Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 21, 2019 17:30:04 GMT -5
Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy - Heather L. Norton, Ellen E. Quillen,(July 2019)
In 1956, evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane posed a question to anthropologists: “Are the biological differences between human groups comparable with those between groups of domestic animals such as greyhounds and bulldogs…?” It reads as if it were posted on social media today. The analogy comparing human races to dog breeds is not only widespread in history and pop culture, but also sounds like scientific justification for eschewing the social construction of race, or for holding racist beliefs about human nature. Here we answer Haldane’s question in an effort to improve the public understanding of human biological variation and “race”—two phenomena that are not synonymous. Speaking to everyone without expert levels of familiarity with this material, we investigate whether the dog breed analogy for human race stands up to biology. It does not. Groups of humans that are culturally labeled as “races” differ in population structure, genotype–phenotype relationships, and phenotypic diversity from breeds of dogs in unsurprising ways, given how artificial selection has shaped the evolution of dogs, not humans. Our demonstration complements the vast body of existing knowledge about how human “races” differ in fundamental sociocultural, historical, and political ways from categories of nonhuman animals. By the end of this paper, readers will understand how the assumption that human races are the same as dog breeds is a racist strategy for justifying social, political, and economic inequality.
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 21, 2019 17:39:40 GMT -5
That is, we will consider the biological variation within and between groups acknowledged by the 2010 U.S. census (United States Census Bureau) and the American Kennel Club (AKC), respectively. The AKC lists 192 dog breeds. The number of dog breeds has varied over time, increasing as institutions recognize new breeds among the some four hundred to a thousand breeds described globally. The five racial categories used most recently by the United States Census Bureau (White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander) reflect the current perception of race in the U.S. However, the number of human races has varied throughout U.S. history, reflecting the shifting social and political motivations, including slavery and immigration, a fact that highlights the significant ways that race concepts are driven by social forces. Presently, racial categorizations vary across cultures—for just one example, there are at least 18 terms to describe a person’s race or skin color in Brazil (Santos et al. 2009).
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 21, 2019 17:43:52 GMT -5
In addition, statistical programs such as structure (Pritchard et al. 2000) use model-based clustering algorithms to place individuals into a predetermined number of groups based on multilocus genotype data, and to estimate the fraction of genetic ancestry that individuals have from each of these groups. Results are displayed graphically, with population groups denoted by different colors. Individuals with ancestry from multiple groups are displayed using multiple colors (see Figs. 1 and 2 for examples and further explanation). It is important to note that structure will always identify the number of groups specified by the user—the program tries to find the best way to allocate sampled individuals into k user-defined groups in a way that will maximize Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium for each group (Bolnick 2008). As such, it is important for users to run structure for multiple values of k, and evaluate the statistical likelihood of each of these models.
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 21, 2019 17:50:05 GMT -5
Maybe some of you will get it now. These ADMIXTURE charts are interpreted wrong. But it is deliberate. Intentional to perpetuate the old myth. BUt Heather Norton agrees with me. IBD. There can never be and never was back-migration of Eurasians to Africa. Never! It is all lies to interject European dominance into humanities past.
quote: "Structure’s results are sensitive to a number of factors, including linkage between loci, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, sample sizes of populations, genetic drift, and geographic distribution of populations (discussed in Lawson et al. 2018; Novembre 2016; Bolnick 2008). Further, interpretation of the groups identified by structure as real, “pure” groups instead of statistical constructs runs counter to how evolution works and also runs the risk of reifying old and false biological conceptions of race (Weiss 2018; Weiss and Lambert 2010, 2011, 2014; Weiss and Long 2009). Specifically, such misinterpretations imply that at some point in our evolutionary past there existed a set number of distinct homogeneous groups, and that modern populations or individuals with ancestry from multiple groups are somehow less “pure”. It must be emphasized that no current or past population is homogenous or pure and no living population is any group’s ancestral population.".
That means Paabo, Reich and that group are all liars. Here Heather Norton is trying to set the record straight. Wish her luck! To those are understand. That is why LD and STRs are so important but is no longer used. If used it will clearly show groups like the Abusir are Sub Saharan Africans. This is what she is stating. ADMIXTURE with "parental" populations is all a farce and trickery. I know this but I ma not proficient enough in these softwares to expose their lies.
That is why I have doubts on Kieta. He should be writing this paper along with Heather Norton and other honest researchers.
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 22, 2019 13:44:11 GMT -5
The key point?
Quote: "Specifically, such misinterpretations imply that at some point in our evolutionary past there existed a set number of distinct homogeneous groups,".
This is why ADMIXTURE interpretation is all wrong by many but a few scientist. And some know it. They "believe" of these isolated pure ancestral groups. The whole premise of ADMIXTURE/STRUCTURE is based upon this premise. It never happened. It is just that....a premise. "ancestral" populations are determined by STR or LD type haplotypes or IBD(identity By Decent). That is why up today the FBI uses STRs to identify geographic origin and not SNP(edit). SNPs should not be used.
SNPs can be used but the LD must NOT be removed. Removing LD is "cheating". I explained that to ElMaestro on ES. Not sure he understood or he part of the games being played.