variation.

[Anonymous No.14555632]

>>14555477
truthfully I dont know if any race has stopped evolving. Also, the northern and east coast Africans have quite a bit of Arab admixture.

Swahili is actually an Arab word, and the language is ~35 % Arabic with Bantu the remainder.

But the San / Bushman are certainly unique, at least physically. Similarities do abound an genome wide level though.

[Anonymous No.14555896]

>>14552881
>You can get a greater degree of differences in nucleotides between members of the same "race", Eurasians, than you can between races too. Though as you know /pol/ must believe that to be false.
Not only /pol/.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
>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, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

>>14552999
Regarding this I fail to see how it is relevant.
First because even if most variations are found within populations, they're not found in the same frequencies.
Second because as >>14553205 said it's not because the racial variation are a small portion of all variations that they become negligible. Richard Dawkins wrote about that : "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

But mostly my problem with this argument is that it says humans are similar without providing any context allowing us to judge how similar they are. How does that variation compare to what is found in other animals ? if we take wolves and coyotes, will we really find that less than 85% of their genetic variation is found within each species ?

[Anonymous No.14556550]

>>14555896
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Did you read this paper? You are quoting a paper whose body, and abstract, echoes everything I've been saying. From the abstract,
>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. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci.

Note "from the same number of polymorphic loci". Your carefully chosen misrepresentation of the body of the work is - in context - not what you are implying it is.

From the very next paragraph after what you quoted
>On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase equation M47 This is illustrated by the fact that equation M48 and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms [...]

This again agrees with my earlier statements. Calculations one can perform like FST that inherently average out and remove individual within-population variations allow one to then select for population identifiers. You draw the bullseye around the arrow. Then you have the conclusion agreeing with what I said previously.

>The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.[...]

[Anonymous No.14556574]

>>14555896
>Second because as >>14553205 said it's not because the racial variation are a small portion of all variations that they become negligible.

Therein lies the crux of all the faults and failures to understand the topic. As racial classification is not a product of a true natural category, and therefore subject to the aims or goals of how one chooses to define the grouping, there is nothing meaningful to be gleaned by comparison of supposed "group traits" when the group is not defined by the traits. You are measuring arbitrary circles of greater dissimilarity (more similar between than within) in the first place, when grouping individuals. If one endeavors to select the given traits to form the groups, an explosion of groups occur and suffers the same issue of lacking a natural stopping point of which traits to name groups by.

There's also a poison pill in the method proposed because it is begging the question (assuming the conclusion) even more explicitly. Which racial classification always ended up doing anyway.

So there's no real utility, even for epidemiology, on that score. Hence all the papers warning of that fact. There is not an individual utility either, as one runs afoul of an ecological fallacy. There's just zero comprehension of what the fuck anyone's talking about in these papers, and too much self-assured belief in the ability to understand the topic.

[Anonymous No.14556938]

>>14556550
>echoes everything I've been saying.
I wasn't responding to everything you said just the part I quoted. Which is in direct contradiction with the paragraph of the study i quoted.
>Your carefully chosen misrepresentation of the body of the work is - in context - not what you are implying it is.
What do you think this paragraph is saying then ? That the answer DOESN'T become "never" ?

>From the very next paragraph after what you quoted
>if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase equation M47 This is illustrated by the fact that equation M48 and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed
Yeah including closely related and admixed populations would change the results. That's not what you were saying though. Or did you mean
>You can get a greater degree of differences in nucleotides between members of the same "race", Eurasians, than you can between races too, if you include closely related and admixed populations
?

>when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are...
And this is because hundreds of loci is a small number. They found as i quoted that when many thousands are analyzed individuals are never closer to others from distant populations.

Seems to me like you're the one who can't read.

[Anonymous No.14556971]

>>14556574
>As racial classification is not a product of a true natural category,
What is a true natural category ? The divergent evolution of populations that migrated away from each other, especially when they went accross or around obstacles to gene flow, is truly natural.
>therefore subject to the aims or goals of how one chooses to define the grouping
Including when one aims to find only one group ?
>there is nothing meaningful to be gleaned by comparison of supposed "group traits" when the group is not defined by the traits.
So you think Dawkins failed to understand the topic when he wrote that thing I quoted ? I fail to understand your logic there anayway. So we select groups not for their traits and then compare group traits. We will find some that are divergent, and some that are shared. What's wrong with that ?
>more similar between than within
So yeah as we just saw thats only true (for a minority of individuals) if few loci are analyzed or if closely related populations are compared.
>lacking a natural stopping point
Back to the good old continuum fallacy. Red and yellow are not separated by a natural stopping point and it is meaningful to distinguish them.

>So there's no real utility
The utility I see is double : first there is a social utility in admitting that populations are not interchangeable. Expecting equal outcomes from asians or africans in european societies has been the norm ever since your opinion regarding races has become dominant. The failure of reality to match that expectation has caused a lot of frustration and resentment, and numerous wastes of resources and injustices as we try to fix reality and (up to now) always fail.
Second there's an utility in protecting biodiversity.

Aside from all that you didn't answer my question : how does the genetic similarity of human populations compare with that of closely related species, or if subspecies, of other animals ?

[Anonymous No.14557127]

>>14556938
Yeah he is just using very old studies.
https://journals.openedition.org/urmis/2397?lang=en
>Indeed, what immediately stands out is that the three zones of the graph with the highest density correspond to geographically defined populations: Europeans for blue points (GBR, FIN, CEU), Asians for green (CHS, CHB, JPT) and Africans for grey (YRI, LWK). Regarding the more widely scattered points, they concern African Americans in the United States (ASW), known to be often partly of European descent and thus positioned between Africans and Europeans. The same applies to Puerto Ricans (PUR), Mexicans and Colombians (MXL, CLM).3 In all, the analysis without a priori hypotheses of genetic distance applied to groups of people of diverse origins objectively reveals clusters, which correlate fairly well with ‘ethnic’ groups socially defined as European, Asian or African. In fact, these groups correspond with geographical origins (European, Asian, African) and are reflections of our species’ evolutionary history. After its emergence in Africa, two or three hundred thousand years ago, Homo sapiens (Modern Man) began spreading, mainly eighty or one hundred thousand years ago, gradually peopling the rest of the Earth. Natural selection acting in very different environments, genetic drift (the random loss of certain variants in small human groups) and perhaps sexual selection (choice of mates according to certain visible characteristics) led to the differentiation of human groups. Though limited, since a hundred thousand years is little on an evolutionary scale, this differentiation is nonetheless real.

[Anonymous No.14557449]

>>14556938
>I wasn't responding to everything you said just the part I quoted. Which is in direct contradiction with the paragraph of the study i quoted.
Yeah you can't read I'm not wasting more of my time on you.

[Anonymous No.14557456]

If I had a dime for every /pol/tard who thinks they have a "gotcha" by ignoring what a study is actually talking about I'd be a fucking billionaire. So we done wasting everyone's time highlighting everyone's illiteracy, or what?

[Anonymous No.14557503]

>>14545955
If you mean that we've found apes in Greece, sure. Do try to read past the clickbait.

[Anonymous No.14557620]

>>14557449
>>14557456
>>14556550
>Let's just ignore the parts of the study that contradict me and focus on those that talk about different things
>lol you guys are so illiterate !

Let's try again anyway
>Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population.
>To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

And a simpler version for you
> the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population becomes zero with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations.

[Anonymous No.14557632]

>>14557620
>Let's just ignore the parts of the study that contradict me and focus on those that talk about different things
You mean the part where the abstract, body, and conclusion, entirely agree with me? Where you keep cherrypicking with no comprehension? Yeah why would I bother?

[Anonymous No.14557680]

>>14557632
>You mean the part where the abstract, body, and conclusion, entirely agree with me?
That part doesn't exist. It seems you knowingly or mistakenly interpreted the parts that talk about finding pairs of similar humans from different populations, in the specific circumstances of the number of loci examined being small or the populations admixed, to mean that it is possible to find such pairs in all circumstances.
And then you ignore the part that clearly, explicitly address that point :
>It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.
Yeah I guess if you call addressing your point "cherrypicking" then there's no possible way to argue with you.

[Anonymous No.14557742]

>>14557680
>Yeah I guess if you call addressing your point "cherrypicking" then there's no possible way to argue with you.

Yeah, because you keep refusing to read what the "it" is breaking down, and failing to understand why. Seriously. This is embarrassing for you.

[Anonymous No.14557867]

>>14557742
>what the "it"
It's plainly written :
>that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population.
I understand. And the fact that you're unwilling to explain why you believe I misunderstand is not making me doubt myself, rather the opposite.

[Anonymous No.14557879]

>>14557867
Already did. You don't get it and seem illiterate. So why would I bother?

[Anonymous No.14557957]

>>14557879
You didn't. You talked about some other parts of the study that covered other stuff. As for me you're content with insulting me without explaining yourself. I guess you're unable to.

[Anonymous No.14558246]

>>14557620
This is another anon. Your analysis of Witherspoon et al paper is 100% correct.

Witherspoon did try to placate those who fume as our moron is. For example, he does caution about using too few loci in genetic profiling in the abstract. But anyone who reads the body of the paper will quickly see;

As the number of loci increases to thousands ω ==> zero; and for a complete set of loci, ω =0 . The lunacy of trying to squeeze another interpretation from the paper is unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.14558285]

>>14558246
I genuinely don't have a simpler way to explain why you're wrong than "populations are arbitrary". The paper explains this as well, but that critical point never gets heard. Nor understood as to why it is critical. So you can go feel like you've won, but there are no winners here.

[Anonymous No.14558298]

>>14556574

You can only make it look like differences between races are less then differences between individuals if you focus on a few number of data points that confirm that conclusion and ignore thousands of data points that refute it.

Humans from Haplogroups R1 (a+b) and its derivatives are responsible for almost all of the advances we see in modern science, this is an undeniable fact.

These haplogroups also "coincide" with geographical boundaries. A transition zone in between them does not nullify their existence.

Whether there are 1 or 100000000000 “mini-races” inside haplogroup R1x doesn't change the fact that outcomes of the complex human traits that are important for success are biologically determined by allele frequency.

And those allele frequencies associated with haplogroup R1x, is what has determined their success.

Allele frequencies are what defines a successful human race, not genetic or clone congruence. Races also look physically similar for a reason.

The African haplogroup E1, is similarly defined by the geographical boundaries of the land mass of Africa.

It really DOESNT matter if you look at haplogroups, allele frequencies, achievements, physical characteristics, empirical data ; they all suport the fact that humans, can be divided into distinct groups and these groups ALMOST ALWAYS coincide with geographical constrains where they evolved their complex polygenic traits.

Or you can the view that because tangerines and pomelo's share 99.9% of their DNA, they are obviously the same fruit. The existence of Tangelos "proves" this. But you remain a Daisy.

There is only one reason to deny the existence of races – and its simply one of morals. The MSM media has raised the majority of people to be unable to cope with knowing they are / are not from a superior population. This is however, the way genetics works. Its a natural phenomenon and by our current standards, very “unfair”.