From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 6 February 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)


Throughout this article you claim "racists define race as X", referencing only people hostile to the race concept, then refute X. Isn't that strawman argumentation? Max Triggers (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Refuting what a person said is not strawmanning, no. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
He's arguing anti-racialists define race how racialists don't define it. While this is actually true it isn't a straw man since racialists change/d the definition of race because they're losers who move the goalposts of falsifiability. The article could probably cover this better, i.e. definitions. "Max Triggers" defines race as mere ancestry. Notice how no scientist defines it as this; its something he just made up and these sorts of re-definitions of race by modern racialists are very trivialised: they define race as mere ancestry, or breeding population. In terms of the latter they would only have to point to Amish. Its deceptive because not only do scientists not define race as this, but society in general doesn't either.Skeptical (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Cherry picked one sided referencing[edit]

Throughout this article you only reference scholars hostile to the race concept and ignore the extensive rebuttals in the literature. This is lying by omission. Max Triggers (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Except, of course, that [1] those scholars themselves cite racialist scholars and [2] we ourselves cite racialist scholars, just less of them than antiracialist scholars. Would you argue against the global warming article by saying that "you only reference scholars hostile to the 'climate change has nothing to do with humans' concept"? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


Above is a sock of He's only here now because Wikipedia locked their race pages because he was excessively vandalising them. I suggest a RW sysop just locks these pages or protects them to autopatrolled.TombRaider (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Pages protected to autopatrolled. Mikemikev needs to get a new hobby. Skeptical (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Metapedia responds to RationalWiki Race Article[edit]

~ So we have more PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times) from the single neo-Nazi crank (Upplysning) left editing Metapedia. He's still screaming "lewontin's fallacy" without even understanding what Lewontin actually said. Not really worth responding to in the article, but good for laugh I suppose. Skeptical (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The only real problem seems to be the 1.53% error. Oddly, most of the other problems are mere semantic issues. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

the 1.53% isn't an error[edit]

"Rosenberg et al. (2005, 668) find that 1.53% of human genetic variation at K = 5 is unaccounted for by “geographic distance alone." - Spencer 2014

Rosenberg et al. 2005- "The effect of a barrier is to add 0.0153 to Fst beyond the value predicted by geographic distance alone. As 0.0153 is not a large value of genetic distance, and because the addition of the B term produces only a modest increase in R2, the discontinuities that give rise to genetic clusters—as we have stated previously constitute a relatively small fraction of human genetic variation."

Handley rounded this to 2%. Handley LJ, Manica A, Goudet J, Balloux F. 2007. Going the distance: human population genetics in a clinal world. Trends Genet 23:432–439.

Arguably though that 1.53% (2%) doesn't even exist; Rosenberg only used 50-60 populations in their study missing many regions across the globe.Skeptical (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll paste here a quote from Joshua Glasgow (2009) that comments about this and why the Rosenberg study is flawed, well i'll have to find it first.Skeptical (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"First, this study [Rosenberg et al. 2005] tested the fact of continuity by seeing if there were more discontinuities among non-random samples than among random samples, but the samples themselves were not consistently taken from globally continuous regions. Thus their admittedly probative evidence doesn’t tell us how many dis/continuities we would find if we examined a continuous swath of samples from around the globe. At present, we apparently don’t have a truly representative, continuous set of samples, and until we do, populationism cannot be vindicated. The importance of this point is testified to by the fact that Rosenberg and colleagues confirmed yet again that ‘intermediate’ populations for which there were samples—such as in Pakistan and western China— did not reveal discontinuities between the populations they ostensibly separate." (Glasgow, 2009)

Skeptical (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So as I said, if the Rosenberg study had included a lot more populations we could conclude whether that 1.53% actually exists. Since it didn't, that figure is questionable. Also notice when Rosenberg did include so-called 'intermediate' populations between (sub)continents, they found no discontinuities such as in western China - this lends support to the fact if they included more of these, geographical distance would explain all the genetic variation. Regardless, 1.53% is not significant and for this reason Rosenberg argues their study does not support the existence of race.Skeptical (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi. Why was my edited reverted? Was any of it incorrect? Wangmeister (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And again! Is the Fst between humans and chimps 18% or not? Is this page your religious text that can't be changed based on new evidence? (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
TFW PC American scientists claim race doesn't exist because Fst is under 25%, and the difference between humans and chimps is under 25%. Tfw you write this in "Rationalwiki". Tfw all of the regulars put this back it after having it explained. Wangmeister (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
TFW stands for "that feel when". So by saying "TFW when" you are saying "that feel when when". CowHouse (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Corrected. Any opinion on the fake statistics in the article? Wangmeister (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not done correcting you yet. "Revertion" is not a word. The word you are looking for is "reversion". CowHouse (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Corrected! Anything else? What do you think is more important and what you should address? My grammar and spelling in a talk page comment? Or the fake statistics and pseudoscience in your article? Please answer this question since I have been kind enough to respond to you. Wangmeister (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
>racialist accusing us of pseudoscience
LMAO. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 14:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I too am thus far unimpressed. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll answer your question. I think correcting your grammar and spelling is more important than arguing on RationalWiki about the existence of race (especially with someone who makes comments like this). Also, you never corrected the spelling of "reversion". CowHouse (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
So if you, an immigration advocate apparently, truly think arguing about race is not important, I could change the article to fix the fake statistics? Or is the reality you want to keep the fake race denying statistics because fake data on race supports your pro-immigration agenda? Wangmeister (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
See below for a refutation of your argument that FST supports racialism. Also, this has nothing to do with immigration, I have no idea where you got that from. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think Wangmeister's mention of immigration is referring to my recent comments on another talk page. CowHouse (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
So you think arguing about race is not important, but push for fake statistics to be published in race articles. Do you mean changing your fake statistics is not important? (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I never said it was not important. I said correcting your spelling and grammar was "more" important. That leaves the possibility that I think they're both very important. To get back on topic, there are users here who know far more about racialism than I do, and I'd prefer to leave it to them to debate you. Keep in mind that you might have to wait a day or so before they see this discussion and respond. I'll just chip in to correct your spelling and grammar since that's my speciality. CowHouse (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Background: Comparison with animals[edit]

Why doesn't this section actually compare other animals? Eg. [1]. Is it because you decided a priori race doesn't exist so ignore data which refutes you? Hardly rational. Quite the opposite. Wangmeister (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Rightpedia is not a legitimate source. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 14:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, additionally: chimps aren't considered humans regardless of their FST because they cannot interbreed with humans and produce viable offspring -- humans can interbreed and produce viable offspring no matter what color their skin is, so the argument you seem to be making that different races are different species seems to fall flat here. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 14:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
You commit the genetic fallacy and all of the statistics are referenced to journals. You know this. You're dishonest. I was simply pointing out that Fst can't be used to delimit taxa. How can species Fst be under 25% when subspecies can't? And it can. Check the interbreeding subspecies above. You know this. You're dishonest. Wangmeister (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
"the argument you seem to be making that different races are different species"
No that's obviously not what I'm saying. Your article claims 25% Fst delimits subspecies. I'm showing subspecies and even species with Fsts below that. It's a fake politically motivated statistic. Fake science. Sad. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 15:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No DOIs or titles are present - how am I supposed to find the journals it's referencing? Until I can actually read the sources, I'm skeptical. If you're saying races are human subspecies rather than separate species, that's a blatant lie. Further reading materials. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully we can avoid "if you are saying {insert crap}" if I state clearly what I am saying. I am only saying Fst doesn't delimit taxa. This is applied arbitrarily to humans. If you are not familiar with the relevant literature why are you arguing here? You can't Google the names dates and animal names? Shall I post google searches for you? Are you truly this incompetent or just stalling? Wangmeister (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm fine with you noting that in the article, assuming you avoid the idiotic chimpanzee argument. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 15:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Idiotic? Lol, your article is idiotic. It claims races are not valid because they're under 25% Fst, while the differentiation between humans and chimps is under 25% Fst. How is that not a refutation of your idiotic argument? Wangmeister (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I haven't contributed to this article at all and have my own reasons for rejecting the concept of race as outlined in the examples I gave. Don't complain to me, edit it yourself or talk to somebody who actually wrote that section. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 16:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
My edits get reverted by "GrammarCommie" who's apparently an immigration advocate so supports fake science which is inline with his political agenda. Shall I revert him? No I'll get blocked despite supporting my case. This website is an anti-White propaganda site, not a science site. Wangmeister (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because it was a statement of opinion with no citation to back up its claim. GrammarCommie (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
We just demonstrated here the claim in the article is wrong. But yu can see that. You're just a brazen liar. There is something seriously wrong with the people on this website. Who owns it? Wangmeister (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
First off, it's "you" not "yu", second off neither [2] nor [3] cited any source for their claims. Furthermore it is unwise make accusations you can neither prove nor uphold. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think if we were an 'anti-white propaganda' site, we wouldn't have negative articles about organizations like the Nation of Islam. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 16:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's the first two
Can you wrap your brain around the method here? Wangmeister (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If you slimeballs had any integrity this "comparison with animals" section would simply consist of this image[4] and "Variation within versus between groups is comparable with other subspecies". But none of you did have any integrity. You're scum. Wangmeister (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked you because you are not comporting yourself in a reasonable manner. Try again later.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
They'll act the same, children do not mature overnight. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Most the data in the image Wang spams is false. The lowest Fst value it cites for red-wing blackbirds is not even for subspecies, but populations within subspecies. You can trace the origin of that table to a white nationalist, so its just a politically motivated liar who put that table together manipulating the sources.Tuna (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Really? Quote the relevant part. You know "The red-winged blackbird is one of 11 species in the genus Agelaius and is included in the family Icteridae". You say most of the data is false. Easy to say. What else do you claim is false? Why would you examine most of the sources then not quote them to prove this? Wangmeister (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Liar! Wangmeister (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
4/5 populations (California, Alberta, Manitoba and Minnesota) are the same subspecies A. p. phoeniceus as noted on Table 1. This study has very little to do with different subspecies, but was primarily measuring the extent of genetic differentiation of breeding populations within the same subspecies. The idiot who put that table together misread the study. Tuna (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
So then the Lousiana subspecies has an Fst ~1% versus the other subspecies. QED. You can see this. Why are you stalling with this irrelevant babble?
Why are you saying "most of the data is false", and then choosing one data set which indeed shows the reported value? You're a liar. Wangmeister (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Because the mean Fst for red-winged blackbirds is not 1%. If we use your silly reasoning the Fst for human populations is 46% because the Fst distance between Mbuti Pygmies and Papua New Guineans is 0.4573. Using only two samples doesn't produce a mean and tells us nothing about the overall population structure. And what you've repeatedly failed to answer is why Fischer et al conclude because of the low amount of genetic differentiation between putative subspecies of chimpanzees (mean Fst = 23%) that subspecies in chimpanzees don't exist. These are scientists using Fst to conclude subspecies don't exist in another animal species. What is political about this? Do you know how stupid you sound?Tuna (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I showed other errors with that table a year back. When it finds low mean Fst values that are correct, what it doesn't say is those putative subspecies are actually now challenged e.g. orang-utans. Fischer et al for example deny orang-utan and chimpanzee subspecies exist based on low Fst and that table wrongly says orang-utans are not challenged or questioned as having subspecies... who is really lying here?Tuna (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two major scientific definitions of race in animals, as Templeton 2013 explains.[edit]

Why do you rely on Templeton so much. The man is a demonstrable quack and not referenced in biology. Do you like his politics?

What about these definitions of race?[5] Wangmeister (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

What about it? "Rightpedia is an electronic encyclopedia with a purpose to counter the lies and coverups by globalists and the controlled mainstream media in addition to exposing vital things they hide." I hope you are not offended when I tell you that is a rum source for scientific discussionAriel31459 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
They're flat earther crackpots; Rightpedia has an article on flat earth and actually supports it. I mean read this bizarre statement:

Undoubtedly, in the very near future there will be laws passed making it a criminal offense to deny that the earth is flat. In fact, there will be a zero tolerance policy for denying that the earth is flat.

It either doesn't criticize flat earthism as a crazy pseudo-science and form of science denialism, but just says "unproven theory". lol.Tuna (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Lol what? Genetic fallacy based on absurd lies. Shall I post the referenced data on another website? Would that make it more correct? Wangmeister (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Flat earth is an unproven theory in the fringes of the truth movement and a few in nationalist movements (eg. Sinead McCarthy, Tila Tequila).[6]
The statement is a satire on historical revision laws. Parodying how absurd beliefs are legally required.
Liar! Wangmeister (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Wang is a crackpot; all his claims are not only false, but absurd. Let me help you out here...

  • Fst between humans and chimpanzees is not 18%, but 89%. Source: Fischer et al. (2006) "Demographic History and Genetic Differentiation in Apes".
  • Fst between species is never below 25%, but it is rarely tested for species, but subspecies.
  • Fst is used to determine subspecies status; so for example Fischer et al. note: "the extent of genetic differentiation among subspecies of chimpanzees and orang-utans is comparable to that seen among human populations, calling the validity of the subspecies concept in apes into question." (emphasis added)
  • Putative subspecies with low Fst values under 25% are questioned/doubted and are being removed from taxonomic literature; many scientists like Fisher et al. now deny there are chimpanzee and orang-utan subspecies.
  • The table Wang posts is filled with errors. For example, the Fst between subspecies of red-winged blackbirds is not 1%. That figure is for breeding populations within subspecies. Another error is the claim Orang-utan Fst is as low as 9%, when its 3 times that amount in Fischer et al. but who even question the existence of subspecies (a borderline case).
  • Wang doesn't know what he's talking about. Tuna (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I did not know these things, so I allowed him to post his data up, but if this is true, I think it should be removed. First I'd like to see if he has a rebuttal. സ്പ്രിഗിന (സംസാരം) (സംഭാവനകൾ) @ 18:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sewall Wright's fixation index FST measured among samples of world populations is often 0.15 or less when computed as an average over many alleles or loci. To many, this result indicates that the genetic similarities among human populations far outweigh the differences. For example, a finding like this led Richard Lewontin to claim that human races have no genetic or taxonomic significance (Lewontin 1972). Despite the far-reaching proclamations that researchers make from FST, few have questioned the validity of how it is applied or interpreted. Earlier in this decade, Rick Kittles and I took an unusually critical look at FST (Long and Kittles 2003). We analyzed a unique data set composed of short tandem repeat (STR) allele frequencies for eight loci genotyped in both humans and chimpanzees (Deka et al. 1995). These data made it possible to see how FST played out when no one could dispute taxonomic and genetic significance. The answer surprised us. FST was pretty close to the canonical 0.15 shown so many times for human populations. In our analysis, FST was 0.12 for humans, but for humans and chimpanzees together, FST rose only to 0.18. Indeed, we found one locus, D13S122, where the size range of human and chimpanzee alleles hardly overlapped, yet FST equaled 0.15 (Figure 1). We ultimately found that the genetic and statistical model underlying FST does not fit well to human populations.

Update to Long and Kittles's "Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races" (2003): Fixation on an Index. Article · December 2009 Available from:'s_Human_Genetic_Diversity_and_the_Nonexistence_of_Biological_Races_2003_Fixation_on_an_Index [accessed Dec 13 2017]. Wangmeister (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Long and Kittles both deny humans races exist. The Fst between humans and chimpanzees is also not 0.18. The correct values are in Fischer.Tuna (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You have basically invalidated "RationalWiki" with this social justice warrior bs[edit]

Hi. I'm a ginger. I sunburn easily. You lose the argument. Why even bother to have a "RationalWiki" if it is allowed to be filled with this naive social justice warrior bullshit. Races are easily identifiable, have associated traits (like UV resistance) other than the trait that makes them identifiable, and there are many other traits besides that. When it comes to issues like intelligence or bias in behaviors there is more complexity and those could be attributed to epigenetic memory rather than race per se, but having a wiki labeled "RationalWiki" and then stating the opposite of the truth is just absurd. — Unsigned, by: 2601:c6:4100:aef1:1de:6576:a92c:eed4 / talk

Do race has different intelligence[edit]

Because there are different sources that trumps yours.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


Just found this from a stupendous fucking racist on /r/slatestarcodex. It sees extremely occasional academic usage (e.g.), but basically this usage is LW rationalism trying to find a new euphemism - David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


So a brief summation of the whole race issue is that an optical wavelength determines worth? --Scherben (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Templeton is not a reliable source concerning Fst, races or subspecies[edit]

In many of his articles, Templeton has claimed that an Fst of 0.25 is the standard threshold for subspecies, i.e. in 1998, "Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective," he claims, "A standard criterion for a subspecies or race in the nonhuman literature under the traditional definition of a subspecies as a geographically circumscribed, sharply differentiated population is to have Fst values of at least 0.25 to 0.30 (Smith et al. 1997). Hence, as judged by the criterion in the nonhuman literature, the human Fst value is too small to have taxonomic significance under the traditional subspecies definition."

Many other articles of Templeton likewise cite Smith et al. 1997 to make this same point, and it is ALWAYS Smith et al. 1997 ALONE, no other source. The complete citation is Smith, Chiszar, and Montanucci, 1997, "Subspecies and Classification," published in Herpetological Review (herpetology is the science of amphibians and reptiles). The full text is freely downloadable on the publisher's website, so I read it. The text makes no reference to Fst in any way, but it seems to refer to the "75% rule" of subspecies: if you can morphologically identify at least 75% of the members of the group as belonging to the group at the exclusion of 99% of the remainder of the species, then you can have a subspecies. This is a necessary interpretation of Smith et al., in part because the way they used the 25% value (remainder of 75%) was as the MAXIMUM value needed to identify subspecies, but Templeton would require it to be a minimum, not a maximum.

I was not 100% sure of my interpretation of Smith et al, so I emailed the last living co-author of the paper to clarify. He responded:

Thank you for your email. You are absolutely correct. We had the 75% rule in mind as we argued our position on the matter of subspecies. I have not kept up with Templeton’s papers in recent years and unfortunately don’t know if he has been challenged or corrected by others. If you intend to address this matter in print, I certainly encourage you to do so. The vast majority of taxonomists are comparative morphologists and work with large series of preserved specimens with broad geographic representation. Fst would have little or no practical utility in decisions about subspecies under those circumstances. In groups of organisms where single-nucleotide polymorphisms, microsatellites, and the like have been well studied, using Fst as a measure of population differentiation might be acceptable. But, I don’t really know with certainty because I’m not a geneticist. If I have not answered your question adequately, please let me know. Thanks.
Kind regards,
Richard Montanucci

I don't think that Templeton is bad at his job. I don't think he is illiterate about his own field. That would be unlikely, because he is a highly respected professor who occupies a respectable chair in his university deparment, and his papers otherwise display full literacy of his own field. That leaves only one strong possibility: he is a fraud. The market demanded a reason grounded in evolutionary biology for why biological human races don't exist, and Templeton supplied it. When I emailed Dr. Templeton with such points, I received no reply.

Templeton's assertion seemed implausible from the beginning. Supposing that there were some minimum threshold of differentiation that marks a "race," then that would mean we would have no general word to denote subsets of one species in the process of splitting into many species, from low differentiation to high. The word "race" has been that general-purpose word ever since Darwin, which is why "subspecies" is useful as a more formal system of classification. But, Fst is seldom used as part of any such criterion. It may be used for subspecies in microbiology, but apparently not in Smith et al's subspecies of snakes and frogs, and not for "race" anywhere. --ApostateAbe (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been dealt with before countless times. Even if true - what Smith et al. 1997 note is that subspecies must be allopatric or parapatric, same as Templeton who emphasises discontinuity. Sympatric subspecies cannot exist, since subspecies by definition are geographically isolated hence they don't interbreed, or if they do - it is restricted to a minimal contact zone (parapatry). Human populations today, with very few exceptions, are not isolated - so human races (per the subspecies definition) don't exist.Aeschylus (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Aeschylus, whatever the merits of that argument, it is a different argument. There are many arguments against biological human races, and I won't deal with them all in this context. I am focusing. Your argument concerning geographic isolation is not the argument that Templeton made in the context that I quoted, though perhaps he made that argument elsewhere. Templeton was specific and clear with his argument concerning Fst many times among many of his articles. His argument, again, was that an Fst of 0.25 is the standard threshold for races and for subspecies, and he cited Smith et al 1997 to back it up. --ApostateAbe (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you denying there is a genetic threshold to determine subspecies? The fact the 0.25 is an error (based on a misreading of Smith) is irrelevant since Templeton points out it is arbitrary: "The main disadvantage of this definition is the arbitrariness of the threshold value of 25%". (Templeton, 2013) The point is - a threshold has to be recognised, otherwise: "If every genetically distinguishable population were elevated to the status of race, then most species would have hundreds to tens of thousands of races, thereby making race nothing more than a synonym for a deme or local population." Are you saying there are 10,000 human races? Otherwise, you should understand Templeton is correct about a threshold. No two breeding populations are genetically identical; so of course there must be a genetic threshold for race, otherwise we run into the problem of having 10,000+ races... That's the point Templeton is making and the situation he wants to avoid.Aeschylus (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It is arbitrary, one way or the other, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. The 75% rule for subspecies is likewise arbitrary, but it is a standard. Templeton's Fst rule of either races or subspecies is also arbitrary, and he also claimed that it is "standard." In reality, it was entirely Templeton's own invention. It is not nor was it ever a standard. Race has always had a broad meaning in biology, and, yes, you can divide any species into countless races, much like you divide the color of "red" into countless more shades of "red," but that is OK, because that is the way spectra work, and the theory of subspecies was developed to have better-defined sets of divisions for when we need them. Race has a broad meaning, that is the word that denoted any subset of a species with any level of genetic differentiation from other subsets, and, if we narrowed down the meaning of "race," then we would need to invent a new word to denote what "race" meant before. That is why Templeton's claim seemed like nonsense from the beginning. --ApostateAbe (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry dude, but you're misinformed. Races as traditionally defined were overall homogenous within, but heterogeneous between; for example you can go read Darwin who made statements such as the variation between "Negroes" and "whites" being so huge, that they might be thought as different species. We know this today to be false, since overall genetic/phenotypic variation between human populations is minor and small. Templeton is sticking to the traditional definition that there must be large variation between races, hence he sets a high genetic threshold. Modern 'race realists' are sore losers who know that under the traditional definition of race, that races don't exist, but instead of admitting this- they invent new race definitions that are trivialised. Read any of Adam Hochman's papers who criticizes this.Aeschylus (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, please tell me which writing by Adam Hochman you would like me to read. I challenge you to find any source that claims an Fst threshold of 0.25 for nonhuman races. It won't be easy. I have already tried. The best I could come up with was Joseph Graves, who cites another source, Volume 4 of Sewell Wright, and the citation is much more plainly a lie than that by Templeton, because Sewell Wright had a chapter devoted to human races in the same book. The historical academic literature I reviewed indicates that biological "races" have always had a broad definition among evolutionary biologists. For example, I suggest reviewing Wilson and Brown, 1953, "The Subspecies Concept and Its Taxonomic Application." It is a paper that launches an attack against Mayr's proposal of formal "subspecies" classifications, with many of the arguments that are today targeted at the concept of human races: the classes are spectral, arbitrarily divisible, and innumerable. However, the authors had no problem with using the word "race" to denote such groups, and they use that word all throughout the article. --ApostateAbe (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll say the same thing I told John Fuerst, Michael Coombs etc who make your same argument: if races/subspecies were "spectral, arbitrarily divisible, and innumerable" in old literature, where are the sources calling the Amish Lancaster people a race?! Local micro populations like this were never called races by biologists or anthropologists. And if you look at 19th century and early 20th century scientific literature: race was only ever applied to large/broad groupings of populations, e.g. continental; take a look at the early race classifications on the History of racialism article. These large arbitrary groupings today have no utility because they're far too heterogeneous, hence population geneticists instead work with local populations; as an example the main article quotes a geneticist: "These big groups that we characterize as races are too heterogeneous to lump together in a scientific way. If you're doing a DNA study to look for markers for a particular disease, you can't use 'Caucasians' as a group. They're too diverse."
Against the New Racial Naturalism by Adam Hochman (2013). The Journal of Philosophy. 110(6): 331-351.
Unnaturalised racial naturalism by Adam Hochman, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Volume 46, June 2014, Pages 79–87. Aeschylus (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you are correct that historical writers never (or at least almost never) referred to a population only within single town as a "race," as the word was used only for large groups. All the same, they most certainly did recognize the continuity among races, and I can quote from Darwin or Blumenbach if you like, but I expect you already agree with me on that point. The theory of evolution would leave us no other choice. I would not agree with you that such races have no utility. Fine divisions may be useful for increasing the information, but fine divisions mean there isn't much of a difference between one group and its neighbor. Forensic anthropologists have only bones to examine, and they can't know the finer divisions with much certainty, but they can know the broad racial divisions (i.e. caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid) with high certainty (90% certainty according to one of my former colleagues in forensic anthropology). Similar with a DNA sample--they would not know the nation of origin except for just a shaky guess, but they would know the race with very high certainty (about 99.8%). Thank you for those citations of Hochman. --ApostateAbe (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Hochman 2013 cites Templeton for the claim that "The standard criterion for subspecies division is an FST estimate of or over 0.25," and Templeton again for the claim that "Human FST estimates are around 0.05 to 0.15, indicating that humans, under the standard genetic criterion, cannot be divided into subspecies." An outright lie has spread, not just to Hochman but broadly among the academic community. I have never seen the citation of Templeton challenged in the formal literature, but I have seen it positively cited dozens of times. Hochman didn't apparently engage in the debate that you and I are having, and to be honest I did not notice until an hour ago that the RationalWiki article notes that Templeton wrongly cited Smith et al. Somebody decided to at least try to get it right. I give RationalWiki that credit. --ApostateAbe (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
RW know this "0.25 Fst" stuff is pseudoscience. But they put in the whole section from Templeton anyway with a small note at the end saying "the above material is wrong". What a joke. What they should do is have a section on Lewontin's fallacy, actual pseudoscience. That "0.25 Fst" is an ad hoc fabrication should be front and centre. But on the Orwellian named "Rationalwiki" the staff are more concerned with pushing their sophomoric and false anti-White cultural-Marxist worldview rather than actual science. Shmuel (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC) (banned sockpuppet of troll: Mikemikev)
Lewontin's fallacy has a lengthy section on the article; perhaps learn to read. And if you read that section you will see there is no Lewontin fallacy: "Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups [races] do not exist in the human species, and Edwards's critique does not contradict that interpretation" (Marks, 2010).Aeschylus (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@ApostateAbe, I get your arguments. There's archives of this talk page where other editors were quoting Mayr and other biologists that had far less strict criteria for defining races/subspecies, hence Mayr wrote they exist. However, Mayr was a minority viewpoint; most biologists don't define races as he did, and he was wrong since he was trying to redefine race by removing the allopatry criteria.Mayr instead argued subspecies can be sympatric and continuous - this goes against the standard that subspecies are geographically isolated: "All subspecies are allopatric (either dichopatric [with non-contiguous ranges] or parapatric." (Smith et al. 1997). Some 'race realists' now quote Smith et al to point out an error Templeton made, but Smith et al deny the existence of human races since they make clear subspecies must be allopatric/parapatric; Templeton agrees with this, writing races must be "geographically circumscribed" with non-vague boundaries.Aeschylus (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@ApostateAbe, the broad forensic categories like "Caucasoid", "Negroid" etc poorly reflect ancestry, but climatic adaptation; the most disparate frequencies of skeletal traits & metric variables which makes forensic classification possible (with a high accuracy rate) are mostly limited to the mid-face and nasal region, e.g. nasal aperture (see Hubbe et al. 2009 "Climate Signatures in the Morphological Differentiation of Worldwide Modern Human Populations"). Plenty of studies discuss climatic adaptation of nasal width/height in particular and a "Caucasoid" would basically be an individual adapted to cold-dry climates with a narrow nose. This obviously has little to no usefulness to determine ancestry, hence the "Caucasoid" is so broad geographically and includes individuals from ethnic groups who are not closely genetically related e.g. Kabyle Berbers, Palestinian Arabs and Swedes.Aeschylus (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
What utter garbage. Race is defined by ancestry and Negroids share ancestry vis a vis Eurasians. It's that simple. Race isn't defined by "nose metrics" you utter fool. When Blumenbach used a set of non-metric skull traits to infer ancestry and create the well known race categories he also wrote " into one another by insensible degrees." So no, "clear cut boundaries" is a strawman argument. Lewontin's fallacy is a strawman argument. And all your garbage article does is repeat these strawmen over and over. (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC) (banned sockpuppet of troll: Mikemikev)
I'm well aware Blumenbach wrote races grade into each other, however, he was the only anthropologist saying that at the time. So it's dishonest to cherry-pick him and ignore all the other scientists who wrote human races are sharply discontinuous with discrete boundaries, separate lineages, and evolved in isolation etc. For example, take a look at the sources on the Racial polyphyletism article; the blocked troll above, ignores all these sources and cherrypicks Blumenbach. R.R. Gates (1948) wrote "there have been two more or less independent streams in human evolution", and his races were separate lineages; similarly Earnest Hooton, "He believed the essential, primary races emerged through polygenism" (i.e. with no gene flow). Same for Arthur Keith, and many others. To claim races were traditionally thought to be continuous/overlapping is dishonest and means you're ignoring 99.9% of scientific literature from those earlier periods.Aeschylus (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a point I thoroughly refuted John Fuerst on.Aeschylus (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Aeschylus, I think your restrictive model of biological races is excising the human species from evolutionary theory in general. If, among subsets of any species, there is a non-zero Fst, a set of geographic differences, and a set of phenotypic differences, then the species is in the process of speciation, regardless of whether you call it "race" or not, "subspecies" or not. You can call it allopatric, parapatric, sympatric, or whatever you like: those are merely varieties of the speciation process, and that is the key element. The subsets of our species have diverged genetically, and evolutionary biologists have long called such subsets of any wild species "races." The human species is plainly no exception. Such a process of divergence is why human races exist, "social constructs" or not. That is why medical doctors and forensic anthropologists use those broad categories. Yes, they are internally diverse, and, yes, they have continuity with their neighbors, and that makes identification more difficult but it does not completely nullify the scientific utility. The races have drifted apart in nearly every feature of the skull and in other parts of the body, too, not just the nasal cavity, because it is not merely about climatic adaptation, though that is an element, but it is genetic drift. Chinese and Europeans occupied the same ancestral range of latitude and about equal climatic temperatures, but forensic anthropologists can tell the difference between those two races (i.e. mongoloids tend to have shovel-shaped incisor teeth). The differences are broadly a matter of ancestral geography. We can hardly expect anything else given the theory of evolution. --ApostateAbe (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me expand on that a little further: among most pairs of human races, I would classify the difference as "parapatric." It is a mode of speciation in which the boundary between the two races is continuous, with a gradual change in phenotype between one race and the neighboring race, because there is gene flow through mating across the fuzzy boundary. You seem to have a different definition of parapatric, and I don't know that I have made sense of it: like maybe you think parapatry is where gene flow across the boundary exists but not TOO MUCH of it? I don't know what you would prefer to call the typical processes of the genetic divergences of the human races if not parapatric, but, one way or the other, it is a process of genetic divergence of some sort. --ApostateAbe (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Parapatry is when the geographical ranges of different subspecies touch each other (immediately adjacent), but contact/gene flow is restricted to the peripheral narrow contact zone, so overlap of the ranges is not significant and the subspecies (outside of the contact zone) remain isolated. Humans are not parapatric, but sympatric. For example there's not some narrow hybrid zone where ethnic groups only make contact between their boundaries; instead just look at any cosmopolitan city like London or New York.Aeschylus (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
If there is gene flow between populations -this is the opposite of speciation. Subspecies are prezygotic isolated via geographical barriers (allopatry, parapatry), while species are reproductively isolated, so in this sense given enough time, subspecies will speciate. Human populations, with very few exceptions (unless you consider isolated hunter gatherer tribes, or remote extremely endogamous religious sects) are not geographically isolated and there is gene flow between populatons, meaning human populations are not separate lineages, or clades. Templeton explains this, i.e. "human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." Human races don't exist if we use the traditional/subspecies definition. Of course, I'm aware there are several different race concepts and theories, so it depends how race is being defined. The RW article primarily focuses on refuting the traditional/subspecies concept.Aeschylus (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Aeschylus, I agree that gene flow is an opposing force against speciation, but, since major human races have both an intermediate Fst and a large set of phenotypic differences, then the gene flow was not enough to prevent an evolutionary divergence, and I think this divergence remains best classified as "parapatric," or else you would just need another name for the process. If you like, you can call it "sympatry." I agree that major cities such as London have sympatry, and to me that would be just another way that biological races are delineated. Try going to Google Scholar and search for "sympatric subspecies", then "sympatric races", each in quotation marks and you will get hundreds of nonhuman examples of the uses of each phrase in the academic literature. Human races apparently follow in the evolutionary patterns, and I think it is a big mistake to try to make humans some sort of special exception. The attempt seems to muddy the study of the human species. --ApostateAbe (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
There is not much differentiation in overall phenotype; only a very small number of traits/variables show disparate frequencies and these are climatic adaptations. As soon as you start instead talking about overall phenotype and 'neutral' evolution (genetic drift) for many traits/variables - we can only discuss at best means as averages because of the huge variation and outliers in population samples. Take a look at the FORDISC failures.Aeschylus (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
What "major races"? Since populations grade overall smoothly into each other, how do you decide how to delineate the "major races"? As you have admitted yourself it is arbitrary, so would you be happy with an Afro-European race covering Europe and the African continents? And what utility do these heavily subjective broad groups have? None in terms of genetics.Aeschylus (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
We have already covered the other ground. I would like to focus on the paper you cited. None of the authors of the paper, Williams et al., "Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania," have studied or worked in the field of forensic anthropology, though they have worked in related fields, and therefore they were perfectly new to the software Fordisk at the time of the research underlying their paper. This would not have to be a problem, but a criticism of their paper highlighted a bad consequence of such inexperience, a criticism by Ousley, Jantz, and Freid, 2009, titled, "Understanding race and human variation: why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race." Williams et al. claimed to have entered data for palate length and minimum frontal breadth. However, their source data (Howells, 1973, "Cranial variation in man") did not contain those measurements. Instead, the source data contained measurements for palate breadth and frontomalar breadth, and perhaps that is what was entered for palate length and minimum frontal breadth. They are entirely different elements of the skull with different values. The data that Williams et al. entered were for skulls of Star Trek space aliens, not of ancient Nubians, which is at least one of the big reasons why most of their output had low typicality p values: that means the output categorizations are uncertain, and forensic anthropologists know to check their data after such output. If they can not get better p values, then they don't use the output. I expect another reason would be that the base data used by Fordisk is of modern phenotypes, not of ancient phenotypes, which matters because humans have evolved. So, the paper of Williams et al. is plainly garbage, and I take it to be the kind of thing that follows from the denial of biological human races. It is a perspective plainly at odds with reality. --ApostateAbe (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
My point was more about the limitations of means/averages and the fact there are outliers. FORDISC uses Linear Discriminant Function: skull measurements of an unknown skeleton are converted and then compared to the mean LDF score of reference groups (Forensic Databank & Howells series); the unknown is then classified into the reference group with the closest mean score, i.e. the smallest Mahalanobis distance. What happens if you self-identify with a category x e.g. "White American", but don't closely match the mean of that category (in terms of craniometry)? There are many outliers like this because of the huge variation within populations; this is the most obvious reason why FORDISC has fairly low accuracy rates because of the heterogeneity in populations, hence Williams and Armelagos responded to criticisms of their study in another paper-

What our results were intended to show is that Fordisc is a poor predictor of population affinity using either the Howells data set or the Forensic Data Base because the heterogeneity of a single population is not captured by the analysis of craniofacial traits that the program employs. We also maintain that the program is conceptually flawed because human variation does not produce static discrete groups but is an evolutionary phenomenon that is roughly distributed along geographical gradients with a predominant signal of greater heterogeneity within rather than between groups (Lewontin 1972; Relethford 1994; Marks 1995). The populations and races within Fordisc 2.0 differ from real biological units such as species because human groups are not constrained by prezygotic or postzygotic boundaries

On the Misclassification of Human Crania: Are There Any Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation? Mark Hubbe and Walter A. Neves/Frank L'Engle Williams and George J. Armelagos Current Anthropology, Vol. 48, No. 2 (April 2007), pp. 285-288Aeschylus (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Also note that Ousley et al. who you cite don't believe in race, nor do Smith et al. You're oddly citing sources that agree with my position, not yours. Ousley et al. quoting Howells (1996) write: "There are no races, only populations." The denial of human races is rooted in reality. The only people who deny this are politically motivated; click here to see the politics of the other 'race realist' who was commentating above, but who is blocked.Aeschylus (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is pretty pointless since Abe's arguments have already been refuted on the main article. Why not read the article in full before posting here.... That also applies to the troll Mikemikev, but who is blocked, e.g. repeating "lewontin's fallacy" time and time over when this is discussed on the article is a waste of everyone's time. Racialism is a pseudo-science like creationism; the article in detail explains why human races don't exist.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, I agree with Aeschylus that 99.99% of 'race realists' are Nazis/white nationalists. That's why we don't have much time for them debating here.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This writing section is now too small, if you guys want to continue just start a new paragraph on the left with no gap.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ousley et al. pointed out that the input of Williams et al. was likely garbage following from an amateur error. I would like to know if Williams et al. ever responded to that criticism in particular. Ousley et al. wrote their paper in 2009. Ousley et al. are like many other forensic anthropologists, including the ones I knew in my former lab of employment, in that they solved the political problem of biological races just by changing the word. Not "race," but "ancestry" or "population," and they use the same large-scale geographic classes. Regardless of the words they use, that is what absolutely all forensic anthropologists do. They could not identify the nation of ancestry, but they could identify the continent-sized regions of ancestry. --ApostateAbe (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC) @Debunking spiritualism "Also, I agree with Aeschylus that 99.99% of 'race realists' are Nazis/white nationalists." I suggest you be wary of the ad hominem mode of thought. You can learn the most from the people you most sharply disagree with. The 99.99% will cite from the 0.01%, including medical doctors, intelligence researchers and forensic anthropologists (though not all of such professionals) who strongly defend the scientific concept of biological races, and you may not otherwise know about their arguments unless you listen to the lay racists. --ApostateAbe (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You're mistaken. What evidence is there Ousley et al. recognise broad geographical population divisions in terms of craniometric variation? None I can see, but the opposite: all of Howell's reference populations in FORDISC are much more local e.g. Medieval Norse, Oslo; Egypt: Gizeh, 26th–30th Dynasties; Andaman Islands; Ainu, Japan; Siberia: Buriats; Greenland: Inugsuk Eskimo; Dogon, Mali etc. As I told you- the broader divisions like "Caucasoid", do not reflect ancestry, but climatic adaptation, and so are now mostly discontinued from the forensic literature. In the 1990s William Howells realised there is no craniometric clustering at the continental level, instead finding more local populations as the preferred morphometric unit of study; Ousley et al repeat Howell's quote, so seem to agree that broad classifications are not useful.Aeschylus (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
A question: since everyone (even Richard Lewontin) recognises the existence and utility of local populations, why do you feel the need to believe in race? No one is denying variation exists between populations, only that human biological variation is best explained by the study of local populations (so called demes) and not large clusters of local populations as "races" in terms of genetics, or ancestry. This is explained on the main article in detail and is the consensus in population genetics. So what do you attempt to achieve with "large-scale geographic classes"? The only reason some people cling to those is because of their political beliefs, which isn't science. No doubt you're a self-identified "White American" hence your identity and politics is based on this pan-European type thinking as opposed to identifying with a local ethnicity. And yep, I'm proven right. You're exactly the same as John Fuerst. The problem with Americans is your identity politics, "White", "Black" etc. People outside of the US, don't identify as this. For example people across Europe identify with their local ethnicity on census forms e.g. Dutch, Swedish, Basque, not "White". Self-identified "White Americans" fail to identify with local ethnicity because they have diverse ancestries from across Europe, so they cling instead to a "White" identity. Self-identified "African Americans" suffer from the same mentality. You only believe in the pseudo-science of race because of your messed up identity politics.Aeschylus (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, I will let that be the last word, then. Thank you for your participation and patience. --ApostateAbe (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Lol. You're a typical "White American" trailer-trash member of a racialist pseudo-science forum Forumbiodiversity making silly threads about 'race denialists being politically correct' etcetc. You're also literally a white nationalist who posts on neo-Nazi sites and openly identify as a "scientific racist" supporting the pseudo-scientific theories of white supremacists like Richard Lynn:

scientific racist, not so much a political racist. This is my first post here at Stormfront. I accept the scientific ideas of Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Herrnstein and Murray, and Richard Lynn. Human races have relevant heritable psychological variations, including variations concerning intelligence, sexuality and violence.

Discussing such opinions are enough to make me a social pariah. But, I think I may be out of place even within this forum, as I am not so political about it. I don't have strong feelings against white nationalism, but I don't identify with it, and I prefer to be merely rationalistic, though I am genetically 100% white. Anti-black or anti-Arab or anti-Latino attitudes I can understand. but I find anti-Jewishness to be a little strange and unsettling, seemingly motivated by jealousy and conspiracy theories. Prove me wrong if you like.
Get the hell out of here. Aeschylus (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
LMAO. what did i say above. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 03:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Fst Comparison with Other Mammals[edit]

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: 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: 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: 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. (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Much of what TAH has wrote about in that article has already been covered on these talk pages and his own page's talk page, such as him making up data/misunderstanding data/quotemining to populate his table and quietly ignoring how scientists actually utilize Fst. I support a full rebuttal of the whole thing in one place, though. His page here is quite barren considering all the crankish stuff he pushes, like saying that peer review was invented 60 years ago as a way for the United States government to divvy out bogus research funds, and there is no proof it has ever done anything positive. -- (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The Fst values from Templeton (2013) have been corrected or superseded in many studies, and many of his conclusions rejected, as they used old data on human Fst values (from Rosenberg 2002), while using recent genomics data on chimp subspecies from 2011 to compare them with. The human Fst values from 2002 are lower than those now found with the use of genomics, with ancient DNA and whole genome sequencing being common in studies only since about 2010. For example, we now known certain human populations have unique DNA from specific admixture with other archaic hominin species, including up to 8-15% for example in Papuans, Meleanesians, Australian Aborigines, Andaman Islanders and Negritos, which was introgressed from Neanderthals, Denisovans and/or a third "ghost" hominin not shared with any other human subspecies, races or ecotypes/populations [7]. Thus, not only has the amount of quantitative difference between human groups increased in terms of Fst (now between 0.15 and 0.20 roughly), but the actual genes which differ in those figures are from substantially different sources (i.e. other species), and thus have provided for substantial amounts of variation. Thus, the actual Fst number is not necessarily what matters, but how distinctive the specific alleles are and how the phenotype is affected. What best illustrates this is the Fst values between brown, black and polar bears posted by the OP here, which are all classified as distinct species, let alone subspecies. The Fst values between subspecies in black bears or brown bears, or between most wolf subspecies, is comparable to or less than that found between the major human subspecies or racial groups. In fact, many wolf subspecies have been isolated for far shorter timescales than most modern human subspecies or racial groups. (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarify What Mainstream Science Does and Does Not Say About Race[edit]

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. (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I get you believe some of the racialist talking points, I assume thinking, bonafide, it's an inconvenient truth which is not less truthful because of that and trace disagreement to being Sjw's, well about this term, you know, I'd invite you to use it appropriately as it risks undermining the discussion in name calling. We should know, in principle Sjw were just referred to extremist campus activists, who don't tolerate any reasonably different opinion or open debate, it's more about their behavior than their ideas, and if we apply it to an idea, well it has to be an extremist one, so decidedly just not agreeing with racialism doesn't define Sjw, nor it is not accepting at face value any "politically uncorrect" presumed biotruth, just on the guise of it being un-pc. First off racialism, being an extraordinary claim, needs extraordinary evidence, before being politically recognized as truth and acting as if they are. Some say presence of significant somatic differences suggest there can be significant cognitive difference too, at least in distribution, similarly to how average height can differ, etc. Nevertheless lets remember that the "aryans" used to be the barbarians in the first millennium A.D. Also, substantially similar groups of people, somatically speaking, like chinese, japanese and korean, compared to filipinos and kyrgyz (but not sure about these ones) have in theory a higher Qi. Albanians as well compared to Italians despite being substantially the same. Qi might be a relative measure.-- (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Irrational Wiki[edit]

To be rational is to admit those things which we may not me comfortable with. There are many important people who believe that there are substantial genetic differences between populations of our species. Yes, it is true that there are cultural and social boundaries that are constructed, but there are many who believe that race is real. Additionally, there may possibly be differences in intelligence between races. People like Steven Pinker have defended the idea that the certain Jewish populations may be more intelligent than other human populations. This is not racism.

This article should consider both sides more thoroughly and let people decide for themselves. Let us rectify the biases in this article and not embarrass ourselves, for we cannot claim to have neutrality nor reason when sections of this article read like a rant of a mediocre first year university student, especially the introduction. --Thomas Tallis (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

At Rationalwiki, we do not have a neutral point of view, we have a scientific point of view. Our Anti-vaccination movement article does not present anti vaxxer arguments as just as truthful as the real scientific consensus. Balance fallacy aka assuming both sides are equally "right". —ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 09:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Also the conclusion that "certain Jewish populations may be more intelligent than other human populations" sounds racist to me. Dysklyver (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between a white supremest supporting racial theories while providing dubious evidence such as craniometry compared to a prominent Harvard scientist such as Steven Pinker speculating that the average intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be higher. That is not to say that Pinker's conclusion was correct, but it is most irrational to characterise this man as racist when you know nothing about the matter. We do not destroy the reputations of serious thinkers merely for discussing matters which me may not find politically correct. There are many people in the skeptic community who support equal rights but also believe race is real such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker. Cambridge Geneticist AWF Edwards also thinks race is real.

Nor did I say anything about assuming both sides are correct. I am certainly not suggesting adding superstitions to this article, but serious scientific studies are not the same thing as anti-vaccination articles on cheap Christian websites. --Thomas Tallis (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Richard Dawkins explains it much better:

  • As does Jerry Coyne:

  • Steven Pinker's article:

  • Sam Harris article is interesting:

  • If you want scientific journal articles (peer reviewed): — Unsigned, by: Thomas Tallis / talk / contribs

see editorial notes above. "View the archives of this talk page for previous discussions, so not to make a PRATT. You're making a point refuted a thousand times and setting up the same straw man arguments that have been dealt with here countless times. Just go away.MrSheen (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Scientific consensus says that race does not exist. Let's both admit that we are not Anthropologists. We do not have sufficient experience nor knowledge concerning race. A neuroscientist specializes in the brain, an evolutionary scientist in evolution, and an astrophysicist in astronomy. IMO scientists should not generally comment on matters outside their specialization. Anthropologists specialize in studying humans and anthropology introduced the concept of race. Since a lot of people are speaking outside their expertise, it's difficult to distinguish between crank ideas and unusual truth; especially for a layperson. —ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 13:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Compare the DNA-based maps ("The modern cline concept" and the "A map of Y-chromosome haplogroups") on the page vs. the race-based map ("Johann Blumenbach's 1775 racial typologies") that were only at-bast based on physical/geographical features. More historical maps are available at History of racialism. I think that you would have great difficulty defining "Jew" in a non-religious-based scientific way. Do you mean Ashkenazim, Sephardim or Falasha? The Cohen Modal Haplotype is a genetic indicator but it is neither universal among Jews nor universally absent among non-Jews (see also Ten Lost Tribes). People have been converting to and from Judaism for thousands of years. Bongolian (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The point raised by the OP in this section has not been refuted before at all. There is NO scientific consensus that "race does not exist", and the link to the article posted was a poll taken in which 90% of those sampled were social scientists (cultural and social anthropologists and similar professions). Only 10% were physical anthropologists. Those who have the most knowledge in this area ARE evolutionary biologists, geneticists and biological anthropologists. Only biologists have the proper knowledge and experience to be polled, and they are still very much divided on race/subspecies/populations/demes/ecotypes/lineages/clines - all of these taxonomical groupings are interrelated and often synonymous in most of the academic literature, especially in non-human species. Acceptance of racial groups is actually increasing all over with each new genetic find. To claim that humans have not developed races, as if we are somehow unique from all other primates, and all other mammals, despite periods of 100,000 - 200,000 years of genetic isolation with specific groups admixing with other species, is a level of nonsense only possible in those who are unscientific ideologues, whom most social scientists these days can be described as being. They do not use empirical biological or genetic data, and instead use pedantic wordplay to support their ultra-egalitarian, radical left-wing ideologies.
There are human populations existing today,like the Sentinelese people on North Sentinel Island, who have been FULLY and completely genetically isolated from the rest of humanity for nearly 30,000 YEARS (they are still uncontacted by the outside world, and we have no knowledge about their language). That is more than enough time for subspecies to develop, and subspecies of wolves have developed in less than 5,000 years of divergence for example.
Also, much of the data used in this article is outdated and flawed, and ignores enormous amounts of scientific papers, especially most recent ones, clearly using and defending race as a term for human groups of subspecies and populations. The existence of gene flow in human continental groups has also been limited and only during certain periods and in certain places, but gene flow is not a reason to deny the existence of separate lineages between species, let alone subspecies. Gene flow between lineages does not mean that there is only one lineage within a species. Clinal variation between human groups is also not equally and smoothly gradual between human groups, but is very abrupt in many regions around the world, including between continental groups. There would be no human genetic structure in the way observed if it was a perfect spectrum of gradual clinal variation. There is a very abrupt genetic barrier between sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, and between sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia. There is a very abrupt difference between the frequency of Y-chromosome haplogroup D in Asia, with very high frequencies in widely separated groups of Tibetans, Andamanese and the Ainu, but extremely low frequencies in the intermediate populations between those groups, even when neighbouring them.
Finally, the data used in the 2013 study by Templeton has long been refuted in its comparison between the Fst values between Chimpanzee races and human races, because the Chimpanzee genetic data was recent (2011), while the human data from Rosenberg (2002) was extremely limited and outdated, long before the discoveries beginning in 2010 of archaic human DNA in Europeans and Asians from Neanderthals, Denisovans and a third unknown hominin (in Negritos, Andamanese, Papuans and Australian Aboriginese) which is ABSENT in sub-Saharan Africans. The amount of genetic differentiation between human racial groups has thus increased substantially, with groups possessing archaic admixture that is ABSENT from other human racial or ancestral groups. The genetic differences between racial and ethnic groups now varies between 10 - 20%, and this is more than enough to meet subspecies level of differentiation given that th 25% threshold used by Templeton is, as he admits, highly arbitrary and unsupported, especially given that even a 2% difference produces massive phenotypic variation. (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Read this recent study from 2016 on hominin interbreeding in humans, and the role these new findings have had on the understanding of the evolution of the different human races: Hominin interbreeding and the evolution of human variation (2016)
"Geographical variation in degree of interbreeding between H. sapiens and Neanderthals likely contributed to neurological and behavioral differences in modern humans. Similarly, people with Denisovan genetic admixture were better able to dwell in mountainous regions, allowing their genetic legacy to cross the Himalayas and persist in Southeast Asian and Oceanian H. sapiens. In the Sub-Saharan region, unaffected by Denisovan or Neanderthal interbreeding, H. sapiens interbred with H. heidelbergensis, because high humidity militated against fire-making and allowed the survival of these non-fire-making hominins"
Interbreeding and race
"People from East Asian countries have approximately 20 % more Neanderthal DNA than Western Europeans, and these differences in levels of interbreeding with Neanderthals caused certain neurological differences observed today."
"Furthermore, without an archaic Neanderthal ancestry, Sub-Saharan African populations would be more affected by genes linked to aggression or hyperactivity, which are found only in H. sapiens. This finding could help account for the differences in violence or aggression found in the human race today." (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Racial characteristics of human teeth (2017)
"Forensic dentists can determine race within the three major groups: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Additional characteristics of teeth, such as cusps of Carabelli, shovel-shaped incisors, and multicusped premolars, can also assist in the determination of ancestry." (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Genomic analysis of Andamanese provides insights into ancient human migration into Asia and adaptation (2016)
"We show that all Asian and Pacific populations share a single origin and expansion out of Africa, contradicting an earlier proposal of two independent waves of migration" (i.e. all the individuals of this specific population share a common genetic descent, not shared with other human continental/racial groups, thus again meeting subspecies criteria).
"We also show that populations from South and Southeast Asia harbor a small proportion of ancestry from an unknown extinct hominin, and this ancestry is absent from Europeans and East Asians." (i.e. genes ONLY and UNIQUELY found in Andamanese, Negritos, Papuans, etc. - thus, meeting subspecies or racial criteria, not just population/ecotype/deme/ethnic group)
Evolutionary and Medical Consequences of Archaic Introgression into Modern Human Genomes (2018)
"Modern non-African human genomes carry fragments of archaic origin...Genomic studies of introgression between early Eurasians and archaic human species, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, are beginning to offer novel insights into the evolutionary and phenotypical consequences of hybridization."
Races/subspecies exist in humans, not just populations/ecotypes/demes, and the enormous evidence is mounting. Gene flow between human groups was limited and only occurred at certain times, and its presence does not preclude the existence of separate lineages, or of subspecies/races (gene flow between subspecies of other mammals doesn't preclude their existence, so why would it in humans). Furthermore, certain human racial groups/subspecies have archaic human DNA from other species which ONLY they possess. Race denialists are at odds with evolutionary biology itself, and their PC agenda is coming to an end. (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The article doesn't deny subspecies once existed, but they don't now for the reasons outlined. Another, correction: subspecies are not as common in animal species as you maintain i.e. look up the prevalence of monotypic species.Octo (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The evidence is increasing, massively, that subspecies DO exist in humans. They never "stopped existing", as the populations retained distinct isolation and preferential endogamy into the present day and limited gene flow does not preclude the existence of subspecies. The "clinal variation" in humans is 1) not uniform 2) not equally gradual and 3) has massive abrupt or sudden shifts in most regions in the world in specific areas. There are discontinuities in the clines of varying magnitude depending on the region (e.g. Sardinians, Basques, Finns, Kosovar Albanians and Sami people in Europe). There has been zero gene flow between Australoids (Negritos, Papuans, Australian Aborigines, Andamanese) and sub-Saharan Africans, for example. The reasons you outline are not supported by the physiological or genetic evidence. Gene flow exist between all subspecies in other mammals. Just look at the cladogram of subspecies in wolves, which clearly shows significant gene flow and clines not only between wolf subspecies, but between other canid SPECIES (similar to gene flow between human species): A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids. Clinal variation therefore does not preclude subspecies, as clines exist between subspecies in most cases, and are of varying gradients (some gradual and some abrupt), just as in human populations. I just gave you one example further above of a human hunter-gatherer group who is STILL today fully isolated from the rest of humanity, and has been continually for 30,000 years. The Andamanese Islanders are very much one of the subspecies or races of humans, especially the fully isolated and uncontacted North Sentinelese on North Sentinel Island. Every mammalian species has populations, demes, clines, ecotypes, etc., while most have subspecies. Nearly every primate has subspecies, and every mammal that has had as much geographic and temporal dispersion as homo sapiens has developed into numerous subspecies. The Khoisan groups of southern Africa were isolated for up to 130,000 years from the rest of humanity. Recent gene flow, again, does not cease their race or subspecies from existing as a distinct lineage from the rest of humanity. Not only that, modern human groups have DNA they ONLY possess from OTHER hominin species, and this is STILL the case. Non-Sub-Saharan Africans have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, while sub-Saharan Africans do not. East Asians have some Denisovan DNA, Europeans do not, and East Asians have more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans. Negritos, Andamanese, Papuans and Australian Aborigines (Australoids) have DNA from a THIRD unknown hominin that is not found in other subspecies, races or populations - also, these Australoid peoples have up to 12-15% total DNA from other hominin species, which is level substantially higher than any other human subspecies, race or population. That it more than enough for subspecies delineation in any other mammalian species. There is no scientific consensus right now, and the evidence in many papers still use race in their works as a synonym for subspecies or populations in divergent human groups. (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a clustering analysis of wolf subspecies and other canid species (there is significant gene flow between coyotes and wolves, despite being separate species): structure clustering analysis of domestic and wild canids It has clinal variation and population structure similar to humans. Some of these wolf subspecies have formed in less than 10,000 years, which is FAR, FAR less time than human groups were isolated until the modern era. These canid species and subspecies have also seen limited gene flow between them at different times, as has been the case between human races/subspecies/populations, but this gene flow does not stop them from being distinct subspecies, lineages, races or populations. Templeton's claims of gene flow precluding distinct lineages and subspecies is nonsensical, and unsupported by the genetic evidence and biological literature. If subspecies exist in wolves, they exist in humans. North Sentinelese Islanders have not had gene flow from the rest of humanity in 30,000 years, while other human groups and populations were mostly isolated for between 70,000 and 150,000 years, admixed with other local hominin species, and had limited and unique or specific gene flow in that time. New subspecies form all the time in other species due to unique admixture of differentiated populations. As just because better and newer subspecies and racial categories are being introduced or re-evaluated in humans, this is not a reason against their validity because subspecies (and species) are constantly being delineated and re-evaluated in other mammals. This is seen easily in wolves, with new species and subspecies being introduced over over the past decades, and especially so in the past two decades with the onset of population genetic and genomics. Italian wolves and Iberian wolves were once thought to simply be part of the Eurasian wolf subspecies, but now have been conclusively shown to be distinct lineages and distinct subspecies isolated for similar timescales that humans were in Europe during the last ice age, despite the existence of limited gene flow. Just as human subspecies and races and populations have been refined and reevaluated with newer data, so is the cases with subspecies in other mammals. Humans are mammals, and are not somehow "special" from the rest of the animal kingdom. No species as geographically and temporally (200,000 - 300,000 years) dispersed as humans are, and which has interbred with so many other distinct species to the extent we have, has been monotypic and not formed subspecies. (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone should please ban this IP user from ever posting on RationalWiki again. Don't engage with its arguments or with the papers it linked to. Just ban it. --Jean Lusaz (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, @Jean Lusaz we don't permanently block IP users because IP addresses tend to get reassigned fairly rapidly. For that reason, we don't block IP addresses for more that about 3 days. We also don't generally block any user for any time just because we disagree with them. Also, generally, we don't remove comments on talk pages that we disagree with. Exceptions to removal of comments would be threats, harassment or doxing. Bongolian (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@, yes there's clearly are a few living isolated populations, another example are the Amish. But calling these populations "races" runs into the following issue:

Such genetic isolation might refer to the Amish in America (Appiah 1996, 73) or to Irish Protestants (Zack 2002, 69), but they clearly cannot refer to those groupings of people presently subsumed under American racial census categories. Because the concept “race” can only apply to groups not typically deemed races (Amish, Irish Protestants), and because this concept cannot apply to groups typically deemed races (African Americans, Whites, Asians, Native Americans), a mismatch occurs between the concept and its typical referent. Thus, the concept of race must be eliminated due to its logical incoherence (Mallon 2006, 526, 533).

Octo (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I find that to be a nonsensical argument, at odds with biological taxonomy in general. It's not "a few groups" either that have been isolated, but most groups, as there would be no population structure between groups without it, with the level of difference varying between subspecies, ecotype (either could be race), population/ethnicity or demes. If Khoisan, Andaman Islanders and Hadza are distinct subspecies, then so are Bantu/Niger-Congo people, Europeans, Middle Easterners and East Asians, among others (including more specific groups), from whom to contrast them with. Modern human subspecies, populations, ecotypes, ethnicities or racial populations have all had varying degrees of isolation (that was the norm from 70,000 - 200,000 years), for different periods of time, and with unique introgressions from specific other hominin species or other human populations. "Race" is used as a biological classifier, either equivalent to subspecies, or subordinate to it and related to ecotype, population, cline or deme. There is no "logical incoherence" to it, merely an ongoing scientific debate as to which taxonomic levels the term "race" refers to - and not just in humans, but in all organisms with populations below the rank of species. Classifications are being revised and changed all the time in all species, and it has been especially happening since the rise of population genetics and genomics. Subspecies are being elevated to species or downgraded to populations or ecotypes, species are downgraded to subspecies or elevated to their own genera, etc. "Race" merely needs to be clarified on whether it is referring to subspecies or a lower taxonomy of population or ecotype, but it does not mean the classification itself is irrelevant or unsupported, nor does it warrant the now clearly rejected and erroneous statements of social "scientists" of the past two to three decades that "race does not exist" - a statement now with no biological support. If this is a platform supporting rationality and science, how could anyone oppose the countless respected, peer-reviewed, academic studies I posted with enormous genetic evidence, and which clearly refer to the use of "race" or "racial populations" as a classifier in humans, either in terms of subspecies, populations or ecotypes (all of which exist in our species).
Amish and Irish Protestants may be of a lower taxonomic level, such as demes, populations or ecotypes, which are often now generally often equated with ethnic group. But this is not a valid argument to remove race as an equivalent term for a classifier above this, either equivalent to subspecies or as an intermediate between subspecies and ethnicity/population. As DNA results now clearly show, there are differing levels of taxonomic classification in ethnic/ancestral populations, for example: Highland Scottish -> British & Irish -> Northwestern European -> European (I would add a further, higher category of West Eurasian/"Caucasoid"). "Highland Scot" and "British & Irish" would be the lowest levels, either as demes, ethnicities or populations, while "Northwestern European", "European" and "West Eurasian"/"Caucasian" could all be a taxonomic rank equivalent to race and/or subspecies.
Added below is a study from 2017 showing that the Khoisan of South Africa diverged as early as 200,000 years ago - that is enough for species divergence in other organisms, let alone subspecies - and remained isolated for most of that time from the rest of humanity until recent, very limited gene flow occurred in the past 1,000 years. The Hadza in East Africa have been found to have diverged nearly 100,000 years ago and remained heavily isolated for most of that time until receiving very minor gene flow in the past 2,000 years. The Negritos, Papuans and Australian Aborigines diverged 70,000 years ago, and have archaic admixture of 12-15% from three other hominin species, including a 'ghost' hominin which is not shared with any other human racial groups or populations. Subspecies, populations and ecotypes are now known to all exist in modern humans.
Southern African ancient genomes estimate modern human divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 years ago (2017):
"Using traditional and new approaches, we estimate the first modern human population divergence time to between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago."
Genetic Ancestry of Hadza and Sandawe Peoples Reveals Ancient Population Structure in Africa (2018)
"We estimated divergence times of ∼98,000 to ∼96,000  years for Hadza ancestry from Eastern Pygmy and Khoisan ancestries, respectively, followed by divergence times of ∼89,000 and ∼88,000 years for Western Pygmy and Sandawe ancestries, respectively, and then followed by divergence times of ∼81,000 to 76,000 years for Arabian, Berber, eastern and southern Bantu-speaking, Nilo-Saharan, and Western Niger-Congo ancestries".
Tibetans have unique DNA, inherited from another hominin species (Denisovans), which has allowed them to evolve unique adaptations to surviving at high altitude not found in ANY other human racial group, population or subspecies:
Altitude adaptation in Tibet caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNA (2014)
The Contribution of Neanderthals to Phenotypic Variation in Modern Humans (2017)
This shows the unique genetics and and evolutionary adaptations of Europeans, not found in other populations, which we inherited from Neanderthals:

"Here, we show that Neanderthal DNA affects skin tone and hair color, height, sleeping patterns, mood, and smoking status in present-day Europeans." (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a waste of time arguing with these people. They refute a strawman definition of race, which apparently makes them progressive and hip or something. This place was set up to troll Conservapedia, it's not a real science site. (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

FAQ by geneticist about how racists abuse their research, and problems with the things they say[edit]

this google doc was prepared by a geneticist who found alt-right people disseminated his paper with misleading and wrong statements attached. It consists of lay responses to many of the misleading and dishonest claims. Haven't gone through our article to check how it aligns yet. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)