/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14761730]

I read that race and subspecies doesn't exist in humans because we're all too genetically similar. Is there any truth to this or did they make it up?

[Anonymous No.14761736]

Idk but there are more genetic differences between an Igbo and a Zulu than between a Somalian and a Norwegian.

[Anonymous No.14762074]

Species doesn't have any good definitions. You can't perfectly categorise organisms into categories, every organism has a different genetic code, and a universal phylogenetic tree could extend down to the individual organism.

[Anonymous No.14762097]

It's a "how long is a piece of string" type question.
Once organisms get more closely related you have to look for smaller and smaller to see the genetic differences

[Anonymous No.14762417]

>>14762097
>smaller and smaller
yeah I can barely distinguish Somalis from all the rest

[Anonymous No.14764208]

There is no point in being racist. Humans are all pretty much the same thing. Our differences are almost entirely surface level and every person alive today has a common ancestor that lived only around 200,000 years ago; not very long from an evolutionary standpoint. So there is no reason to discriminate against people with a different skin and facial complexion.

[Anonymous No.14764214]

I'm of sicilian descent with a smattering of other european (mostly polish)

[Anonymous No.14764226]

>>14764208
Different behaviour, brain size, food/drugs tolerance, common diseases...

All dogs and wolves, plus some others have a common cluster of less than 20k years old. Yet...

And most of dogs breeds, differents sizes, etc are less than 500 years old. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, dogs, jackals diverged ~5 milliones years ago, yet all of them can interbred (if it is physically possible).

In china wolves-dogs hybrids are common and used by military-civilians. In russia, us hybrids most of wolves/coyotes have some domestic dog admixture.

[Anonymous No.14764259]

>>14764226
Artificial selection has never been done to humans, and if it had they would be very inbred with myriad health problems just like dogs.

[Anonymous No.14764313]

>>14764259
>Artificial selection has never been done to humans
having a society does that in a way

[Anonymous No.14764333]

>>14764208
we're actually only 70,000 years apart at most, homo sapiens has a genetic bottleneck right about the time a big volcano in madagascar or something blew up. We're all descended from a group of 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs, known as the Toba group, who apparently survived on the southernmost part of Africa while the rest of the continent's homo sapiens died. 20,000 years later these survivors spread into the middle east & met neandertals and the rest is prehistory.

[Anonymous No.14764340]

>>14764214
sicilians are the master race

[Anonymous No.14764344]

>>14764259
not with large enough sample sizes, genetically speaking your 4th cousin is the ideal mate

[Anonymous No.14764345]

>>14764259
fox, wolves, coyotes are totally natural.

[Anonymous No.14764808]

>>14761736
That's not true at all. Whoever told you that was jerking you around.

[Anonymous No.14764817]

>>14761730
Taxonomy in general is fake and made up.

[Anonymous No.14764818]

>>14762074
Whether or not they have fertile descendance

[Anonymous No.14764953]

>>14761736
Lewontin's fallacy.

[Anonymous No.14764964]

>>14764818
If that's the case then you'd need to reduce the number of species in the mammalian taxonomical tree by something like 25%. Blacks and Whites are genetically more different than Wolves and Coyotes, but those are still species in the Canine branch.

[Anonymous No.14764988]

>>14762074
>Species doesn't have any good definitions. You can't perfectly categorise organisms into categories, every organism has a different genetic code, and a universal phylogenetic tree could extend down to the individual organism.
Continuum fallacy.
The continuum fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that the existence of a continuum of possible states between two things means that said things are not different. It is a form of equivocation: treating as equivalent two things that should not be treated as such.
Consider the electromagnetic spectrum.
This spectrum is perfectly continuous, but nonetheless some divisions are more useful and internally similar than others.
Furthermore, when picking out some wavelengths and placing them next to one another (such as the wavelengths corresponding to the colors green, yellow, and red in a traffic light), there is no longer a continuous change but discrete changes.
Your arguments against speciation can be exploded in the same fashion.

[Anonymous No.14764999]

>>14764313
Not in any meaningful way.

>>14764345
Foxes, coyotes, and wolves are not products of artificial selection

[e No.14765046]

>>14761730
Subspecies is not a recognized designation anymore, and was contentious throughout. It largely serves a utilitarian purpose for geography separating what may otherwise be the same species, and sadly due to legal reasons also for ecological preservation purposes (Rightly or wrongly). Plenty of writing on these issues exist if you care to go look.

Largely debates on this are due to ignorance of evolution and biology. All species are gradients, within and between, and if we had every single specimen to ever exist it would become nigh impossible to demarcate species beyond utilitarian purposes. Hence one of the criteria being reproduction, but that criteria falls apart for asexual organisms. Read more on an introductory basis here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Obviously, differences exist. The tricky part is "where do you draw the lines", because that decision is not a natural one except for the pragmatic in certain cases (the aforementioned ability to breed). Similarly, race is also utilitarian in the sense that people having different apparent traits can be grouped by them visually. Those differences do exist.

So the confusion comes down to what one goes on to infer from that. People too high on their own farts think any human constructed category is synonymous with "invalid", but that isn't even what the sources they pull from are actually saying. The real debate isn't even that, it's "whether those accumulated differences matter in some fatalistic essential manner", and the answer on the whole is "no". The game of telephone and watering down academic debate over the past century has confused the matter to nonsense.

[e No.14765051]

>>14765046
Minor correction: I meant that it is falling out of use and favor. It is still technically a recognized designation but for the reasons I explained. It is not used as it once was nor is its original concept adhered to.

[Anonymous No.14765055]

>>14761730
>I read that race and subspecies doesn't exist in humans because we're all too genetically similar. Is there any truth to this or did they make it up?

It is made up.

The ruling leftist rich elite want to maintain their own white culture of the 1%, but want the rest of the world to become "one race", the subjected slave race.

If all races are mixed together, they would become homogenous, and a medium brown colored group of a slightly asian language. Easy to identify who is of the "slave race" then.

[Anonymous No.14765955]

>>14761730
Yes, humans are very genetically similar
Race most definitely does exist but the differences are much smaller than what >>14764226 is describing for other animals
It also doesn’t do us any favor that “race” is usually used as a political term and a synonym for “skin color”, which has little to do with reality
It’s a racial difference that’s easiest to observe but it’s a shit indicator of differences in genetic markup. If you take a look at the DNA of “black” people with different ethnic origin they’ll likely be as racially different as your average “white” and “black” person from the USA
Or more, since light skin is recessive and a ton of people who looks black, especially in places like Burgerland, might have mainly European ancestry

[Anonymous No.14766052]

>>14761730
It doesn't really matter. There are clearly differences enough. Everything else is semantic

[Anonymous No.14766121]

>>14761730
How convenient

[Anonymous No.14766842]

>>14761730
it's true, but not for those reasons, the reasons are political

race and subspecies and sometimes even species are arbitrary things anyway

[Anonymous No.14766914]

>>14764208
>here let me just assume that racism comes about through purely rational decision making and has nothing to do with emotions, the subconscious, and genetic predispositions

[Anonymous No.14767011]

>>14764208
Yes but I think black people are ugly and I don't want my great great grandkids to look like them

[Anonymous No.14767033]

>>14761730
and yet Jewish tay-sachs and Negro sickle cell are a thing.

[Anonymous No.14767131]

>>14764208
>racist
Meaningless term. You need to talk like a scientist to actually do science.
Real africans are creepy to be around. Human phenotypes are different with some negligible overlap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjlW3QCR8Rg

[Anonymous No.14767153]

>>14764208
So why is organ transplants from other human phenotypes not accepted?
Mixed race patients have problems finding good donors.

Skip along libfren, the science isn't debatable.

[Anonymous No.14767188]

>>14764208
Some humans have 2-4% aboriginal DNA.
Other humans have 0% aboriginal DNA.

Do you want to guess how much DNA differ humans and chimpanzees?

>humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees
Which humans, the ones mixed with aboriginal or the ones that didn't?

There is a huge gagball in every scientist's mouth on this question!

[Anonymous No.14767202]

>>14767188

[Anonymous No.14767205]

>>14767188
>aboriginal
*neanderthal

[Anonymous No.14767312]

>>14766842
>race and subspecies and sometimes even species are arbitrary things anyway
And your retarded tangent can be utterly refuted with just 1 question:

Why?

[Anonymous No.14767350]

>>14767312
because they lack strict definitions

it's also not a tangent at all

[Anonymous No.14767368]

>>14764964
>he thinks the offspring of blacks and whites count as viable
lol. kek. lmao.

[Anonymous No.14767666]

>>14764208
hey rabbi

[Anonymous No.14767670]

>>14764340

[Anonymous No.14768147]

>>14764208
Lewontin fallacy again. If evolution and DNA exist is impossible for people who have common ascedants, aka they're family, to not be more related among them than to niggers. If Lewontin fallacy is true then bacteria is equally related to us than our own children

[Anonymous No.14768154]

>>14764259
>inbred with myriad health problems just like dogs.
As a pedigree labrador owner that's just false. The dogs are smart, docile and healthy

[Anonymous No.14768203]

>>14761730
>>14764208
Q. Is race only based on genetics?
1. There are different cultures and accepted behavior among humans tribes.
Example: Aztec human sacrifice and non-violence in Jainism are both human practices despite being opposites
2. Behavior is not only dictated by genetic expression but also by environmental factors.
Example: 2nd gen Immigrants speak a different language and act differently compared to those in their home country.
3. Surface level physical characteristics can provide information on your upbringing and cultural values
Example: if you have black skin in America then you are more likely to use niggerspeak (aave) and listen to rap and commit crimes than if you had white skin.

Summary:
These "Surface level differences" can be related to cultural beliefs and values.

[Anonymous No.14769302]

>>14768203
Culture is downstream from genetics.
> inb4 environment
Genetic groups form over a time due to environmental pressures. The African environment is literally in the negro genes.

[Anonymous No.14769328]

>>14769302
>Very hot climate and nutrient scarce grounds are genetics
Lol

[Anonymous No.14770721]

How does this map >>14764208
match with this diagram? >>14767202

[e No.14772818]

>>14768147
>Lewontin fallacy
By the way, Lewontin was right. He's still right, but he was right then, too. The author who coined that phrase has been wrong, demonstrably, over and over again ever since. /pol/tards just cherrypick like young earth creationists. Neither group knows biology worth a shit.

The reason there are more similarities between groups than within groups is because "within groups" contain outliers and extremes while the majority between groups are "more similar to one another". That is, the averages are more similar between groups than the extremes are to the averages within them. You are, in effect, claiming it is "a fallacy" to declare two sets with numbers "1, 50, 51, 53, 55, 100" and "5, 52, 54, 56, 540" are more similar between than within. Most members of the two groups are more similar than they are to the extremes within the sets. You can't get more wrong than flatly contradicting observed reality AND logical necessity.

[e No.14772826]

>>14770721
...How does it not?

[Anonymous No.14772839]

>>14761730
its bullshit, there are animal subspecies or even species that differ much less than humans differ
the reason humans don't have subspecies is purely politicla

[e No.14772847]

>>14772839
No, it's because "subspecies" never made sense as a designation and its continued use has more to do with politics and ecological preservation or geographic specification utility to zoologists than it does good sense. Plenty of articles published on this. You don't know shit.

[Anonymous No.14772852]

>>14764208
why would that map be a counter-argument against human subspecies? Its precisely the opposite
the original homo sapiens left from africa tens of thousands of years ago, which gives enough time for differences to rise and subspecies to form

>So there is no reason to discriminate against people with a different skin and facial complexion.
that is not what people care about, its IQ, the differences there are massive and explain why africa is a shithole and europe isnt

[Anonymous No.14772860]

>>14772818
>By the way, Lewontin was right. He's still right, but he was right then, too. The author who coined that phrase has been wrong, demonstrably, over and over again ever since. /pol/tards just cherrypick like young earth creationists. Neither group knows biology worth a shit.
Lewontin isn't ight and never will be. Molecular genetics proves this time and again.

[e No.14772861]

>>14772852
>links /pol/tard maps whose sources for the CLINICALLY RETARDED IQ stem from anthropologists and sample sizes of 10 with noncooperative tribal groups from the 1940s
>This is science?

I bet you never checked those sources. I bet you a hundred dollars.

[Anonymous No.14772864]

>>14772847
so what if its utilitarian? using colors is utilitarian as well, doesn't mean colors dont exist
retard

[e No.14772869]

>>14772860
>Lewontin isn't ight and never will be. Molecular genetics proves this time and again.
Oh this is going to be good. Citation fucking needed. I crave entertainment.
>>14772864
I never said it did. Might want to read less retarded when accusing people of being retarded.

[Anonymous No.14772872]

>>14772861
so you are saying there are no differences in the mean IQs between races?

[Anonymous No.14772885]

>>14772852
1. Fuck off /pol/tard

2. African has low IQ mainly due to it being a shithole not the inverse and kids not having good nutrition, something that affects incredibly brain development

[e No.14772893]

>>14772872
>So you're saying
Nope. I am saying I have never seen convincing evidence that current trends in IQ imply something innate or essential about racial groups.
>BUHT HOW CAN U SEY DAHT
For the same reason height 200 years ago doesn't say anything innate or essentially true about racial groups and height 200 years ago.

[e No.14772919]

>>14772872
Oh also stop posting transracial adoption studies because they're garbage https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526420/
>Racial IQ Differences among Transracial Adoptees: Fact or Artifact?
>the apparent IQ advantage of East Asian adoptees is an artifact caused by ignoring the Flynn effect and adoption’s beneficial effect on IQ, and most of the IQ disadvantage of Black adoptees disappears when one allows for attrition in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, and acknowledges the results of other studies.
>But perhaps the widening interracial differences in the MTRAS were genetically driven despite Rushton and Jensen’s error? Probably not, because attrition can explain the apparent widening. A total of 25 White adoptees were in the study when it began, nine of whom were lost at follow-up. The lost adoptees had relatively low IQs, so the remaining White adoptees were unrepresentatively high in IQ, as Mackintosh observed [25]. One can prove this by comparing the original IQs of the full sample and the subgroup who were measured at both ages 7 and 17; the latter subgroup had an initial mean IQ of 117.6 (with a minimum IQ of 92) but the full sample had an initial mean of 111.5 (minimum 62). Because initial and final IQs had a correlation of 0.63 among the White group, the elite subgroup would likely have had their final mean IQ inflated by about 0.63 × (117.6 − 111.5) = 3.8 points. Meanwhile, the BW and Black–Black adoptees lost to follow-up hardly differed in IQ from the remaining adoptees, so attrition inflated those groups’ mean IQs by about only 0.2 and −0.7 points respectively.

Imagine uncritically parroting /pol/.

[Anonymous No.14772990]

>>14772826
The tree diagram shows homo erectus was a dead end at 150 k years ago, while the map shows they were still in India 70 k years ago where they also met homo sapiens.

[e No.14773004]

>>14772990
Oh that. It's probably a way older graph. Or maybe someone just did it wrong, or the specimen was contested at the time. Could be a lot of things. Is it important?

[Anonymous No.14773120]

>>14772885
i've never understood this argument - at one point we were all below africa in terms of development, nutrition etc. is there something unique to the african climate (which is wildly varied anyway) that is conducive to failure? it's not like africa is completely devoid of advancement in fact most africans live in urbanised areas which are probably on par or a bit below the average brazilian favela

[e No.14773133]

>>14773120
I cannot recommend "Conquests and Cultures" enough for understanding how geography absolutely fucks Africa. Lack of navigable rivers to the ocean, parasites and hostile environs galore, or horrible seasonal changes in extremes, on and on it goes. If you want an introduction to just how severely disadvantaged certain areas are, and how that very obviously plays into chronic long term disadvantages, that book is a great one to start with.

On your own, you can look up how droughts and climate patterns precede and explain multiple civilization "collapses" over time. Aztecs? Mayans? Romans? Bronze age in general? Plenty of cases in most cases droughts wreck food supplies, or climate instability between heat/cold causes an even worse whiplash effect. Not having a good growing season is bad. Having a good growing season followed by a summer where winter doesn't leave? Or the rain doesn't fall? Mankind, for most of its history and evolution, has been the bitch of the climate. This is less remarked on by Sowell as in contemporary times we've the best collection of data worldwide, amazingly better than anything we've had before for assessing rainfalls and temperatures for most of human history.

[Anonymous No.14773141]

>>14773120
Few water supplys, climate is a fucking piece of shit and its ok as a savana for wild animals but its not good for a intelligent specie to thrive. Thats why we moved to europe and then started doing all advancments.

But actually low IQ in africa is for the aforementioned reason. And even if we solve hunger and make of africa a good place we will still have to wait a few generations because low IQ parents will educate and create low IQ children, not by genetics but by the way they will educate them

[Anonymous No.14773213]

>>14773004
>Is it important?
For me personally, it is not, I am just interested in prehistory.

[Anonymous No.14773224]

>>14773141
>Few water supplys
Yet there are a few great rivers such as Congo, Limpopo and Gambia River.

[e No.14773318]

>>14773224
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_River
Just because there's a river does not mean it is navigable, let alone comparable to easy access stable waterways in other places. You name dropped rivers you clearly know fuck all about.

[Anonymous No.14773369]

>>14773318
What are you smoking? Nobody talked about navigable rivers before you stumbled in. The fact remains that Congo River is exactly that: a river. Let that sink in before you leave.

[Anonymous No.14773384]

>>14761730
My thoughts here are that clearly humanity has very distinct races with differing talents and flaws.
However stablishing this as fact is a really scary prospect given that the developed world thrives on democracy which has the core belief that men should be equal under the law. Contesting the factual concrete equality of men thus contests democracy itself.
So on a fundamental level, if we want to keep the status quo, which has been good so far, we cant really dig deeper into this topic.

[Anonymous No.14773423]

>>14773120
Most urban areas was developed using foreign labor and knowledge.
My theory is adaptations to diseases and parasites common in humid climates have draw backs that directly affect the brain.
Sickle cell means their brains receive less oxygen which of course means lower IQ.

[Anonymous No.14773616]

>>14761730
Consider a PCA

[Anonymous No.14773717]

>>14761730

[Anonymous No.14773719]

>>14761730
Trust the science.

[Anonymous No.14774188]

>>14769328
>environments don't select genes
lol

[Anonymous No.14774348]

>>14761730
There are lies, utter lies and statistics.

[Anonymous No.14774356]

Science is always wrong if it conradicts human universal whole chungus paradigms.

[Anonymous No.14774577]

>>14773384
>My thoughts here are that clearly humanity has very distinct races with differing talents and flaws.
Sure? My understanding is that what we called races were superficial features but what really counts is that only sub Saharan population are homo sapiens, while the rest are hybrids with sapiens, neanderthals, denisovans and one group not yet identified. Aboriginals remain unclear.
Neanderthals were written off as being stuck in a rut with limited ability for innovations, but the hybrids were intellectually different. And since hybridization was found to be a major advantage, scientists promptly found at least some neanderthal admixtures south of Sahara.

>However stablishing this as fact is a really scary prospect given that the developed world thrives on democracy which has the core belief that men should be equal under the law. Contesting the factual concrete equality of men thus contests democracy itself.
This I cannot parse.

>So on a fundamental level, if we want to keep the status quo, which has been good so far, we cant really dig deeper into this topic.
Why should we keep status quo? After all it is not good all over the world.

[Anonymous No.14774590]

>>14761730
Genetic differences are overblown. Race is a social construct anyway. Every European is descended from Charlemagne and that was only 1000 years ago. Humans should be thought of as one large extended family cooperating together rather than different species competing. Humans share so many common ancestors that it doesn't matter if an individual doesn't carry on their genes because there are many other figuratively genetic brothers and sisters that will.

[Anonymous No.14775718]

>>14767666
Love trumps hate, satan

[Anonymous No.14775873]

>>14761736
This statement isn't even true but if you used berber's it would be, albeit in the same way that it's true that there's more genetic differences between a literal chimp and a bonobo than a norwegian and a berber

[Anonymous No.14775908]

>>14772818
Lewontin's fallacy is a bonafide fallacy.
In addition to being repeatedly proven wrong at an observational level by molecular genetics, the statement "a clustering is invalid if there is more variation within than between" is simply wrong at the level of basic logic.

[Anonymous No.14776378]

>>14775873
How accepted is that diagram? I am surprised that Japanese are closer to Tibetans than Ainu, and that Basque are close to Danish.

[Anonymous No.14776407]

>>14775908
>Lewontin's fallacy is a bonafide fallacy.
Nope.
>In addition to being repeatedly proven wrong at an observational level by molecular genetics
Second call for "citation fucking needed". I swear you dipshits just jerk off around the campfire and all lobotomized yourselves and forgot to ever figure out whether any of your fart huffing was actually true.

[Anonymous No.14776415]

>>14776407
Why, my penis wenis, of course.

[Anonymous No.14776573]

>>14764999
>not products of artificial selection

black slaves in America were, though

[Anonymous No.14776613]

>>14764208
I'm not one of the we wuzzers who claims that out of africa is incorrect or anything like that, but this map is extremely outdated. For awhile now, there has been a lot of evidence pointing to much earlier migrations that what was previously believed, and that evidence has dramatically increased in the last few years with the explosion in genetic anthropology that has occurred in the 2000s and 2010s. For instance, humans were probably in the Americas 20,000-30,000 years before present, and there also appear to be several bursts of migration that occurred. Also, human habitation of Europe and Siberia vastly predates 40,000 ybp, although the populations ebbed and flowed along with the glacial periods. When things got cold in the paleolithic, populations in northern Eurasia would decline and sometimes even disappear, but then they would return as soon as things warmed up. Also, much of Siberia was actually relatively warm during the paleolithic, and Western Europe (likewise, western Canada and the western US) were actually extremely cold, which is the complete opposite of what we see today -- namely wet, mild weather in western europe, and dryer, more extreme weather in central asia and Sibera. A lot of this is due to changing ocean currents and the disappearance of the Siberia-Alaska landbridge, which greatly effected temperature and precipitation across the globe. Actually, the far east of Siberia functioned as a sort of ice age refugia and a population hub for the various peoples of paleolithic Eurasia. This is best exemplified by the Mal'ta-Buret culture, (pic rel.) which was located in eastern Siberia and already quiet developed 24,000 years ago, and so there must have been other culture in the region predating them by thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.14776718]

>>14772872
Whatever the difference in average IQ is across groups, you know nothing about a person's intelligence on the basis of his or her skin color.
That is just a fact.
There is much more variance among individuals in any racial group than there is between groups.
So besides being unethical and politically imprudent, it is totally irrational to treat people as anything other than individuals.
-Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.14776765]

>>14770721
Good question!
The neanderthal is believed to have disappeared from europe 10.000 years after sapiens settled.
The denisovans hung around in Uralic IIRC. Maybe that could give some idea about when the mixing happened.

[Anonymous No.14776775]

>>14761730
trust the science

[Anonymous No.14776781]

>>14776775
Grim...

[Anonymous No.14777163]

>>14764953
Fucking this

anyone who proceeds to regurgitate the whole “we’re all one family maaan” bullshit is just disingenuous

[Anonymous No.14778820]

>>14776765
>The neanderthal is believed to have disappeared from europe 10.000 years after sapiens settled.
So that would be about 50000 years ago, still a long way from the first civilisation.

[Anonymous No.14778892]

>>14764953
>>14768147
>>14772860
>>14775908
You realize that when you're trying to argue that race is synonymous with subspecies then Lewontin's "fallacy" is no longer that, right?
If you're defining race as "when there's le difference" then sure it's a bad argument. But when you try to shoehorn it into an actual scientific taxonomy then it's not since you're supposed to be precise.

[Anonymous No.14778930]

>>14778820
cro magnon settled in europe before the last glaciar maximun, ~50-45k ybp, some already had neanderthal admixture from present day israel path.

AFAIK all them dissipated with no current lineage. The oldest lineages of Europe comes from a far more recent groups from ~20-25kybp (last glacial maximum) and later.

[Anonymous No.14779282]

>>14778892
What's the precise definition of subspecies that all of science agrees with?

[Anonymous No.14779311]

>>14779282
It sure as hell has clear cut lines and doesn't have individual members of one category being closer to members of another one than of their own.
Seriously. There isn't a single division, be it subspecies, or species, or genus, or kingdom or whatever the fuck, that has this problem.

[Anonymous No.14779377]

>>14779311
>individual members of one category being closer to members of another one than of their own
That's not what Lewontin showed. He showed that members of one category will often be closer to members of another category than their own *at a single genetic locus*.
If you take a single random locus and look at the variation in the alleles across the population, most of the variation will be within a race. That's certainly true for many species with recognized subspecies too.

[Anonymous No.14779516]

>>14779377
>*at a single genetic locus*
Well like what >>14775908 posted, you still have people who are overall closer to others of a different race when using measuring genetic distance broadly.

[Anonymous No.14779570]

>>14779516
That's a hypothetical 2-dimensional PCA plot. Even if it were a real PCA plot, it would only be a useful representation of the data, not the data itself.
Besides which, mixed race people exist, I don't think anyone denies that. Does the existence of hybrids mean that no subspecies exist? In order to answer that we're going to need to know the precise definition of subspecies.

[Anonymous No.14779611]

>>14779570
>Does the existence of hybrids mean that no subspecies exist?
Just exclude them. And what happpens with your pic if you do that? The continuum disappears. Can't say the same about human PCAs though.

[Anonymous No.14779631]

>>14779611
First of all, removing the hybrids requires us to know what a hybrid is, which seems to require us to have a precise scientific definition of subspecies. It seems pretty important to me that we find out what that precise definition is.
>Can't say the same about human PCAs though
Can't you?

[Anonymous No.14780207]

>>14779631
that graph is from a chink study though