Over 9000

Environmental explanations are secondary to establishing hereditary traits. There were probably other factors than "amount of sunlight". Such as population density (mutation rate), development of agriculture is thought to be a major factor as it stabilised environments leading to K-selection, cold winters placing higher value on parental care and technical competence than fecundity/muscular-speed etc. (trade-off). All of this is pretty speculative and secondary to whether racial IQ (and other important behaviors such as creativity and openness, family stability, psychopathy, etc. etc.) differences are significantly heritable. I think they are. Can you explain why you think IQ is of no importance? Well we've been over why race is scientific. We can go over why IQ is scientific. "Scientific" doesn't mean "I like this".

Exactly. It's a purely emotional position based on nothing but they need a thin veneer of "science sounding stuff" to obfuscate that. Well, cmiiw, you think normal biological division doesn't apply to humans. What would you like me to call that position? We give different levels in the taxonomy different names. The taxonomy is based on descent aka shared ancestry. This is Darwin's idea. Generally we name inter fertile groupings species and the division below that subspecies. It just so happens species are more distinct in a given time frame. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html concluding chapter This is a naming convenience rather than a natural division. Even inter fertility is an arbitrary convenience. So no, tomatoes and humans are not the same subspecies. Great question! Race is just the historical word for infrasubspecific or below subspecies level among humans. It's simply the common word. As I endlessly repeat in every post, there is no "degree of genomic similarity" in the sense of a fixed value. It's based entirely on the criteria of similarity or ancestry, which is relative. Individuals share more or less ancestry, or are more or less similar relative to other individuals. So it's not as if you "share ancestry with tomatoes" or you don't. The point is you share more ancestry with humans so are grouped relative to tomatoes. There is no absolute value involved. The taxonomy extends indefinitely down to individuals. We just use different words for different levels in the same taxonomy. Here, this may help you understand the concepts involved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank Note that no "degree of genomic similarity" is referenced. This is just something you made up or parroted. The usual criterion is "descent with modification" (to take Darwin's term for heredity plus mutation out of context). Ie. the taxonomy is based on descent, and labelled at points of phenetic modification, or notable physical differences, eg. backbone/no-backbone. Again this is just a naming convention. Genomics challenges some taxa since genomic similarity indexes ancestry better than modification. After checking the wikipedia article we can perhaps discuss trans-racial within and between family correlations of g persisting after adoption? A lot of people don't like discussing that though so they pretend "race is a social construct" and waffle on irrelevantly about "skin color" "Fst" and the "same ancestry" as if that demonstrates that "everybody's equal", which is what they are really afraid to doubt, for career and emotional reasons. I mean questioning this ruins your career, see eg James Watson. No scientific rebuttal involved outside the usual media hack ignoramuses parroting "science sounding" slogans. It's also politically motivated. TPTB seem to want massive third world immigration to the West. Of course any cognitive difference positions are a point against that. So pretending "race does not exist" with "science" paints your opposition as a bunch of "racist" (defined as "saying something about race other than denying it exists") morons who just don't understand the "latest science". And who wants to be considered an ignorant moron? But I think science shouldn't avoid issues, even if they make us uncomfortable. Personally I think establishing the etiology of IQ differences is very important. I mean imagine if the "equality" crowd were wrong. What immense damage we could be doing to Western civilisation! --- A question for race denialists. Do you agree we can operationalise this by labelling portions? If so, how would you operationalise this? http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html

They have the rigorous yet simple definition of shared ancestry or genomic similarity.

So you're just confused about definitions. "Generalised lineage" eg monophyly is irrelevant among hybridising subspecies. Ie not bacterial "Single important gene" definitions are valid but irrelevant to human race So what are you disputing? Certainly no normal zoological subspecies.

Oh really? So how is taxonomy assigned? I thought there were cladistic and evolutionary taxonomic, plus perhaps genomic schools. Essentialism and pheneticism of course are no longer in vogue. You have some other definition? I would be fascinated to hear it. It sounds complex and intelligent. We definitely agree that arbitrary values like "25%" and even "enough" are of no relevance.

No they are wrong for the same reason. They both require "enough" arbitrary divergence. They are only applied to human race.

Here.

That's a case of taxa cross cutting divergence boundaries, exactly what I just added a caveat about. "Using an integrated approach to species delimitation taking advantage of morphological, geographic distributional and multi-locus genetic data, we investigate the diversity within three Gehyra species from the Australian arid zone. Our results show that these species represent eight distinct phylogenetic lineages, which display different patterns of morphological distinction and reproductive isolation. " So they re ordered taxa. Your argument is different. "Divergence is below random value X therefore no taxa" I only discuss "enough divergence" because race deniers keep bringing it up. Eg CharonY with 25% Fst. You.

You're nitpicking. Is 0.05 Fst wildly different from Rst? No. The point is that differentiation measures, whichever ones, aren't used to invalidate taxa. Unless a division includes a differentiation boundary. This isn't the case with humans. So your discussion of various measures is irrelevant. You are basically just pulling a Lewontin's fallacy dressed up in different math. Feel free to show us your argument being applied outside humans. Eg. Tigers don't have subspecies because lions are more divergent. Ridiculous. There is no taxa bound in the literature. Full stop.

But the source you referenced that I responded to used Fst as a measure of divergence. After using STRUCTURE to validate taxa. I tend to discuss Fst a lot because race denialists bring it up all time. It's irrelevant. There is no bound on taxa differentiation.

OK. I think I get it. If a mod publically slanders someone they are not allowed to respond or it's "hijacking". Nice. We had Moderator Note Over 9000, if you can't post in this thread without resulting to insults then you will find that you will not be able to post at all. Furthermore, resorting to calling someone asking you to back up your claims stupid is rather disingenuous of you, and a particularly poor way to hold discussion. Such actions are also prohibited on this forum, so I would ask you to refrain from them in the future. Do not reply to this note within the thread. And just to be clear: you will be suspended if your attitude doesn't make a rapid change. He wasn't "asking me to back up my claims". He was asking A) how humans can have subspecies if they are the same same species B) accusing me of defining race by skin color after I'd defined it clearly by ancestry or genomic similarity ie. nonsense and strawman. after my posts had covered this in detail. Is it not fair to dismiss this? So did the mod simply not understand what my claims were? Why can I not respond to this? Isn't taking sides, in such a failed manner, disruptive?

Well I'm specifically curious about the "thread hijacking or refusals to clarify". I admit that after I defined race by ancestry, and a poster told me I was defining race by skin color, I said their post was stupid. Was that what you were talking about among my extensive discussion?

I don't think so. I mean shouldn't we all know exactly why we are being banned to help people stay within acceptable parameters? Of course if a mod tells me to keep this private I will.

Lol, what? From your link: Eastern/Central displays less divergence. Also is it possible for a value to be "orders of magnitude" greater than 0.15 when the maximum value is 1? Sure, this is what we are saying. They are just words for different levels or even the same levels in the same taxonomy. Yes, nobody ever claimed human subpecies/races were isolated. This is quite normal for subspecies. But you say it as if you are contradicting your opponents. This is a false statement. We have strong evidence of divergence in many physiological genes, and circumstantial evidence (which is better than the no evidence racial egalitarians provide) of cognitive differences, over the last 100,000 years. Oh really? Can you explain this in more detail?

"Over 9000 has been suspended for 3 days for abusive behavior and thread hijacking, and for refusing requests for clarity. New member hopefully, shaky start, nothing that can't be fixed with a bit more civility and patience." Since I don't want to be banned again I'd like some explanation "thread hijacking", and "refusing requests for clarity". Simply let me know which posts and points are in question. Thanks.

Oh sorry you're confused. I defined race by ancestry (Darwin) or genomic similiarity (Mayr). You seem to be arguing against some imaginary indivdual who defined race as ancestry or genomic similiarity + some random arbitrary threshold based on nothing. Have fun with that.

No it really doesn't. There's a big difference between not doing what you are told and lying about what people said. Let's get this straight. My opponent is demonstrably lying about what I am saying. And you are telling me my "attitude need to change"? Also, where do you get off slandering me then implying I can't respond? "Science forums": *facepalm*

In pretty much every post I define race by ancestry or genomic similarity. Sorry if you have a reading comprehension problem. "If I was helpful, let me know by clicking the [+] sign ->" Is there a [-] sign? You can pretend I define race by "skin color" if you are unable to contradict me. If that makes you feel better. Wrong. Hybrids don't invalidate subspecies. "Race" is a word used to refer to infrasubspecific subspecies-(in the broad sense) among humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy No, all taxa are defined by the same criteria, ancestry or genomic similarity, which are largely the same thing in practice. "Population" is a much wider term and includes things like "people in London" or "people with blue eyes". It's really a semantic distraction and very dishonest to use that word when talking about race. It's actually a politically motivated euphemism effort, I'm sure. To silence people by policing their language. Race is a specific type of population. Race is just a word usually applied to infrasubspecific human divisions. Race can be viewed at multiple levels. Here you can see Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid is an obvious first division http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/PCA84pops.html and then you can subdivide as many times as you want. There isn't a fixed grain of resolution for operationalising a spectrum. I think it was somebody asking to repeat myself. No, this is just semantics. Many scholars use the word race for populations defined by ancestry or similarity. You can call those "popualtions" if you want to pretend you're not talking about race. Race is the historical and common term for populations defined by ancestry or similarity. See eg. Kant, Darwin, Mayr. What difference does it make? Which are also called races. QED. Also we call them races. Clinal with significant clustering. Perhaps mostly clustered. One can even divide perfect clines. It's called operationalisation. "Problematic" for scientific or socio-political reasons? Sure. This is quite normal for subspecies. Wrong. See eg. Tang 2005. Saying something "concrete"? Is anything "concrete"? We can say there is a consistent correlation between race and IQ, persisting between and among very different nations and political systems, and after adoption. We can say IQ genes are not evenly distributed among races. Those are facts. Are they "concrete"? Human "populations" (aka races) aren't any more "fuzzy" than wavelength bands. This is the problem though isn't it? We don't want to imagine that races have different intellectual capability on average, for emotional and career reasons, so everything suddenly becomes "fuzzy". It wouldn't be "fuzzy" if we were discussing the size of Larus gulls. Even the heritability of height of human races (which is also developmentally complex) wouldn't be a problem I think. If you said Maasai were tall and Japanese were short, or that South Koreans were the tallest people in Asia, for example, I don't think people would suddenly get all itchy and say "it's complicated".

I don't respond to stupid posts.

I don't respond to stupid posts.

Are you drunk? Please try to write coherently. So what's the point? I define race, and you ask how I define race. I might as well talk to a brick wall.

I wrote: Lol, are you serious? You brought up the "25%" hard demarcation now you are saying *I* am confused? I'm taking one point at a time. How do you explain this: Please answer this question. Are we clear that Templeton is wrong about "25%"? They are as strict as species, being recorded in the ICZN. So how could you say race isn't a biological category if you don't even know what one is? I would say it's a category used by biologists to make predictions which hold. It's not complicated. Race satisfies this. If we define race by ancestry or similarity why doesn't that create discrete categories? An individual either shares ancestry or is more similar to another individual versus a third individual or they aren't. Yes, your claim that higher diversity in Africans invalidates a taxonomic distinction is false. Race is defined by shared ancestry or genetic similarity. Africans share ancestry and are more genetically similar vis a vis Eurasians. Well look at this. How would you divide that first? The boundaries can be touching. Hybrids don't invalidate taxa. Geographic populations? Like "people in London"? Do I have to explain why this is different from race? The question was whether Neanderthal DNA was doing anything. Lewontin's claim that Fst in itself can invalidate taxa (of course only applied to human race, no socio-political motives I'm sure) is false and therefore a fallacy.

Nah, your logic is off. Although most DNA is non-coding, that's only part of recombinant regions. So those regions we inherited from Neanderthals aren't going to be all non-coding DNA. We didn't inherit only non-coding base pairs from Neanderthals, recombination doesn't work like that. See eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_linkage Besides, we have evidence Neanderthal DNA has significant brain effects, so this discussion is kind of pointless.

I think it's highly unlikely that 2-4% of our DNA is doing nothing. I mean I know most of our DNA does nothing, but if you portion out 2-4% some of it is going to be doing something. Besides, they've looked at the Neanderthal parts and: Our approach establishes a new paradigm for understanding the phenotypic legacy of admixture between AMHs and archaic hominins. Using a large clinical cohort, we discovered functional associations between Neanderthal alleles and AMH traits, influencing the skin, immune system, depression, addiction, and metabolism. Furthermore, several lines of evidence suggest enrichment for associations between Neanderthal alleles and neurological and psychiatric phenotypes, as well as the importance of differences in sun exposure between high and low latitudes. It is possible that some Neanderthal alleles provided a benefit in early AMH populations as they moved out of Africa, but have become detrimental in modern Western environments. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849557/ So I'm guessing that's more likely to be positive stuff than negative if it's been retained over 100,000 years versus the African variants. Interestingly, various psychological/neurological disorders are associated with higher cognitive capacity, often for heterozygosity versus homozygosity, in a trade-off effect. One can see this especially in Ashkenazi Jews (see eg. Harpending). Maybe that's happening here as Neanderthal alleles seem to increase depression and smoking ("detrimental in modern Western environments"). Perhaps they also contribute to IQ differences? Edit: I'll throw in this extra chunk from that paper. Given the enrichment for associations with psychiatric and neurological phenotypes, we tested whether Neanderthal SNPs were significantly associated with changes in gene expression in previous expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) analyses of the cerebellum and temporal cortex. Twenty-nine Neanderthal SNPs were significant brain cis-eQTL in the cerebellum or temporal cortex (FDR < 0.05) (11). This represents significant enrichment for brain eQTL among Neanderthal SNPs compared to the non-Neanderthal control SNPs (one-tailed binomial test; P = 1.68E–4 for cerebellum and P = 3.49E–5 for temporal cortex) (11). Taken together, the influence of Neanderthal SNPs on depression risk (Table 1), the association of individual Neanderthal SNPs with diseases with a neurological basis (Table 2), the enrichment for nominal associations with psychiatric and neurological phenotypes (Fig. 2), and the enrichment for brain eQTL in Neanderthal SNPs suggest that Neanderthal introgression influenced AMH brain phenotypes.