Hominid Family: Bush or Saguaro?

>this is called Lewontin's fallacy, and it's wrong
Found the stormfront retard.

It's not wrong, it's observable science. If you don't believe it, do 1000+ genetic sample yourself and see the results.

You idiots come to our board hoping your validation but you refuse to even learn the basics. You just want someone go justify your emotions, not crawl back to /pol/

wut

Lewontin was wrong, as proven by Whiterspon et al.

This has nothing to do with /pol/

not him, but while it's not technically wrong, it's interpretation is, that's why it's called a fallacy

the more loci you check at once, the more you start to see structure using simple tools like cluster analysis for instance

Those are not FSTs. There are something the table says is heterozygosity. Nice reading comprehension.

My guess is these people didn't like the FST results so tried to invent their own factor to make humans look more distant than they are.

Table 4

>heterozygosity
>"invented something"
huh, I am done arguing with retards

Humans are genetically diverse, that's a fact

It means nothing when it comes to intelligence though, all humans are equally intelligent

That's the consensus by real science

genetics.org/content/genetics/176/1/351.full.pdf

You mean this paper? It clearly says in the methods they use statistical aggregations to create a factor they label omega hat. It also says this has nothing to do with distribution of genetic variation.

...

Even the first two sentences of the abstract are a dead giveaway.

The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations.

It has nothing to do with "looking at more loci."

From what I read, someone tried to criticize the data and say that just because the data is true, you can still classify people into races.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

They are just cherry picking data. Some of it is SNVs, some is mitochondrial DNA, some is nuclear. Look for FSTs for total nuclear dna.

Being able to put people into loose categories does not imply those categories are drastically different from one another.

From the same paper

It has long been appreciated that differences between human populations account for only a small fraction of the total variance in allele frequencies (typically presented as FST values of 10–15%; Lewontin 1972; Nei and Roychoudhury 1972; Latter 1980; Barbujani et al. 1997; Jorde et al. 2000; Watkins et al. 2003; International HapMap Consortium 2005; Rosenberg et al. 2005). Such observations triggered controversy from the outset. Some geneticists concluded the differences were negligible (Lewontin 1972); others disagreed (Mitton 1978). Despite the limited data, it soon became apparent that even a modest number of loci should allow accurate assignment of individuals to populations (Mitton 1978; Smouse et al. 1982).

How can the observations of accurate classifiability be reconciled with high between-population similarities among individuals? Classification methods typically make use of aggregate properties of populations, not just properties of individuals or even of pairs of individuals.

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them.

How are sub-species defined for non-homos? What is the average genetic variance in sub-species of non-homos? How does it compare to homos?

and he was right
Lewontin's argument is not wrong by itself, he says something that is reasonable to an extent, and that if you look at markers that were perhaps used in the past to classify people into races, you might find that there is actually a significant level of overlapping between individuals

but the fact is, when you look at things as a whole and increase the number of markers used, this overlapping goes down to the point that classic races roughly start to appear, i.e west Eurasians aka "Caucasians" clearly form a cluster separated from sub-saharans and east asians

consider pic related for instance, it's a PCA done using 105 markers supposedly related to face shape
notice how there is a fairly clear distinction between the Eurasian continuum and sub-saharans, and that's just with 105 markers

>It means nothing when it comes to intelligence though, all humans are equally intelligent
Any source for this?

if the distance between two groups is X

but the distance between individuals of the same group is Y, where Y > X

then the distance between individuals of different groups is Z, where Z > Y > X

common sense

As I already said, being able to define loose categories like ancestry do not imply huge genetic differences between human populations.

Lewontin's data is still correct. The FST distances are still correct. The fact that we only have about 1/10th of the genetic variation of other primates is correct. The fact that you can statistically aggregate tiny differences does not imply large differences nor does it change the other facts.

My common sense tells me that human populations have different capabilities when it comes to intelligence. However, I don't go around touting it as a fact.

If anyone has a source then I would be interested in seeing it.

you are a fucking retard and go back to /pol/

I was just asking for a source.

Anything wrong with this?

Yes. For it to be true, groups would have to aver very large spreads of distance, and there would have to be no overlap between groups X.

Yeah, overlap could be a problem

But there's no overlap when you account for many loci

So it remains true

>But there's no overlap when you account for many loci
False. That would be like saying that most genetic differences would be found between populations, which is wrong.

Less than 1% of SNVs are unique to any population, and less than 2% of alleles are unique to any one population. There is overlap in almost all loci, not matter many you look at.

Then what does

>How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?
>if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations

mean?

How does it not mean that there's no overlap?

>Which is it?
Both. now go back to

The probably here is the word similarity. It doesn't really have a solid genetic definition like an FST does.

As I already said, being able to use statistical aggregations to assign people into groups does not mean those groups are very distant from one another.

>does not mean those groups are very distant from one another.

but like I said, the distance between individuals of different groups is Z, where Z > Y > X

otherwise math does not add up

>go back to /pol/
Is this a meme or something? I assume you guys are just messing around.

I thought science could actually answer this question.

>otherwise math does not add up
It does if there is a lot of overlap and the overall distances within and between populations is not large.

fuck off

if you cared about science, you can google it

otherwise you are obviously pushing your stormfront agenda

If there is any overlap, then the answer to the question:
>How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?
wouldn't be "never"

It's only pushing a "stormfront" agenda when it's true. Are you trying to stifle scientific fact or something? If the science disproves bigots then you should show them the science.

kill yourself

There has been research in human genetics and evolution, and yes even race, going on since the 1970s. The problem is that racists don't like the truth. They want science to justify their emotions so they pretend that somehow science is a big conspiracy against them, if they quote one or two papers they can't read or understand, then they are correct.

the irony in this post is truly amazing, coming from people who think "go back to /pol/" is actual science

I already said. Words like "similar" or "dissimilar" don't have genetic definitions. The author chose that phrasing to make her work look better, but the statement means nothing scientifically.

Okay but where are these papers? I literally asked for sources earlier and some guy told me to go back to /pol/.

I have no stance on this either way since I have never looked into it (which is why I'm asking for sources to these claims).

If you care so much about bioinformatics, why not educate yourself? The scientific consensus about things like race and genetics were hammered out in the 1980s.

Let me guess, you also deny Out of Africa theory despite the overwhelming data supporting it?

>I don't have time to just link some papers I've read
Are you sure you even know anything about bioinformatics?

why are you so afraid of actually arguing for shit that it's apparently "consensus" on a scientific board?
do you think you sound smart or intellectual by avoiding confrontation and shouting "consensus" over and over again?

People like Cavalli-Sforza (one of the pioneers in race, genetics, and human evolution) wrote several books on the subject. Some of them are, conveniently for you, at the layman level.

Even as I sat there trying to explain how your interpretation of the Witherspoon paper was wrong, people still tried to deny what the paper says word for word.

A lot of the stuff you're talking about is textbook information now.

There's no overlap when you look at multiple loci.

There's overlap when you look at single loci.

Meaning that some loci are shared between individuals of different populations that may not be shared between individuals of the same population.

However, how can it be claimed that looking at multiple loci is not looking at the big picture or be considered meaningless? Especially when most traits depend on multiple loci.

>arguing
An argument implies both parties are here for open and honest debate, and can admit when they are wrong.

I've been enough people like you to know that will never happen. You can go on believing in whatever garbage you want to.

It's your job to sit here and shitpost on forums and image boards with people you don't like. No amount of truth is going to change your mind.

That's not me.

well, I see we can at least agree on something, and that's how we see each other, but at least I've tried arguing, you are obviously too far up your own ass for that

>one of the pioneers in race, genetics, and human evolution
>wrote several books
>Some of them are, conveniently for you, at the layman level
>A lot of the stuff you're talking about is textbook information now

Where are you arguments at? Literally just a bunch of fallacies.

Can you imagine if we talked about mathematics or physics like that? lmao

Biologists are such plebs

>Can you imagine if we talked about mathematics or physics like that?
Queue computer science memes!

what do you expect from people who haven't even taken an intro logic class

even philos majors laugh at these people

So, waiting for an answer, since I am not trolling

I've told you like 4 times already. There is always overlap. Saying there's no overlap over and over again won't make it true.

where's the overlap in pic related between west Eurasians and sub-saharans?

I already accepted that there's overlap at the individual level of locis

But not when you look at the average of thousands of loci

However, traits are made up of thousands of loci

So how is it wrong to claim that traits and populations correlate?

shute the fuck up faggot

WE WUZ KANGZ AND SHIET

Look at Fig 1 in the results

What is this? It's not in the paper.

Look at Fig 1 in the results.

There is always overlap.

>What is this? It's not in the paper.
it's one of the many global PCA analyses you can find using full coverage of DNA and not just few cherrypicked loci

PCA is just a statistical tool. what is this a PCA of? What paper is it from?

It says that the more loci, the less overlap

So again: if traits are made of multiple loci, how is it meaningless?

>It says that the more loci, the less overlap
Where does it say that?

You just keep repeating it like a mantra, but it's not true.

The last line.

I don't remember the actual paper, but reverse search the image for the same result from multiple sources and with multiple clusters.

The paper you or someone else posted above clearly says that in Fig 1 the only looked at some mere 50 loci.

also
>it's not true

It literally says so here:

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, equation M44 can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is equation M45 ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, equation M46 ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

All you said is that whatever way they used to measure similarity is meaningless, but not why

>The paper you or someone else posted above clearly says that in Fig 1 the only looked at some mere 50 loci.
Thats the witherspoon paper that people are claiming is better because it looks at thousands of loci.. hahaha

The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.

that is the last paragraph of the paper.... I don't see anything about what you're claiming.

>most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them
This is what I initially postulated as Y > X

>hundreds of loci
Not when you use thousands

They are not measuring "similarity." They are measuring genetic distance based on allele frequencies. The words similarity or dissimilarity don't have a genetic definition.

Nowhere in that paragraph does it say there is no overlap in genetic variation.

I didn't claim those things. Those are from the paper verbatim.

Also, you claimed that the "last sentence" supporter your claim... but that last sentence has nothing to do with there being no overlap.

>The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
this is only true when there is enough internal variation to make up for the distance between different geographical clusters, which can happen if you don't use enough loci and if the populations are close enough

for instance if you take two random Italians and you manage to get one from the north and one from the south, the one from the north could be statistically closer to spaniards than to the southerner with a good probability

but this doesn't happen when considering big groups like west Eurasians vs sub-saharan africans, in those cases the differences between groups are big enough that even if you take the two closest individuals you can find, they will still not overlap

I didn't claim that... the paper you guys quoted did. I quoted the paper verbatim. You guys are literally arguing against your own source now.

I know you didn't claim them.

But the very same paper says that the more loci you use, the less overlap there is. Until there's 0% overlap when you use thousands of loci.

>even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population
true

>but when you use thousands, instead of mere hundreds, individuals are NEVER more more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population
also true

the paper says both things

so here's the relevant question:
>traits use thousand of loci
>why is it wrong to claim that some traits correlate with populations?

>But the very same paper says that the more loci you use, the less overlap there is
No, it doesn't. You're just a broken record.

yeah but I'm explaining to you what it means, that indeed he is right that with certain geographical classifications internal variation can be big enough to have two individuals from different groups closer than between the same one, but this doesn't happen necessarily

in particular it doesn't happen when looking at all DNA, internal variation even among a varied group like west Eurasians just isn't enough to make up for the distance that exists with sub-saharans

...

For the millionth fucking time. "similarity" is not the same thing as "no overlap in genetic variation.

you have set A and set B, and they have elements

(when you take into account thousands of loci) never are elements from set A more similar to elements from set B, than to elements from their own set

therefore, (when you take into account thousands of loci) set A and set B do not overlap

the elements of set A and set B may overlap when you look at single parameters

but when you look at the sum of thousands of parameters, this never happens

traits are defined by multiple parameters, sometimes thousands

therefore, traits correlate with populations

QED

Is that a Mexican?