Is it true that there is more genetic variation between human races than there is between some animal species that are...

Is it true that there is more genetic variation between human races than there is between some animal species that are divided into subspecies?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
youtube.com/watch?v=JVrw-IiGgLY
youtu.be/JVrw-IiGgLY?t=576
youtu.be/JVrw-IiGgLY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cat_breeds
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You could easily figure this out yourself

I've learned enough to know that there's enough to separate us into distinct categories, or races, but I want to know specifically whether there's more variation than between animal subspecies.

I'd go to my usual source to try to find something but the site appears to be taken down

there is actually an absurdly small amount of variation between virtually any two healthy humans you could pick from anywhere on the planet, because pre-humans went through a severe genetic bottleneck some few hundred thousand years ago that almost drove us extinct.

that being said, the systen scientists use to distinguish species is somewhat flawed in that it's based largely on the number of varying genes and not the value and impact of the varying genes.

>there is actually an absurdly small amount of variation between virtually any two healthy humans
And yet still enough to accurately place us with our self-identified race almost 100 percent of the time, with greater accuracy the more genetic variables used. The genome is immense, so a small % can account for any number of different traits.

Not to mention 90% of the content of genes don't code for anything. Not to mention 99% of genes are functionally the same because we'd be dead before birth otherwise. You did mention some genes are more significant than others Not to mention the genetic species model is only one of several models (appearance, interreeding, geographic), all of which play a role in the debate about species.

In terms of genes that have multiple common alleles there's a massive deal of variation between and within populations.

t. Physiologist

Not to mention race is more of a visual categorical system, i.e. anyone can tell a black person from an asian. The fact there's more genetic variation within populations than between doesn't mean one still isn't distinct from the other.

Cbf looking myself but if someone can find me data on genetic variation of animal subspecies and human races I'll run the stats to see if they're medically significantly different

Now this is interesting stuff

I have been told the Pygmies are the race-group that is most genetically divergent from the rest of our species, any thoughts on why that would be?

They were isolated at worlds end to contain the dark soul of man

Lwgit fuck knows. Where are they again, South America? Size and proportions are to maximise surface area to volume ratio so the little bastards don't cook in the jungle. As for genetically distinct?

Not sure but sounds right. South/Central Americas last had no interaction from 14000 years ago until the spaniards came and raped them. Spaniards came looking for gold, they didn't have. Plus jungle is too damn hot and disease ridden for any other group to really venture in.

Compare that to Eurasia/North Africa where everyone's been mixing at least a little for millenia, and the environments are more comparable in general.

Pygmies just weren't in a place to mix with other humans and their environment put unique selective pressures on them.

That's just my guess though

>our self-identified race

lmao you people are EXACTLY like SJW's

Improved your image

No

That's racist science so nobody can study it.

>implying identity politics is bad
>implying Poland deserves scum like you

It's not the same thing as being fucking "transracial". In this context, "identifying" your race means precisely that, rather than just deciding you're black even though your genes determine that you're white.

Not related

I like dis. Thank

What difference on behavioral between white and black ladies? mom basement men will say many.

Different cultures endemic to historically geographically separate races should be all you need to realize that behaviour varies between them.

>races

You mean species?

A polar bear is a different species from a grisly bear.

How then, can anyone say niggers and whites are the same species?

And no, mixing two races with two different average IQs can only degrade the two species.

>How then, can anyone say niggers and whites are the same species?
Because we can produce viable offspring when we crossbreed. Isn't that one of key criteria when determining whether to classify an animal into a species or sub-species?

Also I thought mixed races average in between

How would a self-identified race show in genetics?

Can a polar bear fuck a grisly bear and produce fertile offspring? Ha, didn't think so.

Damn you white nationalists are NOT helping your case being fucking retarded the way u is actin white boi

They're in africa you idiot. How could you type multiple paragraphs on this subject yet fuck up that major detail

image search this

I guess you'd have to define viable and see whether it's appropriate to use the same standard of definition when you use it to mating polar bears and grizzly bears or sub-saharan Africans and Anglos. I'm sure it'd be a greatly different scale.

Excuse me but this branch of science is closed off to goyim. 10,000 shekels have been removed from your account.

>Being this much of a fucking retard

>Woodley (2009) "Is Homo Sapiens Polytpyic?"
>Guo (2015) Participants were able to self-identify with their own genetic cluster (race) ~99% of the time.
>Alloco (2007) Even when snips were randomly selected, they found over a 97% correspondence with the self-identified genetic cluster

>B-but where does one race end and another begin, huh?

see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

We cannot say orange is not defined or does not exist because orange occurs between other colors.

The more genes you exam at once, the better 'defined' race is. The whole more variation within than without gripe is a complete fucking meme -- an effort from keeping this shit spiraling out of control.

youtube.com/watch?v=JVrw-IiGgLY

Your welcome for the free redpill, by the way.

that skull in the roof

My favorite example is cluster analysis, where you take a genetic sample and give it to the gene-sorter 3000, set X number of points to denote racial classification, then it maps out however many markers you use into separate distinct clusters. The more markers you use, the more separated into distinct clusters they become when visually represented on a chart. I'm shit at explaining this because I don't fully understand it, so here's someone who does.
youtu.be/JVrw-IiGgLY?t=576

Generally I think the term refers to whether that offspring is fertile. Maybe you could take it to mean "alive and not horribly deformed" when born

youtu.be/JVrw-IiGgLY

Skip to like 9:40. I was so sure I had copied the url to the right time but whatevs

lmao I linkded the saem vid as yu :D

Alt hype 4lyf

Race == breed == subspecies

They all mean the same thing, we just use them in different contexts. It would just be odd calling white and black people different breeds so we use the term "race".

Midget pygmy still has a larger cock than fat white man.

Thanks. i was confused by the term self-identified because of how it's used by postmodern types who choose to ignore biological differences.
Second point, i get what you're saying about specific lines drawn in the sand regarding whats appropriate, but i was thinking more in terms of a new scale being drawn because of our differences when compared to bears. So it rather the it being fertile offspring, it might be offspring which maintains the same or higher IQ than both parents. Im going down a eugenics path lol

yes but asking this question only illustrates how little you actually know about things like speciation or genetics, biologists generally have little criteria for calling something a species or subspecies, many DIFFERENT species of birds can breed with each other, just like many species of fish can, because they're almost genetically identical and only have differing behaviors, or live in different areas.

there's no such thing as race, there is a such thing as ethnicity and culture, but race was made up by a bunch of idiots in the past who didn't even know what genetics were. trying to base race on genetics is probably the stupidest thing you can attempt to do.

You mean relative to body volume.

you could probably use "breed" to redpill people because they always get triggered by "race"

Ryan already said somebody hacked The Alternative Hypothesis. Some phishing type shit, so relax, he's gonna get it up again soon.

Yes, they can. That's how evolution happened. That's why there are physical differences, despite being from the same ancestor.

>then again, this is pol

>talks shit but doesn't understand science, much less engage in a conversations outside of three posts.

Oldest common ancestor. They were probably one of the first groups to separate from the main population, likely before humans left Africa.

In the same way a labrador and a husky are the same subspecies but a different race

>>identifying the material reality of your genes is a spook
Stfu leftypol no one asked you

Retard spotted. A .txt paste and a wikipedia article apparebtly negate basic facts about the human genomes.

That's the point I was making, though I realise now it was ambiguous. I meant tl state course there's variation between because you're talking individual genes, but that doesn't mean groups can't have distinct sets of genes that can differentiate them. The individuals can be and are more varied, but it doesn't mean the groups aren't distinct.

Also it's entirely possible to compare between and within groups, you just pick markers that are found only within a group, and those found between, and test the differences of mean and variance of allele within and across. It'll tell you which are distinct to the groups as opposed ro individuals and to what extent. That's the gist of medical statistics

The usage of "race" and "ethnicity" to describe observably different populations have been used so interchangeably that arguing over it is semantics at this point.

I love Ryan. He's a good boi

>B-but muh "basic facts"
Refute those three studies then, limp-dick.

Should point out on continuum fallacy, on thr one hand it's true you can't say orange doesn't exist, butnin the other you can't define it in a suitable non-arbitrary manner. So anyone who disagrees can just say I don't like your definition of oramge because muh feelings and there's nothing concrete to fall back on.

Even physical scientific research is not as objective as people think it is.

See

>Can a polar bear fuck a grisly bear and produce fertile offspring? Ha, didn't think so.

yes, its called grolar bear or pizzly bear

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid

We are literally all the same except brown and black people have more melanin than whites. Stop buying into right wing pseudo science bro.

Sure, man. But don't get carried away and say purple must equal orange because we can't define them in a nonarbitrary manner -- like some people would say all races are the same.

...

>Because we can produce viable offspring when we crossbreed.

So did humans and Neanderthals.

Bump

...

>studies published in reputable journals and statistics are "pseudoscience"

Those studies have LITERALLY nothing to do with the statement about the extremely small amount of variation within the human genome. You literally just posted a bunch of facial recognition studies which are pretty arbitrary to the point considering facial recognition is developed based on faces seen in infanthood and not the individuals actual race.

>I can't read -- the post

>likely before humans left Africa.

You know "out of africa" is bullshit right?

why the fuck would you make me read that, that is one of the dumbest things i've read all day. disregarding the fact that there's no links to those sources, i can say without a doubt none of them are about this imagined thing you call race. if that's your proof then you're beyond teaching, you're just too fucking stupid. it's like someone who reads a study about quantum mechanics any believes that they imply a universe exists where people respect them.

wow bump, good video

This. But muh science is bad.

>OMG no links! Using Google is hard!
>Youre so stupid!!!
>any believes that they imply a universe exists

Take your meds, and actually read the studies, when you get the chance. Although I doubt you would be able to comprehend them anyway.

>disregarding the fact that there's no links to those sources
There's links in the description to the video he linked, thundercunt

Wildlife biologist here. I used to work in a genetics lab. I haven't done any research, but it's pretty much guaranteed that we're more willing to divide animals in to species and subspecies than we are humans. There are loads of separate species that can breed successfully, so we use genetic clustering, statistical differences in behavior, and skeletal structure, and even natural geographic range to make these distinctions. The fact that subsaharan Africans don't have an admixture of Neanderthal dna in conjunction with skeletal structure differences, the frequency of the warrior gene, pigmentation, iq if we were being honest, and general genetic distance would be enough to argue strongly for a separate species if we weren't discussing humans.

Oh sweetie

Literally stated I cbf checking because it doesn't matter, same priciples apply, just without the 14000 year seperation. No cunt wants to go there, non-temperate environment, so no interbreeding > differentiates

Point taken. I'm sure as hell not saying all races are the same, far from it. Most of the people I know readily differentiate between races,the cleverer ones even distinguish between slavs/western europeans/nords because of how much of a difference race makes physiologically. Suppose I'm just arguing semantics 'cause I'm bored.

Also before I hear any more bait about same genome, we share fucking 90% of our genome with literal fucking rats, and a few thousamd years of rapid environmental change made us consider dogs not wolves so why should aboriginals be the same as inuits?

Yeah, that's theoretically part of Kodiak genetics...

Lol yeah, don't we share 99% with chimps, or something?
thanks for saying this. Hopefully some of these newfags will accept the information from your mouth rather than mine.

Weeelll. Human modified organisms are treated as a special case because taxonomists can't be bothered to differentiate them. Huskies and Chihuahuas are absolutely distinguishable enough to warrant a separate subspecies, but fuck that.

>Lol yeah, don't we share 99% with chimps, or something?
98.7 w chimps
98.4 w gorillas

99.5 average between 2 random individual hoomans

Cheers

>1.3% difference with literal fucking chimpanzees
>0.5% difference amongst humans (random)
>brain dead leftists think that race doesn't exists

Wew

none of those papers actually support your idea, the first one actually counter to your point
the second one outlines race as a social construct not a genetic one
i couldnt find the third one because im not going to click on that youtube link
i make it a policy not to click on youtube links that are more often than not retards misinterpreting things to suit their own beliefs. if you can't link the shit yourself i doubt you've actually read it.

stop trying to use things you don't understand to support your viewpoint

oh fuck you blind

>First paper's abstract: I make the case that Homo Sapiens is polytypic...

Confirmed for NOT reading anything about it. Just watch the damn video, man.

>stop trying to use things you don't understand to support your viewpoint
says the guy willfully ignoring a source because "usually they're dumb lol." Funnily enough that video goes into great depth discussing just that

The only thing I don't understand is why you are retardedly clinging to your belief that race doesn't exist.

Bear in mind that result is only from 1 of many ways to determine genetic diversity, but it's pertinent because it was the method used by the same dude who once suggested "all humans are 99.9% the same" only to realize that there's as much as a .5% difference between random individuals

i read it on pubmed, im not listening to what some retard with no credentials and access to a camera has to say about it, and if you were smart you wouldn't either.
because you can't prove it does. your only source is a youtube video. show me several peer review papers that state race exists and is as differential as you believe it to be, or at least a lecture by someone respected amongst the genomics community. the conclusions being made regarding the sources listed are retard tier.

>retard with no credentials
>someone respected

You didn't even read the fucking abstract of any of those papers, you illiterate retard. Fuck off and shill somewhere else.

I am aware. Anyone who is even slightly numerically aware will see why that statement is absurd.

Normally I'd tell you that the video has sources for every cited claim but his website with all of these links is down right now. He's pretty much the gold standard for this side of the argument, while the best you can rely on is appeal to totally unbiased authority

you interpretation of what those papers are saying is hardy the correct one. i would call you illiterate but somehow you manage to write this terribly retarded post.

You tell me.

...

Lol

Those are several different cat races

You are thinking about breeds.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cat_breeds

>A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species. Breeds are formed through genetic isolation and either natural adaptation to the environment or selective breeding, or a combination of the two.

ie. race
I bet you feel silly.

Ooga Booga.

Pretty pathetic desu

>be 50 IQ stone age manlet
>still manage to invoke "muh dick"