3 ms·
>Dr. Lewontin and his co-workers determined that the great bulk of human genetic variability, roughly 85 percent, could be found within a population of, say, As
by prvc 5y ago
>Dr. Lewontin and his co-workers determined that the great bulk of human genetic variability, roughly 85 percent, could be found within a population of, say, Asians or Africans, while just 15 percent of the diversity might distinguish Asians from Africans from Caucasians.
>He was no fan of the massive federal Human Genome Project, which set out to map the entire sequence of human DNA
As a layman, I am baffled by how one would asses the genetic difference between two individuals without a full sequence of each of their respective DNA. The first quotation above has the disclaimer, "Using what would now count as relatively crude genetic markers like blood groups, but pulling from a significant global database", but does this mean that what they "determined" was not actually demonstrated?
- inciampati 5y agoIt's statistical. They could genotype a subset of genetic markers. As long as the N of their sample is high enough (tens, hundreds), this would give sufficient precision to make a statement about in- vs out- group variability. These estimates have held up.
- prvc 5y ago>They could genotype a subset of genetic markers. As long as the N of their sample is high enough (tens, hundreds), this would give sufficient precision Doesn't the sample of markers have to be unbiased as well? How would they have ensured this?
- dekhn 5y agoyou're starting to unravel many of the long-standing but not well supported claims of human genetics. Even with the human genome it's nontrivial to reliably compare people.