human genetic diversity :discrete or pure races ?

[MARAQ DIGAAG]

http://anthromadness.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/human-genetic-diversity-discrete-or.html?m=1

 

[Transparent]

interesting read

 

[Apollo]

No pure races.

Even Swedes, Nigerians, and Chinese have some ancient traces of foreign migrations.

But by time frame, you CAN set race. I.e. who has been a local for the past 10,000 years.

 

[Prince Abubu]

No pure races.

Even Swedes, Nigerians, and Chinese have some ancient traces of foreign migrations.

But by time frame, you CAN set race. I.e. who has been a local for the past 10,000 years.

Makes sense. Although Finnish people have to be part Asian, some of them look like blonde and blue-eyed Mongolians.

 

[McLovin]

There is no such thing as biologically distinguishable races.

 

[WiilWaalan]

There is no such thing as biologically distinguishable races.

races do exists, the notion that the difference between races has no genetic basis is empirically false

 

[DuctTape]

races do exists, the notion that the difference between races has no genetic basis is empirically false

Races don't exist. There is often more genetic variances between people in the same "race" than between people of different races. This alone disproves your argument.

 

[WiilWaalan]

Races don't exist. There is often more genetic variances between people in the same "race" than between people of different races. This alone disproves your argument.

Ok, well this still doesn't explain the morphological differences among humans from different parts of the world

 

[DuctTape]

Ok, well this still doesn't explain the morphological differences among humans from different parts of the world

Morphological? You mean appearance wise? Certain traits that are more advantageous or desirable are essentially made more common through sexual selection and pure necessity, this is why Europeans and Asians both have pale skin, but they are caused by two separate mutations that arose independently. Morphological differences exist between you and your cousin, you and your sibling, people just have certain traits that are passed down from their ancestors. There aren't any actual anatomical differences between people of different races, we aren't missing any parts that Africans or Europeans aren't.

 

[WiilWaalan]

Morphological? You mean appearance wise? Certain traits that are more advantageous or desirable are essentially made more common through sexual selection and pure necessity, this is why Europeans and Asians both have pale skin, but they are caused by two separate mutations that arose independently. Morphological differences exist between you and your cousin, you and your sibling, people just have certain traits that are passed down from their ancestors. There aren't any actual anatomical differences between people of different races, we aren't missing any parts that Africans or Europeans aren't.

You are conveniently skipping out the notion of """"averages"""" of course there will be outliers to averages but there is still a general trend that is ever ubiquitous. The average skull from congo doesn't look like the average skull from norway which doesn't look like the average skull from china. You can do you mental gymnastics all you want but facts are facts

 

[DuctTape]

You are conveniently skipping out the notion of """"averages"""" of course there will be outliers to averages but there is still a general trend that is ever ubiquitous. The average skull from congo doesn't look like the average skull from norway which doesn't look like the average skull from china. You can do you mental gymnastics all you want but facts are facts

The article phrases this much more elegantly than I ever could.
"Essentially none of those populations can be considered truly "discrete races" from one another despite their differing phenotypes (i.e. Tamils compared to Somalis or ethnic Russians compared to Mauritanians) and distinct plotting points in global PCAs, because they did not develop the way species and subspecies usually develop which is mainly via substantive genetic drift over a long period of time.

These particular populations mainly differ, again, because of the ancestries they don't share and the levels of ancestries they do share (i.e. East African cluster-related ancestry in Somalis not being present in Tamils and "ASI" ancestry not being present in Somalis and then differing levels of pre-historic West Asian-related ancestry in both groups). They do not differ because they're all downstream developments from an Ancestral-HSS population that mainly differentiated via mutations and subsequent drift.

Basically, you cannot assume that two populations cluster apart or are genetically distinct (by Human standards) simply because they are discrete and pure entities the way the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid model, or any sort of racialist mindset, tends to imply.
Nevertheless, I suppose one could argue that certain populations are genuinely "discrete" in that they have not shared certain ancestries in well over 35,000 years. For instance, this can be said about West-Central Africans when compared to East Asians but here things do get a bit dicey as well since, while you can assume they're discrete from one another, they themselves are probably not, to some great extent, "pure" or mostly pure entities.

By that I mean... They too are probably, in some part, the result of admixture rather than mostly or entirely being linear developments from a singular ancestral population which is how the old racialist model might paint things. "

 

[WiilWaalan]

The article phrases this much more elegantly than I ever could.
"Essentially none of those populations can be considered truly "discrete races" from one another despite their differing phenotypes (i.e. Tamils compared to Somalis or ethnic Russians compared to Mauritanians) and distinct plotting points in global PCAs, because they did not develop the way species and subspecies usually develop which is mainly via substantive genetic drift over a long period of time.

These particular populations mainly differ, again, because of the ancestries they don't share and the levels of ancestries they do share (i.e. East African cluster-related ancestry in Somalis not being present in Tamils and "ASI" ancestry not being present in Somalis and then differing levels of pre-historic West Asian-related ancestry in both groups). They do not differ because they're all downstream developments from an Ancestral-HSS population that mainly differentiated via mutations and subsequent drift.

Basically, you cannot assume that two populations cluster apart or are genetically distinct (by Human standards) simply because they are discrete and pure entities the way the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid model, or any sort of racialist mindset, tends to imply.
Nevertheless, I suppose one could argue that certain populations are genuinely "discrete" in that they have not shared certain ancestries in well over 35,000 years. For instance, this can be said about West-Central Africans when compared to East Asians but here things do get a bit dicey as well since, while you can assume they're discrete from one another, they themselves are probably not, to some great extent, "pure" or mostly pure entities.

By that I mean... They too are probably, in some part, the result of admixture rather than mostly or entirely being linear developments from a singular ancestral population which is how the old racialist model might paint things. "

"Nevertheless, I suppose one could argue that certain populations are genuinely "discrete" in that they have not shared certain ancestries in well over 35,000 years. For instance, this can be said about West-Central Africans when compared to East Asians but here things do get a bit dicey as well since, while you can assume they're discrete from one another, they themselves are probably not, to some great extent, "pure" or mostly pure entities." The only counter argument to this line of reasoning is that the populations themselves are not discrete. And? this doesn't say anything about the general trend, the average is still there whether people in a given populations are different from each-other or not. These paragraphs doesn't really answer the question as to what caused the differences in averages to begin with, the actual clear observable differences in averages seems to be the most obvious sign of the existence of race

 

[DuctTape]

"Nevertheless, I suppose one could argue that certain populations are genuinely "discrete" in that they have not shared certain ancestries in well over 35,000 years. For instance, this can be said about West-Central Africans when compared to East Asians but here things do get a bit dicey as well since, while you can assume they're discrete from one another, they themselves are probably not, to some great extent, "pure" or mostly pure entities." The only counter argument to this line of reasoning is that the populations themselves are not discrete. And? this doesn't say anything about the general trend, the average is still there whether people in a given populations are different from each-other or not. These paragraphs doesn't really answer the question as to what caused the differences to in averages to begin with, the actual clear observable differences in averages seems to be the most obvious sign of the existence of race

I don't have much knowledge on the validity of the concept of races, but you've raised good arguments and I'll do some further research and form my own opinion.