Brive1987 wrote: ↑
............
Kirb,
Frau Goldilocks won’t send me a reference for her racial dot painting (or any braid-pics). But I unilaterally tracked it down to a pubmed article. So it must be accurate.
Can you (or someone else) rub their brain cells together as a favour and explain wtf it’s all about?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945611/
The pic is figure 3.
Steers has already replied (and his reply was very good, credit where credit is due).
I'd add in my two cents from what I can understand from the article (with quotes).
High-throughput genotyping data are useful for making inferences about human evolutionary history. However, the populations sampled to date are unevenly distributed, and some areas (e.g., South and Central Asia) have rarely been sampled in large-scale studies. To assess human genetic variation more evenly, we sampled 296 individuals from 13 worldwide populations that are not covered by previous studies. By combining these samples with a data set from our laboratory and the HapMap II samples, we assembled a final dataset of ~250,000 SNPs in 850 individuals from 40 populations. With more uniform sampling, the estimate of global genetic differentiation (FST) substantially decreases from ~16% with the HapMap II samples to ~11%. A panel of copy number variations typed in the same populations shows patterns of diversity similar to the SNP data, with highest diversity in African populations. This unique sample collection also permits new inferences about human evolutionary history. The comparison of haplotype variation among populations supports a single out-of-Africa migration event and suggests that the founding population of Eurasia may have been relatively large but isolated from Africans for a period of time. We also found a substantial affinity between populations from central Asia (Kyrgyzstani and Mongolian Buryat) and America, suggesting a central Asian contribution to New World founder populations.
SNPs, or single-nucleotide polymorphisms, are variations in a single nucleotide, the organic molecules that are, roughly speaking, the building blocks of the DNA (and RNA) in a specific position within the genome. The nucleotides are
made up of sugar groups and phosphate groups, the backbone of DNA, and nitrogenous bases, whose order and position encodes the information stored in the DNA.
The are four bases in the DNA: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine (A, C, G, T). A SNP is a variation between different DNAs in a single nucleotide, so in a single exchange of a base: for example let's imagine a DNA sequence which goes TAGACATAGACC, a SNP would be (in bold) TAGA
AATAGACC (in this case a C/A polymorpism).
It's important to remember that SNPs do not necessary imply different genetic coding: SNPs can fall in both coding and not-coding sequences of genes, in sequences between genes, so they might or not might not change the amino acid sequence of the protein which the genes produce. Even within the coding sequence many SNPs are synonymous (they don't affect the protein sequence) and only a few either produce a different protein (missense SNPs, "true mutations"), or incomplete, non-functional proteins (nonsense SNPs).
A measure of hundreds of thousands of SNPs between different populations is rather good proxy for a measure of genetic diversity between those populations and so a rough "genetic history" of the populations themselves (by studying what varies and in which degree between them at a nucleotide level). The paper writes that the differences support the idea that the ancestors of Europeans, Asians, Polynesians and Native Americans all came from a single, pre-historic migration from Africa rather than a series of back and forth migrations between Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world.
This is fascinating, and a truly revolutionary way to look at genetic history, but contrary to what Frau Not Giving Braid-Pics tries to imply it doesn't even remotely mean that Sub-Saharan African are "a different hominid species", since the definition of
species, while fuzzy, is about a rather different degree of genetic difference:
An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring.
I'm pretty sure that humans of different populations can mate with one another and produce fertile male and female offspring (unlike, for example, donkey and horses hybrids, like mules, where fertility of offspring is
limited to female offspring).
Human genetic variation is known and accepted among all genetists and biologists. It's not surprising that populations that lived far from each other tend to differ more, and that populations that had common ancestors tend to differ less. Indeed it'd be surprising if it happened otherwise.
The greatest degree of diversity (as it is shown in the graph, once you have the context to interpret it) is between African populations and the rest (quote from the study which you linked to):
The majority of the genetic variation is found between African and non-African populations, as the first principal component (PC1) accounts for 78.7% of total variance. PC2 reflects genetic variation in Eurasia, and populations from Central and West Asia occupy the space between East Asia and Europe to form a relatively continuous distribution.
This likely means that the common ancestors between Sub-Saharan African and EuroAsianAmeroPolynesians lived before the common ancestors of modern Sub-Saharan African populations, or, for example, the common ancestors between Central/West Asians and Europe. So the theory of "one single big migration out of Africa" receives a lot of supporting genetic evidence. No surprises here.
Indeed it's more interesting to note that (for example) Native American populations have more in common with Central Asians than with Eastern Asians:
New World populations (Totonac and Bolivian) are placed between Nepalese and Kyrgyzstanis, indicating higher affinity of these American samples to central Asians than to eastern Asians.
(This likely suggests than the common ancestors of New World populations and central Asians lived after the common ancestors of New World populations and Eastern Asians, or in other terms that Native Americans are genetically closer to, say, Siberian ethnic groups than to the Japanese, which makes a lot of sense geographically and historically speaking).
In Europe, a northern/western European component is predominant in HapMap CEU, the Utah Northern European, and the Slovenian samples. One Caucasus/Middle East component is predominant in Daghestani and Iraqi samples and appears to decrease clinally to the east through Pakistan and Nepal and to the west through southern and northern Europe.
No surprises here, geographically close groups (historically speaking, pre-Industrial Age) are closer than geographically distant populations, and this happens gradually from Europe to Nepal).
It's interesting to read the conclusions of the study:
Consistent with previous studies [37; 39; 40], our analyses demonstrate that differentiation among human populations decreases substantially and genetic diversity is distributed in a more clinal pattern when more geographically intermediate populations are sampled. The reduction of FST values with further geographic sampling illustrates the limitations of a global FST estimate to capture the pattern of human genetic diversity. With a more comprehensive population samples, our data have also led to several new observations about human demographic history and genetic relationships among human populations.
Basically, the bigger and more geographically diverse the samples, the lower the overall genetic differences, which makes sense, since people which lived close tended to intermarry more than those who were separated by miles and miles of land. This happens in all animals so it's not surprising that it happens in humans. Sample fox populations in England and in Russia and you'll find more differences than in fox populations in France and in Germany.
It's also interesting to note that non-Sub-Saharan populations seem to have a (small) degree of Neandertal admixture than Sub-Saharan Africans lack:
Interestingly, a recent study of the Neandertal genome suggests that the non-African individuals, but not the Africans, contain similar amount of admixture (1–4%) with the Neandertals [47]. The authors suggest that the admixture must have happened between the Neandertals with an ancestral non-African population before the Eurasian expansion.
So if anything the ones who mated with a different species of hominids were the non-Africans, while Africans are the "pure Sapiens".
Another interesting conclusion is that Middle Eastern populations (for example Iraqi Kurds) might have more in common with Europeans than with with Asians (although, understandably, less so than European populations like Slovenians):
PC1 (accounting for 62.7% of the variance) reflects an east-west gradient, while PC2 (3.3% of the variance) reflects a north-south gradient. Slovenians and Iraqi Kurds show close relationships to European populations. A closer examination (Supp. Figure S4B) shows that Kurds and eastern European Daghestani populations (Urkarah and Stalskoe) are clearly separated from western European populations. On the other hand, Slovenians show very little differentiation from western European populations (Supp. Figure S4B).
(So there is A LOT of racial variation within the "Muslim world", with Kurds being closer to Europeans than,say, to Pakistanis. In an ideal world this would quash the idea that islam is "the religion of brown people", as if all muslims and all "brown people" are a hodgepodge of indistinguishable "others" to Europe).
Overall the study is pretty fascinating: it gives weight to the theory of a single migration of a population out of Africa which then differentiated from Sub-Saharan Africans in the Middle East, by genetic drift, selection and mating with Neandertals (to a limited degree), then expanded through Eurasia and later from Siberia to the Americas, while close populations keep in contact and kept exchanging genetic material (Kurds being closer to Europeans than to Indians makes a lot of sense considering the history and geography of the Middle East).
We live in very interesting times and genetic evidence for the evolutionary tree of humans makes it even more interesting. I don't see any evidence for a differentiation so big that it led to "different species" between Sub-Saharan Africans and "the rest".
Brive1987 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:25 pm
Civic nationalists out there may be interested in noting last years Cato report. Results indicated that in order to value that most basic of Western liberal values, free speech, one had to be in fact ...... Western. Amazing.
http://i.imgur.com/FrTCS2j.jpg
I think Old_Ones wrote it to you already, but it's not surprising that after years of being told that they're always victims and the Whites Are Evil and freedom of speech and other American institutions are only a tool of the AmeriKKKa minorities have come to believe this.