Let's get the science of "race" right. This is a plot of samples of human populations from all around the world. Genetic variation has been "compressed" using principal component analysis (PCA) to 2D, so it can be visualized in a plot.
The only thing you need to understand is that the further two points are from one another, the more variation. ~80% of variation is in the X-axis, splitting Africans from the rest of the world. The rest ~10% of variation roughly corresponds to WEST-EAST, with Europe/middle east (west Asia) at one end and east Asia/native Americans/Australians at the other end.
Here is the "true" proportions in this plot. See that the Y-axis is stretched out in the original pic. This means that BY FAR the greatest genetic diversity is within Africa itself (the width of the blue points is about the height of the others). This plot only shows 2 components as well, if we add more it's more obvious.
Hopefully this shit makes sense dumbed down like this (I study this shit).
Europeans genetic distance is tiny. If you zoom into that pink speck you can start making out stuff, but if you look at the big picture it turns out Europeans/"Caucasian" are very homogeneous - Scandinavians to Spaniards to Irish to Greeks. There simply hasn't been enough time and by far too much gene flow to make Europeans distinct. It's amazing our brain can even pick out slight phenotypical differences at all.
Probably why Asians thinks all Europeans look the same and vice versa. Exposure.
Hudson Morris
Wow.
Shieeettttttttt
Christopher Garcia
Aren't Arabs really close to Europeans as well should they be classified as the same race?
Luke Moore
variations in IQ are 50-80% hereditary
and because American's, for the most part, live in a very similar environment (public schools are fairly standardized, nobody starves to death) the variations in IQ that exist are closer to being 80% attributable to genetic if not higher.
Yeah, Arabs/West Asians and Europeans are really close. But at least there is just enough variation there to make out two distinct groups.
Thing with race is that you can draw any lines you want, they will be arbitrary to some degree. Best thing is to look at the data and draw your own conclusions.
Even worse, when scientists rely on people's self-reported ethnicity this breaks down even more, and the plots become very noisy. See this example. The colors are just a mess. Better to just go by the raw data.
gene distance is a good indicator that there is something happening, and can be used to debunk the "one race - the human race!" myth but just because arabs cluter to some degree with europeans, and similiary spanish and swedish people doesn't mean much. There could be a 3 gene difference that is the difference between a genius and a total idiot. But according to this rating "it just 0.00000000001% bro!"
Jordan Cruz
>There could be a 3 gene difference that is the difference between a genius and a total idiot.
well it's more like a collection of hundreds if not thousands of small variations that each make small contributions to increasing IQ there are a handful of genes which are recognized to increase or decrease IQ by a 1 or 2 points
Sure, its probably most likely that its a lot more than 3-5 genes that influence your inteligence. But that wasn't the point. I'm saying that a tiny % of gene difference can have a massive influence.
Jordan Harris
true, and most genetic variations are of the nervous system
a person of one race can physically look so distinct and different from a person of another race, and the difference between them at the level of the nervous system is magnitudes greater
I don't know what you mean by "happening", most of evolution is not due to selection, but just due to either genetic drift or gene flow, which is more or less random.
For example, the stark difference between modern Africans vs Non-Africans is probably due to interbreeding with archaic human species, i.e. the Neanderthals and Denisovans. Neanderthals being located to the west and Denisovans to the east, they also interbred earlier than Sapiens joined in. Much of the modern large scale variation could be explained by this early interbreeding, tens of thousands of years ago.
That also essentially means that the Africans, especially aboriginals located in the south-west of Africa, is the most "pure" Homo Sapiens alive today (the Khoisan bushmen). Here is a picture of a Khoisan girl.
isn't it true that the DNA of most Europeans is around ~4% Neanderthal
sounds like the Neanderthals were race mixed out of existence, although the Homo Sapiens weren't exactly "Homo Sapiens" anymore either
Jack Roberts
where are abbos?
William Sanchez
Too bad "flipping" one tiny thing in your genetics is the difference between a complete moron and a genius.
Justin King
These are excellent at illustrating genetic deviation between ethnic groups, but I don't like that they never publish WHICH genetic traits the PCA is done using.
PCA is basically a variation on eigenvalue/eigenvector analysis, where you take data and transform it into principle axes. But the axes themselves are important - in deriving moments of inertia in physics, for example, the principle axes relate to the axes of symmetrical or quasi-symmetrical rotation for an object. But the principle axes in these graphs are never elaborated on.
Juan Davis
probably somewhere near the East Asia/Polynesia cluster
Juan Hall
Yeah. But it's not the same 1-4% in all people. In total about 20% of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans. So their species merged into ours, but Sapiens got the lion's share due to having a much larger population. Same with Denisovans. It's called introgressive hybridization if you wanna look it up.
The Neanderthal varieties has actually been shown to be highly expressed in skin and hair, so white skin and red hair might have originally been Neanderthal traits.
they typically use genes associated with transplantation compatibility, the pathogenesis of infectious, and autoimmune diseases.
most of the time PC charts are based on genes responsible for encoding blood and autoimmune cells, but since OP studies this stuff he might know more
Connor Scott
This is hotly debated at the moment, and new results emerge rapidly. Results from a huge pan-african study are due to be published this year. So our understanding will probably improve a lot. But here you have some contrary evidence to the theory in the NewScientist article.
What is the significance of the x and y axes? Maybe you could make a similar graph with some other arbitrary genes to single out basically any race. Does this actually mean anything? I need a geneticsfag to help me out here.
Good question. That is the weakness of PCA, the axes don't have a clear interpretation. It's just a visualization method for high-dimensional data. It does not mean anything except that distant points in the low-dimension are also distant in the high-dimensional space. And the beauty with PCA is that it retains as much variation as possible. It just picks the biggest "shadow".
If you look at my example, a shadow of an airplane can be made from the 3d object in many ways. The "PCA" of the airplane would be the lower-right overhead projection, since it retains the most variation of the points making up the plane.
In other words Arabs are basically a subset of Caucasian race? Had they not been inbreeding for centuries, they would be white and decently intelligent and civilized?
David Gutierrez
since the original article mentioned that they used the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium to select which variations to perform analyses I assume the variations due to inbreeding are actually excluded from the principal component chart.
They are caucasoid and just a few generations of rational eugenics would make them as smart as us. Certainly they could be the smartest in the world with 1 century of eugenic policies
Brandon Baker
When you say “genetic variation” — How many genes are being compared here? How many variations of the genes?
Adrian Lewis
When it says 'africa' does it mean just native sub-saharan africans or does it include eurasian settlers too?
Nah, they just use the HWE to EXCLUDE the uninteresting variations that are in equilibrium. Inbreeding would be interesting, as inbreeding would result in a stark departure from the HWE. A lot of terminology. Basically if a variation is in HWE it is of little importance for evolution. It is not subject to selection, gene flow, or various other deviations.
Hunter Moore
In this study Africa is only sub-saharan africans.
They looked at 250,000 variations (SNPs). That actually covers a good bit of the entire genome, due to genetic linkage. Like you don't inherit from your parents letter-by-letter but rather in large chunks of letters, so you don't need every letter in a chunk, just one. Number of genes is not a concern in this case. More important would be to get more depth - meaning you sample more people so you catch rare varieties.
Tyler Scott
So, using the airplane shadow analogy, was the PCA for the human data you showed above done in an unbiased fashion? In other words, were all the individuals tossed in and you just told it to find the axes which showed the most variation? Or was it done by saying here are the different groups, now find the PCA that shows the biggest difference between groups? I think this is important, because if the latter is true, then you would need to do a few randomized experiments, where the individuals were randomly assigned to groups, in order to see if the observed distances were could be achieved at random.
Justin Edwards
they did a pretty good job explaining what steps they took to remove sample bias and abnormalities
Why are you snow niggers so arrogant? Technology has led to unprecedented environmental destruction, unhealthy modernization, globalization, and much more, you retarded snow nigger filth. All you've developed is more effective means of killing people. You're the same violent shit as sand niggers but just conceal your overall motives better. You used to have a bunch of Matthew Hopkins amongst your filth, and you still do to a large extent.
This is coming from a high-IQ sand nigger too. You are equally as shit as us. All of mankind should die, without exception.
>says this over the internet while connected to the power grid I bet you define health as dying at 35 and technology as anything more complicated than a sharp stick
>This coming from a sand nigger as for more effective means of killing people, clearly, they haven't been effective enough
Jaxson Gonzalez
People die at birth because that constituted as genetic winnowing. Immune system health correlates with neurological health, and many kids died at childbirth because that helped maintain carrying capacity and lead to genetic winnowing, you cretinized piece of shit.
There is nothing good about this modern world. I use technology to survive given your arbitrary societal demands. That doesn't mean I validate, you stupid pieces of shit.
>as for more effective means of killing people, clearly, they haven't been effective enough You bloodthirsty lunatic piece of shit. Your kind of attitude is why these wars that end. Go suck Shlomo's dick, you retarded arrogant snow nigger. You are basically paving the way for WWIII right now. There's no "progress' in any of this, you fucking idiot.
Jeremiah Moore
>maintain carrying capacity maintain levels beneath carrying capacity* Stuff like vaccinations have led to more issues.
Moreover, mass transportation, intensive agriculture, environmental pollutants in ocean, ocean acidification, MASSIVE loss of biodiversity....
It is precisely because of "cars, airplanes, computers, phones" and other technologies that the modern world is in such a mess. It led to industries that increased amounts of deforestation, oceanic pollutants, and more, and furthermore, it led to population boom beyond carrying capacities because of spread of vaccinations. There are other issues like greater movements of people, introduction of various species not indigenous to habitats, global economy preventing true sovereignty due to constant trade and lack of self-sufficiency, and endless war for Military Industrial Complex. These technologies largely depend on petroleum industries for their creation, which led to further increasing environmental damage and endless war into the Middle East for petrodollar, and even if alternative energy sources and new sustainable models were discovered, oil industries would resort to disinformation campaigns, lobbying, and industrial espionage.
There is nothing beautiful about this Faustian age where the "blackness of ambition" is considered more important than harmony and stability. I am not a saying a world without modern technologies would be perfect, especially considering frequency of disease and devastating famine, but it would be more manageable and have less complex issues than what we have now. These issues all stem from 20th century technologies and post-industrial global capitalism. There is nothing to be proud of if one's race were responsible for this, though I do not believe any race deserves blame. There is no such thing as "progress"; there are only alternating periods of stability versus instability, and this is undeniably one of the most unstable times, even minus the migration of unruly refugees. The unruly refugees make an unstable situation even more unstable.
The only people who truly deserve blame are those who stupidly claim this technological and greedy age is "progressive" or "great".
Daniel Miller
Yes, I agree a lot of what Kaczynski says, but I disagree with his solution. The problem is intrinsic in the human psyche. All of mankind should die WITHOUT EXCEPTION and other species should be allowed to speciate.
The base state of all human being was extremely violent and brutal. Our cave dwelling ancestors frequently engaged in infanticide, rape, cannibalism, and much more. Now compare this to more harmonious species like corvids or beavers.
I am like a misanthropic Kaczynski. I would gladly kill off both my race and yours. In fact, I would take glee in the bloodbath because I hate humanity even moreso than Schopenhauer.
John Flores
Forgot to mention how delicate balance of ecosystems are being threatened due to biodiversity loss.
Levi Peterson
Are SNPS usually used for this kind of analysis, whether or not filtered by HWE? Is PCA ever done at the translated protein level?
Jack Young
Who the fuck cares, you dumb fucker? The amount of animals, nature, and etc. you have sacrificed for this trivial amount of information is pathetic. You literally worship the blackness of ambition. You have some kind of Faustian complex and obsession with your vain ideas of "knowledge". Just eat shit and die already.
You snow niggers decapitate an unbelievable number of rats in academia and literally collect their fucking brains. These rats are far more noble than your filth race. All of humanity should die, and the one time I would gladfully go to war is to ensure the extinction of all of mankind.
Pray to your retarded kike on a stick to make a difference.
Elijah Martin
Problem with splitting humans into subspecies/races/whatever, is history and European colonization. IMHO, if we wouldn't have advanced technologically and had a stable climate, I could see Homo Sapiens undergo speciation into 3, maybe 4 new species over say a million years. We would get the African lineage - south of the Sahara. The Eurasian lineage. The American lineage and the Polynesian lineage.
But in our timeline Europeans almost wiped out the (native) Americans with diseases, and then interbred with them. The many small tribes have been conquered and suppressed by a few dominant ones.
Human variation outside of Africa mostly fall on a interwoven spectrum, rather than neatly with clear distinctions.
Thomas Garcia
Yeah, SNPs are the easiest way of doing things, a lot due to the linkage disequilibrium (genetic linkage) I was talking about above. PCA and dimensionality reduction is used (and sometimes abused) in almost everywhere in -omics fields nowadays. So yes.
Need to sleep now. Good discussion guys, enjoyed it.
Ayden Rodriguez
>I could see Homo Sapiens undergo speciation Hopefully this disgusting species goes extinct by then:
"Man is at bottom a savage, horrible beast. We know it, if only in the business of taming and restraining him which we call civilisation. Hence it is that we are terrified if now and then his nature breaks out. Wherever and whenever the locks and chains of law and order fall off and give place to anarchy, he shows himself for what he is. But it is unnecessary to wait for anarchy in order to gain enlightenment on this subject. A hundred records, old and new, produce the conviction that in his unrelenting cruelty man is in no way inferior to the tiger and the hyaena." - Schopenhauer
