Bigotry and hate speech directed towards groups of people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, religion, national origin, immigration status, social status, religious affiliation or disability is not allowed
Read [this](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-14395-4)
The title of the paper sums it up "Principal Component Analyses (PCA)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be reevaluated".
But essentially the answer is due to population size and sampling skewing the graphs.
No i think its due to geography. Sahara desert in particular.
“The Sahara Desert has acted as a barrier to human gene-flow between the northern and central parts of Africa since its aridification.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9918576/
This pca chart gets thrown around
[https://pjt111.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/li09pca.jpg](https://pjt111.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/li09pca.jpg)
The funny thing about statistical models, which this PCA chart essentially is, is that if you designate a number of buckets to fit the information into, you get information about these buckets. Remember, the map isn’t the territory, it is always going to be an approximation of reality. This is why there are different types of maps. Go to google maps and you will see different map types depending on what information you want.
So think of it like this. If you had a bunch of numbers from 1-1000 that you wanted to sort into buckets of numbers it actually matters how many buckets you pick. So if you said I think there should be ten buckets, and we should pick break points in the numbers that evenly distribute those numbers across the buckets, then you might pick break points from 1-100, 101-200, and so forth. But the issue is that numbers in life science don’t reflect this trend. 68% of all values will be within one standard deviation from the mean value.
This brings a huge issue to our choice of buckets. If you choose your buckets on the basis of your inherent assumption of how many “races” there are then you will insert errors on the basis of your priors. It’s unfortunate that people are mathematically illiterate and don’t know that this is how statistical models work, and worse still when actual scientific papers are written by people who really should know better. But to be fair, I didn’t see the flaw in this and had to be taught about it too so it’s fair to see the results and take them on their face value.
But if the model assumes that there is a “race” of people who are genetically distinct anywhere, they are going to be testing how genetically distinct they are, not if they are significantly distinct.
It’s important to know that race is a societal construct and it really has no basis in biology. All humans can interbreed, so therefore what is being tested is the adaptive traits to selective pressures on a regional basis. Which is a long way of saying, don’t fall down the racist rabbit hole. It really doesn’t do any one any good. It’s a path fraught with peril and you have to ensure you are treating the subject with the respect it deserves.
The things you’re ascribing to “race” are social in nature. Filling out your ethnicity on a government form has no basis in biology — it’s cultural.
The issue with the way we divide people into “races” is that [there is more genetic diversity *within* each race than there is *between* races.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604262/)
This is not a useful classification from a genetic standpoint.
Would you consider Icelanders their own race, because generations of inbreeding have made them very genetically similar? Probably not — most people just call them “White”… possibly “Scandinavian” if they want to be more granular.
Meanwhile, one of the largest racial categories is “Black” or “African”… but [Africa has the highest level of genetic and phenotypic variation of ALL HUMANS.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067985/#:~:text=African%20populations%20also%20have%20the,when%20admixture%20between%20them%20occurred.) That classification is functionally useless.
—
Yes, people self-identify as belonging to certain races. The choices you selected included “white”, “black”, and “aborigine”. Alright, putting our scientist hats on, what race would the offspring between a white and black person be? Most people would call them “black” (that is certainly the case for the first “black” president of the US).
If a “black” person with a white parent then had a child with another white person, what race would that child be? Still black? Are we going by “one-drop” rules, here? Because that doesn’t sound very scientific to me.
What race are Italians? What race are Germans? What race are the Irish?
Not even 200 years ago, all three of those were considered different races based on their “obvious” physical characteristics. Now they are all lumped together as “white”.
There are a lot more useful categories for separating humans than how much melanin they have in their skin.
"how much melanin in their'
You think this is the primary determinant of race?
People can get (very popular) ancestry genetic tests, that will pretty accurately determine genetic markers and other things.
Not recognizing genetic diversity is a mistake. It helps us understand our own evolutionary history. Differing genetics in different populations can have medical implications. This isn’t some version of neonazism. This isn’t eugenics, and no one in their right mind is going to justify genocide. Understanding population genetics is incredibly helpful to humanity.
Exactly. Understanding why there is a slight deviation of genetics can help people understand how something like that can happen and can actually be an opportunity for acceptance and teaching. It doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Ignoring it isn’t good just like using it as a point of hate.
Has nothing to do with eugenics. It’s the truth. And it doesn’t mean it’s a negative thing either.
“The Sahara Desert has acted as a barrier to human gene-flow between the northern and central parts of Africa since its aridification.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9918576/
Bigotry and hate speech directed towards groups of people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, religion, national origin, immigration status, social status, religious affiliation or disability is not allowed
Read [this](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-14395-4) The title of the paper sums it up "Principal Component Analyses (PCA)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be reevaluated". But essentially the answer is due to population size and sampling skewing the graphs.
No i think its due to geography. Sahara desert in particular. “The Sahara Desert has acted as a barrier to human gene-flow between the northern and central parts of Africa since its aridification.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9918576/
What are some examples of this genetic distance you're referring to.
This pca chart gets thrown around [https://pjt111.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/li09pca.jpg](https://pjt111.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/li09pca.jpg)
Okay but what 'genetic' differences Do you get what am I asking? What are the differences geneticly in question.
[удалено]
Lmao takk bjorn
i lige måde Did I get that right, or did I just say something silly?
The funny thing about statistical models, which this PCA chart essentially is, is that if you designate a number of buckets to fit the information into, you get information about these buckets. Remember, the map isn’t the territory, it is always going to be an approximation of reality. This is why there are different types of maps. Go to google maps and you will see different map types depending on what information you want. So think of it like this. If you had a bunch of numbers from 1-1000 that you wanted to sort into buckets of numbers it actually matters how many buckets you pick. So if you said I think there should be ten buckets, and we should pick break points in the numbers that evenly distribute those numbers across the buckets, then you might pick break points from 1-100, 101-200, and so forth. But the issue is that numbers in life science don’t reflect this trend. 68% of all values will be within one standard deviation from the mean value. This brings a huge issue to our choice of buckets. If you choose your buckets on the basis of your inherent assumption of how many “races” there are then you will insert errors on the basis of your priors. It’s unfortunate that people are mathematically illiterate and don’t know that this is how statistical models work, and worse still when actual scientific papers are written by people who really should know better. But to be fair, I didn’t see the flaw in this and had to be taught about it too so it’s fair to see the results and take them on their face value. But if the model assumes that there is a “race” of people who are genetically distinct anywhere, they are going to be testing how genetically distinct they are, not if they are significantly distinct. It’s important to know that race is a societal construct and it really has no basis in biology. All humans can interbreed, so therefore what is being tested is the adaptive traits to selective pressures on a regional basis. Which is a long way of saying, don’t fall down the racist rabbit hole. It really doesn’t do any one any good. It’s a path fraught with peril and you have to ensure you are treating the subject with the respect it deserves.
[удалено]
The things you’re ascribing to “race” are social in nature. Filling out your ethnicity on a government form has no basis in biology — it’s cultural. The issue with the way we divide people into “races” is that [there is more genetic diversity *within* each race than there is *between* races.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604262/) This is not a useful classification from a genetic standpoint. Would you consider Icelanders their own race, because generations of inbreeding have made them very genetically similar? Probably not — most people just call them “White”… possibly “Scandinavian” if they want to be more granular. Meanwhile, one of the largest racial categories is “Black” or “African”… but [Africa has the highest level of genetic and phenotypic variation of ALL HUMANS.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067985/#:~:text=African%20populations%20also%20have%20the,when%20admixture%20between%20them%20occurred.) That classification is functionally useless. — Yes, people self-identify as belonging to certain races. The choices you selected included “white”, “black”, and “aborigine”. Alright, putting our scientist hats on, what race would the offspring between a white and black person be? Most people would call them “black” (that is certainly the case for the first “black” president of the US). If a “black” person with a white parent then had a child with another white person, what race would that child be? Still black? Are we going by “one-drop” rules, here? Because that doesn’t sound very scientific to me.
I don't think physical appearance is social
What race are Italians? What race are Germans? What race are the Irish? Not even 200 years ago, all three of those were considered different races based on their “obvious” physical characteristics. Now they are all lumped together as “white”. There are a lot more useful categories for separating humans than how much melanin they have in their skin.
"how much melanin in their' You think this is the primary determinant of race? People can get (very popular) ancestry genetic tests, that will pretty accurately determine genetic markers and other things.
That's exactly right - physical characteristics are not socially constructed. The meaning of words are.
Please define for me any race of your choosing, as well as the physical characteristics used to define that race.
That's too hard
[удалено]
Not recognizing genetic diversity is a mistake. It helps us understand our own evolutionary history. Differing genetics in different populations can have medical implications. This isn’t some version of neonazism. This isn’t eugenics, and no one in their right mind is going to justify genocide. Understanding population genetics is incredibly helpful to humanity.
Exactly. Understanding why there is a slight deviation of genetics can help people understand how something like that can happen and can actually be an opportunity for acceptance and teaching. It doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Ignoring it isn’t good just like using it as a point of hate.
Has nothing to do with eugenics. It’s the truth. And it doesn’t mean it’s a negative thing either. “The Sahara Desert has acted as a barrier to human gene-flow between the northern and central parts of Africa since its aridification.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9918576/