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

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

You would have to define "g". If IQ was a measure of anything other then pattern recognition, then maybe it would mean something.

g is general ability. Individuals who score high on IQ tests tend to do better in all aspects of mental ability compared to lower IQ people.

 

I disregarded an Fst cutoff value (Templeton's parroted everywhere "25%" nonsense) as being necessary to satisfy a taxonomic distinction. Many subspecies are well below this. The poster also claimed Africans were more genetically diverse, which is a separate point (and also something parroted without looking at the figures it seems). Whether or not they are more diverse they still constitute a natural division as they are more similar to each other than to Eurasians. And higher African diversity is something of a myth, as the paper I referenced covers.

The paper doesn't say Africans are less diverse it in fact says they ARE more diverse the only difference being they think the extra variation is due to admixture. It could go both ways though, for example it's hard to tell whether the amount of dna we share in common with other populations is due to admixture or divergence. It actually confirms my assertion that Africans are genotypically diverse but not necessarily phenotypically diverse.

 

"Although Africa is the most genetically diverse region in the world, we provide evidence for relatively modest differentiation among populations representing the major sub-populations in SSA, consistent with recent population movement and expansion across the region beginning around 5,000 years ago—the Bantu expansion"

[Over 9000]

The paper doesn't say Africans are less diverse it in fact says they ARE more diverse the only difference being they think the extra variation is due to admixture. It could go both ways though, for example it's hard to tell whether the amount of dna we share in common with other populations is due to admixture or divergence. It actually confirms my assertion that Africans are genotypically diverse but not necessarily phenotypically diverse.

 

"Although Africa is the most genetically diverse region in the world, we provide evidence for relatively modest differentiation among populations representing the major sub-populations in SSA, consistent with recent population movement and expansion across the region beginning around 5,000 years ago—the Bantu expansion"

 

Well yeah, I said it was "something" of a myth, referring to ridiculous claims that Eurasians are a "subset" of Africans and the like. If you read that paper African diversity is speculated to be the result of Eurasian migrations into Africa. EIther way, it doesn't impugn the race concept.

[Raider5678]

g is general ability. Individuals who score high on IQ tests tend to do better in all aspects of mental ability compared to lower IQ people.

 

The paper doesn't say Africans are less diverse it in fact says they ARE more diverse the only difference being they think the extra variation is due to admixture. It could go both ways though, for example it's hard to tell whether the amount of dna we share in common with other populations is due to admixture or divergence. It actually confirms my assertion that Africans are genotypically diverse but not necessarily phenotypically diverse.

 

"Although Africa is the most genetically diverse region in the world, we provide evidence for relatively modest differentiation among populations representing the major sub-populations in SSA, consistent with recent population movement and expansion across the region beginning around 5,000 years ago—the Bantu expansion"

All humans originated from Africa. Fact or no?

 

If all humans came from Africa, the first humans were Black. Fact or no?

 

Over 5 thousand years, is it possible people in Africa could have developed darker, "Black" skin?

If you answer these 3 questions they lay down a foundation for or against your argument.

[Over 9000]

If you answer these 3 questions they lay down a foundation for or against your argument.

 

Precisely what argument do you suppose he has? Just so we are all on the same page.

[Raider5678]

 

Precisely what argument do you suppose he has? Just so we are all on the same page.

Based on his posts, what he is saying, and evidence hes using to back his argument he seems to have taken the following premises:

 

Race is a Biological difference in the DNA: Not just skin

This difference also has Mental Traits that differ between said races.

[Over 9000]

Based on his posts, what he is saying, and evidence hes using to back his argument he seems to have taken the following premises:

 

Race is a Biological difference in the DNA: Not just skin

This difference also has Mental Traits that differ between said races.

 

I don't see how answering yes or no to your questions has any bearing on that. We don't know the origin of humans or what color they were. Neanderthal admixture is certain so no we definitely don't originate from Africa. We're not even sure sapiens sapiens came from Africa. Even if we did, and the first humans were a certain color, why would this prove modern humans have the same mental traits?

Edited October 24, 2016 by Over 9000

[Raider5678]

 

I don't see how answering yes or no to your questions has any bearing on that. We don't know the origin of humans or what color they were. Neanderthal admixture is certain so no we definitely don't originate from Africa. We're not even sure sapiens sapiens came from Africa. Even if we did, and the first humans were a certain color, why would this prove modern humans have the same mental traits?

From his other arguments he was making, you can refute what he was saying by answering these questions. And may I ask you, why you think Humans did not originate in Africa? I have had a long standing belief that this is where they originate, but if its flawed please explain why.

[Over 9000]

From his other arguments he was making, you can refute what he was saying by answering these questions.

 

Please explain.

 

And may I ask you, why you think Humans did not originate in Africa? I have had a long standing belief that this is where they originate, but if its flawed please explain why.

 

Why don't you open a thread about it?

[Raider5678]

 

Please explain.

 

 

Why don't you open a thread about it?

He has made a claim that different races are genotypically diverse, but not phenotypically diverse. If he agrees that Humans originated from Africa, and that the first Humans were black, then you can conclude that other "Races" Came down from that genetic line. Which would lead to a strong argument against that fact that we are genetically diverse, as well as his claims that Africans are more diverse.

 

By your response to my question I'm assuming you have no proof or any reasonable concept as to why humans did not originate from Africa your self or no?

[Over 9000]

He has made a claim that different races are genotypically diverse, but not phenotypically diverse. If he agrees that Humans originated from Africa, and that the first Humans were black, then you can conclude that other "Races" Came down from that genetic line. Which would lead to a strong argument against that fact that we are genetically diverse, as well as his claims that Africans are more diverse.

 

By your response to my question I'm assuming you have no proof or any reasonable concept as to why humans did not originate from Africa your self or no?

 

You do understand that having a common ancestor at some point in the past does not mean species/subspecies are genetically identical at a later time? That species/subspecies diverge over time despite having a common origin? So, no, sorry, but it's a nonsense argument.

 

Eurasians are genetically distinct versus Africans. This is a simple fact we can observe by looking at the genome. One point you can consider, non-Africans have significant Neanderthal admixture.

 

It doesn't really matter for the purposes of this thread whether the first individual we would call sapiens sapiens lived in Africa or Eurasia ~100,000 years ago. I have some thoughts on the matter, but it's off topic. Feel free to open a thread about it.

[EgalitarianJay]

He has made a claim that different races are genotypically diverse, but not phenotypically diverse. If he agrees that Humans originated from Africa, and that the first Humans were black, then you can conclude that other "Races" Came down from that genetic line. Which would lead to a strong argument against that fact that we are genetically diverse, as well as his claims that Africans are more diverse.

 

By your response to my question I'm assuming you have no proof or any reasonable concept as to why humans did not originate from Africa your self or no?

 

Hello. In case you want to read a thread where we had a good discussion about the origins of modern humanity and whether they originated in Africa check out this thread from Political Forum.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/374443-geographical-origins-modern-humans.html

 

I don't think the origins of humans in Africa means that humans didn't evolve in to different races or don't differ in mental characteristics. For instance J. Philippe Rushton accepted the Out of Africa Model of Human Migration and included it as part of his narrative for how humans came to evolve and become more intelligent in different regions. This is a good video to watch about that discussion.

 

 

 

The evidence from skeletal remains and DNA points quite clearly to an African origin and the genetic diversity of modern humans indicates that non-African genetic diversity is a subset of African diversity with African populations being more genetically diverse due to being older (an older population has more time to develop more genetic mutations resulting in more diversity). Neanderthal admixture doesn't seem to be important. Modern humans in Africa also interbred with archaic humans they just didn't interbreed with Neanderthal because Neanderthal evolved in Europe and Asia after their ancestors left Africa.

 

The argument against racial differences in intelligence and the existence of biological races is that we descend from a single evolutionary lineage with minimal genetic divergence and that all human populations share the same mental characteristics as part of their common evolutionary history with no genetic changes resulting in mental differences and no scientific basis to think otherwise.

 

Now regarding IQ and g I wouldn't say that IQ is unimportant because it can be used as a useful tool for measuring a person's mental ability. IQ isn't everything but it is predictive power. You can measure a child's IQ and predict that some kids will be smarter than others when they reach adulthood which has implications for academic and professional success. As for g which stands for general intelligence it is a statistical construct in psychometrics used to evaluate how cognitively demanding (g-loaded) certain tests are. IQ measures g and intelligence is highly heritable but that doesn't mean that intelligence differs between populations for genetic reasons. Environmental explanations are just as plausible and given the scientific evidence appears to be the most parsimonious explanation.

[Over 9000]

The evidence from skeletal remains and DNA points quite clearly to an African origin and the genetic diversity of modern humans indicates that non-African genetic diversity is a subset of African diversity with African populations being more genetically diverse due to being older (an older population has more time to develop more genetic mutations resulting in more diversity).

 

Eurasian genetic diversity certainly isn't a subset of African diversity. See eg.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000500

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7534/full/nature13997.html

Also, how can Eurasian genetics be a subset of African if it includes significant Neanderthal admixture?

Your extreme claim is simply false, although I know it was stated on PBS.

 

Neanderthal admixture doesn't seem to be important.

 

Any reason?

 

The argument against racial differences in intelligence and the existence of biological races is that we descend from a single evolutionary lineage with minimal genetic divergence and that all human populations share the same mental characteristics as part of their common evolutionary history with no genetic changes resulting in mental differences and no scientific basis to think otherwise.

 

That's a nonsense argument. Why would evolution stop for 100,000 years? Even longer, due to archaic admixture. Your article of faith has almost exactly zero chance of being true. Either way, your "argument" proves nothing.

 

Environmental explanations are just as plausible and given the scientific evidence appears to be the most parsimonious explanation.

 

Can you let us know which environmental effects cause the consistent global pattern?

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

EIther way, it doesn't impugn the race concept.

I didn't say it did, I am probably one of your only "allies" in this forum.

 

 

All humans originated from Africa. Fact or no?

 

If all humans came from Africa, the first humans were Black. Fact or no?

 

Over 5 thousand years, is it possible people in Africa could have developed darker, "Black" skin?

If you answer these 3 questions they lay down a foundation for or against your argument.

1. Yes

 

2. maybe. Depends on how you define black. If you mean negroid, then no, most humans before expansion of africa were capoid or australoid in morphology.

 

3. sure?

 

 

I don't see how answering yes or no to your questions has any bearing on that. We don't know the origin of humans or what color they were. Neanderthal admixture is certain so no we definitely don't originate from Africa. We're not even sure sapiens sapiens came from Africa. Even if we did, and the first humans were a certain color, why would this prove modern humans have the same mental traits?

What? Neanderthal dna does not discredit the out of africa model. It's basically a fact that we are from africa. Behavioral and anatomical modernity started there.

 

 

He has made a claim that different races are genotypically diverse, but not phenotypically diverse.

No, I said blacks are more genotypically diverse but possibly less phenotypically diverse.

 

 

 

The argument against racial differences in intelligence and the existence of biological races is that we descend from a single evolutionary lineage with minimal genetic divergence and that all human populations share the same mental characteristics as part of their common evolutionary history with no genetic changes resulting in mental differences and no scientific basis to think otherwise.

 

Environmental explanations are just as plausible and given the scientific evidence appears to be the most parsimonious explanation.

I have already seen that video, genetic mutation rates increased tremendously about 40,000 years ago, and admixture from archaic populations would have added more to variances we see. It's correlation without causation on both sides you cannot prove that environmental explanations are better suited for racial differences, especially since the gap has not decreased. Throwing money at a problem like this won't fix it and new studies regarding shared and non-shared environment put another wrench in the nurture model. Non shared environment seems to be the major influence on plastic behavior. Myopia has a nice relationship with IQ and it's genes as well.

 

Any reason?

 

Because it's near completely irrelevant to where our species originates from.

[Over 9000]

I didn't say it did, I am probably one of your only "allies" in this forum.

 

I know you didn't. Raider5678 said it was a "strong argument" against you. I was showing how it was a totally failed argument.

 

What? Neanderthal dna does not discredit the out of africa model. It's basically a fact that we are from africa. Behavioral and anatomical modernity started there.

 

I brought up Neanderthals in the context of Raider5678's argument "humans came from Africa therefore humans are identical". Whether modern humans arose in Africa: I don't know. I keep saying this. The evidence for it is actually pretty sketchy and getting weaker. But it's really off topic.

 

Because it's near completely irrelevant to where our species originates from.

 

If Eurasians have maintained 2-4% of Neanderthal DNA over the last 100,000 years then my guess is that it's doing something useful. 2-4% of the genome is not what I would call "insignificant". Either way, we really don't know, so the poster who said "Neanderthal admixture doesn't seem to be important" is just making stuff up.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Over 9000

[Delta1212]

The most you can say is that the Neanderthal DNA in question probably isn't doing anything harmful. It doesn't have to be doing anything useful to maintain a presence in the population. It just can't be getting too much in the way.

[Over 9000]

The most you can say is that the Neanderthal DNA in question probably isn't doing anything harmful. It doesn't have to be doing anything useful to maintain a presence in the population. It just can't be getting too much in the way.

 

Why are you so sure it's not doing anything useful?

[Delta1212]

I'm not. I was responding to the fact that you are guessing that it does something useful because it has been maintained in the population.

 

The mere fact that some DNA has been retained in a population is not actually evidence that it does anything useful. It is, at most, evidence that it doesn't do anything terribly harmful. It doesn't say one thing or another about a trait being beneficial vs neutral or even weakly harmful to the point that the detrimental effect is overwhelmed by noise and persists as a result of drift rather than selection pressures.

 

Wuthout additional evidence, there's no basis for choosing one of those three possibilities over any of the others except for personal preference as to what one would like the outcome to be.

[Over 9000]

I'm not. I was responding to the fact that you are guessing that it does something useful because it has been maintained in the population.

 

The mere fact that some DNA has been retained in a population is not actually evidence that it does anything useful. It is, at most, evidence that it doesn't do anything terribly harmful. It doesn't say one thing or another about a trait being beneficial vs neutral or even weakly harmful to the point that the detrimental effect is overwhelmed by noise and persists as a result of drift rather than selection pressures.

 

Wuthout additional evidence, there's no basis for choosing one of those three possibilities over any of the others except for personal preference as to what one would like the outcome to be.

 

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.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Over 9000

[Delta1212]

You realize that slightly less than 10% of the human genome is actively involved in coding for proteins in some way, and while there are indications that some of the remaining genetic material does something, quite a bit of it seems to be just sort of there. 2-4% of your DNA doing nothing wouldn't be weird. The actual percentage is far higher.

 

Irrespective of that fact, however, a gene doesn't have to be non-functional in order to be evolutionarily neutral. It can have a physical effect that simply has no impact on survival or is even weakly negative to a point where it doesn't impact survival enough to overcome the inherent randomness of of the system to weed itself out of the population.

[Over 9000]

You realize that slightly less than 10% of the human genome is actively involved in coding for proteins in some way, and while there are indications that some of the remaining genetic material does something, quite a bit of it seems to be just sort of there. 2-4% of your DNA doing nothing wouldn't be weird. The actual percentage is far higher.

 

Irrespective of that fact, however, a gene doesn't have to be non-functional in order to be evolutionarily neutral. It can have a physical effect that simply has no impact on survival or is even weakly negative to a point where it doesn't impact survival enough to overcome the inherent randomness of of the system to weed itself out of the population.

 

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.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Over 9000

[meLothedestroyerofworlds]

If Eurasians have maintained 2-4% of Neanderthal DNA over the last 100,000 years then my guess is that it's doing something useful. 2-4% of the genome is not what I would call "insignificant". Either way, we really don't know, so the poster who said "Neanderthal admixture doesn't seem to be important" is just making stuff up.

but what does that have to do with which continent our species is from?

 

 

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.

Wait, are you suggesting neanderthal admixture is why there are racial IQ discrepancies? neanderthals were less intelligent than us and I'm pretty sure Depression has a negative correlation with IQ. The only thing positively associated with it is a more realistic outcome on life, but being depressed isn't the same as being realistic. It is still a misrepresentation of life itself. Life is shitty but not that shitty and life is good but not that good.

 

"What people may be observing is that there is a mild "U" shape with regarding IQ and suicide[1]. What people are also observing is that high IQ children and adults are more likely to be referred to or get therapy for depression, so there is a selection effect[2]. My own speculation on this is that high IQ people may be better at communicating their feelings (so your more likely to hear them say "I'm depressed"), have better, more educated support networks who might suggest to them that they are depressed, and healthcare to pay for treatment. Or they may be more likely to read books and recognize their symptoms.

 

 

All measures of achievement were negatively related to both external locus of control and depression. The negative relationship also held for IQ, although it was not as strong." [3]

 

Several studies show a negative correlation between intelligence and depression, but it is not clear why. We present evidence that intelligence may buffer the depressogenic [depression causing] effects of stressful life events, which are thought to be causes of depression."[4]"

 

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481989

 

http://positivedisintegration.com/Neihart1999.pdf

 

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1980-28826-001

 

 

 

[CharonY]

 

Oh, I read past that point, thanks. I read all of the comments too. They indeed cover other subjects than the one I used it to reference, such as the "counting races" race denial fallacy.

 

I simply referenced that to present another view on Templeton's "25% Fst" which most of your other post seemed to be based on. Are you agreeing that was wrong now?

 

If so we can happily change the subject to "whether we can say how many items there are in a branching taxonomy".

 

I disregarded an Fst cutoff value (Templeton's parroted everywhere "25%" nonsense) as being necessary to satisfy a taxonomic distinction. Many subspecies are well below this. The poster also claimed Africans were more genetically diverse, which is a separate point (and also something parroted without looking at the figures it seems). Whether or not they are more diverse they still constitute a natural division as they are more similar to each other than to Eurasians. And higher African diversity is something of a myth, as the paper I referenced covers.

 

I am not sure why you like to focus on this aspect so much, as it is only one aspect (similar to why outside of online fora Lewontin's fallacy is rarely mentioned), especially as the 25% are meant to illustrate how arbitrary it is but anyhow:

- What you may be confused about regarding the link in sub-species is not that it is used as a hard demarcation, it is most assuredly not. The reason bringing it up (despite its wonkiness) is to show that the divergence in humans is so low that it would fall outside common parameters when we look at humans as we do with other species. I.e. it is done by looking what are assumed to be sub-species, and then calculate Fst (or other measures of variance). In case where differences are >~25% they could be classified as sub-species, with much lower numbers there is usually a discussion of whether they are the same population (due to extensive gene flow), or, depending on the specific research questions, whether more marker are needed to separate local population. I.e. regardless how you look at it, genetic measures do not magically separate groups neatly. You do have to make categories to do so. To wit, in Chimpanzees sub-species routinely ~30% FSt is observed, between Gorillas less than that (just to provide an example with close relatives). If you look through literature you will hardly find any categorization into different populations. In fact, you will also find that there is no formal definition of subspecies at all, only conventions that are used and certainly this is not a specific issue surrounding humans.

To re-iterate: subspecies usage in biology is mostly used as a categorization tool, most often to separate geographic populations for a variety of purposes. There are different means to do so and the main approach is to find a measure that makes them different enough for the intended purposes. As such they are not a strict taxonomic unit, nor are they treated as such. This usage is quite contentious in humans for two reasons: a) low overall variance which makes it necessary to create very small populations in order to obtain similar accuracy as commonly used (whether justified or not).

 

And, as we know, in humans much less than that. Thus, what it means is that the demarcation especially using more genetic information rather than specific markers in humans, is extremely fuzzy. If we still wanted to use it, we would end up with mostly African sub-populations as the most accurate units. Again, all definitions below the species (and to some degree species itself, especially in prokaryotes) is a matter of convention and usefulness and not a biological trait.

 

You have asked earlier what a biological category is and I do think it is actually a very good question. The simple answer is that there is little in nature that forms discrete categories. Certainly not in biology. You could argue that the units are cells, but then we got quite a different between eu-and prokaryotes, for example. Truth is that most categories are made so that we can deal and quantify with units of convenience.

 

The cited paper do not refute the expected higher variance in African populations. Could you cite specifically what claim you want to make? Or let us take a step back, what is the overall claim that you want to make?

That there are distinct human sub-species that will emerge once we start looking at genomic data? Which groups would they be? How close would be the boundaries between these groups? Why is it something different than geographic populations?

[Over 9000]

Wait, are you suggesting neanderthal admixture is why there are racial IQ discrepancies?

 

I wrote:

 

Perhaps they also contribute to IQ differences?

 

I am not sure why you like to focus on this aspect so much, as it is only one aspect (similar to why outside of online fora Lewontin's fallacy is rarely mentioned), especially as the 25% are meant to illustrate how arbitrary it is but anyhow:

- What you may be confused about regarding the link in sub-species is not that it is used as a hard demarcation, it is most assuredly not.

 

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.

 

Absolute nonsense. Templeton's "25% Fst" is an ad hoc boundary used to deny the human race concept. It's based on a misreading of the 75% rule for phenetic classification of hybrids in subspecies contact zones, see eg. Smith 1997 who Templeton references. There is nothing about Fst. Feel free to show me this "25% Fst" being applied to subspecies outside Templeton applying it to humans. I'll be happy to go over this in a lot more referenced detail if you want.

 

Are we clear that Templeton is wrong about "25%"?

To re-iterate: subspecies usage in biology is mostly used as a categorization tool, most often to separate geographic populations for a variety of purposes. There are different means to do so and the main approach is to find a measure that makes them different enough for the intended purposes. As such they are not a strict taxonomic unit, nor are they treated as such. This usage is quite contentious in humans for two reasons: a) low overall variance which makes it necessary to create very small populations in order to obtain similar accuracy as commonly used (whether justified or not).

 

They are as strict as species, being recorded in the ICZN.

You have asked earlier what a biological category is and I do think it is actually a very good question. The simple answer is that there is little in nature that forms discrete categories. Certainly not in biology. You could argue that the units are cells, but then we got quite a different between eu-and prokaryotes, for example. Truth is that most categories are made so that we can deal and quantify with units of convenience.

 

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.

The cited paper do not refute the expected higher variance in African populations. Could you cite specifically what claim you want to make? Or let us take a step back, what is the overall claim that you want to make?

That there are distinct human sub-species that will emerge once we start looking at genomic data? Which groups would they be? How close would be the boundaries between these groups? Why is it something different than geographic populations?

 

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?

 

but what does that have to do with which continent our species is from?

 

The question was whether Neanderthal DNA was doing anything.

Just a few quick comments, Lewontin's fallacy is not a logical fallacy, but the title of a paper written by Edwards.

 

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.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Over 9000

[CharonY]

I said "convention". You said hard. Please specify the definition you heard. I will address the ancestry bit in a little while. Yet it does not make sense to claim that African share more ancestry than Eurasians considering our current model of migration.

 

Unless you think that there has been massive genetic flow in African populations and very little outside one would expect a higher variance in the original population rather than in the bottleneck that went out of Africa.

 

The image that you showed was from a 2002 paper. I think and the authors used a sorting algorithm into k clusters. They did address (iirc) that more groups could have resulted in higher accuracy, but would also probably require more sampling depth. If you think that there groups would form themselves the more markers with increasing n you sample, then you misunderstood how these approaches work.

Also, what fou you think is the screenshot of the table saying? Also, since for some reasons you think that allele frequencies and their variation are not good indicators of ancestry, what is the precise measure that you propose? Aside from using specific loci that is.

 

Edited as I am too old to use a tablet properly.

Edited October 26, 2016 by CharonY

[Over 9000]

I said "convention". You said hard. Please specify the definition you heard. I will address the ancestry bit in a little while. Yet it does not make sense to claim that African share more ancestry than Eurasians considering our current model of migration. Unless you think that there has been massive generic flow in African populations and very little outside. I think the image was from a 2002 paper and the authors used a spring algorithm into k clusters. They did address (iirc) that more groups could have resulted in higher accuracy, but would also probably require more sampling depth. If you think that there groups would firm themselves the more markers with increasing n you sample, then you misunderstood how these approaches work.

 

Also, what fou you think is the screenshot of the table saying? Also, since for some reasons you think that allele frequencies and their variation are not good indicators of ancestry, what is the precise measure that you propose? Aside from using specific loci that is.

 

Are you drunk? Please try to write coherently.

Also, since for some reasons you think that allele frequencies and their variation are not good indicators of ancestry, what is the precise measure that you propose? Aside from using specific loci that is.

 

Yes, your claim that higher diversity in Africans invalidates a taxonomic distinction is false. Race is defined by shared ancestry or genetic similarity.

 

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

Edited October 26, 2016 by Over 9000