Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 November 27

= November 27 =

Genetics of the Kalash people
Is there anyone with a little understanding of the genetics of human populations? I need an opinion on a recently added text to the wikipedia article on the Kalash people (of Pakistan) that says: "The studies show the oldest estimated date (990-210 B.C.) of DNA mixing by Western Eurasian sources most probably by Scottish sources originated from regions comprising modern day Germany and Austria, which coincides with Alexander's expansion into Central Asia around (356 to 323 BCE)." Although I can see where in the referenced Science magazine article the bit in bold might have come from it strikes me as particularly nonsensical. Is it just me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do you think it is non-sensical. Ruslik_ Zero 13:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The bit about Scottish sources is misleadingly worded at best. Scots are the modern group that accounts best for the admixture event, but that's undoubtedly because the Scots correlate best of the modern groups with the Celtic/Pictish people who dominated much of Europe before the Germanic invasions.  It doesn't at all mean that the geographic source was Scotand.  In fact the Science article say: "Distinct, ancient and partially shared admixture signals (always dated older than 90BCE) are seen in six groups, including the Kalash, whose strongest signal suggests a major admixture event (990-210BCE) from a source related to present-day Western Eurasians, though we cannot identify the geographic origin precisely.". Looie496 (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Uanfala: Did you check both sources, for Science magazine you need to create an account before you can read the article. This is from a cutting edge new research. It's going to take time for people to digest it. We should not ignore it by calling it "gibberish" just because we did not know about it until now.  Sh eri ff  ( report ) 08:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The main thread is now at Talk:Kalash people. Uanfala (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientific, especially biological refutation of racism
I have had no success gaining information on the subject. Specifically, I was looking for basic assessment of the intro-race genetic difference vs. among races, and personality and intellegence tests corrected for social differences. All I have is some anecdotal data (like the development of iron processing in sub-Tsahara Africa) and some vague claims for Cavallai-Sforza's "Genes, People and languages". Not nearly enough. Please help. אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much anything written by Jared Diamond would be helpful, particularly some of his articles for magazines. Our article at race and intelligence has some issues, but is packed with links to articles and references on the subject. 64.235.97.146 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For intro- vs intra-race genetic variation see Race and genetics, which covers the story with plenty of references. Looie496 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One of Stephen Jay Gould's politically correct little memes was that race doesn't exist because the variation within a race is greater than the difference between races. This shows an appalling grasp of statistics, it seems to imply that if two populations overlap then they are the same. 150 years of people defining why that is not the case seems to be ignored. Greglocock (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, Gould's trick is even a little worse than that, because he's comparing some races that vary greatly to others that vary little. Still, there's a distinction between the technical point that the races aren't fully identical and the moral point that if you're going to discriminate, why do it by half-measures?  If you're going to justify racism because you think whites average a couple of IQ points smarter, then shouldn't anyone, black or white, with an IQ of 150 have a right to lord and master over all the ones with 140, and those over the 130s?  I think that argument is Gould's ultimate intention but he doesn't go after it in what seems like the logical way. Wnt (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You may be able to scientifically refute the notion of race, but you can't refute the fact of racism. It's alive and well, everywhere around the world. At its core is the ancient tribal concept of "us vs. them". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the OP wanted information refuting the premises, not the existence, of racism. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If so, then the initial response should give him a good start. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A similar question came up recently and I came across a few good articles. why your race isn't genetic, and the main reason races don't exist . Vespine (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All of one's features are genetic, including the ones associated with race. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh lord don't start. The whole point is there is no such thing as race, genetically speaking. Yes genes cause things such as skin color and eye color, it doesn't mean that all people with blue eyes are some kind of "race". It's precisely as meaningful as saying that all black dogs are the same "race" of dog, there is no basis genetically or otherwise, other than cultural. YES there ARE genes that make a dog's coat BLACK, and there are many dogs that share this gene, but no one would suggest "black dogs" is a breed or race of dog. Please please PLEASE read the articles I linked before trying to add to this "discussion". Vespine (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An article titled "Race is not genetic" starts with a bogus premise, so there's no reason to read it. Racism is alive and well. Wishful thinking won't change that cold, hard fact. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also googled "is breed the same as race", and the preponderance of opinions seems to be "Yes". Hence, you comparisons about a dog's coat are a somewhat skewed comparison, although coat is certainly an element of breed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of your replies makes any sense to me. I'm not arguing that racism doesn't exist, of course racism exists. The point is that genetically, the racist is more closely related to an African person then some other African people. Secondly I think the problem is that you are on a science reference desk, but you are "googling" the question and seeing what the results tell you. I'm sorry but reddit and straighdope do not count as scholarly references, try a search on google scholar and then tell me what the results say. Vespine (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lastly, what makes the premise bogus? Because you don't agree with it? This is EXACTLY the same thing that happend last time, there are a few science ref desk editors that just can't wrap their mind around the concept. The "out of Africa" hypothesis actually predicts that ALL the other "races" combined are about as genetically diverse as the "races" remaining on the African continent. I.e. That means that if you are white, you are MORE genetically similar to Asians, Native Americans, Europeans, Mongols, Tartars, Inuits, Scandinavians, Pacific Islanders and Semites, than some populations of Africans are to other populations of Africans. population genetics clearly confirmed this is true. This means that a person from one part of Africa is genetically more different to a person from another part of Africa, than a white American is to a Chinese person, Even though the 1st 2 people are the "same race" but the 2nd two are "different race". Even our  Race article says the same thing.  Vespine (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's bogus because it's wishful thinking. There's no question that race is a social construct. But it's not based on nothing. And it's about a lot more than pigmentation. In fact, your arguments are based on genotype. Racism, or "racialism" if you prefer, is based on phenotype. You can argue about genetics all day long, but people don't see genetics, they see phenotypic expression. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If certain groups of people are more closely related to certain other groups than they are to others, doesn't that mean there de-facto are races - just that the traditional classification schemes are wrong. Iapetus (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Race and racism are not about genetic similarities, they're about phenotypic differences. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The human race is not called that for nothing. Akld guy (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The origin of the term "race" may prove interesting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)