Isn't inequality between races basically a scientific inevitability?

>>8740466
It's only a hypothesis, unless you have conclusive genetic proof about other """races""" (if you can define them to begin with) intelligence (define intelligence), then there's literally nothing to talk about.

>>8740466
I like the American negro.

Yes because cows
Also sheep
Lamb...
Etc

we have this thread every day

>>8740471
There have been studies in population genetics that show people fro different racial groups (defined as immediate continental ancestry) are always more similar genetically to their own group members than to those of other groups is enough polymorphisms are considered

>>8740483

I only know a bit, but it seems credible and widely accepted

What do you think?

>>8740471
The hypothesis is that different races differ genetically

For example: Are White people and Black people genetically different due to their different racial heritage

>>8740493
I think you should fuck off

Wow no one on here has any info?

>>8740466
Why would they have diverged, though
There's no situation where being more intelligent wouldn't be evolutionarily advantageous, on top of which the human race is incredibly inbred
Any two birds of the same species you see in your garden are likely to have more genetic differences than any two humans
Besides which, 'intelligence' depends greatly on culture, and if you're measuring it via standardised testing then it's affected by an absurd amount of arbitrary shit like how recent your last meal was, what it was, how much water you've drunk, what time of day it is, etc.

File: image.png (22KB, 900x855px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 900x855px

>>8740471
>conclusive genetic proof about other """races""" (if you can define them to begin with)
Wow, an anonymous 4chan user proved Darwin wrong

>>8740512
Triggered?

>>8740466
I don't know the details regarding every race or ethnic group in the world but it's pretty well established by now in scientific literature (non-liberal literature at least) that those of African descent are genetically prone to being physical geniuses. By that same token, their average IQ (if you want to consider this a valid metric) is on average lower by 10 points than their Caucasian counterparts. The real question you should ask yourself is: does it really matter?

>>8740529
Wow, an anonymous 4chan user doesn't fucking understand Darwin at all, let alone the hundreds of years of genetics research between him and us

>>8740521
>There's no situation where being more intelligent wouldn't be evolutionarily advantageous, on top of which the human race is incredibly inbred

Right, but there are situations that require more intelligence than others

Surviving a snowy winter requires more planning, self control and abstract thinking than survivng in Africa where hunting and gathering are viable year round options and resources are plentiful

Sure, you need intelligence in BOTH situations, but in the first situation, the more intelligent members of society are more likely to survive and reproduce

>Any two birds of the same species you see in your garden are likely to have more genetic differences than any two humans

That's true in a sense, but not totally

It is true that human races are more similar than most animal species that have sub-races, but not all

For instance, Elk have a variety of sub-species, yet they are just about as genetically dissimilar from each other as the human races are

>'intelligence' depends greatly on culture, and if you're measuring it via standardised testing

Actually, intelligence does not depend on culture, many standardized IQ tests are used regulary around the world

For example, if IQ tests where biased, how could Chinese students score higher than the white students whose cultures designed the tests?

They couldn;t if the tests were biased, yet that is not the case

Intelligence is not variable over your lifespan

From the end of Adolescence to the onset of old age IQ is remarkably stable, this is a basic, consensus fact in cognitive science

File: slide175darwin.jpg (129KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 576x432px

>>8740562
Are you 16?

If Darwin didn't believe in the races of man, why did he right about how the weaker races would be replaced by the stronger races?

>>8740489
So, populations. Race is much too general a classification, unless you're bundling a bunch of different populations into a "race" category incorrectly. This is the reason populations genetics has supplanted racial pseudoscience, because populations are very different from each other, and by populations, we don't refer to billions of people.

>>8740497
Nobody argues that. People argue that there is something inherent to the ancestry of certain populations that makes their "intelligence", whatever that means, different from each other. There is no genetic proof however, ergo it's meaningless to talk about it. A thread on this should be made when relevant genetic research comes out.

>>8740591
Actually population genetics is just another name for "racial pseudo science"

Population genetics uses the term "continental ancestry" instead of race

Obviously the colloquial definition of race used by so called "racist pseudo-scientists" is roughly synonymous.

>>8740591
Intelligence is about 40% heritable in individuals and 50-80% heritable in adults (according to the APA)

This does not mean that between group differences are similarly heritable, but it is strong evidence that this is the case especially as increases in standard of living around the world do not produce similar increases in IQ scores

As to the existentialist argument, obviously no thinking person would judge an individual based on their group membership as groups are not monoliths but consist of varied individuals who's traits are distributed according to a bell curve with significant overlap between groups

>>8740466
> when cities started developing in the middle east, people started migrating into cities. They must have been more intelligent, more ambitious and more inclined to civility then the people who decided to stay nomads in the desert.
This is beyond retarded. Maybe the people who were good at desert survival saw no need to change anything. The people who couldn't hack it went to the city to be minimum wage cucks.

And why should we treat anyone any differently or unfairly judge a person based on skin color? I don't see you judging all those blonde Chads are literal retards getting by on looks and family money.

Another 16 year old :)

Have you ever read about nomadic societies?

Do you think life was comfortable out there?

If the nomadic lifestyle was in any way appealing when compared to settled civilized life, why does it no longer exist?

>>8740616
I love how perfectly describes all the liberal retards in the United States. History really does repeat itself

>>8740621
I know right?

Its amazing how grown men can compartmentalize their mind to such a degree that when prompted by certain triggers they regress to an adolescent state of mind

>>8740621
Let's not generalize extremely large groups of people. That would be retarded.

>>8740604
By racial pseudoscience I'm referring to the /pol/ types that use "race" in a very casual way, and often not well defined. The very term race was often used to refer to phenotypes rather than continental ancestry. This is the reason you'll see a /pol/ack get mixed up on what a "white" person is. Blond, blue eyes? Do Mediterraneans count? Do Slavs count? etc etc.

So populations genetics certainly is not another name for racial pseudoscience. Unless you individually tailor your use of the term race to strictly scientific terms, in which case a populations constitutes a race of sorts and so on.

>Intelligence is about 40% heritable

You mean IQ, a psychological, rather than biological metric. This is the reason people here want biological, genetic proof. The rest of your post opens up such a large discussion that it's not worth going into. It's been discussed to death in other threads again and again to no avail. When hard proof is obtained, we can talk about this again, in a thread that does not have a timed lifespan due to mods.

>>8740627
Actually, the only way to talk about groups is through generalization

Otherwise we would have to note the varying characteristics of every group member every time we spoke of the group at all!!

Oy Vey!!

>>8740466
>Africa is the most resource rich continent in the world
Africa is rich in rare earth metals which only become useful once you have developed an advanced civilisation something that is very difficult to develop is subsaharan africa

>>8740578
I love how liberal retards try to twist and degrade science to fit their shitty agendas, they are the ultimate enemy of science and this thread is likely to be deleted.
Oh, the decadence.

>>8740466
Races and populations are different things. Kill yourself and go back to your containment board.

File: GWASmeta.jpg (172KB, 995x602px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 995x602px

>>8740628
IQ is not purely psychological and incorporates biological elements such as reaction time which has a well understood micorbiologic foundation

As for genetic evidence, just google, all the latest research is finding genetic correlates to cognitive ability

Here's a meta-analysis published this year in Nature (pic related)

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v22/n3/pdf/mp2016244a.pdf?WT.ec_id=MP-201703&spMailingID=53471396&spUserID=MTc2Mzc2MDA1NgS2&spJobID=1103517217&spReportId=MTEwMzUxNzIxNwS2

>>8740653
Natural resources also means food, of which Africa has more in readily accessible forms than any other continent

>>8740654
I can't tell if you are mocking me airing out Darwin's dirty laundry or if you are just stupid

Please clarify

>>8740653
>something that is very difficult to develop is subsaharan africa
Um, no. Every sub-Saharan African capital has functional cities, the environment in a non-issue, humans can develop civilization in extreme environments. Egypt and semi-polar places are worse than Africa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfPkg8S4Fio

>>8740660
>I can't read

>>8740666
Are you saying that I'm misrepresented Darwin and therefore acting like the liberals types like me claim to hate?

>>8740656
You misunderstand, I don't mean general research into the genetic basis of intelligence, since that doesn't directly help your goal of proving that niggers are inferior. The research you need to validate your views is comparison between most African and many European populations, detecting different alleles and SNPs not just in genetic correlates but genes with documented and studied effect on brain development. THAT would be conclusive enough to validate a potentially white-supremacist view of the world.

What you posted is the earliest step conceivable. These correlates haven't been studied, and they're only a part of the much larger picture. Until then... the alt-right will have to wait.

>>8740662
Hahahaha the irony

Who built the cities?

With whose technology?

Who were the Architects?

Who were the city planners?

Who funded it?

Who created the governemnts that carried it out?

>>8740604
>Obviously the colloquial definition of race used by so called "racist pseudo-scientists" is roughly synonymous.
Looks that way but it's not. It's true that there are racists trying to legitimize racism through population genetics but population genetics isn't designed for that. It's a more general theory and it can be abused in lots of ridiculous ways if one wants to, but doing so requires contrived constructions in top of population genetics, the sort of which you are describing.

>>8740672
>genes with documented and studied effect on brain development

That's what the paper does if you read the abstract....


It has nothing to do with race

>>8740672
Also, what does studying IQ have to do with white supremacy, who's claiming whites are superior?

I would think that East Asians are superior in their intellectual ability, wouldn't you agree?

>>8740658
No not really Africa's crops and domesticated grains weren't that decent in most cases. Only when trade increased were many parts of Africa able to get crops and grains that could give ample nutrition and support bigger populations.

>>8740681
Africans did not require domesticated crops to survive, hence none were developed hence the superiority of their natural resources

>>8740672
What's the difference between :genetic correlates" and genes?

>>8740675
How is continental ancestry different from the traditional races then(i.e. European, African, East Asian, Ect)

>>8740674
Europeans so generous :)

>>8740672
You didn;t read the abstract, SNP's are discussed, this doesn't have to do with race to show that cognitive ability is heritable

>>8740678
>That's what the paper does if you read the abstract....
No it's not. Do you even know what GWAS is? Studying a gene doesn't mean drawing an statistical association relative to a phenotype, it means assaying it on cell cultures to determine its function/location etc.

The paper you posted is about detecting gene loci that seem to account for general congitive function (g) variation in European populations. It's worth mentioning that g is a psychometric factor itself. This is not research on brain development. Some associations can be drawn between certain haplotyps and brain development conditions, but that's about it, nothing more quantifiable and usable for the time being. Please refrain from posting if you don't know anything about the science you're discussing.

Also if you read my post I said that it has nothing to do with race, it's just a starting point, so I don't know why you think I implied it had anything to do with race to begin with.

>>8740680
Many /pol/acks claim, look up IQ in the sci archive and you'll know what I'm talking about. I don't know if East Asians are genetically superior, from the friends I have, they just work a fuckton and have been raised doing science and math religiously, so they have an aptitude for solving problems fast. On the other hand they couldn't tackle a philosophical issue for shit, which shows their education makes them lack in other parts. But yes, the average asian is probably better at STEM than the average westerner.

>>8740689
Genetic correlates are loci, i.e. positions on a chromosome that contain MANY genes that partly/fully control a phenotypic trait. Genes are genes, they are the sub-unit.

>/pol/ needs /sci/ to make them feel better about dropping out of college while there are minority students out there who have actually attained academic success

Good thread OP.

>>8740709
It does draw a statistical correlation from a phenotype as it correlates g with likelihood of indulging in different behaviors, look at the link

>>8740714
Hahaha you didn't even read the abstract, you claimed it doesn't address SNPs and Loci, it discusses both, then you say it draws no statistical association relative to phenotype (it does)

Why even discuss the study if you aren't prepared to be challenge your biases?

>>8740683
>Africans did not require domesticated crops to survive

Every single hunter and gathering group got btfo by farming people every single instance.

>>8740714
I'll just paste it for you

). In addition, we utilized individual SNP lookups and polygenic
score analyses to identify genetic overlap with other relevant neurobehavioral phenotypes. Our primary GWAS meta-analysis
identi
fi
ed two novel SNP loci (top SNPs: rs76114856 in the
CENPO
gene on chromosome 2 and rs6669072 near
LOC105378853
on
chromosome 1) associated with cognitive performance at the genome-wide signi
fi
cance level (
P
o
5×10
−
8
). Gene-based analysis
identi
fi
ed an additional three Bonferroni-corrected signi
fi
cant loci at chromosomes 17q21.31, 17p13.1 and 1p13.3. Altogether,
common variation across the genome resulted in a conservatively estimated SNP heritability of 21.5% (s.e. = 0.01%) for general
cognitive function. Integration with prior GWAS of cognitive performance and educational attainment yielded several additional signi
fi
cant loci. Finally, we found robust polygenic correlations between cognitive performance and educational attainment, several
psychiatric disorders, birth length/weight and smoking behavior, as well as a novel genetic association to the personality trait of
openness. These data provide new insight into the genetics of neurocognitive function with relevance to understanding the
pathophysiology of neuropsychiatric illness.

>>8740728
Wut. It is very much widely believed agriculture arose out of necessity when hunter/gatherer became unsustainable. They were literally dying and desperate. It naturally led to more permanent locality and thus infrastructure and economy. It didn't become superior in terms of nutrition for a very long time (if ever).

>>8740745
> It didn't become superior in terms of nutrition for a very long time (if ever).

Lol domesticated plant life offer way more nutrition then wild counterparts because they were bred for it indirectly and directly (based o which crop) over time.

Hunter gathered have to deal with unstable food supplies due to the environment where droughts and flooding happen randomly.

>>8740702
Races:
>Divided based on vague descriptions of physical characteristics and social criteria.
>Proponents used to use said divisions to make assertions about other social criteria. Later when such approaches were confirmed pseudoscience they attempted to "fix" this by claiming one could make assertions about genetics and that through genetics one could make assertions about social criteria. Later this was once again confirmed as pseudoscience thanks to theorems in convex analysis regarding convergence of clustering algorithms and research into polygenic characteristics showing that such approaches (making assertions based on tiny amounts of genetic knowledge) were ridiculously insufficient.
Population genetics
>A general theoretical framework that allows one to more rigorously compare genetic distance between different populations (which can be given by arbitrary definitions).
Racists using the language of population genetics
>Once again attempting to justify racism they attempt to approximate "traditional races" by using flexible criteria with largely arbitrary justification. Moreover they once again attempt to make social assertions based on genetic criteria but they do so only suggestively (since only ridiculously overpowered genome wide polygenic scores computed over small, largely similar populations, from the same generation, under the same social circumstances, have had any sort of success at giving non-shit tier predictions about things only social science cares about).

The thing you described is hardly rigorous and those quacks are largely pseudoscientists. Population genetics itself is useful and powerful when used appropriately.

>>8740727
>>8740735
Are you guys actually retarded?

>>8740672
>between most African and many European populations
This was the focus of my post, not the SNP and locus identification, obviously. Anyone who talks about GWAS has to talk about loci, it's part of the study. The study however doesn't compare african and european loci, it identifies some loci and SNPs BETWEEN european subjects. Again, do you know how these studies work? The SNPs are scored and their impact on a phenotype is calculated by how much variation they account for in that phenotype, in this case g, ALL OF WHICH I SAID IN MY POST. WHERE DID I DENY THAT THE STUDY DRAWS STATISTICAL CORRELATION BETWEEN LOCI AND PHENOTYPE (g) ?????

>Studying a gene doesn't mean drawing an statistical association relative to a phenotype
>drawing an statistical association relative to a phenotype
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS STUDY DOES. This study DOESN'T assay the genes that it detects, it draws an association, which I LITERALLY SAY TWO LINES AFTER. Reading comprehension.

Holy shit.

>>8740672

>the alt-right will just have to wait

The alt-right wants the provably functional model of a monoracial state. It is multi-racialists who should have to prove that it works conclusively better than monoracial states. They don't.

>>8740770
>>8740770
>>8740770

Sorry for the chimpout, I'll explain the thought process because I'm viewing this from a scientist's pov and you might have some confusions/ term misunderstandings that I did not account for.

Your goal (or a white supremacist's goal): Prove that niggers are dumb with respect to genes and brain development.

The research you posted in >>8740656 is a GWAS study. It studies how much certain loci and nucleotides affect intelligence, as measured by the psychometric factor g, which is a construct of psychology, not brain development or neurons. This is one of the problems I identify in >>8740672. The second problem is that the correlates in the study are just that - correlates. The genes contained within haven't been studied (i.e. assayed, this is what "studying" a gene refers to in biology) and their function with respect to neuroscience and the brain have not been ascertained. The third problem with this study is that it doesn't compare europeans and africans, it's simply a first step to detecting certain genes that SHOULD be studied to elucidate their function with respect to cognition, which itself is not understood biologically. Therefore this paper is not enough/relevant for race discussions, which I assume we agree on. The reason I'm pointing out these problems is because they are some of the things that should be accounted for in a paper that studies racial differences in intelligence.

And with this, the discussion is concluded. There's nothing here yet to justify a white supremacist viewpoint, regardless of whether that was your purpose or not. Genetic differences between populations do exist. But the science behind neuron interaction and brain development is not there, and neither is the robust association between loci and cognition. Your own study states that the SNPs identified have miniscule impact size.

>>8740769
physical characteristics = continent of origin

File: angry-penguin.jpg (77KB, 640x419px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x419px

>>8740816
BATHE IN YOUR RAGE AND LET IT CONSUME YOU.

>>8740827
No at all.

>>8740790
How do you measure success with respect to racial homogeneity though? The US is a multi-racial, multi-cultural superpower, the world's only, so does that prove its unique functionality? Singapore is the same, and it's one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with the most well-performing and educated students. Also, the western European countries that seeked out for immigrants did it to fill cheaper worker positions and strengthen themselves economically, not out of humanitarian generosity. So, positive economic results there as well. Where do you draw the line?

What I suspect you have a problem with is Islam, and you're not alone. I also have my reservations about Islam's coexistence with the west, but that doesn't mean I have to advocate for a mono racial state to avoid the problem. That solution is THAT much more complicated.

And on that note, I'm off to sleep.

>>8740816
I don't understand the confusion here, the study simply provides evidence that g is correlated to specific genes

This correlation implies causation because we wouldn't assume that g determnes the loci, it could only be that the loci determines g

Why would you have to compare Europeans to Africans to determine whether genes correlate to cognitive function?

Why do you keep implying that I'm a White Supremacist, I am not.

IQ is distributed in a bell curve meaning that even if IQ between different races differ in their statistical average, there is large overlap between the 2 groups

Even if it is true that Black and White IQs differ by about 1 standard deviation, there are still many Blacks who are "smarter" than Whites

The race of a person does not tell you anything about their IQ

>>8740829
Yes

Black skin is a physical characteristic of Africans for example

File: 1472623032354.jpg (38KB, 481x358px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 481x358px

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982205002095

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000460

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/9/4516.full

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/14/9/1679.full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7571/full/nature15393.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tan.12165/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707610015

>>8740846

Thank you based Anon

Will be screen capping this

>>8740839
>Why would you have to compare Europeans to Africans to determine whether genes correlate to cognitive function?
I'm not, I'm saying that comparing europeans with africans is the only way to determine "racial" difference in cognitive function. See below.

>Why do you keep implying that I'm a White Supremacist, I am not.
Ok then. In that case, I don't disagree with any of your points, but there are always people in these threads whose only interest is some scientific smidge to justify their race war. And the people that are specifically interested in this research are almost invariably of that caste. If you are the exception, I apologize for making the assumption.

>>8740827
kek, this is what pop science plebs actually believe

>>8740839
Even if we identified which genes contribute to intelligence, which is a lot of them with complex interactions, that still doesn't mean anything. You'd have to prove, conclusively, that different races have a lot of "worse" alleles on average of these genes.

I can guarantee you that due to the power of current GWAS studies and their failure to find highly influential genes, we will likely find 100-200 genes that might account for 1 IQ point or less each.

Given that, and the fact that we can already measure genetic variation and allele frequencies in humans it is impossible that large gaps in IQ would be due to racial differences. Humans are too genetically close to each other and lack the variation for a trait as large as possibly hundreds of genes to be that divergent. If it was, we would have already noticed it in patterns of human genetic variation.

>>8740846
tl;dr:
>Race and populations are different things.
>Formalizing race in the context of rigorous science is nontrivial because it's a largely garbage term with lots of definitions many of which have been repudiated by science and are regarded as pseudoscience.
>Pointing out that race isn't real isn't equivalent to arguing that there are no differences in genetics amongst human populations, largely because race has little to do with genetics.

Top zoz, /pol/niggers just got butchered.

>>8740855
This research is important for social policy

If there is a genetic component to cognitive ability that is significant and can explain social inequalities to some degree, we need to know about it

We can never have a more just society without a proper understanding of the problem

>>8740858
Can you think of an indigenous population with black skin that isn't of recent African descent?

>>8740860
>Given that, and the fact that we can already measure genetic variation and allele frequencies in humans it is impossible that large gaps in IQ would be due to racial differences. Humans are too genetically close to each other and lack the variation for a trait as large as possibly hundreds of genes to be that divergent. If it was, we would have already noticed it in patterns of human genetic variation.

What do you base this conclusion on specifically?

>>8740884
It's textbook knowledge. You can textbooks on human evolution and genetics. We've been studying this stuff since the 70s.

Some of the links here talk about it as well.
>>8740846

>>8740888
Whats a good textbook?

The links seem to say that about 10% to 15% of genetic diversity is between populations

If IQ isn't genetically based, why does the APA saw that heritibility is about 75% for adults?

>>8740846
You don't drop links then not tell people what they are meant to show and make them have to hunt for it themselves.

>>8740907
cavalli-sforza and svante paabo were some of the breakthrough geneticists that discovered or elucidated a lot of things about human genetics. You can just look them up on amazon. They have both made several textbooks.

As for your other question, how heritable IQ is has nothing to do with comparing heritablility between groups. Even if IQ was 99.9999% heritable, if we all had roughly the same genetics for IQ, which seems highly likely, than we would all have roughly the same genetic contribution. You can never ignore environmental factors, either.

It's also a commonly known observable fact that there is more within population diversity in humans than between population diversity.

>>8740916
Yes, you do. If you can't understand scientific literature you shouldn't pretend to be knowledge about the subject and make scientific proclamations about it.

This is how racist psuedoscience works. They find a few links that don't actually support their beliefs, pick out a single sentence or graph, then claim that science supports them. They expect people to be lazy, which most of their following is, and not check or understand the sources.

>>8740878
Africans have Brown skin though.

>>8740878
Asturalian aboriginals are far more related to Asians than Africans.

>>8740922
So if IQ was totally heritable, and there was a variation of 1 standard deviation between 2 groups, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the difference was genetic?

If so, what else could cause the variation then when the populations have very similar environments?

>>8740938
There is no such thing as "totally genetic" hence why I said 99.999%. The concept of nature vs nurture is a flawed anachronism. Environment can always play a part.

That said, you can never fully control for environmental factors.

>>8740946
It just seems like an excuse,

If something is say 75% heritible and there is a significant difference between 2 populations in the trait, It would seem likely that there is a difference between the populations related to genetics no?

>>8740956
Well, that's what science is about. It's about looking for evidence and not just making assumptions on what "seems likely." Just because you don't like the data we observe with science doesn't make it a conspiracy.

You might assume flamingos are pink due to genetics, but in fact it's their diet of shrimp.

>>8740878
There's a lot of south east Asians that have that trait.

>>8740964

My point is that genetic differences between the 2 populations is POSSIBLE, and maybe even PROBABLE

Would you agree?

>>8740978
Right, where did the trait come from?

>>8740888
Those links don't aren't sufficient to support the claims you're making. They don't even talk about genome wide polygenic scores or how to relate genetic research to social shit.

It is obvious you don't understand the shit you're talking about and your solution is to point at stuff you don't understand and claim it supports your position on the assumption that others don't understand it either. Gtfo of /sci/and kill yourself.

>>8740985

I thought it was settled science that if you use thousands of Loci to compare two continental populations, an individual from each continent will ALWAYS be more similar to his fellows than to those of the other continent

Is that not true?

>>8740992
You're refering to the 2007 Whitherspoon paper.

Read the conclusion of it if you can't understand the data. You can statistically correlation tons of small differences in genetic variation to make a likelihood of similarity and ancestry, but that doesn't mean those small differences, overall, are cumulative and mean people the people are very different.

>>8740620
mods!

>>8741002
No i was referring to

Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" a 2003 paper by A. W. F. Edwards

"Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time."

>>8741014
His paper does not discredit Lewontin's data. That data is observable fact. Even Edwards admits that. His claim that "data doesn't matter you can still have race!" is also false.

>>8741016
Lewontin looked at single Loci

Edwards looked at multiple loci simultaneously

Edwards didn;t cherry pick

Lewontin did

>>8741016
Also, are you trolling? You can;t really think that can you....the Science is settled

No one on here actually talks about Science, you all just make baseless accusations and misrepresent facts to fit your preconceived narratives

>>8741024
All false statements. Science is verifiable. If you want to, you can take genetic samples from around the world, sequence them, and observe the differences in variation if you want. You're trying to say a single paper published by a biased source published in a mall Essay journal is more credible than decades of data.

>>8741028

>>8740846
Yes, the science is settled.

>>8741032
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins discusses genetic variation across human races in his book The Ancestor's Tale.[4] In the chapter The Grasshopper's Tale, he characterizes the genetic variation between races as a very small fraction of the total human genetic variation. He goes on to disagree with Lewontin's conclusions about taxonomy, writing, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

You must listen to your God Dawkins

File: cavalli-sforza map.jpg (19KB, 480x290px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x290px

>>8741035

So you agree then ?

Cavalli-Sforza agrees too, he mapped out the major Human genetic groupings as identical to Human races (pic related)

>>8741045
SNP haplogroups have nothing to do with race. That is not what Cavalli Sforza did. That map is showing human migration out of Africa.

>>8741032
In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[21] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never". However, measuring similarity using smaller numbers of loci yielded substantial overlap between these populations. Rates of between-population similarity also increased when geographically intermediate and admixed populations were included in the analysis

Was this the paper you were refering to?

Does this one get an Ad Hominem attack too? :)

>>8741049
Lol troll harder bro

That's the cover of his 1994 book The
History and Geography of Human
Genes

It shows variation in the human Genome throughout the world

>>8741049

More for you

Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",[21] and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."

>>8741053
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.

Read the rest of the conclusion section as well.

Also, if you would have READ his book, you would know it is about his life's work in uncovering human evolution.
https://www.amazon.com/Genes-Peoples-Languages-Luigi-Cavalli-Sforza/dp/0520228731

>>8741056
Read what you just posted.

>>8741056
>The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.
You just played yourself.

Learn to read.

>>8741059
>>8741071
>>8741065


You are making my point for me, hundreds of loci is insufficient

You need thousands, at this point individuals are always more similar to their own population group than to other population groups

Think about it

If you want to recognize a similarity in one groups individuals versus anothers, it would be better to look at MORE of the Genome right?

So looking at thousands of Loci, like Witherspoon, is better than looking at hundreds of Loci like the NCBI study of just a few loci one at a time like Lewontin right?

>>8741082
That link is the Witherspoon paper you brainlet. NCBI is just part of pubmed. All those quotes are from the Witherspoon paper.

>>8741090
OK but the point still stands right?

Its better to look at thousands of Loci than a few hundred right?

And if when looking at thousands of Loci, group differences always preclude a member of one group being more similar to another than his own....then that's proof that human populations are genetically distinct right?

>>8741100
No. Read the paper.

File: pol BTFO by facts and logic.png (489KB, 1600x2780px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1600x2780px

>>8740466
you're not ready yet.

>>8740726
I love affirmative action for easy mode meme degrees.

>>8741103
Why?

If its wrong, just tell me why

Or else you are just dodging the question

>>8741124

>>8741059
>>8741056

>>8741014
lmao

>>8741035
>I don't understand any of these papers but I'm going to say they support my retarded position anyways.
kek yourself before you rek yourself

>>8741128
Right, so then Humans are not distinct biological groups because the differences between them are small relative to the differences within populations?

But thats irrelevant

You really can't explain away the central point, which is that when looking at large portions of the genome, distinct population groups emerge

Even if the differences are relatively small, they still exist and are consequential

>>8741153
What position?

>>8741150
What's so funny?

File: 1465082352854.jpg (51KB, 400x323px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x323px

>>8740466
>When agriculture was developed, large populations migrated out of the middle east and into europe.

>>8741156
>What's so funny?
Other anons be trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you may actually know what you're talking about but instead you confound basic shit and cite meme papers.

Protip: The argument you think you're fighting is not the argument other anons are making.

>>8741171
What do you mean?

What's wrong with the papers?

>>8741171
I don;t understand what's wrong with the reasoning here, If humans form distinct groups when you examine thousands of loci, how is that a "meme" or "not the argument"?

>>8741181
>>8741178
>how is that a meme
See dumb memeposting here:
http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/Lewontin%27s%20Fallacy/

>what's wrong with the reasoning here
Okay, lets ignore all the bio shit and all the basic logical inference shit because you've fucked that up too much already. Let's talk about 'distinct groups' namely clustering.

Taking a bunch of data and pulling out clusters is not sufficient to prove that such clusters exist. In fact it is possible to have such clustering algorithms converge to entirely different sets of clusters if configured differently and it is possible to configure the algorithm or choose the data to converge to certain pre-determined clusters.

However, if you know that certain clusters exist (for instance if your data is news articles and you're trying to cluster them into 'stories', as news.google.com does) then clustering algorithms allow you to converge and provide a means of testing how well the algorithm works. Typically this involves splitting the data into three sets called training, validation, and testing. Then one trains the clustering algorithm on the data with many different configurations and perhaps different modifications to the input data and uses the validation and testing sets to see which trained algorithm performs better (i.e. which algorithm is capable of finding the desired clusters best). In case it wasn't obvious here, all of the data include the 'right answers' (how else could you assess that the algorithm is finding the desired clusters) and knowing the 'right answers' means having another method that establishes the existence of the clusters and tells you what clusters some sample data should fall in.

(cont.)

>>8741236
(cont.)

The goal of implementing a clustering algorithm is typically:
>I have tons of data of data (eg. tens of billions of samples) that I need to classify into groups I know exist but other methods of classification (eg. manual) are slow and I could maybe afford to classify a few (eg. hundred thousand) samples.
>I know, I'll use other methods to classify those few samples. Then I'll train/validate/test a clustering algorithm with those few samples and hope it can effectively classify the remaining huge number of samples.

Taking this into account, we can expand your reasoning and thus expose the flaw. It is as follows.
>Suppose that humans split into a set of predetermined racial groups.
>Get a genetic bunch of data on a bunch of people.
>Decide that certain individuals in your data set belong to certain races, based on our prior assumption (use this to form training/validation/testing data).
>Train/validate/test clustering algorithms on the data until an iteration that converges to our assumed clusters is found.
>Conclude that race exists.

In other words, the argument boils down to
>If race exists, then race exists.
It is textbook circular logic.

>>8741237
Its not circular logic because the individuals are not split into predetermined groups, they are split by geography and common ancestry

Here, let me make this simple

Lets say I pick 3000 random people with European Ancestors and 3000 random people with East Asian ancestors

I have genome sequences for each on of these 6,000 individuals

I pick 10,000 loci on each genome and I compare them between the 6,000 subjects

I find that every subject is more similar to all the individuals in his own group than he is to any individual of the other group

Isn't that basically what Witherspoon did?

If so, doesn't that prove that distinct population groups exist?

>>8741247
>Isn't that basically what Witherspoon did?
No, that isn't. You clearly do not understand the paper.

>>8741255
In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[21] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never"

This is from the Wiki, see?

The individuals from the three groups are never more similar to one another as they are to members of their own group

File: Cichlids.jpg (124KB, 600x350px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 600x350px

>>8741247
No, retard. Did you even read the paper? Actually, did you even read the conclusion?

Here is a picture. Tell me, what sort of groups are there and what sort of inferences can you make about their genetics?

File: ha ha ha no - 2.jpg (111KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 562x437px

>>8741268
>lel I think this paper is about race, please someone explain to me why its not

>>8741278
>In the 2007 paper "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations",[21] Witherspoon et al. attempt to answer the question, "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?". The answer depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity, and the populations being compared. When they analysed three geographically distinct populations (European, African and East Asian) and measured genetic similarity over many thousands of loci, the answer to their question was "never"

But try to think rationally for a second and engage with the information

Think about it, If someone looks at large portions of the genome, and sees that different groups have different allele frequencies such that they are always more similar to their own group than to other groups, that means those populations are genetically distinct

Every member of one group is more similar to every member of their own group than to every member of the other groups

That's what the green text above implies

You don;t see to have any argument, just "youre are wrong because i say so/you can;t read"

It seems that you don;t have the knowledge or are having some intense feels that are keeping you from making sense of this

>>8741285
Its about different geographical populations

You know, like how some people live in different places that are far away

They haven't mixed with peoples from other distant places for thousands of years

This has been proven to produce some minor genetic differences

File: reversegun.jpg (29KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x300px

>>8741286
2 bad 4 u those groups rn't races

>>8741290
>still not about races, even mixing in some false statements and making irrelevant inferences doesn't make it so.

>>8741293
right exactly

I never said they were

>>8740763
All wrong.

>>8741297
Right but they arent races

They have no unique genes, they just have different statitstical averages of certain alleles

Like, for example, sicle cell aneia is more prevalent in African populations, or Tay Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews

It doesn;t mean that a European can;t get those disorders, just that it is less likely

>>8741304
Of course, and it isn't really that much less likely either. That said, looking at yourself and attempting to assert that you fit into any of those populations is a non-trivial task requiring special equipment. Most retards (i.e. /pol/) equate race with population and attempt to make assertions about themselves and others that way (this is exactly what Witherspoon et al. warns against).

population != races
phenotypes != genetics (see pic >>8741278)

>>8741313
To add to this. A more important observation from population genetics is that this isn't necessarily the only way to partition human beings. It is likely that there exist better population groupings for deducing different things and that these better populations do not resemble the ones you are using in any way.

Population genetics isn't about choosing one way of dividing humans and digging your heels in about what sort of differences they have but rather it is about studying ALL different ways of dividing humans and observing all differences between those groups.

>>8741317
Thank you, finally someone making sense to me

Is it true then that Witherspoon was saying that individuals from the three population groups they examined were never more similar is the distribution of their alleles to individuals of another group than they were to their own when 10,000 Loci were examined?

>>8740662
>egypt
>anything but cornucopia
egypt was one of the most fertile lands in earth and that's why they were able to develop such a grand civilization.

>>8740658
The farmland is shit except for South Africa, which whitey stole

>>8741167

It was probably just thousands.
Still, they are responsible for around half of European genetic variation.

>>8740790
what the FUCK did I just read.

>>8740846
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271140/
b-b-but we are have subspecies....

>>8742382
not him but
>trumpfags have proven whites only usa is best
>leftyfags should have to prove the opposite because i say so
>they dont for whatever reason

>>8742191
They have tons of farmland, its just they are nigs so they don't know how to farm

>>8742191
the native south africans didn't even know how to farm, until people from the north (most likely coming from the middle east, traveling south west) came down 1800 years ago and taught them

>>8743654
Lol

>>8740658
>readily accessible forms than any other continent
lol

>>8740471
>unless you have conclusive genetic proof about other """races""" (if you can define them to begin with)
Ancestry.com and 23andme.com can look at your genome and tell you where it came from. There are studies that show this genetic proof correlates to self-identification up to 20% admixture.

>>8745005
you don't understand that what you just posted is not a successful response and is actually self-defeating

nice bump by the way, keep trying

>>8740483
This

>>8740471
>tfw you're too smart and realize people use the word "race" instead of "breed" when it comes to humans because they subconsciously reject the idea that humans are just animals that happen to have the highest degree of sentience on earth

and just as with dogs, some breeds are less intelligent than others

>>8745666
A chart!

File: Chisala-7.png (70KB, 546x430px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 546x430px

>>8745640
rate these dog breeds

>>8741105
I spot atleast one thin end of the wedge argument in there.

>iq isnt effected by brain size
>we know this because women have smaller brains than men but their intellegences are the same as far as we know.
As far as we know...

>>8745928
their iq's are the same

nice try

how many races are there?
name them

File: CAT test results England 2009-2010.png (31KB, 576x737px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 576x737px

>>8745914
going to need better statistics

need to be from at least 2016

because apparently there were no white Western Europeans in England prior to 2003, according to your list

either post the site you got this from or find a more complete list

pic related is the only info I found during a 30 second search

>>8746051
>pic related is the only info I found during a 30 second search
your issue

>>8746051
>CAT test
A test given to 7 yo.

Look at gcse and pupil characteristics, it's about the same every year
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-gcses-key-stage-4

Enjoy.

>>8740658
Are you fucking retarded?

>>8745928
it's funny how you write off iq tests when they don't fit your narrative

>>8745914
Maybe, just maybe, GCSE aren't that highly g-loaded. Maybe you coudl realize this by looking at portuguese IQ vs afghan/somali and realize that there's something strange going on with the GCSE.

>>8741105
That entire image is either wrong or misleading.
Like, one would think that by writing tens of statements, one would be true and on spot just by random chance.
Apparently not.

>>8747062
or maybe, just maybe you need to look for actual sources instead of lynn

>>8747076
I'm not using Lynn, I wasted so much time refuting his findings both here and elsewhere that it's not even fun.
But nevermind that, you have to show that a) contempoprary gcse results have a high correlation with g and b) show that those results survive controlling for immigrant selection.
If you don't do both, they're meaningless as to establishing anything about IQ and genetic differences between human populations.

>>8747082
>a) contempoprary gcse results have a high correlation with g and
look at the chart very carefully
>b) show that those results survive controlling for immigrant selection.
i don't need to show that
the point stands, british indians are superior to british whites - that's the meaning and that's what they establish

what's so hard to understand

>>8747087
>look at the chart very carefully
I'm sorry what? What's there on that chart about its correlation with g?
>i don't need to show that
Yes you do, otherwise you've not shown anything of value.
>take hypothetical population with average iq of 90, strictly due to genetic reasons
>take top 0.1%
>put them in any other country
>"see? It can't be genetic, these people here are performing so much better!"
See it now? It's useless data when talking about genetic differences in IQ between populations.

>>8747091
>I'm sorry what? What's there on that chart about its correlation with g?
math and english

how is it useless in talking about the IQ difference between populations in the UK though

i'm not claiming it';s not genetic either, indians are genetically superior to british whites in the UK

are you a brit or just defensive because you share skin color

>>8747099
>math and english
"math and english" isn't an IQ test, dude. You have to actually get data on both, like we have on SAT scores.

>how is it useless in talking about the IQ difference between populations in the UK though
Oh, sure, that's fine, I thought you were talking about the populations in general, carry on, I agree with you.

>>8747106
>math isn't g-loaded
just admit you didn't concentrate enough when looking at the chart and just reacted instead

believe you me when verbal is removed differences only grow

>>8745914
good immigrants vs shit immigrants the pic.

>>8747115
>math isn't g-loaded
"Math" isn't a thing, it depends on how you test it, for fuck's sake.

File: 1482026924142.jpg (36KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 420x420px

>using the word "scientific" in your statement to make it seem more credible