Utopia Talk / Politics / The genetics of race

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 28 11:19:39 The article is at the link but I will just post what I thought was the salient point. http://mob...s-race.html?platform=hootsuite ”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. I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims. This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and being caught unprepared when they are found.”
TJ Member	Wed Mar 28 11:43:43 It's a done deal. The time of discussion ended a considerable time ago. Don't worry be happy.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 28 13:08:58 Lol@seb and wtb Genes dont exist!!!
Seb Member	Wed Mar 28 13:24:12 Genes exist. Genetic differences between groups exist. The attempts to match genetic differences and similarities to existing racial categories fail.
Nekran Member	Wed Mar 28 13:38:56 "The attempts to match genetic differences and similarities to existing racial categories fail." Yup, that.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 28 13:39:05 "Genetic differences between groups exist. " Aha! Thats a start.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 28 13:40:39 Seb,nekran is it possible that group genetic differences could explain some group behaviour differences?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 28 13:47:57 "existing racial categories fail." When people think there are very clearly defined borders between "races" that is the big error imo. The borders are extremely fuzzy. And the current categories and definition indeed does fail to capture the full picture. Links below are interesting in that regard. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/worldstruc.png http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/05/human-population-structure-part-n/#.Wrvf3YhuaUk
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 28 13:53:09 http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUpm23tVwAAayO7.jpg:large http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUF1-rXWAAA8Lva.jpg:large Other versions of the map
Nekran Member	Wed Mar 28 13:55:45 "Seb,nekran is it possible that group genetic differences could explain some group behaviour differences?" Almost unavoidably, yes. Those groups are extremely unlikely to be the groups you would like them to be though.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 28 14:37:45 Oh man theres some real inconvenient truths being partially accepted by seb and nekran! Dont let wtb see this thread!
Nekran Member	Wed Mar 28 15:28:12 There's nothing inconvenient about those truths. I always think it's funny that you have this idea that people who aren't blatantly racist deny genetics. Of course genetics are real. Of course there will be charachteristics that will be more common in different groups of people, that will make for differences in both appearance and behaviour. We just don't draw retarded conclusions from these facts, like you do. Because we actually think scientifically.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 28 15:44:23 Please state a conclusion of mine that is not supported by facts. Lol this outta be funny. Perhaps you confuse sjw talking points with facts, or your whining political viewpoints cause you to misremember my statements.
The Third Reich Member	Wed Mar 28 15:59:21 We are scientific!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 28 16:02:04 Difference is sam, what one wants to do with the facts. Say the genetics of IQ. Some people never get beyond the hurdle "X group are stupid apes". The only solution they seem to muster to confront the issue involves nuking things. Meanwhile scientist are busy mapping the genes involved in IQ. http://www...telligence-study/#.WrwBiohuaUk
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 28 16:04:38 So for me it is fairly simple. Being born with low IQ is a horrible disease inflicted on people through no fault of their own, at birth. It can be solved, I dare say it will be solved.
Nekran Member	Wed Mar 28 16:37:37 "Please state a conclusion of mine that is not supported by facts." How about "niggers are genetically inferior to whites"?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Mar 28 16:47:25 It is possible that genetics explains the sub saharan african iq deficit, or at least part of it. That is the scientifically correct statement. Not certain, because its hard to seperate nurture from nature and intelligence is both. But if you are remotely scientific honest, you will concede it is possible.
Brainy UPer Member	Wed Mar 28 16:56:02 "It is possible that genetics explains the sub saharan african iq deficit, or at least part of it. That is the scientifically correct " It is possible that it does. However...What is the deficit? Environmental factors contribute to this notion as to why levels are not as high as others. But this is purely subjective. You must demonstrate the deficit and it's contributors and how it compares to another area that may be also in the same region.
Brainy UPer Member	Wed Mar 28 16:56:34 I didn't finish... "it is possible that it does, and it is true." Now continue.
Hrothgar Member	Wed Mar 28 16:59:15 If modern technological levels of mobility continue to be a thing, we are on the cusp geologically speaking of interbreeding the various human races so much that for all intents and purposes there will no longer be geographically isolated genetics. Give it 200 years and it will be tough to find a single human that doesn't have recent genetic ancestors from all over various places of Earth.
hood Member	Wed Mar 28 17:10:11 "But if you are remotely scientific honest, you will concede it is possible." At the same time, if you are scientifically honest, you will concede that being possible is of no functional use to any important conversation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Mar 28 17:26:53 ”Not certain, because its hard to seperate nurture from nature and intelligence is both.” Actually it is not that difficult, it is called twin studies. IQ is 80% heritable, meaning 80% of the variation is because of genes. Nurture effects amount to nutrition and are fairly low bar to reach. However when it comes to certain regions of the world, poor nutrition is likely an important factor. If you are intelligent enough to go to uni (STEM), that helps, but modestly. We are however talking about people with 80 IQ and below. You can overcome some of your biology, to some degree, some of the time. Someone with low IQ is not studying their way out of it. This is like any other debilitating cognitive condition.
BigDickNegro Member	Wed Mar 28 18:37:22 My black genes make mine big.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 29 04:03:43 Sam: My position hasn't changed. 1. Variation between raves is less than within races 2. There is no genetic basis for racial groups as we define them The fact you have confused your straw man for my position only demonstrates why you are too stupid to use that rhetorical tool.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 29 04:09:14 Nim: Twin studies don't control for epigenetic factors or broader cultural context; nor often do they include enough twins to be statistically significant to the place the degree of emphasis. The fact that most psychologists did not agree on a good definition of iq and means of testing it that's unbiased but cultural/linguistic artefacts; the twin studies are kinda premature to try and identify the causes for an effect that not everyone can agree even exists due to inability to measure precisely and accurately the tying you are trying to explain.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 29 05:36:48 What genetic markers in particular are supposed to be unique for any specific race? "Genes exist. Genetic differences between groups exist. The attempts to match genetic differences and similarities to existing racial categories fail" Correct.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 29 07:47:07 Twin studies are actually used to study epigentics, and have been for some time. You know given the identical DNA, it is optimal for epigenetic studies. If 80% is genes, that means 20% potentially is not. Potentially because of confounding factors rooted in the shared environment of twin. So it might be more. You do understand, twins have similar IQ? While we can not say how much of the difference is due to epigenetics, it remain irrelevant. Epigenetics is not a magic wand that matters and matters equally in every aspect of our biology. Given the different types of twins and further sibling studies and family studies, they all paint the same picture. http://qui...ecome-dangerously-fashionable/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3063335/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322496/ So, not even wrong. I am not even going to belabor the effort on IQ and culture, your accuracy there is about the same as your understanding of twin studies and "epigenetics". So this goes back to the point of the article I posted. "and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 29 08:09:51 Regarding the gold standard of genetic studies, sample size and "statistical significance". http://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3285 Despite a century of research on complex traits in humans, the relative importance and specific nature of the influences of genes and environment on human traits remain controversial. We report a meta-analysis of twin correlations and reported variance components for 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits. Estimates of heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%. For a majority (69%) of traits, the observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where twin resemblance is solely due to additive genetic variation. The data are inconsistent with substantial influences from shared environment or non-additive genetic variation. This study provides the most comprehensive analysis of the causes of individual differences in human traits thus far and will guide future gene-mapping efforts. All the results can be visualized using the MaTCH webtool.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 29 08:32:32 Potentially because of confounding factors rooted in the shared environment of twin. So it might be *less*.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 29 08:55:43 Nimi The problem is the leap to race. You can sort people by genetic traits, but it does not overlap well (or at all) with racial catagories.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 09:35:05 "Variation between raves is less than within races " Ahhhh but you previously tried to say that would invalidate any difference between groups. Now you are conceding there are measurable differences between groups. A step in the right direction.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 09:36:34 "You can sort people by genetic traits, but it does not overlap well (or at all) with racial catagories." Sickle cell. Oops.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 29 09:37:06 Sammy Why not just have "stupid" as its own "race"?
jergul large member	Thu Mar 29 09:41:10 Sammy What a horrible example. It is a new mutation that survived because it gives some benefit against malaria. 6000 years old or something? I read an article about it not too long ago.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 10:13:09 It is a genetic trait highly correlated with a known racial group. Pwnt.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 10:13:30 "Why not just have "stupid" as its own "race"?" Ok.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 29 10:20:21 Nim: Twins would have had the same parents and been conceived at the same time so any heritable epigenetic effects would be the same. Using twins known to have particular genes but different expression can be used to look at epigenetic factors that are driven by the differing environment of the twins. But epigenetic factors will still mess up heritability studies relying on the assumption that heritabile effects identified by correlation between monoxygotic twins indicates genetic heritability rather than epigenetic. Particularly when the trait under investigation is poorly defined and likely controlled by hundreds of different genes and their interaction.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 29 10:28:28 Sam: No I didn't Sam. I said that the genetic variation between groups* being lager within than between shows that races as a category can't fundamentally be rooted in genetics. The cycle cell gene can be found outside particular groups. It's also not uniquely present in the racial groups where it has a higher incidence. Finally, as a single gene defect yes, it has high heritability. But that doesn't at all translate into the idea that races have a broad genetic profile that constrains the traits you can find in that group to the degree you suggest. *groups being races
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 29 11:24:59 ”Twins would have had the same parents and been conceived at the same time so any heritable epigenetic effects would be the same.” Nope there are significant epigentic difference in older twins than younger, yet their IQ is more similiar. It is 50% genes for children and goes up to 80% in teens and adults. I have had this effect explained to me as ”genetic amplification” by a behavioral epidimiologist. In short certain genotypes take longer to express fully their phenotype. You and most everyone else (myself 6-7 years ago) still misunderstand what epigenetics really means. So far we have found interesting things relating to a bunch of health conditions (that are not very heritable). And to make things more confusing, epigenetic signals can be caused by the condition rather than causing the condition. I advise against pinning our hopes for this critical issue relating to prejudice on the great unknown. It provides little cover and resiliance. The pessimist in you should prepare for the ”worst”. Jergul As I wrote earlier, our current understanding of ”race” maps poorely to our current understanding of genetic populations as we study them today. I posted several links of genetic distance maps to show this. But, the concept of race as we understand it is not completely bunk, it just fails to capture all the details and is interpreted as very rigid by racist people. Racist gonna racist. Why it turned out like this, probably has many answers. Nutrition via the advent of agriculture could be one, which was ultimatly a matter of geography. Vectors another.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Thu Mar 29 11:30:34 butbutbut Race is only skin deep!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Mar 29 12:05:40 I will just add this. Epigenetic effects are themselves heritable. And like I said, we have MZ twins, fraternal twins who shar the same evironment (60% for IQ) siblings and on a related topic there are large scale studies in violent crime that study heritabiliy relative to cousins as well. Fairly consitent results certain things are very heritable, like IQ, ADHD, height, autism, schizophrenia. I mean ffs even choice of education, not just achievement, but the _subject_ of your academic study, is heritable. That one amazed me. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep26373 If you go to the results section there is a table
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 12:21:37 "shows that races as a category can't fundamentally be rooted in genetics. " Rofl, after a moment of clarity seb is back to his science denying ways. Sjw gonna sjw, i guess.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 13:21:35 Seb why do black parents give birth to black kids?
Nekran Member	Thu Mar 29 13:49:00 "Rofl, after a moment of clarity seb is back to his science denying ways." Wtf are you smoking? It is clearly you that does that. Seb's statement made perfect sense. Why don't we hear how you genetically seperate the races? Let's see you name your races and define them genetically. "Seb why do black parents give birth to black kids?" Do you really think that question is relevant? Because that would be sad, even by your standards.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 15:37:13 It is quite relevent, since you and your buddy seb just said that genes do not define race, despite the simplest and most obvious evidence to the contrary. Lol. Retards.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 15:39:51 So nekran, if genes and race are completely unconnected, why do black babies have black skin? Lol so dumb. Nekran science. Bahahahaha.
Nekran Member	Thu Mar 29 15:54:41 Who said "completely unconnected", you tard? Why do blue-eyed people have blue-eyed babies? Why do myopic people have myopic babies? Wtf does race have to do with that? I repeat: Why don't we hear how you genetically seperate the races? Let's see you name your races and define them genetically.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 15:59:11 "Who said "completely unconnected"," You and seb. Literally in the last few posts. Lol dumb nekran. Very dumb. "races as a category can't fundamentally be rooted in genetics. " seb. "Seb's statement made perfect sense. " Nekran Pwnt
Nekran Member	Thu Mar 29 16:01:49 "Can't fundamentally be rooted in" obviously means the exact same thing as "totally unconnected"... Oh well... Sammy still enjoys his trolling, I guess...
Nekran Member	Thu Mar 29 16:02:41 It's kind of weird how you haven't gotten tired of that in almost 20 years now.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 16:38:13 Ahhh, i see you have trouble with english comprehension in addition to genetics. Anyway, lets get back to the key point, some racial attributes clearly are rooted in genetics, something which you and seb just denied
Nekran Member	Thu Mar 29 17:15:03 No, we didn't. If you're not trolling, your comprehension of genetics is seriously sad. What he's saying is that the races that are known are not genetically definable. The variance within these racial groups is far more diverse than the differences between them, and as such, they do not make sense as groups from a genetic pov. The races we know are a cultural construct, with just a few genetic factors that can be decently ascribed to being more common in one group than within another. You keep dodging my question, beause you know you can not do this. The fact that the races can not be defined through genetics, proves you wrong.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 29 17:53:01 SAm: Do you think all dark skinned peoples share the same genes just because they have dark skin? Are they one race? Are Aboriginal Australians more closely related to Sub-Saharan Africans than Europeans?
Seb Member	Thu Mar 29 17:54:23 Sam: I think you are the one with comprehension issues given you interpret "are not fundamentally routed" to mean "there is no such thing as genetic heritability". Particularly as the preceding paragraph spoke precisely about heritable traits.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 18:24:55 "What he's saying is that the races that are known are not genetically definable." Of course they are. What a retarded statement. They are defined by a certain statistical distribution of genes.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Mar 29 18:26:24 "Are Aboriginal Australians more closely related to Sub-Saharan Africans than Europeans? " Dunno. But i can take their dna and say "this is an abo, and this is a northern european" etc.
Turtle Crawler Admin	Thu Mar 29 19:18:23 I am curious about how these things are impacted by the mixture of Neanderthal DNA
TJ Member	Thu Mar 29 19:51:56 Thousands of years screwing anything on two legs have created a social construct. Snickering...
Nekran Member	Fri Mar 30 02:03:58 "But i can take their dna and say "this is an abo, and this is a northern european"" Meaningless phrases if you refuse to define what those terms mean. Also your succes rate (assuming you would be willing to actually define your terms. Which you're not. Because you can't.) would be pretty shit and getting shittier and shittier as time passes.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Mar 30 09:36:26 Lol nekran do you really need help to define northern european? Oh i dunno what could possibly define that. Hmmmm. Let me think about that for a while. Maybe... wait for it... someone from northern europe? Bhahahahaha. If you want to get into specifics, the combination of round eyes, white skin, light hair, relatively tall, relatively intelligent (although your existence is evidence to counter that bit) is more common amongst this group than any other. And yes, their dna is more similar to other northern europeans than to other groups. Hence why genetic ancestry profiles and criminal profiles exist. Denying this basic science is quite lame, placing you on the same level as bible thumpers and flat earthers.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Mar 30 09:40:16 TC, neanderthal dna is possibly correlated with higher intelligence. Neanderthals had larger brain:mass ratios than pure h. sapiens, and h.sapiens with more neanderthal dna tend to be more intelligent.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Mar 30 11:12:46 www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-Man-Pronounced-Dead-One-Day-After-Being-Attacked-478360203.html Pack of africans randomly beat man to death "for fun".
Brainy UPer Member	Fri Mar 30 16:14:52 So SA has established that he still incapable of any rational debate as he use anecdotal incidents to perpetuate a stereotype while at the same time demonstrating his lack of understanding of genetics and race. As well as being unable to define the fundamental understanding of racial characteristics other than stating that due to variants that is exist it is always going to be absolute. Outstanding! His continued ignorance of DNA is truly amazing. His only defense is using the "SJW" moniker because either he still doesn't understanding it. Or it goes against his own logic which is entirely full of fail.
Brainy UPer Member	Fri Mar 30 16:23:27 "neanderthal dna is possibly correlated with higher intelligence. Neanderthals had larger brain:mass ratios than pure h. sapiens, and h.sapiens with more neanderthal dna tend to be more intelligent." This is laughable at best and purely shows that you do not understand. The only thing that you have going for you is the correlation aspect. But that in itself isn't enough. It seemingly appears that you think due to fact that neanderthals had bigger brains made them more intelligent. Not necessarily the case if at all. They had larger bodies and more brain organization that is utilized to control and maintain them. But SA here wants to equate that to have more intelligence and then reciprocate or compare it to modern humans and racial DNA. SA, please continue, anticipating your complete lack of understanding.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Mar 30 17:56:45 Your mental prowess is deficient. With the exception of "They had larger bodies and more brain organization that is utilized to control and maintain them." everything you said is wrong. And unfortunately for you, your one correct statement was said only because you failed to understand that I had already said it. The neanderthals had larger bodies as well, yes, but their brain-to-mass ratio was also a little higher. u r mental pleb.
Brainy UPer Member	Fri Mar 30 18:20:31 "everything you said is wrong. " Oh really, SA? A lot of us have a little Neanderthal DNA in us. Modern humans of European or Asian descent inherited somewhere between 1 and 4 percent of our genes from this hominid that went extinct 30,000 years ago. We coexisted, and apparently more than coexisted, with them for as many as 5,400 years, but then they died out, and we remained. We were two very similar hominid species, and it's tough to pinpoint the advantage Homo sapiens of the time had over the Neanderthals: We both seemed to thrive and grow our populations during the last ice age, for instance. And Neanderthals actually had larger brains than modern humans, and seem to have done very "human" things, like bury their dead, cook, and make tools and personal ornaments. So what was the difference between a Neanderthal and a modern human of the time? And did our brain give us some sort of hidden advantage? First of all, although your average Neanderthal had a larger brain than that of the last human you spoke to, it was probably comparable in size to the brain of the Homo sapiens of the time. "Our ancestors had larger bodies than us, and needed larger brains to control and maintain those bodies," says Dr. Eiluned Pearce, a researcher in the Department of Experimental Psychology at Oxford, and coauthor of a 2013 paper on Neanderthal brains published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. "And Neanderthals were even larger-bodied than the modern humans living at the same time, so it's likely they would have needed a lot more neural tissue to control their bigger muscles." GG, SA. GG.
Brainy UPer Member	Fri Mar 30 18:36:26 "The neanderthals had larger bodies as well, yes, but their brain-to-mass ratio was also a little higher. " As you may said that you also quantified that with you not understanding as to why. Look into the mirror, repeat your same statement, sammy. "mental pleb."
Brainy UPer Member	Fri Mar 30 18:40:53 SA's continuing education; "According to Smithsonian Mag, a recent scientific study from Oxford proposes a new explanation for why neanderthals never wrapped their big brains around farming or a written language. The study proposes that neanderthals dedicated far more of their brains to controlling their bodies than we do. Though they were shorter than humans, they were also stockier and stronger, particularly in the upper body. The study also suggests neanderthals had to commit more brain power to vision than we do." http://www...idnt-make-them-smarter-humans/ What next Sammy? What next?
Brainy UPer Member	Fri Mar 30 18:42:39 "everything you said is wrong. " I am sorry for multiple posts, but I had to repeat this again for pure personal amusement. Remarkable, Sammy, remarkable.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Mar 31 02:21:34 4 posts and not a single coherent response. Lol retard. I suspect high concentrations of negroid dna in you.
Brainy UPer Member	Sat Mar 31 05:38:01 So Sammy thinks articles and other informational content that supports what I've said and counters his ridiculousness is incoherent. Acknowledged. A simple display of a concession would have sufficed. No matter. I think we all can accept that would be it.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Mar 31 11:03:28 Post a few more articles saying the same thing that i said in my first post. Yes, increased body mass does take away some from their brain size advantage. However their brain to body mass ratio was still a little higher, especially compared with the smaller negro brain that dominated h.sapiens at the time.
Brainy UPer Member	Sat Mar 31 11:10:26 No afraid not as we all understood your inference. Try again, Sammy.
Brainy UPer Member	Sat Mar 31 11:28:20 However, I am curious Sammy. You have declared everything that I posted was wrong. As I used the sources that were provided. And now you're claiming that you've already said it? Remarkable.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Mar 31 17:27:35 Your english comprehension is plebian
Brainy UPer Member	Sat Mar 31 17:57:16 I'm afraid it must but your lack of it, Sammy. What's next?
Brainy UPer Member	Sat Mar 31 17:57:33 must be*
Seb Member	Sun Apr 01 01:55:06 Sam: "They are defined by a certain statistical distribution of genes." That's the factually wrong part. If you organise by genetic clustering you don't get the same groupings that race is commonly defines. This should be no surprise given the revisions to taxonomic kingdoms once we started gene sequencing. Eyeballs turn out to be a poor tool.
Nekran Member	Sun Apr 01 02:22:38 Yeah. It's easily demonstrable how you're wrong, Sammy. Take 2 hypothetical people who fit perfectly in your "northern european" and "subsaharan african" races have a baby. We all know culturally you will immediately classify that baby in a black category. Genetically speaking, however, it could just as well have more in common with your northern european grouping. Will you classify a baby with dark skin colour in the northern european race? Or will you make up a new race for this baby? And then how many races will you invent to keep your white supremacy going?
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 01 11:25:58 "If you organise by genetic clustering you don't get the same groupings that race is commonly defines. " You are wrong, at least for some genetic combinations. But the key is you now admit their are groupings. Anyway, here is one of the gene combos that does lead - exactly - to common racial groupings. http://sci...9c9cb434f204f598809d8-race.jpg "Genetically speaking, however, it could just as well have more in common with your northern european grouping." Unlikely, but sure there are outliers. Most euros would be closer to other euros, and most africans would be closer to other africans. Large groups of people with large groups of genes often follow pretty normal statistical distributions, IE the IQ bell curve. Yes, obviously there are outliers, and I would not have treat all members of each race based on their race if other info is available. Although less common, some africans are superior to some europeans, and they should be treated as such.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 01 11:55:57 Sam: Groupings can be defined any way you like. You and I are in the group of people that post on utopia with the screen name begining with s.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 01 11:56:54 Lovely figure but zero context so pretty meaningless. Link to the article?
Brainy UPer Member	Sun Apr 01 13:04:09 Scienceblogs.com? Really sammy?
Brainy UPer Member	Sun Apr 01 13:09:08 Seb, it's from this it seems. http://sci...5-of-genetic-variation-is-wit/ Referring to this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC24A5 And again Sammy is demonstrating he still doesn't understand it. What next Sammy? Do you even science?
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 01 16:35:49 "Groupings can be defined any way you like. " False. It has to fit the data. In this case, we have a number of data points. First, the relative success of some groups. Second, the increased brain:body-mass ratio of those same groups. Third, higher IQ scores of those some groups. Seems logical they are related, no?
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 01 16:40:19 anyway pc1/pc2 is a common genetic marker that is extremely well correlated with racial groups. Even the most minor of subcatagorization, for example southern italians verse northern italians, stands out clearly if you zoom in enough. That image above was randomly selected from many similar images for display purposes.
Brainy UPer Member	Sun Apr 01 16:56:31 You're not even correctly explaining what the graph is supposed to represent. My god.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 01 17:58:42 ^some mind pleb who knows nothing.
Brainy UPer Member	Sun Apr 01 18:18:23 Says the guy who's misrepresenting the chart they posted without context and coulsnt even provide the source of where it came from. Lol, my god.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 01 23:35:36 hush mind pleb. You are able to contribute nothing interesting.
Brainy UPer Member	Mon Apr 02 04:19:46 You can't even present your data correctly. Remarkable.
Brainy UPer Member	Mon Apr 02 04:48:18 Here Sammy, since you couldn't even take the time to post correctly. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5866/1100.full
Brainy UPer Member	Mon Apr 02 04:57:49 Abstract Human genetic diversity is shaped by both demographic and biological factors and has fundamental implications for understanding the genetic basis of diseases. We studied 938 unrelated individuals from 51 populations of the Human Genome Diversity Panel at 650,000 common single-nucleotide polymorphism loci. Individual ancestry and population substructure were detectable with very high resolution. The relationship between haplotype heterozygosity and geography was consistent with the hypothesis of a serial founder effect with a single origin in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, we observed a pattern of ancestral allele frequency distributions that reflects variation in population dynamics among geographic regions. This data set allows the most comprehensive characterization to date of human genetic variation. In the past 30 years, the ability to study DNA sequence variation has dramatically increased our knowledge of the relationships among and history of human populations. Analyses of mitochondrial, Y chromosomal, and autosomal markers have revealed geographical structuring of human populations at the continental level (1–3) and suggest that a small group of individuals migrated out of eastern Africa and their descendants subsequently expanded into most of today's populations (3–6). Despite this progress, these studies were limited to a small fraction of the genome, to limited populations, or both, and yield an incomplete picture of the relative importance of mutation, recombination, migration, demography, selection, and random drift (7–10). To substantially increase the genomic and population coverage of past studies (e.g., the HapMap Project), we have examined more than 650,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in samples from the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP-CEPH), which represents 1064 fully consenting individuals from 51 populations from sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, the Middle East, South/Central Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas (11). This data set is freely available (12) and allows a detailed characterization of worldwide genetic variation. We first studied genetic ancestry of each individual without using his/her population identity. This analysis considers each person's genome as having originated from K ancestral but unobserved populations whose contributions are described by K coefficients that sum to 1 for each individual. To increase computational efficiency, we developed new software, frappe, that implements a maximum likelihood method (13) to analyze all 642,690 autosomal SNPs in 938 unrelated and successfully genotyped HGDP-CEPH individuals (14). Figure 1A shows the results for K = 7; those for K = 2 through 6 are in fig. S1. At K = 5, the 938 individuals segregate into five continental groups, similar to those reported in a microsatellite-based study of the same panel (3). At K = 6, the new component accounts for a major portion of ancestry for individuals from South/Central Asia, separating this region from the Middle East and Europe. This result differs from that in (3), where the sixth component contained the Kalash individuals, but South/Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe were not clearly distinguished unless analyzed separately from the rest of the world. At K = 7, the new component occurs at highest proportions in the Middle Eastern populations, separating them from European populations. In many populations, ancestry is derived predominantly from one of the inferred components, whereas in others, especially those in the Middle East and South/Central Asia, there are multiple sources of ancestry. For example, Palestinians, Druze, and Bedouins have contributions from the Middle East, Europe, and South/Central Asia. Burusho, Pathan, and Sindhi have an East Asian contribution. Hazara and Uygur share a similar profile of combined South/Central Asian, East Asian, and European ancestry. In East Asia, only the Yakuts share ancestry with both Europe and America, although these contributions are small. Although much of sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and East Asia appears to be homogeneous in Fig. 1A, finer substructures can be detected when individual regions are analyzed separately. For example, we identified two components that separate the 16 East Asian populations and correspond to a north-south genetic gradient (fig. S2A). Han Chinese can be divided into a southern and a northern group. A similar analysis for South/Central Asia is shown in fig. S2B. Fig. 1. Individual ancestry and population dendrogram. (A) Regional ancestry inferred with the frappe program at K = 7 (13) and plotted with the Distruct program (31). Each individual is represented by a vertical line partitioned into colored segments whose lengths correspond to his/her ancestry coefficients in up to seven inferred ancestral groups. Population labels were added only after each individual's ancestry had been estimated; they were used to order the samples in plotting. (B) Maximum likelihood tree of 51 populations. Branches are colored according to continents/regions. * indicates the root of the tree, also where the chimpanzee branch is located. https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/319/5866/1100/F1.large.jpg Mixed ancestries inferred from genetic data can often be interpreted as arising from recent admixture among multiple founder populations. In the current setting, however, the estimated mixed ancestry can be due either to recent admixture or to shared ancestry before the divergence of two populations but without subsequent gene flow between them. For example, the European and Asian ancestries seen in Uygur and Hazara populations are likely due to relatively recent admixture, whereas the inferred Native American ancestry in Yakuts and Russians likely reflects shared ancestry before the predecessors of the Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait. The Middle Eastern populations may have experienced both continuous gene flow and shared ancestry with the rest of Eurasia. Because individuals belonging to the same recognized population almost always show similar ancestry proportions (Fig. 1A and fig. S2), it is meaningful to statistically evaluate the genetic relationships among populations. We calculated the Wright's fixation indices Fsts among the 51 populations from the population allele frequencies across all autosomal SNPs (15) and constructed a phylogenetic tree by the maximum likelihood method (16), using orthologous chimpanzee alleles as the outgroup. The sub-Saharan African populations are located nearest to the root of the tree (Fig. 1B), outward from which are branches that correspond, sequentially, to populations from North Africa, the Middle East, Europe, South/Central Asia, Oceania, America, and East Asia. This population tree shows not only major splits between different continents but also sublineages within continents (14) consistent with the ancestry analysis shown above as well as with results from microsatellite markers (17). The branching pattern largely agrees with the approximate order of human expansion (2) and supports the “out of Africa” model of human origin. We performed principal component analyses (PCA) on the Fst matrix to capture a major portion of genetic variability. The first and second PCs explain 59% and 26% of the Fst variation, respectively (fig. S3A) and separate the 51 populations into the known continental groups, with the first PC primarily describing the contrast between sub-Saharan Africans and non-Africans and the second driven by the East-West difference in Eurasia. The third and fourth PCs distinguish the Native American and Oceanian populations, respectively (figs. S3, C and D). The regional clusters are more clearly separated than was possible with 782 microsatellites (16). A PCA plot of the 938 unrelated individuals (fig. S3B) is similar to the 51-population plot and illustrates the regional clusteredness at the individual level. The PCA for individual continents/regions clearly delineates fine-scale population structure. In Fig. 2A, the eight European populations, including the central populations (Orcadian, French, Northern Italian from Bergamo, and Tuscan) which were previously indistinguishable with fewer markers, can be separated (3). In Fig. 2B, the four populations from the Middle East are distinguished; the Bedouins can be divided into two subgroups, one of which is similar to the Palestinians. The PC1-PC2 plots for four other continental groups and descriptions and interpretations are in (14) and figs. S4 and S5. These individual-level results, along with ancestry analyses in Fig. 1A and fig. S2, indicate that although some populations have limited sample size (<10), the population structuring appears robust. Fig. 2. Fine-scale population structure principal component analyses in two geographic regions, using all autosomal SNPs. (A) Europe. (B) The Middle East. https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/319/5866/1100/F2.large.jpg We carried out an analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) (18, 19) to partition overall genetic variation into three components: within-population (WP), among-population-within-group (i.e., geographical region) (AP/WG), and among geographical region (AG). The 51 populations are assigned to the seven geographical regions shown in Fig. 1A. The results are similar among autosomal chromosomes: the WP, AP/WG, and AG components explain 88.9 ± 0.3%, 2.1 ± 0.05%, and 9.0 ± 0.3% (mean ± SD across 22 chromosomes) of the variance, respectively (Fig. 3A). For comparison, the WP, AP/WG, and AG components for 783 microsatellite markers are 94.0%, 2.3%, and 3.7%, respectively (3, 5). The difference between the SNP-based estimates (this study) and the microsatellite-based results can be partly explained by higher mutation rates of microsatellites, which are more driven by shorter-term evolutionary processes. For X chromosome (ChrX) SNPs, the WP, AP/WG, and AG components are 84.7%, 2.4%, and 12.9% (Fig. 3A), consistent with estimates based on ChrX microsatellites (20). The greater AG component for ChrX than autosomes is discussed in (14) and fig. S6. Together, these results reaffirm that within-population variation accounts for most of the genetic diversity in humans. However, the between-population variance is sufficient to reveal consistent population structure because subtle but nonrandom differences between populations accumulate over a large number of loci and yield principal components that can account for a major portion of the variation (21). Fig. 3. Analysis of molecular variance and correlation between haplotype heterozygosity and geographic distance. (A) Partitioning of genetic variance into three components (18): Within-Population (WP), Among-Population-Within-Region (AP/WG), and Among-Region (AG), by using autosomal SNPs, microsatellite markers, and ChrX SNPs, respectively. (B) SNP haplotype heterozygosity versus geographic distances from Addis Ababa (AA), Ethiopia. The linear regression slope is indicated along with the Pearson correlation r. https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/319/5866/1100/F3.large.jpg We compared SNP haplotype heterozygosity across populations and found, consistent with earlier reports (22), that it is highest in sub-Saharan Africa and decreases steadily with distance from this region (Fig. 3B). The mean heterozygosity across autosomal haplotypes (using 295 haplotype blocks in Chr16) (14) is negatively correlated with distance from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (5, 23), with a correlation co-efficient r of –0.91 and a slope of –1.1 × 10–5 per km (Fig. 3B). This trend is consistent with a serial founder effect, a scenario in which population expansion involves successive migration of a small fraction of individuals out of the previous location, starting from a single origin in sub-Saharan Africa. For ChrX haplotypes (using 453 haplotype blocks), the correlation and slope are –0.85 and –1.3 × 10–5 per km, respectively; the slightly higher geographic gradient (i.e., steeper slope) than for autosomes agrees with the higher ChrX Fsts (fig. S6). These values are similar to those reported for microsatellites (5): r = –0.87, slope = –6.52 × 10–6 per km, and to SNP-based heterozygosities: r = –0.81, slope = –3.8 × 10–6 (r = –0.93 when only non-African populations are considered). SNP-based heterozygosities depend on allele frequencies and are affected by ascertainment bias, whereas the haplotype and microsatellite heterozygosities are less affected as a result of their greater polymorphism (22). By genotyping two chimpanzee samples, we were able to define the putative ancestral allele for ∼95.5% of the SNPs in the 650 K panel. We compared the distribution of these ancestral allele frequencies (AAFs) among the 51 populations. Figure 4A shows four examples of the AAF spectrum for Yoruba, French, Chinese, and Japanese populations. Yorubans and other sub-Saharans have more SNPs with high AAFs (>0.6, on the right of the distribution) and fewer with low AAFs, producing a steeper slope of SNP counts in the midrange of AAF spectrum. The slopes within 20 to 80% AAF are plotted in Fig. 4B for all 51 populations, showing a progressive reduction moving away from Africa, from ∼0.04 in sub-Saharan Africa, to ∼0.03 in Eurasia, ∼0.02 in East Asia, and ∼0.01 in Oceania and the Americas. This steady flattening of the AAF distribution may be related to the SNP panel used (which primarily includes common SNPs in Europe, East Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa), but the ascertainment scheme alone cannot explain the entire trend, as the SNPs analyzed by the International HapMap Project show a similar phenomenon (24). In particular, the AAF spectra of ENCODE (ENCyclopedia of DNA Elements) regions, where genotyped SNPs were discovered by resequencing, follow a similar pattern (fig. S7), where the 20 to 80% slopes in HapMap Chinese and Japanese populations are about half of that in the Yoruban population. Fig. 4. Ancestral allele frequency spectrum. (A) Histograms of AAFs for four HGDP-CEPH populations: Yoruba, French, Han, and Japanese. The sample sizes and the slopes of SNP counts in the range of 20 to 80% AAF are indicated. (B) The slopes in 51 populations are negatively correlated with geographic distance from AA (2). Color codes are as in Fig. 3B. https://d2ufo47lrtsv5s.cloudfront.net/content/sci/319/5866/1100/F4.large.jpg The flattening of the AAF spectrum reflects the interplay of multiple demographic forces and may yield clues to the history of individual populations. Generally, populations that had a small effective population size and/or experienced a severe bottleneck would have more pronounced genetic drift, resulting in a more rapid increase in derived allele frequencies. Populations that maintained a large size or experienced expansion would tend to preserve the ancestral states of the variant loci. Theoretical work (25), empirical data, and simulation (26) have shown that demography plays a major role in the change of the AAF spectrum over time. Our result is consistent with the serial founder model, in which non-African populations form a sequential chain of colonies. Those that are more peripheral and younger have relatively smaller effective sizes, and perhaps experienced greater selective pressure. For example, the European and Asian spectra can be explained by a reduction of population size followed by recent recovery (a bottleneck), whereas the spectrum for an African-American population suggests a history of moderate but uninterrupted expansion (26, 27). Compared to the HapMap panel, HGDP-CEPH includes Oceanian and American populations, as well as a dense collection from the Middle East and South/Central Asia. Characterization of the added populations is important for studying evolution and disease processes not only in these populations but also in those that share common ancestry with them due to recent migration (e.g., U.S. Latino populations). HGDP-CEPH is not a random sample of the world's populations: Some parts of the world (e.g., China and Pakistan) are more densely covered than others (Africa, the Americas, and Oceania). Many populations have been isolated from each other by geography or custom. The observation that they are genetically distinguishable suggests that self-reported ancestry is sufficiently accurate for assessing population stratification in disease studies, except for those involving recent admixture (3, 28). These results, however, say nothing about the origin and distribution of human phenotypic variation. The observed population structure can be largely explained by random drift at neutral loci. Nevertheless, some regions of the genome may have experienced accelerated divergence due to local selection (9, 24, 29) as anatomically modern humans spread around the globe during the past 100,000 years, adapting to a wide range of habitats and climates. The population richness of HGDP-CEPH makes it possible to detect correlation between genomic variation and local environmental and/or phenotypic variation (30), thus leading to more detailed understandings of selective forces acting in different regions of the world. ----------------------------------------------- So, because you were too lazy to post the article in reference, including the figures. I took the time to do it for you. So that Seb, Nekran, or anyone else for that matter can understand what is being used. And what is more interesting is that from the source that you used. And let's be honest, you didn't even understand the chart you post nor actually knew the source material. Really pokes holes with your conclusion as you continue to argue about genetic/racial superiority. What's next Sammy?
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 05:31:14 Sam: You realise PC1 and PC2 are just axis labels for Principle Component 1 and 2 right? And the gene in question is responsible skin colour. You've basically just said "black people have dark skin". Note also the areas with overlaps. So yes, it's entirely unreasonable to leap from "people with dark skin have a variety of the gene responsible for skin colour" to "and this obviously means they are stupid because the genes for intelligence are bound to correlate in the same way." http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations See! Space research causes suicide by hangings, I've proved it with science.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 05:36:26 For a non genetic based view on the success of different cultures, see for example guns, germs and steel. If it was all about genes, explain how ancient Greeks had clockwork and steam engines, but failed to put them together to generate the industrial revolution. They clearly weren't stupid.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 05:36:51 (Guns, Germs and Steel is a book)
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 06:01:03 Still chortling that Sam thought PC1/2 was the name of a genetic marker.
Brainy UPer Member	Mon Apr 02 07:09:11 Prepare for the next thread. And yes, quite remarkable.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 02 10:39:12 Pc1/pc2 in that context were genetic markers. You said genes dont match common racial groups. You were wrong. Although you are the person that didnt even admit skin color is genetic for a long time, because genes are politically incorrect. "Space research causes suicide by hangings, I've proved it with science. " Ahhh yes, the tired old liberal argument that because some things have spurious correlations, all things which i disagree with must have spurious correlations. "explain how ancient Greeks had clockwork and steam engines, but failed to put them together to generate the industrial revolution. They clearly weren't stupid." Because they were conquered by rome, and then rome became too multicultural and lazy and failed. The same reason, in fact, why england has very little cutting edge tech despite their industrial revolution advantage. Perhaps a better question is, why did africa, home of h.sapiens and with a benign climate and huge numbers of rescources, never advanced at all?
	show deleted posts