So, your own cite says things like :
and
so, even the people you cite think there is more work needed, and also that backflow is a factor to consider. But I guess those are just “exceptional” cases, right?
They do not think more work is needed to figure out whether or not the average sub-saharan gene variant pool is different enough from the average non-african pool to stop using those terms, no.
The migration patterns and amount of separation which created those two broad pools are well-accepted concepts.
If you are hoping we will discover that the Japanese and the San have mostly the same gene variants that have arisen since the estimated confluence point for their ancestral groups, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed. Finding isolated examples creates nice aha! headlines but nobody thinks it will create average homogeneity for diverged gene variants.
That’s hardly the point under contention. No-one’s denying an OoA migration happened, or that there’d be a (small) difference between an average African and Outside pool (because averaging like that completely overrides clines, of course. Smoke and Mirrors).
Tell that to the author you cited.
Man of straw. Haven’t said jack about same gene variants arising post OoA-event (not that that’s so unusual - lactase persistence, for example, has arisen many times, in and out of Africa, and if some of those times are identical genetically, how would we know to differentiate them?)
“Isolated” my arse. Lately, seems every time someone actually does the lab work, there’s a new surprise. All the backflow examples I’ve mentioned were only sourced in work done the last decade or so.
Looks like your “dogma” shouldn’t play in the busy street of real science - it’ll only get run over.
Nobody thinks a .1% difference in DNA is enough to start marking out “races”, either.
Race is a definition, and an unrelated concept to whether or not two population pools have average differences for gene frequencies that might matter in determining outcomes.
A single gene variant is plenty to completely separate two populations for a given performance outcome; this idea being promulgated that we are “mostly” alike is no more helpful to the discussion than are the putative percentages distinguishing us from other primates.
What is at issue for understanding genetically driven outcome differences among populations is whether or not they have been separated long enough to reasonably expect some differences in average frequencies for genes which have evolved subsequent to the point of separation.
The real science here shows the sub-saharan african and non-africa populations have, on average, been separated plenty long for this to have happened, which is why you see those two terms used all the time in population genetics. And they imply a pleasant egalitarianism without requiring a shred of evidence that evolution would have failed to diverge separated gene pools for certain performance outcomes considered culturally sensitive.
Terms like “race” and “percent of the same genes” make nice pap for the masses because they are correct in many ways depending on how you define the terms.
They just have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the outcome differences we observe are related to an average difference in gene frequencies for the two pools of sub-saharans and non-africans.
Makes for nice pithy comebacks, though. So there is that. 
You continue to make assertions about the entire genomes of populations without any more data than mitochondrial and Y DNA, which while useful and interesting are unable to track similarities and ancestral relationships through most of the genome. You also continue your straw man “egalitarian” nonsense.
There is specific experimental evidence that refutes the genetic explanation, and the “blacks are dumber” crowd is just too lazy, cowardly, or uninterested in actual science to recreate what would be a relatively cheap and easy experiment.
As to whether you carry sickle cell or not, maybe (But notice how that one particular variant doesn’t give a shit about In Africa vs Out of Africa distinctions). For intelligence, or any of the other ways racists try to group people, not so much. Unless you can point to the single gene that controls intelligence.
Naah, mate. It’s a nice fairytale, but no. And here’s a little exercise to show it:
Name a single phenotypic expression that’s separated into an African vs Non-African distinction. Just one.
In the Eric Wang article I cited earlier over 1800 genes were thought to exhibit Darwinian selection, across a broad range of biologic functions including neurophysiology. That means those genes have phenotypic expressions powerful enough for evolutionary forces to drive them. These gene variants clustered by self identified groups for black, white and han chinese.
Every piece of evidence tells the same story. Populations migrate, isolate and diverge for gene pools. A major migration, isolation and divergence point was at the out of Africa split.
The fact that 1 to 4% of the non-african gene pool is neandertal after 40 thousand years is itself evidence that those genes added something to non Africans. Parts of the non african genome show no intrgression at all while other parts show a lot. Evidence that advantageous genes were retained.
Unfortunately simply leveling charges of racism does not change where science is taking us. The direction is not one of equal gene variants homogenized for phenotypic outcome across all populations. Not does science suggest that the out if Africa split was just one more minor clinal variation from the next population over.
Hi, I know I’m a little late and haven’t been following the discussion very well, but when did we rule out racism as a possible confounding factor?
“No, I can’t name any” would have been easier to type, you know.
Some non Africans. From what I can gather, fair skin, red hair and some lipase is what it amounts to so far. Yeah, “pale carnivorous gingers” is exactly how I picture everyone outside of Africa :rolleyes:
I know, right? I mean, I’m really not qualified to discuss the difference between genes and alleles, but I think we haven’t come close to needing such qualifications.
I’m reminded of my college days when someone tried to convince me that quantum theory explained how an Aztec shaman really would be able to transform from a person into a jaguar, using all sorts of big words that, as a poli-sci major, I didn’t really understand. But I still didn’t think I needed to be able to understand them, because the nitwit hadn’t disposed of a much simpler theory: that anyone claiming to transform from a human to a jaguar is delusional or lying. There’s no reason to talk about quantum theory when such an obvious other answer is available.
So it is here. If we were seeing profound difference in the school performance between people with brown eyes and people with hazel eyes, even after controlling for other factors, then maybe we’d start looking to genes for an explanation, since there’s no obvious social factors to cause this difference. But when we’re looking at differences in race, and the differences map so strongly to America’s two biggest experiments with racial discrimination (American expansion westward into Indian territory, and American slavery/Jim Crow), historical effects are more than enough to explain these differences. All the talk about genetics seems a bit like explaining shamanism with quantum mechanics.
If you are just trying to reassure yourself that, without a magic “one gene w/ phenotype” prototypical difference, there is no difference in average gene pools, enjoy your delusion.
FWIW, it would be nearly as hard to indulge that exercise for bonobos and humans to your satisfaction.
If you step back a moment from the clever wordsmithing around “find me the gene variant that’s different,” you might understand the argument better.
Gene pools separated by 40-70,000 years . One gene pool has 1-4% of its variants introgressed from a hominin line that antedates the rest of the whole gene pool by several hundred thousand years. Evolution relentlessly experimenting with every gene. Migration patterns passing reproductively advantageous variants only to descendant lines, which have mixed only minimally between sub-saharan and non-african pools. Branching diagrams that show gene introgression/evolution at the point of out of africa before major subsequent divisions would accrue only to non-africa lines.
You can gather anything you like, but the fact is that sub-saharan and non-african pools are a major division point in the history of human evolution, and it is very naive to hope those two pools have only diverged for average frequency of the genes which control skin, hair and lipase.
I challenge you to give me a single cite where a self-identified “black” pool and a self-identified “eurasian” pool has NOT been shown to have different average frequencies for a gene variant being studied against its phenotypic outcome. Begin in the medical literature with studies like:
Black white creatine kinase
Bone strength
ACTN3 R577X allele frequency
…on and on. It will take a long time to parse out which genes do what, and how, and their effect on phenotype outcome in the context of the entire genetic milieu.
What is clear is that evolution diverges separated populations, and that one major point of separation is sub-saharan from non-african lines, in terms of average gene variant pools.
What is it you think racism confounds when looking at which gene variants can be shown to have been selected by evolution for penetration such that clustering exists within self-identified populations that generally fall along recent continental origins?
What does racism confound when looking at human migration patterns?
What does racism confound when looking at Neanderthal genetic introgression in non-african lines?
Would you be reassured that the problem is American racism by looking at the incredible successes blacks have had elsewhere? And which index example in the rest of the world would you like to put forward as proof that the relative performance outcomes in the US when adjusted for SES are due to racism and not average genetic differences?
My guess is that you will observe the same general pattern as in the US, but need a different explanation in each case (colonialism here; slavery there; immigration yonder…), and you will need those explanations only for sub-saharan groups. You will not need them for asians or europeans of any color or historic discrimination/disadvantagements.
But please, put forth some great examples of exceptions to the same pattern of outcomes we see in America.
We don’t need such an “index example”, though they very well may exist. There’s specific evidence that genes are not the explanation for different outcomes, and the explanation of societal factors like discrimination actually fit the facts. We know that populations with the same gene pool can have wildly different outcomes, so we know that outcomes are not necessarily dependent on genes.
How about Native Americans? Various populations in India (and some Indian populations abroad)? Native Australians? Minorities in Europe? Hispanic people in America (perhaps to a lesser extent)?
Without knowing the genes for intelligence, much less their relative prevalence, it’s just ridiculous to make claims about who has better ones. Black people today score higher on average in IQ tests than white people from ~100 years ago – are black people’s genes superior to 1915 white people?
No, I’m reasonably sure I can find phenotypic differences between humans and bonobos if I really looked.
Please, explain to me why you’re using cites that talk about “Whites” when the discussion is about Out-of-Africans, and “Blacks” when the discussion is about Africans.
This is just cherry-picking of end-points, again. Par for the course.
Want one for creatine kinase with all three groups?
Sure.
“Respectively 13% of the white Europeans, 23% of South Asians, and 49% of the black people had serum CK activities above the manufacturer-provided limits.”
Please, sir, have another using “subsaharan” as a grouping.
These just happen to be the top two hits, b/c I am too lazy to do your reading for you.
No they don’t exist, and no there is specific evidence that genes are not the explanation.
Comparing IQ tests across the decades is a ridiculous exercise, and the guy who promotes it (your buddy Flynn) thinks the current average black adult male IQ is 85 but was in the 60s or 70s several decades ago.
That sounds like good, credible stuff, considering that IQ values were created to model intellectual functioning. Therefore according to Flynn, several decades ago most adult male blacks were mentally retarded (clinically speaking). Sheesh.
Perhaps one more typical paper showing a broad division in genesbetween subsaharan and out of africa lines.
“The high frequency of the deletion in non-African populations and its complete absence in sub-Saharan African groups suggest that the deletion event occurred just before or shortly after modern humans left Africa… In this context these polymorphisms are indicators of the evolution that occurred before the diaspora of these populations to the current distribution of modern peoples.”
Gosh, “Europeans and South Asians” are the sum total of the Out of Africa population, who knew? And again, “black” =/= “sub-Saharan African”
And anyway, for someone who’s trying to show 1 clear phenotype difference between groups, this is not it: (my emphasis)
Nice try, though.
:rolleyes: Don’t say “another” as though it isn’t the same study, with the same authors, just before and after the actual clinical work was done…
And let’s look at that title:“Black people of sub-Saharan descent” Why, it’s almost like they’re saying not all black people are of sub-Saharan origin.
And of course you’re aware that not all sub-Saharans are Black people, right?
So far, you’ve utterly failed at showing one clear phenotype difference that can be used to group people into Africa/Out of Africa. You’re doing great with various sub-populations, though, that’s nice.
Please explain how a deletion polymorphism is a phenotypic distinction.
Or why we should consider a difference of 1 out of 3 million (total indels) to be particularly worthy of the term “broad division in genes”