Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?

[Over 9000]

Chimp subspecies display orders of magnitude more divergence than human populations. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030066

 

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?

I guess I have become irrelevant in this conversation. Again what does subspecies have to do with race? populations, clines, race whatever you want to call it they're same thing and there are measurable differences in intelligence between them.

 

Sure, this is what we are saying. They are just words for different levels or even the same levels in the same taxonomy.

Less than 100,000 years later and we're unquestionably a single globe-spanning gene pool.

 

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.

 

With constant intermixing in the meantime, there simply hasn't been time for enough genetic diversity to build up in any population to allow for anything beyond fairly superficial diverge in outward features as a result of both adaptation to immediately local conditions and some founder effect from the specific features of whatever band of humans initially migrated into a given region.

 

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.

 

It's just that our more diverse branches all died and theirs didn't.

 

Oh really? Can you explain this in more detail?

Edited October 31, 2016 by Over 9000

[Arete]

Lol, what?

 

I'm not expecting to change Over 9000's mind here, but I just wanted to point out how badly incorrect this interpretation of Fixation Index is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

 

1) Fst measures the extent to which a given set of genetic data supports the division of individuals into a priori groupings. It does not measure genetic divergence.

As an example, say we have two groups of organisms which are within each group, genetically identical. The two groups differ from each other at a single site. Our observed genetic divergence is perfectly explained by our clustering, resulting in a maximal Fst of 1. Despite this, our hypothetical study organism is remarkably low in genetic diversity.

 

2) Fst values are only comparable when the same genetic loci are being used to calculate the summary statistic. As Fst values will differ between different genetic loci and the same individuals, it is not appropriate to compare Fst's between different studies of different loci and different species. At this point, P-values become more useful than raw Fst values.

 

3) Genetic divergence is better assessed using average nucleotide substitutions per site, or d_A. While this suffers from similar locus specific biases as Fst, fortunately whole genome calculations for both the great apes and humans have been undertaken:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/nature12228.html

 

From Bowden et al.

 

"An equivalent analysis of the HapMap III African populations [27] showed that these African human populations are considerably less structured than the chimpanzee populations (Figures S3 and S4), as might be expected given the observation above that the chimpanzee populations are more differentiated even than continental human populations."

[dimreepr]

 

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?

 

 

Usually I wouldn't answer a 9 page thread by reading the title and one post, but WTF; skin colour is such a small genetic difference that the term race seems irrelevant, much like other human differences, most of which are sun/heat related so why would either affect mental acuity?

Edited October 31, 2016 by dimreepr

[Over 9000]

 

I'm not expecting to change Over 9000's mind here, but I just wanted to point out how badly incorrect this interpretation of Fixation Index is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

 

1) Fst measures the extent to which a given set of genetic data supports the division of individuals into a priori groupings. It does not measure genetic divergence.

As an example, say we have two groups of organisms which are within each group, genetically identical. The two groups differ from each other at a single site. Our observed genetic divergence is perfectly explained by our clustering, resulting in a maximal Fst of 1. Despite this, our hypothetical study organism is remarkably low in genetic diversity.

 

2) Fst values are only comparable when the same genetic loci are being used to calculate the summary statistic. As Fst values will differ between different genetic loci and the same individuals, it is not appropriate to compare Fst's between different studies of different loci and different species. At this point, P-values become more useful than raw Fst values.

 

3) Genetic divergence is better assessed using average nucleotide substitutions per site, or d_A. While this suffers from similar locus specific biases as Fst, fortunately whole genome calculations for both the great apes and humans have been undertaken:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/nature12228.html

 

From Bowden et al.

 

"An equivalent analysis of the HapMap III African populations [27] showed that these African human populations are considerably less structured than the chimpanzee populations (Figures S3 and S4), as might be expected given the observation above that the chimpanzee populations are more differentiated even than continental human populations."

 

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.

[Arete]

But the source you referenced that I responded to used Fst as a measure of divergence. After using STRUCTURE to validate taxa.

 

You chose to erroneously compare Rst values from the cited paper to Fst values other studies in humans. The cited paper also includes allele frequency data, migration estimates, inbreeding coefficients and PCA analysis.

[Over 9000]

You chose to erroneously compare Rst values from the cited paper to Fst values other studies in humans. The cited paper also includes allele frequency data, migration estimates, inbreeding coefficients and PCA analysis.

 

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.

[Arete]

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.

 

It's not irrelevant to use population genetics correctly - especially when it seems to be one of your fundamental criticims of everyone else.

 

Genetic divergences are used to invalidate taxa - see the implementation of BPP here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790313001085

 

There is no taxa bound in the literature. Full stop.

 

From two pages ago:

 

Another caveat is the vagueness of the term subspecies. "In practice, the subspecies may be a useful tool, but must be used with caution and pretty much requires familiarity with the particular species and what philosophy has been used to name the subspecies within that species."

 

One can make an argument that human populations represent subspecies under a particular philosophy or set of operands to suit a given purpose, although I would argue that clinal variation and long term, ongoing gene flow would stand in the way of any widespread acceptance of such a proposal.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Arete

[Over 9000]

It's not irrelevant to use population genetics correctly - especially when it seems to be one of your fundamental criticims of everyone else.

 

Genetic divergences are used to invalidate taxa - see the implementation of BPP here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790313001085

 

 

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.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Over 9000

[Arete]

Your argument is different. "Divergence is below random value X therefore no taxa"

 

Could you point out where that statement occurs, please?

[Over 9000]

Humans represent a recently derived species characterized by low genetic diversity, high gene flow and clinal variation. If you examined the genetic data, naive to the origin of the data I have no doubt that any competent population geneticist would define human populations as being divergent enough to warrant taxonomic description.

 

Chimp subspecies display orders of magnitude more divergence than human populations. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030066

 

Here.

[Arete]

Except those two statements are substantially different.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Arete

[Over 9000]

Except those to statements are substantially different.

 

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

[Arete]

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

 

This is a categorically false statement. The population genetic processes underpinned by genetic data are what is used to invalidate taxonomic assignment - not some arbitrary value.

[Over 9000]

This is a categorically false statement. The population genetic processes underpinned by genetic data are what is used to invalidate taxonomic assignment - not some arbitrary value.

 

 

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.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Over 9000

[CharonY]

 

I'm not expecting to change Over 9000's mind here, but I just wanted to point out how badly incorrect this interpretation of Fixation Index is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index

 

1) Fst measures the extent to which a given set of genetic data supports the division of individuals into a priori groupings. It does not measure genetic divergence.

As an example, say we have two groups of organisms which are within each group, genetically identical. The two groups differ from each other at a single site. Our observed genetic divergence is perfectly explained by our clustering, resulting in a maximal Fst of 1. Despite this, our hypothetical study organism is remarkably low in genetic diversity.

 

2) Fst values are only comparable when the same genetic loci are being used to calculate the summary statistic. As Fst values will differ between different genetic loci and the same individuals, it is not appropriate to compare Fst's between different studies of different loci and different species. At this point, P-values become more useful than raw Fst values.

 

3) Genetic divergence is better assessed using average nucleotide substitutions per site, or d_A. While this suffers from similar locus specific biases as Fst, fortunately whole genome calculations for both the great apes and humans have been undertaken:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750478/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/full/nature12228.html

 

From Bowden et al.

 

"An equivalent analysis of the HapMap III African populations [27] showed that these African human populations are considerably less structured than the chimpanzee populations (Figures S3 and S4), as might be expected given the observation above that the chimpanzee populations are more differentiated even than continental human populations."

 

 

As an additional caveat, especially in ecological studies people sometimes use Fst and Gst interchangeably, which is especially problematic in cases with high heterozygosity.

[Arete]

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.

 

 

In my publications, I generally apply the generalized lineage concept which defines species as separately evolving metapopulations, and defines the properties of metapopulations as operational criteria. I generally do not use subspecies, as the definitions thereof tend to be specific to organismal groups and largely a matter of convenience. For e.g. Trypanosoma brucei brucei and T. b. rhodesiense differ at only a single gene in the genome - however that gene confers human infectivity, meaning despite no evolutionary basis for the distinction, clinically one can separate them into a "harmless" subspecies and a "lethal" subspecies based on the presence/absence of a band on an electrophoresis gel. I tend to oppose their seperation, as it implies that they are separate populations, rather than a single population with a circulating, horizontally tranferred, functional gene of importance.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Arete

[Over 9000]

 

 

In my publications, I generally apply the generalized lineage concept which defines species as separately evolving metapopulations, and defines the properties of metapopulations as operational criteria. I generally do not use subspecies, as the definitions thereof tend to be specific to organismal groups and largely a matter of convenience. For e.g. Trypanosoma brucei brucei and T. b. rhodesiense differ at only a single gene in the genome - however that gene confers human infectivity, meaning despite no evolutionary basis for the distinction, clinically one can separate them into a "harmless" subspecies and a "lethal" subspecies based on the presence/absence of a band on an electrophoresis gel. I tend to oppose their seperation, as it implies that they are separate populations, rather than a single population with a circulating, horizontally tranferred, functional gene of importance.

 

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.

[Arete]

 

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.

 

The generalized lineage concept doesn't have anything to do with monophyly, aside from the fact that reciprocal monophyly may or may not be an operational criteria for delimiting species in certain taxonomic groups.

 

Given I currently work on microbes, I'm well versed in their taxonomy. Despite horizontal transfer, most genetic material is vertically inherited. Bacterial populations evolve in a linear trajectory - hence lineages still apply. A population can still haven an independent evolutionary trajectory in the face of gene flow.

 

What exactly is a "normal" subspecies? As previously stated they tend to be categories of convenience specific to particular organismal groups.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Arete

[Over 9000]

What exactly is a "normal" subspecies? As previously stated they tend to be categories of convenience specific to particular organismal groups.

 

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

[Ophiolite]

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

That doesn't seem very rigorous.

 

I share my ancestry with tomatoes. Does that mean we are subpecies?

 

What degree of genomic similarity determines the taxon level an organism will be assigned to?

 

The aptness of these two questions suggests your definition is not rigorous, but sloppy.

[Moontanman]

 

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.

So since I do not agree with you I am a race "denialist"? Please define the term Race denialist...

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

Sure, this is what we are saying. They are just words for different levels or even the same levels in the same taxonomy.

So what the hell is the issue? why are these twinks arguing over subspecies variation anyway? It is irrelevant to racial discrepancies and an obfuscation obviously generated by the emotional fallacies these kinds of discussions tend to generate. Do they have any other argument besides fst rhetoric? It seems to be their only argument, as if relative genetic homogeneity and clinal variations could actually disprove the race concept. Again, it's a pathetic attempt at obfuscating the matter at hand and distracts from the real argument itself: that between geographic populations there are genetic and environmental differences that manifest in phenotypic variations of g. It doesn't matter if I call them race or not, it doesn't freaking matter where I draw the line northern/ lighter skinned populations will almost always have higher IQs relative to their darker more southern counterparts.

[hypervalent_iodine]

So what the hell is the issue? why are these twinks arguing over subspecies variation anyway? It is irrelevant to racial discrepancies and an obfuscation obviously generated by the emotional fallacies these kinds of discussions tend to generate. Do they have any other argument besides fst rhetoric? It seems to be their only argument, as if relative genetic homogeneity and clinal variations could actually disprove the race concept. Again, it's a pathetic attempt at obfuscating the matter at hand and distracts from the real argument itself: that between geographic populations there are genetic and environmental differences that manifest in phenotypic variations of g. It doesn't matter if I call them race or not, it doesn't freaking matter where I draw the line northern/ lighter skinned populations will almost always have higher IQs relative to their darker more southern counterparts.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

It matters because the question in the title has to do with the evolution of race, and there is debate within this thread as to whether race is a construct of society or of biology. The science on the subject is very much in support of the former.

 

Incidentally, I am happy to suspend you as well if you continue down the path of insulting members rather than offering up intelligent discourse on the matter.

 

Do not respond to this mod note within the thread. Please report the post or PM a member of staff.

[Over 9000]

So what the hell is the issue? why are these twinks arguing over subspecies variation anyway? It is irrelevant to racial discrepancies and an obfuscation obviously generated by the emotional fallacies these kinds of discussions tend to generate. Do they have any other argument besides fst rhetoric? It seems to be their only argument, as if relative genetic homogeneity and clinal variations could actually disprove the race concept. Again, it's a pathetic attempt at obfuscating the matter at hand and distracts from the real argument itself: that between geographic populations there are genetic and environmental differences that manifest in phenotypic variations of g. It doesn't matter if I call them race or not, it doesn't freaking matter where I draw the line northern/ lighter skinned populations will almost always have higher IQs relative to their darker more southern counterparts.

Exactly. It's a purely emotional position based on nothing but they need a thin veneer of "science sounding stuff" to obfuscate that.

 

So since I do not agree with you I am a race "denialist"? Please define the term Race denialist...

Well, cmiiw, you think normal biological division doesn't apply to humans. What would you like me to call that position?

 

That doesn't seem very rigorous.

 

I share my ancestry with tomatoes. Does that mean we are subpecies?

 

What degree of genomic similarity determines the taxon level an organism will be assigned to?

 

The aptness of these two questions suggests your definition is not rigorous, but sloppy.

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.

 

Hereafter we shall be compelled to acknowledge that the only distinction between species and well-marked varieties is, that the latter are known, or believed, to be connected at the present day by intermediate gradations, whereas species were formerly thus connected.

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

Edited November 1, 2016 by Over 9000

[Memammal]

Again, it's a pathetic attempt at obfuscating the matter at hand and distracts from the real argument itself: that between geographic populations there are genetic and environmental differences that manifest in phenotypic variations of g. It doesn't matter if I call them race or not, it doesn't freaking matter where I draw the line northern/ lighter skinned populations will almost always have higher IQs relative to their darker more southern counterparts.

Talking of obfuscating... So what are you implying exactly? That the same environmental differences between the north and south that contributed towards different shades of skin colours also (almost always?) affected IQ's? What should we read into the relevance of IQ's? For me it is as (ir)relevant as skin colour...nada, zilch.

PS. I don't quite get the question of the poll - Do you believe there are racial differences in intelligence? Gosh, that is such an unscientific question to start with?