5 ms·

Your link directly contradicts the paragraph that precedes it.

by said 8y ago

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?”).
  - jonathanyc 8y ago
    I’m not the author of the comment we are both replying to, but I’m pretty sure you’re trying to use his comment as a soapbox to push your own views. Moreover the quoted paragraph does support that claim, and you still have not engaged with it. You are the one failing to understanding statistics. The quoted paragraph does not support the idea that people can’t be categorized into races, of course depending on how you define race, but you’re the only one talking about that. I think you need to check your tone and stop trying to politicize this discussion. You might have good points, but I’m really disappointed in how you seem to be trying to incite people.
    - said 8y ago
      I’d like to understand your point of view. To say that there is more variation within a race than between races when examining a single gene at a time does not support the notion that there are black Africans “much more related” to white Europeans than to each other. The fact that there is more genetic diversity among black Africans than among white Europeans doesn’t support that claim, either.
      - posterboy 8y ago
        There is no single gene that determines skin coloration. You are right insofar you allow yourself to be imprecise and make sweeping generalizations. Of course a light skinned person is far less likely than a person with darker complexion to have ancestry who lived ca. 2000 years ago in for example south africa, but there's a whole lot of leeway in those 2000 years and at the very least its ignorant of e.g. India. And then the question is whether the question mattersat all.

Your link directly contradicts the paragraph that precedes it.

by said 8y ago

Your link directly contradicts the paragraph that precedes it.

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?”).
- jonathanyc 8y ago
  I’m not the author of the comment we are both replying to, but I’m pretty sure you’re trying to use his comment as a soapbox to push your own views. Moreover the quoted paragraph does support that claim, and you still have not engaged with it. You are the one failing to understanding statistics. The quoted paragraph does not support the idea that people can’t be categorized into races, of course depending on how you define race, but you’re the only one talking about that. I think you need to check your tone and stop trying to politicize this discussion. You might have good points, but I’m really disappointed in how you seem to be trying to incite people.
  - said 8y ago
    I’d like to understand your point of view. To say that there is more variation within a race than between races when examining a single gene at a time does not support the notion that there are black Africans “much more related” to white Europeans than to each other. The fact that there is more genetic diversity among black Africans than among white Europeans doesn’t support that claim, either.
    - posterboy 8y ago
      There is no single gene that determines skin coloration. You are right insofar you allow yourself to be imprecise and make sweeping generalizations. Of course a light skinned person is far less likely than a person with darker complexion to have ancestry who lived ca. 2000 years ago in for example south africa, but there's a whole lot of leeway in those 2000 years and at the very least its ignorant of e.g. India. And then the question is whether the question mattersat all.