🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:05:20 UTC No. 16062947
is it actually true that the genetic bottleneck means that humans have too little genetic distance and genetic diversity to be classified into subspecies?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:22:15 UTC No. 16062979
>>16062947
if you want to be charitable, it's more akin to dog breeds than outright subspecies. that being said, no honest person can look at a pureblood abo and think they're genetically indistinguishable from a blonde blue eyed nordic
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:26:04 UTC No. 16062983
>>16062979
Oh please. The difference between Europeans and Aboriginal Australians has no genetic basis. There is a scientific consensus on this, you can even look out up on Wikipedia
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:27:33 UTC No. 16062986
>>16062983
Why are they so stupid though
Where are the Abbo geniuses
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:35:00 UTC No. 16062996
>>16062986
They haven't gotten equal opportunity due to institutionalized racism in Australian society. Once these barriers are eliminated they will be just as likely to produce geniuses
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:36:15 UTC No. 16062999
>>16062983
if there are genetic differences, than there is a genetic basis, no? what does "no genetic basis" mean.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:37:50 UTC No. 16063006
>>16062999
That's just ancestry not race. Of course people have different ancestry, but race is completely arbitrary
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:43:59 UTC No. 16063016
>>16062979
People always cherry pick the most extreme examples of aboriginal people though. There's lots of them that look more like europeans but just with a big nose and dark skin. Just like there's lots of europeans that look like mutants
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:45:13 UTC No. 16063020
>>16063006
yea but we're using race and subspecies synonymously in this instance. and since you agree race is arbitrary we can use it in this context. in fact in medicine when doctors say "you need a bone marrow transplant from someone from your race" like here:
https://www.cancer.net/blog/2021-03
they are using the term race synonymously with how we would also classify these groups as subspecies. it would be kind of silly if you went to a doctors office asking for a bone marrow transplant and the doctor said "im sorry i dont know what your race is because race is not based in biology and theres no way to tell biologically what kind of bone marrow trasnplant you need"
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:52:17 UTC No. 16063035
>>16063020
Notice Native American and Hispanic are classified as different races and everyone from Asia and the Pacific is the same? We call that a social construct sweaty
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:54:56 UTC No. 16063041
>>16063016
LOL, accuse others of cherry picking and then resort of mining curve tails. Stay classy.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:54:57 UTC No. 16063042
>>16063035
>We call that a social construct sweaty
like colors and math and other social constructs yes. the social construct of race is based on biological differences between the races
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:59:59 UTC No. 16063057
>>16063042
Look up race on Wikipedia and educate yourself
>Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[3][4][5] While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][6][7] The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.
I rest my case. Have a good day ;)
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 17:06:22 UTC No. 16063077
>>16063057
>"race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning."
>black skin and black facial features have no meaning for black racial identity
>black skin and black features are not based on biology
get the fuck out of here lmao.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 17:51:21 UTC No. 16063171
>>16063077
>muh black skin doe
The funny thing is that's where you ignorant sorts screw yourselves most, because this results in a contradiction. Reason being any given individual regardless of superficiality like skin color has higher odds, due to how inbred humans are, of being more genetically similar to an "out-race" member than an "in-race" member. Your most hated fact, that genetically we are more different within groups than between, rearing its head once again.
Anyway you don't understand biology or what they're talking about because you're too smug to read or read the sources. I've watched probably thousands of people patiently explain to you, people like you, how this works only to be met with "nuh uh". So that anon was quite right to be dismissive and patronizing of your childish understanding of biology, because we all know your racism has nothing to do with reality or honesty. Including you.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 17:56:41 UTC No. 16063181
>>16062999
>if there are genetic differences, than there is a genetic basis, no?
Add to >>16063006 ancestry is also completely arbitrary in that you choose, before the fact, where to stop or how many ancestral "buckets" there are going to be. When you see charts like that keep in mind they're relative, and you can construct similar out of family members with similar numbers just by selecting your criteria and sample space. These things don't just "emerge" like you throw data in a tumblr and out pops magical graphs. That image you have there for example, you might want to read the source because it's pretty dishonestly cherrypicked presented to a layman.
Unless, of course, you are the dishonest actor cherrypicking. Then you already know.
Secondly, "subspecies" is often used for ecological preservation and geographic designation with no real valid basis in taxonomy. So there's a pretty big equivocation there considering the proper thing to do is group monophyletically, not paraphyletically as is often done for ecological preservation and legal reasons.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:07:35 UTC No. 16063195
>>16063171
>Reason being any given individual regardless of superficiality like skin color has higher odds, due to how inbred humans are, of being more genetically similar to an "out-race" member than an "in-race" member. Your most hated fact, that genetically we are more different within groups than between, rearing its head once again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
>unironically using lewontins fallacy in the year of our lord 2024 as if this stupid vintage talking point hasn't been dumpstered repeatedly for 30 years
>how this works only to be met with "nuh uh". So that anon was quite right to be dismissive and patronizing of your childish understanding of biology, because we all know your racism has nothing to do with reality or honesty. Including you.
no its very simple, graphs like pic related are more compelling to me as an explanation than lysenkoist fairy tales about race denial and all humans groups being identical, and you would rather redesign all of how taxonomy works than concede that blacks and whites are distinct subspecies.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:12:18 UTC No. 16063202
>>16062983
Go back
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:13:15 UTC No. 16063205
>>16063181
>Add to >>16063006 ancestry is also completely arbitrary in that you choose, before the fact, where to stop or how many ancestral "buckets" there are going to be. When you see charts like that keep in mind they're relative, and you can construct similar out of family members with similar numbers just by selecting your criteria and sample space. These things don't just "emerge" like you throw data in a tumblr and out pops magical graphs. That image you have there for example, you might want to read the source because it's pretty dishonestly cherrypicked presented to a layman.
and you can also do this for every other animal species, but we don't, because that would be retarded. so instead we can look at human genetic clusters in the same exact way we would any other species and classify them into categories similarly.
>These things don't just "emerge" like you throw data in a tumblr and out pops magical graphs. That image you have there for example, you might want to read the source because it's pretty dishonestly cherrypicked presented to a layman.
except they did emerge and you can classify them as distinct groups and this information is perfectly compelling to laymen, im sorry your ideology is so shitty and fragile that it gets wrecked by single jpeg memes.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:14:24 UTC No. 16063207
>>16063171
>Anyway you don't understand biology or what they're talking about because you're too smug to read or read the sources. I've watched probably thousands of people patiently explain to you, people like you, how this works only to be met with "nuh uh"
actually anon, do you mind explaining it to me?
I honestly can not conceive of it in any way that makes sense to me.
like let's assume a population of peas, each having the simplest genome you can imagine where what you describe still can apply.
so if I were to take a hand full of peas (an arbitrary group) for each pea to be genetically closer to the peas outside the hand I would need to grab maximum variance - and for that to apply to every possible hand-grab ... how is that supposed to work? what kind of fucked up distribution is this? (and don't get me even started on how that is supposed to work once we add kinship and adaption to environment .) I honestly can not conceive of it. Sorry for being a brainlet.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:15:42 UTC No. 16063210
>>16063195
>muh lewontin fallacy
Still parroting that canard? That author claimed it fallacious to state you "can't" make groupings, which is frankly a strawman of Lewontin. In either case it is empirical fact humans are more genetically similar between groups than within them. Human genome project, human hapmap project, etc, basically everything from the past 40 years empirically demonstrates it as fact.
This is the same as explaining to a flat earther how gravity works only to be met with "muh density and buoyancy doe". You are really that stupid. Or that dishonest.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:23:52 UTC No. 16063224
>>16063207
>actually anon, do you mind explaining it to me?
Sure. Anyone genuinely asking is better than the dishonest copy-paste shitposter. It's not a sin to be ignorant, only willfully ignorant. For example, denying 40 years of empirical data by parroting a strawman argument "fallacy" like a total NPC as this liar does >>16063195. Just so you understand where I'm coming from.
>so if I were to take a hand full of peas (an arbitrary group) for each pea to be genetically closer to the peas outside the hand I would need to grab maximum variance - and for that to apply to every possible hand-grab ... how is that supposed to work?
Correct me if I've made some mistake in my interpretations. I think you're getting hung up on something that isn't in the stated facts, since it isn't about whether or not you can cluster at all. I interpret what you wrote there to be about group clustering. The issue with that, as noted, is group clustering is arbitrarily determined before the fact since you can either "group" all the way down to individuals or group as one whole species or whatever. You can also group based on any suite of traits and end up with any collection of races representing those traits. One grouping would be geographic ancestry, but that's no more "intrinsically valid" than any other, you're just selecting however many thousands of SNPs (or whatever) until you get the correlation you want for that grouping in the data set. Again, you could do that for **any** filtering criteria.
As to the actual point of the statement "more similar to an out-race member", that's a contradiction about grouping on mere skin color. When you consider their total genome odds are they'll be more similar to an outgroup "race" member, so that isn't about classifying groups inasmuch as invalidating that grouping by contradiction.
Does that make sense? Feel free to ask me to clarify, or to write less like a boomer academic.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:24:56 UTC No. 16063226
>>16063041
well yea thats exactly the point hes making
hes saying the original argument isnt valid because you can just as easily flip it the other way
therefore the argument isnt valid
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:25:39 UTC No. 16063229
>>16063210
>it is empirical fact humans are more genetically similar between groups than within them.
it is empirical fact humans are more genetically similar between chimpanzees than within them.
>Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins discusses genetic variation across human races in his book The Ancestor's Tale.[5] In the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale", he characterizes the genetic variation between races as a very small fraction of the total human genetic variation, but he disagrees with Lewontin's conclusions about taxonomy, writing: "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.
>This is the same as explaining to a flat earther how gravity works only to be met with "muh density and buoyancy doe". You are really that stupid. Or that dishonest.
so the worlds most famous and respected geneticist is a flat earther?
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:25:58 UTC No. 16063230
>>16062986
>moving the goalpost
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:28:58 UTC No. 16063236
>>16063229
>it is empirical fact humans are more genetically similar between chimpanzees than within them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/schiz
That is a nonsense statement.
>so the worlds most famous and respected geneticist is a flat earther?
He isn't implying what you want him to imply, and in fact contradicts you as I have by also stating what I have. As already noted the sole "taxonomic significance" would be paraphyletic and, again, you could do that with any arbitrary grouping.
Which is it? You agree with Dawkins, who agrees with me, or you now disagree with Dawkins?
You: "Muh density and buoyancy doe"
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:29:58 UTC No. 16063238
>>16063224
>As to the actual point of the statement "more similar to an out-race member", that's a contradiction about grouping on mere skin color.
now that you said that it actually clicked. For some reason I was imagining the whole genome to be determined by a single genotype. (literal racism).
Thank you for explaining it to me, anon. I appreciate it.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:33:07 UTC No. 16063245
>>16063224
>The issue with that, as noted, is group clustering is arbitrarily determined before the fact since you can either "group" all the way down to individuals or group as one whole species or whatever. You can also group based on any suite of traits and end up with any collection of races representing those traits. One grouping would be geographic ancestry, but that's no more "intrinsically valid" than any other, you're just selecting however many thousands of SNPs (or whatever) until you get the correlation you want for that grouping in the data set. Again, you could do that for **any** filtering criteria.
again this is true of all animal species. find me a single definition of subspecies that is not perfectly applicable to the human animal, i have yet to find one. maybe you could provide one?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:34:09 UTC No. 16063248
>>16063238
>now that you said that it actually clicked. For some reason I was imagining the whole genome to be determined by a single genotype. (literal racism).
Ah, good, so I did understand the misunderstanding. My apologies I've not yet figured out a way to preempt it but in all my years no matter how it's explained it often does elicit a moment of the brain 404ing. Since we normally don't apply, in every day life, statistics like we do in population genetics, and our intuitive "ontology" or classifications tend to be very superficially categorical without much thought.
It's a fun thing to do to give students headaches though, once you start drowning them in examples of how ordinary assumptions upon examination produce contradictions like that. The history of taxonomy is one 200+ year long argument over those kinds of things, if you're a masochist and want to suffer lol
>Thank you for explaining it to me, anon. I appreciate it.
No worries. I'm surprised to have found someone genuinely asking. Usually it's just the shitpost racist spammer and one or two people patiently correcting the screeching child.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:35:12 UTC No. 16063249
>>16063245
>again this is true of all animal species.
Yes, it is true of all species that if you group paraphyletically you get contradictions with reality and how evolution works. You do realize agreeing with me is literally agreeing that you're wrong, right?
I'm going to guess you don't.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:39:36 UTC No. 16063257
>>16063238
>>16063248
why are you pretending to be different people lmao. you're making it a little obvious my guy
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:41:13 UTC No. 16063258
>>16063257
I hope you're trolling because if you're that desperate you really have crawled up your own ass and died.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:43:46 UTC No. 16063261
>>16063249
still waiting for the definition of subspecies you prefer, and why its not applicable to humans. i can start pulling some up if you'd like.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:48:39 UTC No. 16063265
>>16063261
>still waiting for the definition of subspecies you prefer
uhhhh prefer for what? Subspecies are not monophyletic and are therefore not "valid" if your purpose is to track designations evolutionarily. Though that may vary if another subfield uses the term differently. Usually it's just used as a matter of utility, whether for ecological/legal reasons or general geographic specificity.
The funny thing is I swear I saw someone explain that exact same thing to you in three different threads. So also like a flat earther you're conveniently forgetting those explanations and pretending nobody gave you resources to understand this stuff. That's pathetic, kid
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:50:45 UTC No. 16063271
>>16063265
so which of these that i've provided do you feel like humans do not qualify as
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:53:11 UTC No. 16063275
>>16063271
>one at the bottom even uses race as a synonym
lol
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:54:52 UTC No. 16063277
>>16063248
>My apologies I've not yet figured out a way to preempt it
No need to apologise, anon. You did a great job. If you'd like to know: What actually made it click was you mentioning SNPs (reminding me that people have more than one trait to consider for distance) and then re-stating what I did not grasp: "more similar to an out-race member". I hope next time when I am in a similar situation I'm smart enough to ask what kind of distance or how it is defined before trying to figure out how the distance works. Again thank you.
>I'm surprised to have found someone genuinely asking.
to be honest I was kind of afraid of asking because of some attitudes some people show around here... but that's mostly me I think, because I never got a shot at higher learning and am a little intimidated by all the math-talk.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:55:33 UTC No. 16063279
>>16063271
>so which of these that i've provided do you feel like humans do not qualify as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princ
Since paraphyletic groupings result in contradictions because of their arbitrary nature, and you want to accept contradictions anyway, the only answer is "infinitely many" by the principle of explosion.
You may as well classify between "races" based on height of individuals for all the good it does you. This is quite possibly the dumbest racist hill to die on I've ever seen someone attempt.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 18:56:56 UTC No. 16063283
>>16063279
Revolutions I used a frame type to abstract into revelations. If you want to do the math. I have - all is good.
I will be rich, and I'll take care of my existential.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:04:28 UTC No. 16063301
>>16063277
No worries fren. Can't say I'm always polite or never bit anybody's head off and felt like an ass for it, but I do like helping people learn. Plenty of people are smarter than me and better off in that regard too. Don't beat yourself up over it, you understood an explanation usually given to people much later in education and with very little prompting.
I don't know what your life is like but don't talk yourself down. Be curious. If someone's an ass just because you don't know something that is on them. Whatever has kept you out of higher education, like a learning disability such as ADHD or general poverty somehow, I hope you can get a handle on it and pursue your dreams. You're definitely not dumb. The only dumb people are the ones too dumb to realize they need to ask.>>16063277
>to be honest I was kind of afraid of asking because of some attitudes some people show around here... but that's mostly me I think, because I never got a shot at higher learning and am a little intimidated by all the math-talk.
Try not to take it too personally. I could've just been in a bad mood, fucked up the coin toss there, and bit your head off too entirely on accident. Usually "no I really mean it here's what I don't get" will fix that, unless the person is an asshole and that is not your fault.
But what you did here, if it gives you more confidence, you explained what you **thought** was going on and **asked** how it could work or if you understood it right. So you tried to apply your idea of things, found a mistake, and just asked about it instead of making global declarations about things you don't know or conspiracy theories.
So have some confidence there. You asked right, the right way, and if I reacted badly that would've been on me and you are fully in right to say "hey don't be a dick I'm serious".
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:04:30 UTC No. 16063302
>>16063279
>the only answer is "infinitely many" by the principle of explosion.
so there are "infinitely many" subspecies of wolves, dogs, giraffes and lionfish, or rather, there could be? because this is just continuum fallacy. in case you didn't know, its "the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states."
>You may as well classify between "races" based on height of individuals for all the good it does you.
yea nah, classify races based on subspecies in the exact same manner we do for every other animal. in fact half the definitions of subspecies i found use race as a synonym.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:09:09 UTC No. 16063307
>>16063302
>so there are "infinitely many" subspecies of wolves, dogs, giraffes and lionfish, or rather, there could be? because this is just continuum fallacy.
Parroting more words you don't understand. The continuum fallacy is "because there is a continuum, it doesn't exist", so it is rejecting fuzzy categories just because they're fuzzy. That is not what my explanation is. You have also been corrected on that lie before, too, and mysteriously choose not to remember the correcting.
Rather, quite clearly, when I said "infinitely many" possible groupings that is with respect to the suite of traits or filtering criteria. e.g. filtering by hair color, or arbitrarily sized geography, etc. You can do all of these, and more, and none of them are more "valid" than any other nor relevant particularly to biology because they're paraphyletic. You can do this infinitely many ways. That is NOT a continuum NOR is it a "continuum fallacy", it's just the principle of explosion.
>yea nah, classify races based on subspecies in the exact same manner we do for every other animal.
We do it for other animals usually for legal/ecological protection reasons. You want to classify based purely on your notion of skin color because you're a racist. These are not the same, and you definitely know that.
Going to keep repeating the flat earther equivalent of "buht muh density and buoyancy"? Realize it doesn't work on people who actually know what they're talking about, yet?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:12:10 UTC No. 16063310
>>16063279
>while at other times it is used as a synonym for subspecies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_
maybe you should correct wikipedia for incorrectly implying that race and subspecies are used synonymously
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:13:50 UTC No. 16063313
>>16063310
>maybe you should correct wikipedia for incorrectly implying that race and subspecies are used synonymously
Why? Subspecies is not valid and neither is race. Using invalid classifications synonymously doesn't make either "less wrong".
Boy you allergic to honesty something fierce.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:20:26 UTC No. 16063325
>>16063307
>You want to classify based purely on your notion of skin color because you're a racist
no because its scientifically consistent.
>because you're a racist
not sure what that means if race doesn't exist. i wonder if you think its possible PoC to be racist towards white people? i don't think he'll answer this one folks.
>You can do this infinitely many ways. That is NOT a continuum NOR is it a "continuum fallacy", it's just the principle of explosion.
yea cool, didn't ask or care about those groupings. i asked if you could do it by subspecies and your straw grasping for 2 hours has demonstrated that you clearly can group humans into subspecies scientifically.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/
>Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.
>Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease.
race denial is a debunked pseudo science that will end up in the dustbin of history along with spontaneous generation and galvanism
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:25:07 UTC No. 16063334
>>16063313
>Subspecies is not valid
sounds like lysenkoism to me
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:28:48 UTC No. 16063341
>>16063325
>no because its scientifically consistent.
By definition of what the "principle of explosion" is, no, no it isn't.
>yea cool, didn't ask or care about those groupings.
You are tacitly admitting I'm right and that you just don't care. Which means you're admitting what I already said, and what everyone already knows: You're just a racist grasping at straws to reify your bigotry.
Boy you keep walking into these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reifi
>not sure what [racist] means if race doesn't exist
Pointing out a reification fallacy and calling you a racist because of your false notions of reality (reification) does not mean the word doesn't mean anything.
In less fallutin language: It just means you're a cunt.
>your straw grasping
lol cope
>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23
What part of "you can make any group you want by a suite of traits or selected SNPs" did you not understand?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:55:44 UTC No. 16063382
>>16063301
>Can't say I'm always polite
I think no one on 4chan is. It's just the kind of environment that brings out certain aspects of people's personality. I don't think the people posting here are actually as bad in real life. Not at all.
>Don't beat yourself up over it,
thank you, anon. kind words. I don't know if I am really beating myself up over it though. Maybe. I am in an awkward position here: I do not have the vocabulary to explain my mental model when asking questions plus I also spend the last 20 years around people who would pick on me for being 'too nerdy again'. .. I think this just combines to being insecure on my part ... well anyway, you're being really nice, mate. thank you.
>Try not to take it too personally. I could've just been in a bad mood
everything is fine. this is 4chan. we kind of need it to be a cess-pool because otherwise all original thought on here gets drowned in social conventions and (wrong) memetic ideas about the world ... like reddit or quora [where originality goes to die] )
also I get your anger at /pol/tards. they are annoying and even on the shit-posting front they are beating a dead horse at this point. (so much for originality of 4chan)
>So have some confidence there.
again, thank you. you made this a positive experience. for me man (which I honestly needed ... ). I hope I'm not coming off too sappy. anyway, thank you for reacting the right way, anon.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:58:30 UTC No. 16063387
>>16063325
Damn this nigga be reifying and think we all don't notice, lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:00:20 UTC No. 16063391
>>16063382
>It's just the kind of environment that brings out certain aspects of people's personality.
If I'm going to respond to questions by retards or correct their misapprehensions, then can either pay me — they wouldn't have enough to make it worthwhile — or else be reminded that they are retards, as a form of payment.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:02:40 UTC No. 16063394
>>16063382
be well fren ('-')7
I think also I just thought of a much better way to explain the whole mess without using jargon. I should've just used analogies to map boundaries for countries this whole time. God damn it I want to redo my career I'm a goddamn idiot.
"race realist": "Look this nation exists because I can draw a boundary on the map. I can draw them so it's real!"
Everyone else: "You can literally draw any boundaries you want, infinitely many, it isn't real just because you drew it on the map."
Race realist: "REEEEEEEEEEEEE"
That's really the whole "debate" and I probably would get a lot more traction with laymen using a map analogy like that to illustrate it.
Fuck me why didn't I do that in the first place
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:05:16 UTC No. 16063398
>>16063334
"race isn't biologically real" is just so transparently "our ideology demands this not be true so let's construct The Science to that end"
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:05:53 UTC No. 16063399
>>16063394
Well said, that's a powerful way to put it. Mind if I quote you on another forum?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:08:53 UTC No. 16063404
>>16063394
>You can literally draw any boundaries
And it follows that, once we draw new boundaries, we can yet again spend dozens of billions of dollars on programs that have failed since the 1970s to budge the intelligence of the people who fit in a previous boundary! Maybe this time it won't be genetic! We did it, Reddit!
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:09:07 UTC No. 16063405
>>16063398
>"race isn't biologically real" is just so transparently "our ideology demands this not be true so let's construct The Science to that end"
Okay. So you can make a valid monophyletic grouping where individuals in the grouping are mutually exclusive to one another genetically, right? Because that's what you'd have to do in order for race to be "biologically real" in a sense that isn't just a reification fallacy.
Go ahead and try. This'll be precious. The question is also a trick question so have fun figuring out what the trick is.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:10:45 UTC No. 16063406
>>16063399
Oh sure go right ahead. The analogy will of course break down under excessively autistic scrutiny so it has some weakness, such as not realizing by "nation" here it is a placeholder for something arbitrarily drawn and not a "legal reality" like a nation that already exists of course.
But yeah I think if that characterization proliferates more people would have a far more accessible idea of what exactly the race realists are lying about here, and without the need for the statistics or genetics knowledge. If you can megaphone it you go right ahead.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:13:37 UTC No. 16063411
>>16063404
>And it follows that, once we draw new boundaries, we can yet again spend dozens of billions of dollars on programs that have failed since the 1970s to budge the intelligence of the people who fit in a previous boundary!
"The systemic effects of racism aren't fixed on my personal notion of the proper timetable so it's wrong"
Fucking children
>Maybe this time it won't be genetic!
Okay, you go right ahead and show me how it's mathematically possible for it to be "genetic" given how few "group differences" of fixed alleles are and how small the effect sizes are. You know, like dozens of people have repeatedly asked you idiots to show and how none of you ever show it?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:21:34 UTC No. 16063422
>>16063411
>"The systemic effects of racism
Despite the gargantuan differences in income, social norms, government programs, and laws between the 1930s, the 1970s, the 2000s, and the 2020s, the IQ gap still remains the same one standard deviation as it was a century ago. You see, huge changes don't make a difference but tiny effects do! Such as implicit raci- oh that doesn't replicate? I'm sure it's something else! Racism in the gaps!
>fixed alleles
Allele frequencies, numbnuts. They don't have to be fixed. Intelligence is a quantitative trait. Thousands of genes are implicated. These alleles have different frequencies in different populations, due to selection or random drift.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:24:03 UTC No. 16063430
>>16063422
>Allele frequencies, numbnuts
You could do that too. You didn't.
Still waiting. Well? What's the matter? I thought "denying the reality of race" was the science denial. So you can EASILY mathematically show it's possible based on GWAS data and the effect sizes therein, right?
This is also a trick question. It has also already been done and further falsifies "race realism" but it's funny to watch you hurl insults and impotently scream due to your innumeracy.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:32:23 UTC No. 16063455
>>16063394
>be well fren ('-')7
thank you. you too!
>"You can literally draw any boundaries you want, infinitely many,
great way of framing it. people will intuitively grasp it, but ...
if you put it that way just be prepared for a dishonest 'opponent' to argue for differences in the population due to forming a kind of 'island' (like the thing you do with genetic algorithms where you have several separated populations [islands] to explore the search-space without converging on a single local optimum - and of course the outcome is having overall more 'genetic' diversity - especially between islands* ... ...)
also I think if I were trying to argue on the side of populations within the borders of a country being more than just a random selection of people I'd try to construct something around poland (which I know sounds weird, but they do have all kind of weird knock-on effects due to being partitioned and occupied for almost 200 years ... pic related). and I know this is mostly due to infrastructure and urbanisation, but if you leave that out the fact that Poland A gets hit by lightning more often than Poland B does sound ominous.
*that is of course if no migration occurs. if you have migration of a more fitter population towards another the other will of course converge towards the greater fitness within one or two generations (also I am speaking of a crude model of evolution that does not occur in this way in the real world!!! not about people or anything real! [just in case somebody mistakes what I am talking about])
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:35:23 UTC No. 16063464
>>16063430
>based on GWAS data
Current GWAS data cannot reliably be used either way as the SNPs are largely specific to European populations and sub-Saharan Africans are still underrepresented in the largest datasets; and this hasn't been necessary since the twin studies designs estimating the [math]h^2[/math] and Jensen's argument on how different environments must be to bring about such a massive difference of [math]1\sigma[/math]. And, you know, the whole thing where their intelligence hasn't budged for a century. Do you really not realize how absurd your fantasy is? Huge changes over a century? No difference! Undetectable racism of the gaps? The entire difference! Stop and think for a moment, the stupidity of that should be hitting you like a train.
>Fucking children
>you idiots
>watch you hurl insults
Why is your kind always such slime? I literally will have to go and wash my hands because of how revolting your dishonesty is, I hope you are happy with that.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:35:33 UTC No. 16063466
>>16063455
>if you put it that way just be prepared for a dishonest 'opponent' to argue for differences in the population due to forming a kind of 'island' (like the thing you do with genetic algorithms where you have several separated populations [islands] to explore the search-space without converging on a single local optimum - and of course the outcome is having overall more 'genetic' diversity - especially between islands* ... ...)
Which is still arbitrary because you are arbitrarily selecting islands as the boundaries instead. I fully expect that but it fails for the same reason "race realism" pivots on that fail and in a way more people can understand.
After all, these are not clumps of earth randomly assorting and being selected against like biological organisms where we're dealing with "true categories". If someone thinks that's actually what's going on with "race realism" that is exactly what the fact "any one individual is more genetically similar between any grouping" falsifies due to our high degree of "inbreeding" or genetic similarity as a species.
Does it make sense how it connects to what I already wrote, now? Granted using this analogy effectively will require you know what the analogy is mapping onto but that's true of all pedagogical analogies.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:39:52 UTC No. 16063476
>>16063464
>Current GWAS data cannot reliably be used either way as the SNPs are largely specific to European populations and sub-Saharan Africans are still underrepresented in the largest datasets
Oh? But weren't you the one bitching about American Africans? >>16063422 The ones most represented in the datasets and therefore the ones that would best represent the comparison?
>Stop and think for a moment, the stupidity of that should be hitting you like a train.
I like to think of it more like drunken kung-fu. All according to keikaku etc.
Basically, you're full of shit and using a red herring trying to distract from how full of shit you are. The data is perfectly acceptable for assessing, based on associated effect sizes and proportionate frequencies of associations, exactly what you were bitching about.
Yet, mysteriously, you suddenly start complaining about a lack of representativeness of continental populations when challenged? HMMMMMMM....
As you put it, "the stupidity of that should be hitting you like a train."
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:42:29 UTC No. 16063483
>>16063464
Maybe you should wash the Cheeto dust off your hands and go outside every now and then friend. It's not good to spend all day on /pol/ obsessing over imaginary social constructs. Maybe you could even find a nice woman of color that could teach you about the reality of racism and maybe even teach you about some other things you've never experienced too
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:43:18 UTC No. 16063484
>>16063476
>about American Africans
They're for all practical purposes sub-Saharan Africans with some European admixture. Hence, you need SNPs for SSAs and Europeans.>>16063476
>The data is perfectly acceptable for assessing
No, you're just ignorant ("fixed alleles"), or dishonest ("watch you hurl insults"), or both.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:47:56 UTC No. 16063497
>>16063484
>They're for all practical purposes sub-Saharan Africans with some European admixture. Hence, you need SNPs for SSAs and Europeans.
Nobody's falling for the red herring. You were bitching about American Africans >>16063422 and the IQ gap, you do not need whole continental comparisons when you've a large database of Americans for the comparison... of Americans. You've been caught and you're not wiggling out of it now.
So go on then. Show your work. After all, science is on your side right?
>No, you're just ignorant ("fixed alleles"), or dishonest ("watch you hurl insults"), or both.
No, I simplified the problem because I definitely do not expect "race realists" to know how to do even that let alone graph relative probabilities at different levels of effect sizes even "a priori" or abstract from any data.
Much to my not-surprise you not only didn't do that part, you didn't do what you've "corrected" me on and instead keep reaching for excuses.
Either way the excuses fail. As noted plenty of people have done this kind of analysis much to the chagrin of "HBD" bloggers and it certainly does not support your nonsense.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:48:11 UTC No. 16063498
>>16063466
It does. Absolutely. ... I just realised that I just suck at race realism. I would have been perfectly content with stating 'yah, in some ways they are genetically (or phenotypically) distinct from other population + them acting weird is because of that' ...
Like saying 'yah, the englishers they do look stupd with their freckles and whatnot. Their drinking culture must be because of those redhead genes of theirs'. ...
...
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:50:58 UTC No. 16063504
>>16063497
>when you've a large database of Americans for the comparison
There isn't one, and you show your ignorance yet again. The Okbay et al. GWA studies of educational attainment use the UK Biobank data. So do the rest of the related GWA studies.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:56:28 UTC No. 16063514
>>16063279
How are the groupings all paraphyletic? Sure, you got a lot of exchange between populations in many parts of the world, but then you also have groups like Polynesians settling tons of pacific islands and staying mostly separate from other populations for 3 or 4 thousand years, because they were the only ones capable of navigating the pacific, Native Americans that reached the continent in a handfull of migrations and then being isolated from the other continents for more than 10000 years and aboriginal Australians reaching the continent more than 60000 years ago and then being mostly isolated except a little contact with austronesians until the bongs filled the place with their criminals.
All of these groups are largely monophyletic until only a few hundred years ago.
I say this with high respect for indigenous people btw. The world would be a better place, if the European invaders had been consistently thrown back into the ocean. Is it not possible to say there are genetically distinct groups without declaring one is better than the other?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:58:52 UTC No. 16063519
>>16063210
>In either case it is empirical fact humans are more genetically similar between groups than within them
Could you explain precisely what you mean by this? Obviously similarity between groups is not directly comparable to similarity between individual within groups, so that's already a nonsense statement, but I'm interested in hearing what you actually mean by it.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:59:46 UTC No. 16063523
>>16063498
Well it's a rather unusual topic that runs a bit counterintuitively to how people usually (don't) think about classifications. Totally expected honestly and most people have to confront that at some point in bio if not "all throughout".
>>16063504
>There isn't one, and you show your ignorance yet again.
There are, just mostly private, governmental, or medical, and require proper clearances or permission. Depends on what you're talking about really.
>The Okbay et al. GWA studies of educational attainment use the UK Biobank data. So do the rest of the related GWA studies.
And there's plenty of literature about various biobanks in the USA including the lack of centralization and even publications trying to survey them to rectify it https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar
Your not knowing they exist doesn't mean they don't exist. And yes, most research does use UK Biobank data. Most.
Either way, your red herring wouldn't work even if I ignore your ironic ignorance about USA genetic data. Just picking an arbitrary example of this kind of hypothesis testing, though a bit less arbitrary as I had to try and make sure it could be downloaded publicly, https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/2
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi
To which like young earth creationists I'm sure you will dig up any irrelevant blog with some irrelevant ramblings "deboonking" it by not understanding anything therein.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:02:08 UTC No. 16063528
>>16063519
Oh, he just means that if you put two CDs half an inch apart, one above the other, then the CDs must be the same because there is more variance in distance within the CDs than between them.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:04:53 UTC No. 16063534
>>16063519
>Could you explain precisely what you mean by this?
Any given individual in a "racial group" is more genetically similar to somebody in the "out-race" group than within their racial group.
>but I'm interested in hearing what you actually mean by it.
It's a falsification of the validity of "racial categories" on some presumed allele fixation genetic basis.
You could try rectifying the flaw by making a trait-frequency or allele frequency argument as the current person is attempting, but the data generally falsify that too. We're too similar to one another genetically and highly complex traits like intelligence are too polygenic, plus the absent selection pressure. It's kind of "all of the reasons" why a frequency argument doesn't make sense.
>>16063514
>How are the groupings all paraphyletic? Sure, you got a lot of exchange between populations in many parts of the world, but then you also have groups like Polynesians settling tons of pacific islands and staying mostly separate from other populations for 3 or 4 thousand years, because they were the only ones capable of navigating the pacific, Native Americans that reached the continent in a handfull of migrations and then being isolated from the other continents for more than 10000 years and aboriginal Australians reaching the continent more than 60000 years ago and then being mostly isolated except a little contact with austronesians until the bongs filled the place with their criminals.
You're confusing ancestry with species classification, and besides gene flow did not "cut off" 60,000 years ago with austronesians as what extant genetic data suggests. Far from it. Either way even if we assume that occurred, you still have the same general problem where individuals in that grouping are still more similar to "out-groups" than they are to members "in group".
People tend to severely underestimate just how inbred humans are as a species. There's a reason we're monotypic.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:07:08 UTC No. 16063537
>>16063523
>use datasets to support your hypothesis
>>There isn't a large SNP dataset of Americans I could use to show anything but noise
>there are small private ones you can't access
Oh gee, how useful! (Could you be more dishonest?)
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:07:24 UTC No. 16063539
>>16063528
>Oh, he just means that if you put two CDs half an inch apart, one above the other, then the CDs must be the same because there is more variance in distance within the CDs than between them.
Nope. It means drawing an arbitrary line at random on a CD doesn't make it a valid category just because you drew a lines on the CD. The frequencies of 0's and 1's don't support it and in fact contradict it.
Boy are you assmad you don't understand undergrad genetics and the past 40+ years of genetics research. Seriously. This fact is older than I am. How can you even pretend to be this dumb?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:10:29 UTC No. 16063547
>>16063534
>Any given individual in a "racial group" is more genetically similar to somebody in the "out-race" group than within their racial group.
This too is a nonsense statement. What does "similar within their racial group" mean? So what do you mean by this statement?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:10:37 UTC No. 16063549
>>16063537
>>there are small private ones you can't access
>Oh gee, how useful! (Could you be more dishonest?)
There are in fact very large ones that you can access given the right permissions private or otherwise. It's just harder than the one in the UK. Much as there are papers concerning various aspects of these data that are generally not accessible online or even available on pirated sources far as I'm aware. Some private agencies, some working with scientists, etc.
So turning the tables again: I'm sorry you're ignorant about these particulars, but maybe you should've thought of that before throwing accusations of ignorance.
Either way, still waiting for you to show your work. Which you don't have because we both know you're full of shit and DESPERATELY trying to deflect.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:14:44 UTC No. 16063558
>>16063547
>This too is a nonsense statement.
I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding it. It is not, however, "a nonsense statement".
>What does "similar within their racial group" mean?
We're talking population genetics so the implication is you'd have some inkling of population genetics. Drop the attitude calling things "nonsense" when you're just ignorant and I'll be more polite about it.
What it means practically is an individual's genome is more similar to an "out-group", in this case racial groups, than to members of their own "in-group". Just a statistical reality that panned out in practice over the decades due to how genetic drift works. Those random mutations and recombinations across the human species, and for individuals at many thousands of single nucleotide locations (loci), you're comparing averages of individuals within and between their groups.
>So what do you mean by this statement?
Does that explain it? If this topic is wholly alien to you, you may need to do some additional reading and spelunking across wikipedia to get the gist. I can try to make some analogies but generally I don't bother for people claiming I am "talking nonsense".
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:15:45 UTC No. 16063560
>>16063534
>absent selection pressure
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41
Just pointing out another one of your lies because you shit up the thread at too high a rate. Cognitive traits have been under about as much selection as physical traits.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:19:46 UTC No. 16063574
>>16063534
How is taxonomy anything but ancestry? And how are lets say two native Americans more dissimilar than one of them to someone from another continent? Unless you cherrie pick for example an Inuit and compare him to both a Shipibo from the Amazon and a eastern Siberian.
Do you disagree that precolumbian native Americans are a monophyletic group descendent from a small founding population that is closer related to each other than to any other humans?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:20:18 UTC No. 16063576
>>16063558
>Does that explain it?
No. Clearly you do not understand what you're saying, since instead of giving proper definitions, you merely hurl insults and abuse.
>I am "talking nonsense".
Maybe you should stop talking nonsense, then. Here's a wild suggestion: When someone asks you for a definition for the terms you're abusing in your claims, give those definitions. Or, do not abuse the terms in the first place.
From what I've gathered so far, you think that individuals are always more genetically similar to someone within an outgroup than to anyone within the in-group, but this is obviously false. If you, however, mean that an indivdiual is always more similar to someone within an outgroup than to someone within an ingroup, it's dubious whether this is true or not, but it's a ridiculously stupid statement regardless. For example, a group of people whose IQs are on average 150 is very different from a group of people whose average IQ is 50, but it is entirely possible that someone in the first group has precisely the same IQ as someone in the second group.
In any case, I really doubt you're worth my time, so I'll be going now.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:55:23 UTC No. 16063645
>>16063560
>Just pointing out another one of your lies because you shit up the thread at too high a rate. Cognitive traits have been under about as much selection as physical traits.
I don't know why you're throwing spaghetti at the wall hoping it sticks. At a cursory glance the selection signals are negative selections and it's mostly disease traits far as I can tell, and you're showing a picture of estimates of modeled negative selection?
The bizarre thing is you just linked me a falsification of your case given
(a) "The median polygenicity estimate was the lowest for diseases (0.007) and reproductive traits (0.008) and the highest for cognitive traits (0.037)."
(b) "Compared to physical measures (mean [math]\pi_m[/math]=0.011), the mean [math]\pi_m[/math] was significantly lower for disease (0.005, median P=0.003) and was significantly higher for cognitive traits (0.023, median P=0.017)."
(c) "The absolute median value of [math]\hat{S}[/math] was the highest for diseases, especially cardiovascular diseases, and the lowest for cognitive traits"
Where,
"π represents the proportion of SNPs with nonzero effects"
[math]\pi_m[/math] "proportion of mutational targets (proportion of DNA sequence at which mutations can affect the trait)"
"S defined as relationship between MAF [minor allele frequency (second most common allele)] and effect size"
And generally the hat figures represent the estimates or modeled values.
So in English, cognitive traits were the most polygenic, most sensitive to mutations, etc as shown in supplementary figure 28.
>Cognitive traits have been under about as much selection as physical traits.
It has been under the least beneficial and most negative selection. That means... it's the most stable.
You literally just sent a paper falsifying your own grift. And my cursory glance involved more work than you took reading it, clearly, or you would've known better than to send it. Oh my lord.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:00:16 UTC No. 16063655
>>16063576
>No. Clearly you do not understand what you're saying
The irony. Followed by contradicting well established fact of human genetic variation. That's fucking hilarious.
>From what I've gathered so far, you think that individuals are always more genetically similar to someone within an outgroup than to anyone within the in-group, but this is obviously false.
It's a commonly known fact. I'm sorry you don't know anything about population genetics?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar
"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."
>Here's a wild suggestion: When someone asks you for a definition for the terms you're abusing in your claims, give those definitions. Or, do not abuse the terms in the first place.
Here's a crazy idea: Don't be an ass when you don't know what you're talking about and people won't put you in your place like you deserve.
This should be more your level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
>The lack of discontinuities in genetic distances between human populations, absence of discrete branches in the human species, and striking homogeneity of human beings globally, imply that there is no scientific basis for inferring races or subspecies in humans, and for most traits, there is much more variation within populations than between them.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
That one quote alone is so hotly contested by you morons it has 8 separate citations. The largest genetics studies to date all affirm this fact.
>but this is obviously false.
Sit the fuck down jackass.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:04:54 UTC No. 16063661
>>16063574
>How is taxonomy anything but ancestry?
Species classification is not the same as ancestry classification. As noted, with ancestry classification you have a problem you don't have with species taxonomy where individuals within a given taxon would be "more similar with another taxon".
So that's how. Ideally, species taxonomy tries to avoid such contradictions or it wouldn't be useful or meaningful at all because genetic groupings wouldn't matter anymore. It's a lot more complicated and nuanced than that but I'm trying to give you the hyper-abbreviation.
>And how are lets say two native Americans more dissimilar than one of them to someone from another continent? Unless you cherrie pick for example an Inuit and compare him to both a Shipibo from the Amazon and a eastern Siberian.
As noted human genetic variation demonstrating more similarity of individuals between "racial groups" (that includes ancestral groups) is one of the most replicated well known and established facts in all of population genetics. >>16063655
I'm not quite sure which word or combination of words, there, is so hard to believe. Similar does not mean identical. It's just statistical proportions that overlap, and for individuals they tend to overlap mostly out-group when compared to their own "ancestry" or "race".
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:12:25 UTC No. 16063670
>>16063645
>It has been under the least beneficial and most negative selection. That means... it's the most stable.
No, it doesn't. It means deleterious alleles were selected against in the tested population (Europeans). Guess what, that also changes intelligence. Further, since you don't read, of course you didn't get to the part where cognitive traits were also estimated to have been under the highest positive selection when a mixture model was used. Feel free to dig yourself into a deeper hole.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:18:31 UTC No. 16063684
>>16063655
I'm not the guy(s) you have been arguing with, but I just took a look at your paper and it says
>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.
Doesn't this say that once you consider many genetic loci then individuals within a human population are indeed more similar than those in other groups? And doesn't this agree with all the principal component analysis plots that geneticists like to use, which after all are just plots of the linear combination of many genetic loci that have the most variance?
Sorry if I misunderstood, but after reading the paper you cited I am starting to doubt that race really is a social construct (don't tell anyone)
El Arcón at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:21:00 UTC No. 16063690
Species classification is a system of semantics, so no.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:32:32 UTC No. 16063714
>>16063670
>No, it doesn't. It means deleterious alleles were selected against in the tested population (Europeans)
Mutations. Mutations selected against. Almost all mutations are de novo not inherited through lineages. You don't even know that incredibly basic fact? Wow. You might fool people who don't know anything but you sure as shit can't fool anyone who does. Also note the lowest mutational heritability coefficient.
>Further, since you don't read, of course you didn't get to the part where cognitive traits were also estimated to have been under the highest positive selection when a mixture model was used. Feel free to dig yourself into a deeper hole.
The projection is getting pretty desperate, Kid. Quoting,
>"Since we only detected signatures of negative selection in real traits, our evolutionary simulations focused on the models of negative selection. To investigate the impact of both negative and positive selections, we extended our simulation scenarios by considering two additional positive selection-related parameters: average positive selection coefficient and proportion of beneficial mutational targets (see the “Methods” section). When considering both negative and positive selections in the simulations, we observed more complicated relationships between the genetic architecture and evolutionary parameters (Supplementary Fig. 27), which, however, could still be used for prediction. Our results showed that the predicted , πm and were consistent with those predicted above considering negative selection only (Supplementary Fig. 28), except that the estimated strength of negative selection became weaker for cognitive traits, suggesting that positive selection may also play a role in shaping the genetic architecture of cognitive traits."
In other words, the actual data is against you. You're reaching super hard and privileging a simulation over the actual data signals. kek
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:38:00 UTC No. 16063724
>>16063684
>Doesn't this say that once you consider many genetic loci then individuals within a human population are indeed more similar than those in other groups?
That it does. This has gone on a bit so you may find it too bothersome to follow but that was already addressed from the start where I say things like "you can make any group you want by a suite of traits or selected SNPs". >>16063341
So the part you quote, there, is explicitly stating what I've already stated in thread about how grouping on that basis is arbitrary and you can make any group you want including ones that align with any cultural notion of "race". Per later analogy, like arbitrarily drawing lines on a map and declaring "this is a country and it's real because I just drew these lines" which... no, no that's just a reification fallacy. Follow what I mean?
So there's the utilitarian sense of arbitrary definitions and ordinary usage of groups, where you can have contradictions like that, and then there's biology where you can make biology fit but they're not "real" they're just ad hoc or after the fact. Racists typically try to say "nooo it's real ur a science denying poo poo pee pee" etc.
>And doesn't this agree with all the principal component analysis plots that geneticists like to use, which after all are just plots of the linear combination of many genetic loci that have the most variance?
I assure you nothing I've said is generally "against" the consensus or tools used, just common misunderstandings and most especially those peddled by racists. As my explanatory note here should illustrate.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:38:54 UTC No. 16063726
>>16063714
>Almost all mutations are de novo not inherited through lineages.
Christ.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:43:36 UTC No. 16063732
>>16063661
Ok, I read your study. It pretty much says that you can reliably identify individuals as belonging to a certain group, but genetic diversity is big enough, that you can get randomly get more similarities between groups than within groups IF you lock at a small enough number of loci.
>ω approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group.
Not very convincing tbdesu.
I'm still maintaining that native Americans are a monophyletic group, descendent from a small founding population that is closer related to each other than to any other group.
Also what about hybridization between different species of sapiens? Everyone except sub saharan Africans are hybrids with neanderthals and east Asians and everyone descendent from archaic east Asians has additional Denisovan admixture. Seems like hybridization with distinct species that have diverged hundreds of thousands of years ago would create quite a bit of a difference in these populations and the only pure H. sapiens would be found in sub saharan Africa.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:44:01 UTC No. 16063735
>>16063726
Oh please tell me you are SO incredibly ignorant you actually want to contest that fact too.
Pretty fucking please. That would make my day. That's like "day one genetics 101" class. PLEASE contest that and finish putting on the clown nose.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:51:52 UTC No. 16063752
>>16063655
Your IQ is literally less than 90. I'm not joking.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:56:16 UTC No. 16063760
>>16063732
>It pretty much says that you can reliably identify individuals as belonging to a certain group, but genetic diversity is big enough, that you can get randomly get more similarities between groups than within groups IF you lock at a small enough number of loci.
Keep in mind that's loci, not SNPs or variants, just in case that's misunderstood. The larger your "network" of simultaneously checked loci the more you can "fingerprint" any grouping you want. It's completely arbitrary like I said.
>Not very convincing tbdesu.
I'm not sure what about it isn't convincing unless you're not understanding what's being read? The fact you can make any arbitrary group you want, and the fact individual genetic variance produces individuals who are most similar with out-group individuals, conclusively falsifies "race realism" reification. If that is not convincing to you, you're going to have to clarify that a whole lot more.
>Also what about hybridization between different species of sapiens? Everyone except sub saharan Africans are hybrids with neanderthals and east Asians and everyone descendent from archaic east Asians has additional Denisovan admixture. Seems like hybridization with distinct species that have diverged hundreds of thousands of years ago would create quite a bit of a difference in these populations and the only pure H. sapiens would be found in sub saharan Africa.
Not really for a number of reasons. The primary one is negative selection and trait conservation. Most admixture studied in that way has incredibly strong negative selection where it isn't neutral variance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter
Just as an overview, note the sections on reduced contributions.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:02:45 UTC No. 16063768
>>16063760
This just in: The Dutch are no taller than African pygmies because some Dutchmen are short.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:07:06 UTC No. 16063773
>>16063768
>This just in: The Dutch are no taller than African pygmies because some Dutchmen are short.
God damn that's the most cringe strawman I've ever read
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:14:20 UTC No. 16063782
>>16063773
Umm... sweetie, that fact conclusively falsifies "height realism" reification.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:20:41 UTC No. 16063798
>>16063782
How to admit you're completely clueless without saying you're completely clueless.
The proper analogy is "The nation you just drew on the map is not real just because you chose some geographical features to draw the boundaries on".
Want to try again?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:23:30 UTC No. 16063804
>>16063798
Are you sure you're in the right place? You're triggered to the point of bursting an aneurysm, and you've lost every argument so far. Well, I guess you wouldn't be triggered had you won any.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:24:23 UTC No. 16063805
>>16063760
>The larger your "network" of simultaneously checked loci the more you can "fingerprint" any grouping you want.
So, you could classify say, a family, a tribe, the people of a certain river valley, or a population that has settled an island or part of a continent, starting from a founding population. How is that arbitrary? Sounds like a useful and reliable tool to distinguish between groups of humans. Unless you want to argue that family isnt real, because you can find someone outside of your family that is more similar to you than someone in your family, if you compare 50 loci.
>the fact individual genetic variance produces individuals who are most similar with out-group individuals, conclusively falsifies "race realism" reification
Your study said that they are most similar in group, if you look at enough loci. Honestly just sounds like you are just trying your best to find arguments against racists. Which is understandable, but seems to lead into a bit of a dogmatic worldview. Biology has spend a lot of time breaking humans from the pinnacle of creation, fashioned after gods image into just another branch of the tree of life, just so that modern scientist now try to explain why the taxonomic rules don't apply for our species, to shut up some assholes. (that gain an argument by pointing out inconsistencies in your logic)
>negative selection and trait conservation
Sure, the % of admixture isnt too high any more. We still have distinct and detectable hybrids of different Homo species.
You also still haven't addressed, wether you consider pre contact native Americans yo be a monophyletic group.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:25:01 UTC No. 16063806
>>16062947
It's a gray area depending on definitions.
Here's an presentation of a study by CGSI pointing to a new undiscovered hominin, from traces of its DNA in present day west Africans.
Recurring interbreeding between know hominins as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bq
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:27:42 UTC No. 16063808
>>16063724
Thanks for clarifying. So according to this paper, if I measure genetic distance using a thousand loci, then there is essentially no chance that a randomly chosen European is more similar to a random African than another European. But you are saying these are still arbitrary groupings because I could define new populations that mix Europeans and Africans and still have the same quantitative statement be true? Naively, I don't think that would be the case. Or are you just saying that because there are borderline groups like South Arabians and East Africans where exactly we draw the border between populations is arbitrary, and thus the whole concept should be thrown out?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:29:46 UTC No. 16063809
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:32:54 UTC No. 16063812
>>16063805
>So, you could classify say, a family, a tribe, the people of a certain river valley, or a population that has settled an island or part of a continent, starting from a founding population. How is that arbitrary?
I don't think you're following the context. It's arbitrary in the sense of "where you choose to draw those boundaries" or what you are choosing to group for. The same as the analogy of drawing lines on a map and declaring "I declare this a nation". Such groupings can have utilitarian uses, absolutely, but they are not independent of the drawing "real".
What isn't real is the race realist claim, that race is "biologically real" in some biological sense not merely utilitarian. That is the context under which it is arbitrary, because relative to biology your choice to do that has no basis "in the thing itself" or in nature. This is the map-territory distinction.
>Sounds like a useful and reliable tool to distinguish between groups of humans. Unless you want to argue that family isnt real, because you can find someone outside of your family that is more similar to you than someone in your family, if you compare 50 loci.
And where you choose to stop that is arbitrary. So if you're a "race realist" and you try to use that rubric your stopping point is the arbitrary part, and so either there are as many "races" as individuals or there are no races because there is no independent basis to stop the lineage tracing other than your personal choice. Again, it's utility in that case.
You have to keep in mind I am responding to a (frankly flat-earth level) set of ideas about the "ontology of race" that are something like 200 or 300 years old and keep that context in mind for what I'm replying with.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:36:27 UTC No. 16063823
>>16062979
>indistinguishable from a blonde blue eyed nordic
next time say asian, and suddenly the people reading you will have less """leverage""" against what you speak
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:38:14 UTC No. 16063824
>>16063808
>But you are saying these are still arbitrary groupings because I could define new populations that mix Europeans and Africans and still have the same quantitative statement be true? Naively, I don't think that would be the case.
Yes I am, and sure it is the case. Keep in mind just how many alleles there are in the human population and how many of them do nothing at all. You could make as many cross-racial groupings using any set of alleles because the vast majority of them, and mutations in individuals, do nothing at all. and the vast majority of those are shared between people.
In effect, since we're so similar, all you need to make any cross-racial grouping like you suggest is a couple of nucleotide substitutions or other kinds of mutations. Simple shared climate or geography or similarities in diet, tons of things can trigger trait selection resulting in shared alleles and the like. There are papers assessing this kind of thing too but I don't know how deep you want to go down the rabbit hole.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:46:20 UTC No. 16063834
>>16063824
So you are saying the authors of that paper deliberately chose the 1000 loci so as to distinguish the particular populations tested? And that if I make a population A with people from Poland and Senegal and population B with people from Ireland and Zimbabwe I could find some combination of thousands of loci that would fingerprint these arbitrary groups? If you believe so and are a geneticist you should do that study, since I think a lot of people would be surprised
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:56:28 UTC No. 16063853
>>16063812
I'd argue you can find meaningful boundaries. If you stay at the map analogy, you can take an army, kill the people living in tour path and say at the end everything you went through is a nation. Or you can look at the geography, say here is a big river valley, it contains the watershed that flows into it and is divided by an upper middle and lower section, distinguished by by changes in altitude, flow speed, flora and fauna and we have a right and left river bank all the way to the ocean.
We generally do the same in taxonomy and could objectively apply it to Homo sapiens, even with the intensive amount of mixing going on within the last few centuries.
I do appreciate that you are mainly arguing with the assholes and ideas that are detrimental for peaceful coexistence though.
I'm out of the discussion with this. Have a good evening.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:02:19 UTC No. 16063861
>>16063202
No, he's right, there's no difference between niggers and people (because i edited the article)
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:08:09 UTC No. 16063873
Why can't one race use a different race's bone marrow?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:11:33 UTC No. 16063877
>>16063834
>So you are saying the authors of that paper deliberately chose the 1000 loci so as to distinguish the particular populations tested?
Well, yes? Welcome to population genetics in part. If you're studying a trait or want to follow populations and such like, you want to be able to identify them in the data and so you want some multi-loci "fingerprint" to match your definition for whatever you're following. I could go on about practical concerns like economically and cost-saving etc but that's far less an issue these days. So let's say you want pure accuracy, then yes whatever your particular definition for a group you want as much loci as will uniquely fingerprint that group.
Nothing nefarious there just how you do things. Clarifying as saying "deliberately" seems to me to imply taking it as something underhanded. well no that's just how groupings work, they're all utilitarian and it's effectively all "ad hoc" or social construction that maps to real boundaries. But the map or choice of map is still the social part and you could've drawn a lot of different ones.
>If you believe so and are a geneticist you should do that study, since I think a lot of people would be surprised
This is literally common knowledge. This is not a secret. I'm pretty sure this kind of thing is taught in decent middle schools? A lot of this was hashed out in the 70s I believe more definitively, if not earlier. So there's tons of papers discussing reification and biological classifications like this.
There's a great review posted by some anon or somewhere on the history of this and various misunderstandings that arose on this subject (such as /pol/ perpetuates) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar
And of course a wiki quip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_
As stated, human variation is "clinal" or continuous and overlapping between "races". There's tons of studies out there this is really old stuff you teach undergrads
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:16:54 UTC No. 16063885
>>16063853
>I'd argue you can find meaningful boundaries.
You can find utilitarian boundaries and certainly make choices on where the most consistent or ideal boundaries are. That gets to things like the species concept debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci
Just so we're clear, again, my replies are in the context of an antiquated "race realism" ontology. When I say "race is not real", that means as a natural category. As a social construct you can map any grouping to some defining biological boundaries so long as the trait exists in the organism, and group however you want for any purpose you want. As briefly mentioned to other anon >>16063877 human racial variations are largely overlapping so grouping just based on something superficial like skin color really tells you next to nothing about underlying "overall traits" if you define a group that way. Ancestry is medically far more useful most of the time, but even then has problems, and mostly for the very few highly dominant mutations.
>Or you can look at the geography, say here is a big river valley, it contains the watershed that flows into it and is divided by an upper middle and lower section, distinguished by by changes in altitude, flow speed, flora and fauna and we have a right and left river bank all the way to the ocean.
Yes, you can draw your map based on any arbitrary selection of any geography you like. But that's the point: That invalidates "race realism" because that selection is arbitrary. Utilitarian. Socially constructed. Basically all synonyms here.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:17:28 UTC No. 16063888
>>16063236
>Doesn't nullify of the concept of race, I mean it's obvious, there are geographically separated humans that have genetic clusters in common.
Now what is true is that the variance between humans and between races is much less than the variance within races. In other words, one way to put it is that if you wiped out all of humanity except one, most of that variation would be preserved, that is to say most of the available human variation is present in all different races.
>That doesn't mean race is invalid. Race is a valid concept, it is real and there really are differences which are correlated with each other, skin color, shape, blood groups and it is nonsense to say race is a social construct.
Dawkins
You're just playing semantics essentially. I imagine 'clustered genetic populations' or some other nonsense would finally satisfy you but even Dawkins has stated dismissing race is nonsense. It's a reference point for a cluster.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:24:57 UTC No. 16063898
>>16063888
>You're just playing semantics essentially.
It is no more semantics than stating "the map is not the territory", so very obviously this is not "playing semantics".
>I imagine 'clustered genetic populations' or some other nonsense would finally satisfy you
Well, no, because you lot tend to think clustering occurs by magic and nobody decides where to draw the stopping points. That's the problem. You think the map is the territory, or "race realists" do, and all of science for longer than even I've been alive has consistently shown that to be false.
>but even Dawkins has stated dismissing race is nonsense
And Dawkins is mistakenly operating under the academic understanding of the utilitarian sense where you can draw things like national boundaries to physical features. Generally not in the "race realist" reification sense where that's a natural category unto itself akin to if there's multiple human species.
tl;dr it's you who is playing semantics. And I'm the one repeatedly citing academic articles to prove it. If you don't know the history of this I gave another citation just above >>16063877
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:34:12 UTC No. 16063907
>114 posts
>21 IPs
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 02:50:22 UTC No. 16064181
Aw man. I should've cited this one earlier. It visually illustrates exactly why my earlier question about demonstrating effect sizes and variation was a trick question but forgot. >>16063430
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar
"A variant-centric perspective on geographic patterns of human allele frequency variation"
>"The patterns observed here are interpretable in light of some basic principles of population genetics. Rare variants are typically the result of recent mutations[...]. Thus, we interpret the localized rare variants[...] as mostly young mutations that have not had time to spread geographically. The code ‘CCCCC’ (globally common variants), likely comprises mostly older variants that arose in Africa and were spread globally during the Out-of-Africa migration and other dispersal events (see Box 2). The appearance of rare variants shared between two or more regions [...] is likely the signature of recent gene flow between those regions [...] We interpret the 10th most abundant code [...] as mostly variants that were lost in the Out-of-Africa bottleneck and subsequently carried to the Americas by African ancestors. There is a relative absence of variants that are common in only one region outside of Africa and absent across all others [...]. These patterns are consistent with human populations having not diverged deeply, in the sense that there has not been sufficient time for genetic drift to greatly shift allele frequencies among them (Box 2). To help make this clear, consider the alternative scenario—a model with very ancient population splits (Coon, 1962). In such a model, one would expect many more variants to be common to one region and absent in others [...]"
No estimate whatever supports variation required for things like significant "racial" cognitive differences nor do "races" make sense given considerable overlap and cline trait overlapping.
"more sampling" would not and does not fix this. Hence, it was a trick question.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 15:41:47 UTC No. 16065076
>>16063898
this is the most obvious playing of semantics i've ever seen on this board.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 21:00:32 UTC No. 16065494
>>16063877
I don't think you are correct and taking a condescending attitude like what you are suggesting is obviously correct makes me think you don't quite understand the claim being made.
The authors of that study you quoted that we are discussing did not say anything about specifically choosing the loci to distinguish the groups. It appears they got the data from another source and had no control over the loci. So if they are implying it is something robust (as they are) and they specifically chose the loci, then that is indeed something "nefarious"
In reality though, I am quite sure it really is something robust and you are the one that is mistaken. I say this because I have seen a number of PCA plots using entirely different samples and the result is always a clustering of races corresponding roughly to the common-sense races everybody is aware of. Now before you object, I am aware that PCA is not what the authors did in the paper we are discussing but it is effectively choosing a special weighted set of loci and computing the distance from a 'mean' human, so although the method is different it is clearly roughly the same sort of thing. And this weighted set of loci is not chosen by hand so as to distinguish the groups, it is mathematically singled out as the combination with the most variance.
Now if you could pick any set of loci (possibly weighted) so as to distinguish the arbitrary groups mixing Europeans and Africans (or give me a mathematical argument why such a thing is possible) I would be quite surprised. Even if you could, note that you would have to chose it deliberately by hand whereas the PCA choice is determined by mathematics, and the choice of the authors in the paper we are discussing was presumably something completely random. But if you could even pick it at all I would respect your point more.