there is more genetic variation within populations than between them

Does that make those three groups "races"? Because there are nonwhites living in Europe.

The facts about genetic variation not based on a single loci. I'm not sure where you heard this, but it is dumb.

European doesn't necessarily mean "living in Europe" (though it can mean that). It depends on the context, and in this context it refers to ancestry rather than current residence.

lmgtfy.com/?q=genetic similarity multiple loci

But much of the population of North America has European ancestry.
Anyways this is getting semantic Im just skeptical as to whether this breaks across racial lines in a comprehensive way. I'm skeptical because I'm biased, there I said it.

>But much of the population of North America has European ancestry.
I don't follow, why is this a problem? Current residence is completely irrelevant, it's entirely based on ancestry.

like it just subsaharan Africans? For example what about black people whose ancestors aren't from subsaharan Africa
I guess white people only come from Europe so you got me there

> there is more difference between a sword and a gun than between a gun and a gun-shaped lighter, so we cannot divide objects into weapons and non-weapons

but that's literally true everything is a potential weapon

...

faggot it is making reference of the racial distribution there 1000 years ago

>faggot
Why the homophobia?

Why the linguistic prescriptivism?

It is true, in the same way as all people of any origin can be stupid and violent, but some objects are more easy to use as a deadly weapon, and some people have a higher tendency to be stupid and violent.

being a faggot is a disease

Oh, I get it. So black people are more obviously dangerous like firearms or crack cocaine while white people are more like a newspaper that you could fold and use to bludgeon someone but more likely you'll just get helpful information from it.

Black hole mind has a lot of neural surface

This is such a non-argument in those discussions where it comes up. It's used in a way to imply that all human populations are genetically equivalent, that all genes show up everywhere.

But if such a dumb thing like skin color can be reliably used to trace or predict ancestry, meaning that some genes and traits are more or less unique to certain populations, then the whole line of reasoning can be thrown out the window.

I mean, the variation thing probably holds true for comparing different primate species as well.

>individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.
How the fuck does that make any sense? If they're more similar to the other population, doesn't that mean they ARE part of that population? It's like saying "this shade of red is closer to green than it is to other shades of red!" No, it's just green.

It depends on the number of loci you look at. Up to a couple hundred and you see more similarity within than between. In the thousands you reach 100% reliable population delineations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin's_Fallacy
>In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations", Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis.

thousands of genes is a lot though
isn't it a significant portion of the entire human genetic code?

>How the fuck does that make any sense? If they're more similar to the other population, doesn't that mean they ARE part of that population?
that's the point, to illustrate there is no other population, it's all one population

>thousands of genes is a lot though
So what?

Maybe some variations are more connected with violence and IQ than others then, huh?

so if you included every gene you could narrow it down to one person, if you included like 95% of genes you could narrow it down to a family, that doesn't prove anything
if racial difference is significant you shouldn't need to look at hundreds or thousands of points of comparison to see it

>if racial difference is significant you shouldn't need to look at hundreds or thousands of points of comparison to see it
This is just your assumption.

Woah, it's almost like when you have a population of related families they form a genetically identifiable race.

PS: If races don't exist, explain forensic science.

well then please tell me what you think ranks as significant in genetic terms, outside of genetic disorders

false dilemma, you don't need clear dividing lines between groups of people to find one person

You can use any complex metric on to get genetic difference as long as it is consistent with differences in behaviours.

>you don't need clear dividing lines between groups of people to find one person
Not sure what you mean by that. I'm saying a big part of forensic science is they literally identify the race of corpses to help with criminal investigations.

I thought you meant finding criminals
either way I didn't say race doesn't exist, I was just saying it's not that important

Think of every gene as a dimension in a very high-dimensional space. You could then ask: how many n-dimensional clusters of people are there, with such and such constraints? This would get you the answer you seek.
If instead you look at only some specific genes, every other dimension is "flattened," so some clusters will merge, some others will split, and, in general, while the overall picture might not change much, it will still be an approximation; the less dimensions the cruder.

>I thought you meant finding criminals
No, I mean like forensic scientists identify race just from a skull, and this is one of the few main things that fundamentally defines what they do as a profession.
>I was just saying it's not that important
It's important if you're a forensic scientist. Or if you're dealing with medical research.

Jej

Most objects are easy to use as a deadly weapon though. I can drown/poison you given enough water or suffocate you with the fluffiest pillow while you're asleep. It all depends on the circumstances and most times it's the least threatening "looking" objects that's the most dangerous because you leave your guard down with a false sense of security.

The irony of your post is that given today's environment even the newspaper could be as ruinous as a gun or crack. The trick is it's more subtle and aims for long game.

How exactly is a newspaper going to be "ruinous?"

>How exactly is a newspaper going to be "ruinous?"
They're almost entirely Jewish propaganda tools

OK, but how exactly is a newspaper going to be "ruinous?"

You see, everyone on the planet is really dumb and falls for propaganda very easily. The masses are fooled by an evil cabal into making the world horrible! Only the geniuses as /pol/ are smart enough to see through the lies.

archives.cjr.org/the_audit/the_new_york_posts_disgrace.php

>let's just post a photo of a couple kids with bags to illustrate the suspects of the Boston bombings. Surely they won't mind be seen as possible suspects to thousands of people who read the paper right?

the penis mightier etc.

too subtle, you could shove a newspaper down someone's throat
Boom, weapon

isnt that kind of dum tho? like if i measure john and bob's similarity (brothers and best friends, overall very similar) by whether or not they both wear red hats, then yeah bob or john might be more similar individually to some random chucklefuck, but measuring john and bob's similarity by red hats isnt really useful is it?

btw i admit i might not be understanding the nuances correctly. i apologize if my analogy stems from misunderstanding

Been done and there are gene clusters denoting races. Next?

fucking leaf

>no mathematically pure definition means no useful categories exist
Shlomo at it again. Cut the rhetoric.

Facts:
>several large populations of humans evolved mostly seperately for thousands of generations
>these populations developed different genotypes that are expressed in distinct and easily identifiable phenotypes
>one can usually accurately determine the ancestral population based on the subject's phenotype
Therefore:
>phenotypical traits belonging to different ancestral populations tend to cluster
>one can predict certain phenotypical traits (intelligence, testosterone levels, fertility) based on other phenotypical traits associated with the same ancestral population (skin colour, face bone structure) quite accurately

This is the entire racialist argument. If you want to dispute this, address these statements specifically instead of manipulating empty semantics over what you think is "scientific" and what isn't.

Inb4:
>what about mixed individuals, then?
They are just that, mixed. They do not belong to any of the ancestral populations directly
>but everybody's mixed
Small amounts of genetic drift do not erase the general pattern.
>where do you draw the line?
As with everything else, the accuracy of predictions decreases with edge cases. But the vast majority of people are predominantly descended from a single ancestral population, or at least a relatively stable mix of them. How coarsely or how finely you divide the categories depends on what you're trying to analyze and why. There are racial differences between northern europeans and southern europeans, but they are insignificant compared to the differences between either and sub-saharan africans.

But the express point here is that we're not measuring red hats, we're analyzing genetic code. Single lines may vary quite a bit between individuals, but due to regression to the mean once you look at enough, they all tend to some group mean. Random differences in some alleles are cancelled out by truckloads of similarities in others.

This agrees with common sense. If "individuals vary more within populations than between", you would never get the sort of genetic clustering that could be expressed in visible skin colour, hair colour and other such phenotypical differences.

North and South Native Americans are a wave of Beringians that diverged 15 thousand years ago. Eskimos were from later migrations.

Of course that's true, but the statement is apparently brainlet filter. You can download MEGA and use the data that comes with the package to see just what is ment by this statement. It doesn't mean you're a nigger

>I'm Canadian
im sorry