3 ms·

>I'm not sure how this supports your point Why not? What subspecies has more than 10% of the species wide variation? I can't find any. This is what I meant.

>I'm not sure how this supports your point Why not? What subspecies has more than 10% of the species wide variation? I can't find any. This is what I meant. Just to report facts you have to try to couch it in politically correct disinfo. "This will make it sound like races aren't real, even though the data clearly shows they are". Just like "we're 99.8% the same DNA!". Yeah, but most of that DNA is also the same as a banana's. What matters is the differences, not the basic requirements for life. >What species are separated by a pi value of 1 in 10000 or less? I said subspecies. I won't be able to continue this conversation unfortunately, "you are submitting too fast". HN doesn't seem to approve of discussion.

Dylan16807 10y ago
> What subspecies has more than 10% of the species wide variation? So you're not saying that the racial differences are large in absolute terms of how many genes are different, you're saying that they're large relative to the low overall genetic diversity of humans? That might be true[1], but that's because the denominator for a relatively new species is small, not because the numerator is large. Also to me, a layman, if only 10% of our intra-species genetic diversity is between races that sounds like a pretty good case for disregarding race in the vast majority of situations. > I said subspecies. You said "The genetic distance between human races is greater than many species, and virtually all subspecies". [1] What are the numbers for canis lupus, giraffes, etc. so I can compare?