Please analyze the validity of these claims and the way they have been interpreted? (Genetics and human diversity)

[SciFactSeeker]

Recently I've come across some claims based off of an old 1995 study that Sokoto Nigerians are "the closest genetically" to chimpanzees out of all the ethnic groups that the study sampled. Being woefully unversed in the field of genetics, I find myself relatively unable to analyze the study appropriately, as well as the possibility that it has been misapplied. I see a lot of white supremacist websites using this study as proof that west africans are somehow more animalistic or less human than other ethnic groups, some even using Sokoto Nigerians as a proxy for all blacks, which given the genetic diversity found within the african continent is obviously incorrect. So my questions for the resident experts are: How reliable are the methods used in this study? If its findings are true, then what implications can we really extract, and what are the limits of those implications? How is genetic proximity within and between species calculated, does it match the methods used in the studies, and how is it defined? Thank you.


Here is the study itself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1801145/pdf/ajhg00028-0108.pdf

And here you can see how many different places it appears in:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Deka+et+al.+Am.+J.+Human+Genetics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=strict&q=sokoto+nigerians+chimpanzees+&*


Not sure what to make of all this, but I suspect it is being severely misinterpreted; plus I question the motives of someone who is measuring the distance between chimpanzees and different human populations. I don't think research like this should but stifled, but instead carefully picked apart; something I doubt this obscure study has been subjected to. Perhaps someone here who is more experienced with this kind of thing can shed some light.

[Strange]

I can't see anything in that study to support those sorts of conclusions. As far as I can tell, the compare the amount of variation against population size. There doesn't appear to be anything about comparing humans to chimpanzees. But this is not my area of expertise. Hopefully someone more knowledgable will be able to comment.

 

(I didn't look at many of the other web pages you linked to, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were all just copying the same original misrepresentation of the research.)

[Lord Antares]

There doesn't appear to be anything about comparing humans to chimpanzees.

 

It's in the first sentence of the text. It certainly does talk about the comparison of chimps and humans.

So it hasn't been misinterpreted, but I will be looking forward to someone knowledgeable stating the validity of the research.

[Strange]

 

It's in the first sentence of the text. It certainly does talk about the comparison of chimps and humans.

So it hasn't been misinterpreted, but I will be looking forward to someone knowledgeable stating the validity of the research.

 

 

It says nothing about different populations of humans being "closer" to chimpanzees.

 

They are measuring heterozygosity (the amount of variation) in each population. This is clearly not a measure of closeness. The highest heterozygosities were the Sokoto and northern German groups.

 

So it has been misinterpreted.

[DrP]

Even if it were true then so what? We are all so close to being bananas or mice or chimps that it shouldn't really matter at all who is more related to what. I expect the difference between a chimp and a Nigerian and a blonde blue eyed German will be so slight that anyone who tries to say that one is superior to the other is just being a dick. We are here, we are alive and we are learning and progressing as a human race.

[StringJunky]

Even if it were true then so what? We are all so close to being bananas or mice or chimps that it shouldn't really matter at all who is more related to what. I expect the difference between a chimp and a Nigerian and a blonde blue eyed German will be so slight that anyone who tries to say that one is superior to the other is just being a dick. We are here, we are alive and we are learning and progressing as a human race.

Yes, it's like saying: which one us on this site is physically the closest to Mars; it's insignificant. i suspect the intentions and goals of the researchers have been taken out of context by people that use it to pursue their unrelated agenda.

Edited March 29, 2017 by StringJunky

[Strange]

I think it is important if good science is being twisted for evil ends.

[SciFactSeeker]

I think Table 6 on Page 467 (or 7/14 for the pdf file) is where the claims are coming from; if you look at the very bottom of the chart, it appears to suggest that the SO group, or Sokoto Nigerians, are the least genetically dissimilar from CH (Chimpanzees) out of the groups. Of course the rest of the chart also demonstrates how generally similar all human ethnic groups are to each other; still, what are the implications of this data from a genetic perspective?

[Strange]

That data (particularly Fig 2 on the next page) seems consistent with what we know: humans and other apes have a common ancestor (note that they say this data is not consistent with the evolutionary time of the separation of these species; which is much, much greater) and the "out of Africa" hypothesis for human origins.

 

To say that this shows one group is closer to chimpanzees is a rather extreme exaggeration, as StringJunky says. It makes about as much sense as saying that my grandfather is closer to chimpanzees.

[unknownorigin]

I feel like I have to disagree immediately. That's not the way of rationalistic inquiry but I feel like the evidence stacks up quickly. To claim that they were animalistic is idiotic, especially if you look at the history of the Sokoto people.

 

They founded a caliphate, a large islamic nation that spread a complex and unifying religion over a large expanse of land, they were producers of art and culture, which became synonymous with the islamic achievements of the time. They had a strong tradition of literature and poetry. They had many scholars who discussed ideas of politics, revolutionized an early education system, competed with European trade in the area successfully for their 100 year existence, and wrote many books and inscriptions detailing things that even European merchants had not yet come across, involving general medicine, pharmacology, and societal structure. The only other civilization which I'm aware of which had such a complex societal system was Confucian china, and Korea. Need I say more?

 

I can't refrain from laughing when people make claims like that based purely on an assumption and motivated by fear. Now someone who is more well versed in genetics can do the rest, I feel like I've made my point.

[DrP]

What IS your point? Why even mention Islam and a Caliphate? Who did? The Nigerians? What has it got to do with their genetic make up?

 

I do not understand what you are disagreeing with in this thread.

[unknownorigin]

What IS your point? Why even mention Islam and a Caliphate? Who did? The Nigerians? What has it got to do with their genetic make up?

 

I do not understand what you are disagreeing with in this thread.

 

"I see a lot of white supremacist websites using this study as proof that West Africans are somehow more animalistic or less human than other ethnic groups"

 

My point is that this is disproven using their historical success. I mostly disagreed with the animalistic or less human part. My knowledge of genetics is limited, and I'm currently learning about it. Also, there were no Nigerians. There were clusters of people who would rise to power, either once or in a succession of dynasties, similarly to Eurasia. Calling them animalistic and less human can be disproven if you compare the culture to the Eurasian ones, and look at it from a historical perspective. This is only one of the multiple ways to disprove this claim.