5 ms·

"We might add that modern geneticists too find classification by skin colour unhelpful, and indeed avoid the term ‘race’ (a meaningless category in biological t

"We might add that modern geneticists too find classification by skin colour unhelpful, and indeed avoid the term ‘race’ (a meaningless category in biological terms)." But it's good enough for government work... "There is relatively little genetic difference between the human populations of different continents" There is relatively little genetic difference between dog populations on different continents... "and levels of skin pigmentation are a very poor proxy for general genetic relatedness. The distinction between ‘black’ African and ‘white’ European peoples, then, is not just unGreek: it’s also unbiological." Completely wrong... if you're judging just between black Africans and white Europeans then it is a pretty good proxy for general genetic relatedness. It is absolutely insane to think otherwise.

coliveira 8y ago
Color of skin is a completely unhelpful concept, which can only be the product of a culture create by extremely white people. Just consider for example the fact that in India people in the same region vary considerably is skin tone. Similarly, in Africa there is a huge diversity of skin colors. The same can be said of the nations living around the Mediterranean. Skin color is a stupid way to classify people, and is a sub product of northern European cultures.
zawerf 8y ago
> Completely wrong... if you're judging just between black Africans and white Europeans then it is a pretty good proxy for general genetic relatedness. It is absolutely insane to think otherwise. Skin color is not a good proxy for genetic relatedness because it's only one of the many different traits that make up a human. You would surely agree that two humans with different skin colors but all else equal are more closely related than two with the same skin color but nothing else in common. And it turns out that is exactly the case. Africa has the most genetic variation since it's the origin of humans so a black African can very well be much more related to a white European than to another black African. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation In computer science terms it would be trying to do a dimension reduction by only naively comparing the first coordinate. That would work only if skin color is the principal component of genetic diversity but it's pretty unlikely and insane to declare that a priori.
- said 8y ago
  Your link directly contradicts the paragraph that precedes it.
  - jonathanyc 8y ago
    What? I just read the link and one thing it says is that > In general, however, an average of 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a). The recent African origin theory for humans would predict that in Africa there exists a great deal more diversity than elsewhere and that diversity should decrease the further from Africa a population is sampled. Which is literally what the GP said. You should put up or not make drive-by comments.
    - zawerf 8y ago
      Same quote stated more directly (emphasis mine): > It is often stated that the fixation index for humans is about 0.15. This translates to an estimated 85% of the variation measured in the overall human population is found within individuals of the same population, and about 15% of the variation occurs between populations. These estimates imply that any two individuals from different populations are almost as likely to be more similar to each other than either is to a member of their own group
      - said 8y ago
        Please see my post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17055327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17055327 In your paragraph “similarity” refers to looking at just one genetic locus (essentially one gene) at a time.
    - said 8y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lew... Yes, if you look at just one genetic locus at a time, there appears to be more genetic variation within races than between them. However, if you look at multiple loci at a time, the accuracy of racial classification approaches 100%. That’s how genetic ancestry companies are so accurately able to bucket people into broad races. In 2018, repeating this particular fallacy amounts to deception. It’s a an obvious mistake no one would make in any other statistical context. The quoted paragraph does not support the notion that “a black African can very well be much more related to a white European than to another black African”. It just doesn’t. And even if it did, it wouldn’t support the notion that white Europeans are more related to black Africans than to each other. It seems like certain progressive-minded people can never define race (“Ugh, what does white even mean, anyway?”) until it comes time to give resources to black people (“Ugh, why are 75% of employees at this company white?”).
astura 8y ago
>But it's good enough for government work Government racial data is intended to reflect culture and has nothing to do with genetics, it's not intended to be scientific nor should it. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI425216 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI425216 >The U.S. Census Bureau collects race data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically.

coliveira 8y ago

Color of skin is a completely unhelpful concept, which can only be the product of a culture create by extremely white people. Just consider for example the fact that in India people in the same region vary considerably is skin tone. Similarly, in Africa there is a huge diversity of skin colors. The same can be said of the nations living around the Mediterranean. Skin color is a stupid way to classify people, and is a sub product of northern European cultures.

zawerf 8y ago

> Completely wrong... if you're judging just between black Africans and white Europeans then it is a pretty good proxy for general genetic relatedness. It is absolutely insane to think otherwise. Skin color is not a good proxy for genetic relatedness because it's only one of the many different traits that make up a human. You would surely agree that two humans with different skin colors but all else equal are more closely related than two with the same skin color but nothing else in common. And it turns out that is exactly the case. Africa has the most genetic variation since it's the origin of humans so a black African can very well be much more related to a white European than to another black African. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation In computer science terms it would be trying to do a dimension reduction by only naively comparing the first coordinate. That would work only if skin color is the principal component of genetic diversity but it's pretty unlikely and insane to declare that a priori.

said 8y ago
Your link directly contradicts the paragraph that precedes it.
- jonathanyc 8y ago
  What? I just read the link and one thing it says is that > In general, however, an average of 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a). The recent African origin theory for humans would predict that in Africa there exists a great deal more diversity than elsewhere and that diversity should decrease the further from Africa a population is sampled. Which is literally what the GP said. You should put up or not make drive-by comments.
  - zawerf 8y ago
    Same quote stated more directly (emphasis mine): > It is often stated that the fixation index for humans is about 0.15. This translates to an estimated 85% of the variation measured in the overall human population is found within individuals of the same population, and about 15% of the variation occurs between populations. These estimates imply that any two individuals from different populations are almost as likely to be more similar to each other than either is to a member of their own group
    - said 8y ago
      Please see my post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17055327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17055327 In your paragraph “similarity” refers to looking at just one genetic locus (essentially one gene) at a time.
  - said 8y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lew... Yes, if you look at just one genetic locus at a time, there appears to be more genetic variation within races than between them. However, if you look at multiple loci at a time, the accuracy of racial classification approaches 100%. That’s how genetic ancestry companies are so accurately able to bucket people into broad races. In 2018, repeating this particular fallacy amounts to deception. It’s a an obvious mistake no one would make in any other statistical context. The quoted paragraph does not support the notion that “a black African can very well be much more related to a white European than to another black African”. It just doesn’t. And even if it did, it wouldn’t support the notion that white Europeans are more related to black Africans than to each other. It seems like certain progressive-minded people can never define race (“Ugh, what does white even mean, anyway?”) until it comes time to give resources to black people (“Ugh, why are 75% of employees at this company white?”).

astura 8y ago

>But it's good enough for government work Government racial data is intended to reflect culture and has nothing to do with genetics, it's not intended to be scientific nor should it. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI425216 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI425216 >The U.S. Census Bureau collects race data in accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and these data are based on self-identification. The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically.