4 ms·
This is Lewontin's Fallacy. Briefly, there is no contradiction between the existence of clusters and the notion that there is more variation within clusters tha
by lexcorvus 11y ago
This is Lewontin's Fallacy. Briefly, there is no contradiction between the existence of clusters and the notion that there is more variation within clusters than between clusters. For example, the variation in height within the categories "male" and "female" is greater than the variation between them (i.e., the difference in mean heights), but this does not negate the validity of the clusters "male" and "female". Indeed, only a small number of traits are needed to determine biological sex to high accuracy—e.g., height, skeletal density, cranial volume, waist-to-hip ratio, etc.—even though in every individual case the variation within traits exceeds the variation between traits [1].
Likewise, simply because the variation within sub-Saharan Africans is greater than the variation between them and other groups doesn't mean the cluster doesn't exist [2]. Indeed, it's easy to tell from a genetic analysis what percentage of a person's ancestry comes from each cluster, including sub-Saharan Africa [3].
The study in the OP indicates that fingerprints are like DNA in this regard. That doesn't mean the study is right, simply that it shouldn't be rejected based on Lewontin's Fallacy.
[1]: This is why anthropologists can reliably determine sex based even on fragmentary skeletons (such as "Lucy").
[2]: The edges of the clusters are often fuzzy, but again this doesn't negate their existence. The clusters "red" and "green" are fuzzy, too, but that doesn't make the categories meaningless.
[3]: For example, this is the premise behind Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s PBS show "Finding Your Roots" (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/finding-your-roots/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/finding-your-roots/). It is true that the label "African-American" is imprecise, as most African Americans have some European admixture, but typically over 70% of their ancestry is sub-Saharan African (http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/02/henry-louis-gates-exactly-how-black-is.html http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/02/henry-louis-gates-exactly...).
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoStill confused. "African" means less than "European", given that of all the myriad genes in Africa, only a small fraction left 40,000 years ago to populate the rest of the planet. There's no such thing as a single "African" cluster. There are even people with genetics unique to the planet - in Cameroon I think. Without distinguishing which of 100 African clusters each subject belongs to, the study hasn't begun to say anything meaningful?
- lexcorvus 11y agoThere's no such thing as a single "African" cluster There's a large cluster (with, of course, lots of subclusters) that includes almost all sub-Saharan Africans—basically, everyone except Khoisan (Bushmen) and Pygmies. As Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza puts it: "differences between most sub-Saharan Africans other than Khoisan and Pygmies seem rather small." Even then, the African supercluster is still distinct from Europeans, and indeed from everyone else. Cavalli-Sforza again: The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans For more on this important subject, I recommend these two short articles: http://www.vdare.com/articles/052400-cavalli-sforzas-ink-cloud http://www.vdare.com/articles/052400-cavalli-sforzas-ink-clo... http://www.vdare.com/articles/053100-cavalli-sforza-ii-and-seven-dumb-ideas-about-race http://www.vdare.com/articles/053100-cavalli-sforza-ii-and-s...