5 ms·

> there are africans and europeans who share more dna than with others of their own ancestry You're probably referring to the "greater variation within than be

> there are africans and europeans who share more dna than with others of their own ancestry You're probably referring to the "greater variation within than between races" argument. But it's only true when looking at single genes, not collections of genes - that is how genetic tests can accurately determine race. And most traits are polygenic, so it does not even make sense to compare using only individual genes. That's the reason Asian couples don't spontaneously give birth to European-looking children, and vice versa. And genes not expressed in superficial appearance were exposed to selection pressure just as much. Whenever you see a theory so obviously contradict the evidence of your eyes, you should be at least skeptical of it (though not dismissive - e.g. quantum mechanics are true, however counterintuitive)

asveikau 4y ago
You're talking about averages. The idea that "genetic tests can accurately determine race" kind of falls apart when you apply it to an individual with mixed ancestry. You can probably detect and quantity the extent of the mix (which is why 23andme or ancestry can make money), but labelling a bunch of averages as "race" and arguing that there is an innate and immovable property of biology seems like there's something you're missing in drawing these correlations. You can start at a conclusion and show all sorts of correlations given enough data, but it doesn't give validity of how this is somehow the right way to look at it. And that's not even getting into how you're giving off creepy eugenicist vibes.
- astrange 4y ago
  [flagged]
ImaCake 4y ago
Yes you are right about the greater variation being localised. But I thought it was localised at the level of linkage disequlibrium blocks which can encompass many thousands of genes at their largest. Regardless the genetic distance between any two people remains tiny compared to the distance between even closely related species or sub-species elsewhere.
- archsurface 4y ago
  That's a roundabout expression of the narrative.

asveikau 4y ago

You're talking about averages. The idea that "genetic tests can accurately determine race" kind of falls apart when you apply it to an individual with mixed ancestry. You can probably detect and quantity the extent of the mix (which is why 23andme or ancestry can make money), but labelling a bunch of averages as "race" and arguing that there is an innate and immovable property of biology seems like there's something you're missing in drawing these correlations. You can start at a conclusion and show all sorts of correlations given enough data, but it doesn't give validity of how this is somehow the right way to look at it. And that's not even getting into how you're giving off creepy eugenicist vibes.

astrange 4y ago
[flagged]

ImaCake 4y ago

Yes you are right about the greater variation being localised. But I thought it was localised at the level of linkage disequlibrium blocks which can encompass many thousands of genes at their largest. Regardless the genetic distance between any two people remains tiny compared to the distance between even closely related species or sub-species elsewhere.

archsurface 4y ago
That's a roundabout expression of the narrative.