Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>
I often hear racialists use archiac admixture in populations as "proof" of races being heavily different (like Asians and Europeans having 1-4% Neanderthal DNA but Africans having none). The recent discovery of a "ghost" population contributing DNA (about 8%) into the African gene pool has caused some debate as well. Anyone care to elaborate on that? — Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs
Fst Comparison with Other Mammals
It seems like the Lewontin Fst arguments are at least being overstated and there are other mammals with uncontroversial subspecies that have similar Fst values. I've skimmed some of the archived history here and I see that this is unfortunately a talking point for drive-by race realists but I think they have a point. One very motivated source, The Alternative Hypothesis, has a table of humans and other mammals comparing Fst data and number of accepted subspecies: http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/variation-within-and-between-races/. I haven't checked the citations, and some of those Fst comparisons appear outright inappropriate (i.e. not large dispersive mammals), but I think the general argument has weight. It's hard to find a neutral source tabulating similar data. The closest I've found is this, which doesn't include number of accepted subspecies data but does show that while humans have low diversity, they don't have wildly less diversity than all comparable mammals: https://pandasthumb.org/uploads/2012/Templeton_1999_AA_Fig1_Fst_for_humans_mammals_compared-thumb-700x619-952.png. A very brief search of primary sources suggests that the commonly quoted human Fst of 0.15 is indeed comparable to other mammals with accepted subspecies (e.g. this paper for brown/black/polar bears has Fst values for brown vs black and polar vs black of 0.1759 and 0.1832: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23125409). I'm not an Fst expert though, so maybe pairwise comparisons aren't comparable to many population comparisons. In either case, I think these points should be pre-empted in the article. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Clarify What Mainstream Science Does and Does Not Say About Race
There's a lot of criticism of this page as politically motivated SJWs denying that there's any human genetic diversity at all. Most of these people are acting in bad faith but I think some of this is a real misunderstanding from people confused by statements like "race is a social construct". The article does clear things up but it's all the way under "Lewontin's Fallacy", so it's a bit hard to find. It would help to have a paragraph in the intro that states human genetic diversity does exist, gives a sense of why scientists have moved away from the word race, and outlines the mainstream understanding of human genetic diversity. How about something very roughly like this?
- "Race", as used in common speech, refers to a folk taxonomy of people based on superficial characteristics and social customs (e.g. one-drop rule). This folk taxonomy is not totally unrelated to human genetics, but human genetic variation is more accurately described by clines and clusters. Human genetic variation has been found to form continuous gradients over land, or "clines", along with some small discontinuities across geographic barriers. Human genetic variation can be clustered, but the number of clusters is arbitrary and they differ from traditional folk taxonomies of race. Unlike species with tree-like genetic structures relating isolated subspecies, human genetics are heavily interwoven.
A section with some historical context would help too. Modern race realists seem to think the points about continuous variation and arbitrariness of clusters are attacks on strawmen and don't realize that not too long ago there were some mainstream anthropologists that literally believed there were distinct human races with separate origins. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)