Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 10582934_834081439970054_814428867096361094_o.jpg (191KB, 1139x854px) Image search:
[Google]
191KB, 1139x854px
Can someone translate this abstract for me?
>Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
>The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations. Both findings can be obtained from the same data set, using the same number of polymorphic loci. This article explains why. Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare ω to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than ω because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but ω remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race.
>>
maybe >>>/pol/ can :^)
>>
>>8470353
Why do you /pollacks do this?
>>
>>8470571
whats a pollack?
>>
>>8470577
Those from /pol call themselves pollacks.
>>
>>8470591
but OP didn't...
>>
>>8470353
Sometimes people of different races can be genetically more similar than people of the same race.
With enough genetic information, you can accurately classify what race someone is.
They can prove this with >muh statistics
However, the more loci (gene markers) that they use (i.e. the more data they get from each individual), the more clear the distinction between races is
>>
>>8470395
Seems to suggest the opposite of the /pol/ narrative.
>>
File: human races.jpg (287KB, 1115x835px) Image search:
[Google]
287KB, 1115x835px
>>8470353
>>
>>8470616
No, it basically says that studies that claim that races are all genetically similar, to the degree that sometimes blacks and whites are more similar than white to a different group of whites is just based on insufficient data, and therefore shit like
>>8470621
is factually incorrect.
If you use 10 markers, there is a huge overlap in terms of which race has the same polymorphism
If you use 100 markers, this decreases
If you use 1000 markers then it essentially drops to 0.
Basically with enough genetic information (and 1000 markers is not that much nowadays) you can close to 100% say what race a person is.
>>
>>8470621
this diagram goes completely opposite ways with the out-of-africa theory
>>
>>8470591
Only /pol/esmokers call themselves that.
>>8470353
It talks about accurately differentiating between populations when using certain statistical methods. As an example it deals with certain often studied though naively defined "populations".
>>8470613
>>8470629
>race
Nice b8, but the paper clearly talks about how using ancestry and other traditional methods (e.g. race, which is based on physical appearance) to make deductions about human populations is retarded.
>>
>>8470634
Africa has more genetic diversity than other regions. The continent is huge and full of countless different peoples.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2