/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11729693]

Are Europeans and Middle Easterners the same race from a genetic standpoint?

[Anonymous No.11729698]

>>11729693
>race from a genetic standpoint
thats not how it works

[Anonymous No.11729703]

>>11729698
Why not?

[Anonymous No.11729719]

>>11729703
You're trying to go from something fundamental - genes- to a catagory, this is the wrong way round.

The "proper" way round is to have a phenomenological category that is useful, which you can then explain using deeper/ more basic concepts.

We have a category called "race" it is a useful category for describing differences between groups of people at a certain "level" i.e bigger than country, smaller than planet.

There are various physical components that explain different proportions of the variance between races.

Just going "look genes" is a bad way to do this categorization because i) nature is messy ii) it does not apply to the functional use of the category of race, which is different sets of people are phenomologically different.

Genes explain part of the variance between european whites and middle easterners.

[Anonymous No.11729723]

>>11729693
There is no definition of "race" from a genetic standpoint.
So retarded question.

[Anonymous No.11729736]

>>11729693
more or less yes

[Anonymous No.11729745]

>0.05 Fst

Yes

[Anonymous No.11729749]

>>11729698
>>11729723
https://books.google.com/books?id=U-EPAQAAMAAJ&q=hartl+clark+population+genetics+%22race%22&dq=hartl+clark+population+genetics+%22race%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikv_vo_tjpAhVHdt8KHdI6B-EQ6AEIaDAH
>a race is a group of individuals in a species showing closer genetic relationships within the group than to members of other such groups.

[Anonymous No.11729748]

<0.05 Fst

Yes

[Anonymous No.11729761]

>>11729749
i guess then race truly is on a spectrum

[Anonymous No.11729778]

>>11729749
by this definition you could use and fst distance of 0.00001 to classify a race

[Anonymous No.11729786]

>>11729778
Why not ? But when your classification criteria creates thousands of groups at a given level, it's impractical.

[Anonymous No.11729790]

>race
anthropology is not science

[Anonymous No.11729796]

>>11729786
Exactly the criteria is bunk. I think the category is reflective of the obvious differences between peoples. The physical mechanisms are only partly understood, so its silly to define criteria based on them.

[Anonymous No.11729836]

>>11729796
>the criteria is bunk because impractical
If you're talking about Fst, then just set the distance at 0.1 and it's not bunk anymore.

[Anonymous No.11729933]

>>11729836
I didn't say it was impractical. I said it was arbitrary/bunk and not totally reflective of what is meant by the category race.

[Anonymous No.11729943]

>>11729933
>not totally reflective of what is meant by the category race.
The point is to base the category on something solid so that it gets a clear meaning.

[Anonymous No.11729954]

>>11729943
You're trying to be too concrete about a messy division if you just say "muh FST"
I can divide euros and middle easterners, they are obviously different, but not at the level of country, so its appropriate to apply the category "race".

[Anonymous No.11729957]

>>11729943
also see >>11729719

[Anonymous No.11729960]

>>11729748
You should post the original, also it's from an old paper based on only 120 allele frequencies and Nei's genetic distance was used not fixation index.

Cavalli-Sforza, L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P. and Mountain, J., 1988. Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 85(16), pp.6002-6006.