Third post. I have re-read some of the G6PD literature, and it does appear that there is marked linkage disequilibrium at the specific G6PD locus. This appears to support my hypothesis.
It also demonstrates how one advantageous mutation can arise in many different ways at many different times. This partially alleviates the huge genetic drift with selection we see in rare mutations like the SCD HbS E6V classic mutation or the neo/hypomorphic [delta]F508 cystic fibrosis mutation. [delta]F508 is a relatively interesting story, with the current hypothesis being that it came into Europe with the first wave of Paleolithic farmers. It hopped into the second wave of European Neolithic settlers. It accounts for around 80% of European CF with high levels in the Basque population and none of American Indian CF.
Agree. I’ve been saying that “race doesn’t exist” has a vague and shifting meaning. To prove my point, I’ve been asking pointed questions intended to nail down your position.
**
Ok, so set “A” means defining characteristics of races. Set “B” refers to other traits.
**
Ok, so you are saying that if you take two random individuals who share given traits in set “A,” their genetic distance, on average, will be little different from two individuals who do not share such traits?
And are you saying that any biological grouping for which this holds is invalid?
**
How is it that race as a scientific concept does not fulfill those requirements? I’m not saying that it does or doesn’t, but it seems to me that you’ve defined “hard and fast” in a way that is pretty vague.
For example, how do I know if a grouping “stems from physiologic or anthropologic relevance”?