Hispanics would overwhelm all other sides. Whites, blacks have no hope of winning. Well keep the Asians around because they are what makes the power stay on. The rest of you should move out NOW! White man, America is not for you anymore.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/03/12/why-democrats-would-lose-the-second-civil-war-too-n2459833

Hispanics have machetes and blacks have Hi-Points held sideways.

We have AR-15s and Deer rifles.

Hispanics have not the intellect to "win" anything. Just look at any country controlled by them. Whites will always rule, it is the natural order of Mother Earth.

Amigo's will continue their place as housekeepers and landscapers well into the future.

Pedro de paco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hispanics have not the intellect to "win"
> anything. Just look at any country controlled by
> them. Whites will always rule, it is the natural
> order of Mother Earth.
>
> Amigo's will continue their place as housekeepers
> and landscapers well into the future.

Hispanics can also be white. Have you ever been to Spain, Argentina, Chile or Uruguay? Those countries seem to function just fine.

Vancomycin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pedro de paco Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hispanics have not the intellect to "win"
> > anything. Just look at any country controlled
> by
> > them. Whites will always rule, it is the
> natural
> > order of Mother Earth.
> >
> > Amigo's will continue their place as
> housekeepers
> > and landscapers well into the future.
>

> Hispanics can also be white. Have you ever been to
> Spain, Argentina, Chile or Uruguay? Those
> countries seem to function just fine.



That's because those countries are smart enough to implement the White population as the ruling class. Any country ruled by Browns or blacks are shall we say..."shitholes".

Soul brother #1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vancomycin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pedro de paco Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hispanics have not the intellect to "win"
> > > anything. Just look at any country controlled
> > by
> > > them. Whites will always rule, it is the
> > natural
> > > order of Mother Earth.
> > >
> > > Amigo's will continue their place as
> > housekeepers
> > > and landscapers well into the future.
> >
>
> > Hispanics can also be white. Have you ever been
> to
> > Spain, Argentina, Chile or Uruguay? Those
> > countries seem to function just fine.
>
>
>
> That's because those countries are smart enough to
> implement the White population as the ruling
> class. Any country ruled by Browns or blacks are
> shall we say..."shitholes".

Race actually has nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority of Latin Americans are mestizo: mixed European and Amerindian.

It will be interesting when the Nigger's go to war with the Hispanics in the US. The Nigger's won't be able to pull this "you did us wrong 300 years ago" race card bullshit that the
Libtard's and snowflake generation so foolishly buy into. The Mexicans will be like fuck you Nigger, we ain't buying your fake assed excuses to act like savage wild animals. Even though the White population in the US is slowly shrinking, the White man will always rule due to his vastly superior intelligence.

A lot of Indian and Asians are actually republicans and fairly racist against hispanics and black, it's just not something they share outside of their families.

Babcock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Soul brother #1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vancomycin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Pedro de paco Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Hispanics have not the intellect to "win"
> > > > anything. Just look at any country
> controlled
> > > by
> > > > them. Whites will always rule, it is the
> > > natural
> > > > order of Mother Earth.
> > > >
> > > > Amigo's will continue their place as
> > > housekeepers
> > > > and landscapers well into the future.
> > >
> >
> > > Hispanics can also be white. Have you ever
> been
> > to
> > > Spain, Argentina, Chile or Uruguay? Those
> > > countries seem to function just fine.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's because those countries are smart enough
> to
> > implement the White population as the ruling
> > class. Any country ruled by Browns or blacks
> are
> > shall we say..."shitholes".
>
> Race actually has nothing to do with it. The
> overwhelming majority of Latin Americans are
> mestizo: mixed European and Amerindian.





Actually, race has everything to do with it. See attached diagram of race and intelligence. Notice the highest developed nations are White nations. The darker the race, the lower the IQ levels and development of their nations.

.
Attachments:

How do you explain the hapless stupidity of self-proclaimed "white people" on FFXU? A more ignorant bunch has rarely, if ever, been seen. These people have contributed nada, zip, zero to progress in this country. They are both dregs and drags.

1.salvadroans
When I mowed lawns in high school for b rushing, there was a Salvadoran that mowed lawns in 100degree heat for 12 hrs WITH FUCKING CHICKENPOX!!!!!

2. koreans-
They are the fastest to be assimilated by any race.
Plus Salvadorans love the korean “nong shim” instant spicy noodle soups.

All of you are diluted by your illusions of "races". There are only two races: the human and the jew, any war within the human is simply the puppet strings being pulled by the happy merchants. That being said, hispanics can go fuck temselves

BTW: show us the meat

Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

Reminder.. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans
>
>
> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WU
> iS-GSRD-071098.php


You misunderstand the article. Though the author does do his best to confuse the issue. Because lineages are not distinct and there is significant genetic commonality as well as mixing does not mean that there are not genetic bases for what we generally define as race in humans. In a similar way one would have to argue that there is not a genetic basis for particular physical and behavioral traits in various breeds of dogs. Which there obviously is.

Your “obvious” isn’t working properly. Genetic variation across all dogs is much larger than across all humans. If humans were dogs, we would all be beagles.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your “obvious” isn’t working properly.
> Genetic variation across all dogs is much larger
> than across all humans. If humans were dogs, we
> would all be beagles.


Your beagle-level analogy is false. It would be at a much higher level. And, even that were the case, less variation does not mean no genetic basis.

The author is an anthropologist and arguing distinct genetic lineages in the same way that someone might in defining some species-level specific genetic lineage among other organisms. In fact, that's exactly what he did in extending that same analysis to humans. Which there is not. But that does not mean that there are not various genetic bases for what we define as race. Because they are not 100% distinct and do not strictly define 'species' as we tend to define corresponding races isn't really the question. You appear not to know enough to understand the distinction. To deny the genetic basis for 'racial' variances is to attempt to deny the obvious.

Speaking of dogs:

Niggers will always be a pit bull.not a calendar pit but a scrawny legged one bred in some coons backyard. These pups are filled w worms and have tested positive for parvo. You will never meet these coons that sell these”pups” at a place of business...it’ll be “dat cvs off swan creek playa.” You interact with these savages, your spidey sense will tingle as if you’re gonna get robbed. This is the nigger pit.

Koreans are jack Russell’s.
Disviss

Phreddy Phenotype Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your beagle-level analogy is false.

LOL! There is far more genetic variation across canis lupus (dogs) than there is across homo sapiens (humans). Race in humans is a social -- not a biological -- construct.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

Reminder.. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Phreddy Phenotype Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your beagle-level analogy is false.
>
> LOL! There is far more genetic variation across
> canis lupus (dogs) than there is across
> homo sapiens (humans). Race in humans is a
> social -- not a biological -- construct.
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is
> -a-social-construct-scientists-argue/


Which wasn't the question. And by higher level I meant at a higher genetic level. And again the article doesn't say what you'd like for it to say. i.e., not that there aren't genetic differences within what we define as races; rather, that the few simple phenotypical categorizations that we've chose to use are not particularly useful in characterizing the levels of diversity that exist within the human population at a genetic level. Nobody claimed that races were some independent species as your first article played it in the first place.

And not the dopey 'social construct' stuff again. Obviously race is a 'social construct.' Most of all of what humans do is a 'social construct' in one way or another. Taxonomy defining species itself is a 'social construct' to provide a structure for humans to categorize and organize such information around the bases chosen to make distinctions. That doesn't mean that there are not underlying genetic bases for such distinctions. As another obvious example, you and yours may argue that sex/gender is a 'social construct.' But there are very clear genetic differences regardless how you attempt to label them and even if you attempt to apply a different label, the underlying genetics remain.

Your blithering underlying ignorance is what remains, according to the experts. Even discussing something called ‘race’ in humans is an exercise in quackery.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your blithering underlying ignorance is what
> remains, according to the experts. Even
> discussing something called ‘race’ in humans
> is an exercise in quackery.


No, it's obviously not. You don't understand the basics of what you're attempting to argue and the experts who you cited didn't say what you wanted them to be saying.

Using your beagle example, in fact there is more genetic variation across all various dog breeds vs humans, but humans will be more genetically diverse vs any given breed of dog. That's for a variety of reasons (including some inherent characteristics of their respective DNA) but principally because a large degree of genetic variance has been intentionally introduced into dogs. Dogs were turned into what we call 'beagles' by selecting specific traits. At the genetic level, there is not a 'beagle gene;' rather, there are genes which control larger/smaller, longer/shorter hair, longer/shorter legs, etc. A beagle is the aggregate reflection of the selection of those genetic traits, the phenotypical expression of which is what we call a 'beagle.' In the same way that we have named, for example, an 'Asian' in the case of race. What those specific genetics are isn't the determining factor, whether the name captures all variations, and what that means in the case of a given individual is an entirely different matter, but that genetic variance does exist is very clear.

The level of genetic variation in the way that you're attempting to use it isn't a particularly useful metric to begin with. A single gene/alleles can be exactly the same in terms of 'genetic variation' but the expression of that gene in various ways can be vastly different. Apes are very similar to humans in terms of genetics. Would you suggest that the very small difference between humans and our ape brothers is just a 'social construct?' Is there a threshold for genetic variance when it becomes just a 'social construct?'

Finally, I could make you completely reverse your position on the 'quackery' of 'race' by just by turning this to the use of race as the basis for discrimination, preference, and other applications where you find it very useful. If you want to dismiss obvious genetic differences as meaningless 'social constructs' then what are you basing all of that on?

^^^^ Didn't read...

Phreddy. I was about to say the same thing.

Reminder.. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans
>
>
> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WU
> iS-GSRD-071098.php





Then why do humans look different? Why do different human races have different cultures? Why do different human races reach different IQ levels? Why are nations developed so differently and drastically? Why do races have different crime statistics?

Lol dolt you sound like a completely brainwashed libtard.

Phreddy Phenotype Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it's obviously not. You don't understand the
> basics of what you're attempting to argue and the
> experts who you cited didn't say what you wanted
> them to be saying.

LOL! Your credentials as any sort of high priest in the matter of race and genetics are non-existent. You are making statements that college sophomores would know not to make. What low-lifes and the uninformed call "race" simply does not exist, and despite what simpletons may say, the fact that individual humans look different from each other does not imply it. That's the understood way of the world, whether dimbulbs manage to buy into it or not.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Phreddy Phenotype Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, it's obviously not. You don't understand
> the
> > basics of what you're attempting to argue and
> the
> > experts who you cited didn't say what you
> wanted
> > them to be saying.
>
> LOL! Your credentials as any sort of high priest
> in the matter of race and genetics are
> non-existent. You are making statements that
> college sophomores would know not to make. What
> low-lifes and the uninformed call "race" simply
> does not exist, and despite what simpletons may
> say, the fact that individual humans look
> different from each other does not imply it.
> That's the understood way of the world, whether
> dimbulbs manage to buy into it or not.


I have an MS in Molecular Biology.

If race doesn't exist, then on what are you basing racial discrimination and preference?

The distinction that you're missing is that genetics does not support categorization into the *discrete* races as we have tended to defined them based on phenotypical expressions. Not that there are no genetic bases for what we define as races or that there are no genetic differences within those categorizations. The link that you posted does not say that race does not exist. It says that 'race' is not distinct enough for use for various clinical and other purposes and it doesn't capture well all of human diversity that exists within and across races.

> I have an MS in Molecular Biology.
>
> Then shouldn't you be working on Wormholes or somthing instead of posting dumb shit on FFX umderground?

Phreddy Phenotype Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have an MS in Molecular Biology.

And a PhD in Worthless Nonsense.

> If race doesn't exist, then on what are you basing
> racial discrimination and preference?

Something else, obviously. (see below)

> The distinction that you're missing is that
> genetics does not support categorization into the
> *discrete* races as we have tended to defined them
> based on phenotypical expressions. Not that there
> are no genetic bases for what we define as races
> or that there are no genetic differences within
> those categorizations.

In terms less tainted by sophomoric babble, the two most common biological concepts of race would show that chimpanzees can be classified by race, but that humans cannot. Adaptive traits (such as skin color, just to pick one) play no role at all in the science of such things. Even a pretend biologist should have known that.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Phreddy Phenotype Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have an MS in Molecular Biology.
>
> And a PhD in Worthless Nonsense.
>
> > If race doesn't exist, then on what are you
> basing
> > racial discrimination and preference?
>
> Something else, obviously. (see below)
>
> > The distinction that you're missing is that
> > genetics does not support categorization into
> the
> > *discrete* races as we have tended to defined
> them
> > based on phenotypical expressions. Not that
> there
> > are no genetic bases for what we define as
> races
> > or that there are no genetic differences within
> > those categorizations.
>
> In terms less tainted by sophomoric babble, the
> two most common biological concepts of race would
> show that chimpanzees can be classified by race,
> but that humans cannot. Adaptive traits (such as
> skin color, just to pick one) play no role at all
> in the science of such things. Even a pretend
> biologist should have known that.


You're avoiding the question as people do when they know that they have no good answer. (See below) doesn't answer the question.

We don't classify chimps by race. We do categorize humans by race for a variety of real-world purposes. What is the basis for that categorization?

As above, your chimp example is another attempt to define *discrete* 'races' and is using speciation as the model which again wasn't the question to begin with. Again, there was no claim made that races represent distinct species of humans. It also relies on an arbitrarily selected baseline for percentage for difference in distinguishing 'race.' Alter that percentage and you alter the results (see my threshold question you didn't answer above). Humans certainly can be classified by 'race' as we define it. We do so on a daily basis for both social and biological purposes and the elements which dictate 'race' very clearly do have genetic bases. If you're going to embrace 'race' for some purposes, then you can't deny that it exists.

Gee, more supercilious douche-talk that ignores the simple and well-established scientific fact that races do not exist among human beings. Go read a book or something. It’s not some deep, dark secret.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gee, more supercilious douche-talk that ignores
> the simple and well-established scientific fact
> that races do not exist among human beings. Go
> read a book or something. It’s not some deep,
> dark secret.


Then what are you basing racial discrimination and preference on?

Koreans are more pitbull than niggers.
Jack Russell are more Bangladeshi IT guys

That nagging question... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then what are you basing racial discrimination and
> preference on?

LOL! Asked and answered. See above. All that lingers here is your blatant incapacity. And of course the fact that genetically speaking, race doesn't exist in humans.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That nagging question... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then what are you basing racial discrimination
> and
> > preference on?
>
> LOL! Asked and answered. See above. All that
> lingers here is your blatant incapacity. And of
> course the fact that genetically speaking, race
> doesn't exist in humans.


 
Attachments:

Facts are not dependent upon what people believe. As this site proves in spades every single day, particularly the dumb people believe all sorts of things that just ain't so.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Facts are not dependent upon what people believe.
> As this site proves in spades every single day,
> particularly the dumb people believe all sorts of
> things that just ain't so.


Must suck to spend your days on here trying to spin your liberal, hippie, 1960's socialist radical bullshit and get rejected so often. Isn't the old-people specials starting at Silver Diner soon gramps? Better go get in line.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That nagging question... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Then what are you basing racial discrimination
> and
> > preference on?
>
> LOL! Asked and answered. See above. All that
> lingers here is your blatant incapacity. And of
> course the fact that genetically speaking, race
> doesn't exist in humans.


No, you didn't answer. Everyone can see that you didn't answer. So, I'll ask again...

What is the basis for racial discrimination and preference?

Insane is doing the same thing over and over while expecting to geta different result. Claiming not to have seen the answer originally below and since above is one such thing.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Insane is doing the same thing over and over while
> expecting to geta different result. Claiming not
> to have seen the answer originally below and since
> above is one such thing.


So, niggers are just the most stupid of humans then. And most prone to crime, knocking up sheboons and running off before the niglets are born, and being lazy. OK. Doesn't matter if some moronic egghead tells us there are races within the human species. There are observable differences between colors of the human species with darker = worse in almost any category of civilization and evolved capacity. Nigs are more muscular (on average), but so are gorillas. Perhaps the nig is part of the gorilla family.

Niggers, worst of humanity or best of gorillas. There you have it.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Insane is doing the same thing over and over while
> expecting to geta different result. Claiming not
> to have seen the answer originally below and since
> above is one such thing.


There was no answer.

> Something else, obviously. (see below)

Talking about chimps below doesn't answer the question.

What is the basis for racial discrimination and preference?

This whole "race war" thing is one gonna backfire on whites later on. When you're an immigrant here, you just want to fit in. Now imagine when try to imitate what they see - mean, egostic, self-concerned people like right now. What goes around, comes back to bite.

Being a White Male Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This whole "race war" thing is one gonna backfire
> on whites later on. When you're an immigrant here,
> you just want to fit in. Now imagine when try to
> imitate what they see - mean, egostic,
> self-concerned people like right now. What goes
> around, comes back to bite.


Do you love the USA?

Age is wasted on the retarded Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Must suck to spend your days on here trying to
> spin your liberal, hippie, 1960's socialist
> radical bullshit and get rejected so often. Isn't
> the old-people specials starting at Silver Diner
> soon gramps? Better go get in line.

Actually, I did have lunch out yesterday, but with a party of four at Bazin's in Vienna. Last time I was there, it was disappointing, and this time was not a lot better. Could be a while before returning. There are after all so many other top-notch places to eat in the area.

That nagging question... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, you didn't answer. Everyone can see that you
> didn't answer. So, I'll ask again...
>
> What is the basis for racial discrimination and
> preference?

Being too stupid to recognize the answer is not an indication that the answer itself was not provided. I've even told you where to look for it, and still you stumble. That's not a good sign.

And remember...
Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans

I love how every time there is a conversation on race, it automatically defaults to talking about black people.

You all must love them so much to have them on your minds.

Hispanics and Asians and other races get to hide under the radar, sure they get discussed too, but racists can't help talking about black people- every time. They will spend 5 minutes bitching about Asians or whomever then the convo turns to black people.

No wonder Ebony porn is always in the top 5 popular these days.

Not a sermon just a thought....

armchair psych Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a sermon just a thought....

Consider that in the mid-1800s, southern whites had a tri-partite view in which they were racially distinct from and superior to not just southern blacks, but also northern whites. Since no actual science is involved in any of this, nutcases can proclaim all sorts of things that just aren't so.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That nagging question... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, you didn't answer. Everyone can see that
> you
> > didn't answer. So, I'll ask again...
> >
> > What is the basis for racial discrimination and
> > preference?
>
> Being too stupid to recognize the answer is not an
> indication that the answer itself was not
> provided. I've even told you where to look for
> it, and still you stumble. That's not a good sign.
>
>
> And remember...
> Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans


There was no answer. Your reference to chimps is not an answer. The approach used to redefine 'race' = species/subspecies upfront answers a question that wasn't asked. Even then if you change the various arbitrary criteria used, then you get a different result.

Race obviously does exist in humans because we have defined it as such. Just as we have defined a selection of various traits to be a 'beagle' using your example. And those traits obviously do have a genetic basis.

Now, once again, what is the basis for racial discrimination and
preference?

The only nagging question here is why you continue to post after having been so savagely trashed for your ignorance and incompetence. Race as defined in science does not exist in humans. Those are the simple facts. You are a simple and unintelligent troll.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only nagging question here is why you continue
> to post after having been so savagely trashed for
> your ignorance and incompetence. Race as defined
> in science does not exist in humans. Those are
> the simple facts. You are a simple and
> unintelligent troll.


Seems like a rather simple question. Why are you having so much trouble answering it?

The study that you cited re chimps attempts to equate 'race' to species/subspecies/demes as a rough analogue and examine whether it meets criteria used for distinction at those levels as typically defined. Which again wasn't the question. Even then, in fact in the same study it would meet that criteria if the arbitrarily selected thresholds were lowered (see my earlier threshold question). But again not the question to begin with.

So, once again, what is the basis for racial discrimination and preference?

Niggers are the basis for racial discrimination. They are the worst.

...the two most common biological concepts of race would show that chimpanzees can be classified by race, but that humans cannot. Adaptive traits (such as
skin color, just to pick one) play no role at all in the science of such things.

Scientific facts just crush the crap out of pinhead babble.

/thread Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...the two most common biological concepts of race
> would show that chimpanzees can be classified by
> race, but that humans cannot. Adaptive traits
> (such as
> skin color, just to pick one) play no role at all
> in the science of such things.
>
> Scientific facts just crush the crap out of
> pinhead babble.


Incorrect. Chimps are not classified by 'race.' There are not 'common biological concepts of race' associated with them. Rather, there are common concepts of species/subspecies/demes which some as in the studies you cited have attempted to overlay and use to assess whether what we define as 'race' in humans meets those same criteria. But the question wasn't whether race in humans represents distinct species/subspecies as you inappropriately tried to frame it.

Race is not just a "social construct" as you called it. It has a very direct genetic basis. Humans do not have Asian or black or white or whatever offspring based on some outside environmental influences or random chance which we then label in some way. The associated categories of race which we have developed as a "social construct" are an attempt to categorize the physical expressions of genetically determined characteristics dictated by ancestry. Using selected genetic markers it is possible to examine humans completely independent of physical appearance which will cluster results around the same rough biogeographic groupings (or more precisely). This is true even when physical characteristics contradict genetics in the case of a given individual (an American black with significant European ancestry). Also not particularly surprising, for the most part humans are rather good at self-identifying along the same lines. That follows across regions/cultures even where our particular American "social construct" is completely absent and some other may be used.

All of which should be obvious based on practical observation but blinders can be especially thick when it comes to race. As is your head.
Attachments:

armchair psych Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> No wonder Ebony porn is always in the top 5
> popular these days.
>
> Not a sermon just a thought....




Actually, blacks are the most racist monsters on the planet.


And as far as ebony porn...That's simply because blacks are the biggest sexual deviants on earth.

Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, nonoverlapping entities. Furthermore, by offering the means to assess disease-related variation at the individual level, new genetic technologies may eventually render race largely irrelevant in the clinical setting. Thus, genetics can and should be an important tool in helping to both illuminate and defuse the race issue.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1435

In 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a statement asserting that all humans belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality but a myth. This was a summary of the findings of an international panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists.

A great deal of evidence had accumulated by that time to support this conclusion, and the scientists involved were those who were conducting research and were most knowledgeable about the topic of human variation. Since that time similar statements have been published by the American Anthropological Association and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and an enormous amount of modern scientific data has been gathered to justify this conclusion.

Today the vast majority of those involved in research on human variation would agree that biological races do not exist among humans. Among those who study the subject, who use and accept modern scientific techniques and logic, this scientific fact is as valid and true as the fact that the earth is round and revolves around the sun.

And the Sun is eclipsed by the Moon.

I found this... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially
> and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human
> genetics can deliver the salutary message that
> human populations share most of their genetic
> variation and that there is no scientific support
> for the concept that human populations are
> discrete, nonoverlapping entities. Furthermore, by
> offering the means to assess disease-related
> variation at the individual level, new genetic
> technologies may eventually render race largely
> irrelevant in the clinical setting. Thus, genetics
> can and should be an important tool in helping to
> both illuminate and defuse the race issue.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1435


Note key words in bold. Species and various other terms used in biology designate subspecies for taxonomic purposes have specific meanings and related criteria, e.g., the ability to interbreed (which doesn't always hold true even then). Virtually nobody would suggest that race in humans is equivalent to separate species. However, that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same in all respects other than skin color or other elements of physical appearance as some want to try to make that imply. That's obviously not the case. A Husky dog and a wolf are considered different species. A Husky and a hairless toy Chihuahua are the same species. Obviously very different in many ways. That extends to the underlying genetics as well, physical attributes being the expression of genetic variances. Just depends on where and at what level you want to draw various lines in determining distinctions.

You got your anti-science ass kicked here, one notable peer-reviewed scientific journal after another.

It stands to reason that humans evolved at different rates based on region/continent. Just so happens people in African nations (forget about race) evolved at a slower pace than asians for example. This is not an indictment on Africans. There are other areas where they are more evolved, such as physical attributes, where as Asians are mostly 98 pound weaklings.

It just so happens that in the information age, higher value is placed on IQ. In an earlier time, higher value would be placed on physical attributes. It has nothing to do with race or how people look. Let's face it, Asians are ugly motherfuckers- they just happen to be pretty smart.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You got your anti-science ass kicked here, one
> notable peer-reviewed scientific journal after
> another.


Which do not address the question of whether race exists in humans at a genetic level as you stated it.

Races do not represent separate species. Race certainly does exist in humans at a genetic level and there are thousands of peer reviewed studies which identify, catalog, and address various specific differences for a variety of research purposes. In fact, you are the one who is rejecting science.

But maybe you can turn your denial into something useful. I know how much you like complaining about inequity and lack of diversity. Here, you can whine over the lack of diversity in genetic research:

https://www.nature.com/news/genomics-is-failing-on-diversity-1.20759

Odd that anyone would be concerned with such things since differences among races "don't exist at a genetic level" huh?

More clatter from the Peanut Gallery. It was you against science, and you came in second.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More clatter from the Peanut Gallery. It was you
> against science, and you came in second.


Science denier sez wut?


Table 1

Ancestry categories: distinct regional population groupings used in this framework

Ancestry category Definition Examples of detailed descriptions for samples included in the category

Aboriginal Australian Includes individuals who either self-report or have been described by authors as Australian Aboriginal. These are expected to be descendants of early human migration into Australia from Eastern Asia and can be distinguished from other Asian populations by mtDNA and Y chromosome variation [29, 30] Martu Australian Aboriginal
African American or Afro-Caribbean Includes individuals who either self-report or have been described by authors as African American or Afro-Caribbean. This category also includes individuals who genetically cluster with reference populations from this region, for example, 1000 Genomes and/or HapMap ACB or ASW populations. We note that there is likely to be significant admixture with European ancestry populations African American, African Caribbean
African unspecified Includes individuals that either self-report or have been described as African, but there was not sufficient information to allow classification as African American, Afro-Caribbean or Sub-Saharan African African, non-Hispanic black
Asian unspecified Includes individuals that either self-report or have been described as Asian but there was not sufficient information to allow classification as East Asian, Central Asian, South Asian, or South-East Asian Asian, Asian American
Central Asian Includes individuals who either self-report or have been described by authors as Central Asian [31]. We note that there does not appear to be a suitable reference population for this population and efforts are required to fill this gap Silk Road (founder/genetic isolate)
East Asian Includes individuals who either self-report or have been described by authors as East Asian or one of the sub-populations from this region (e.g., Chinese). This category also includes individuals who genetically cluster with reference populations from this region, for example, 1000 Genomes and/or HapMap CDX, CHB, CHS, and JPT populations Chinese, Japanese, Korean
European Includes individuals who either self-report or have been described by authors as European, Caucasian, white, or one of the sub-populations from this region (e.g., Dutch). This category also includes individuals who genetically cluster with reference populations from this region, for example, 1000 Genomes and/or HapMap CEU, FIN, GBR, IBS, and TSI populations Spanish, Swedish
Greater Middle Eastern (Middle Eastern, North African, or Persian) Includes individuals who self-report or were described by authors as Middle Eastern, North African, Persian, or one of the sub-populations from this region (e.g., Saudi Arabian) [32]. We note there is heterogeneity in this category with different degrees of admixture as well as levels of genetic isolation. We note that there does not appear to be a suitable reference population for this category and efforts are required to fill this gap Tunisian, Arab, Iranian
Hispanic or Latin American Includes individuals who either self-report or are described by authors as Hispanic, Latino, Latin American, or one of the sub-populations from this region. This category includes individuals with known admixture of primarily European, African, and Native American ancestries, though some may have also a degree of Asian (e.g., Peru). We also note that the levels of admixture vary depending on the country, with Caribbean countries carrying higher levels of African admixture when compared to South American countries, for example. This category also includes individuals who genetically cluster with reference populations from this region, for example, 1000 Genomes and/or HapMap CLM, MXL, PEL, and PUR populations [17, 33] Brazilian, Mexican
Native American Includes indigenous individuals of North, Central, and South America, descended from the original human migration into the Americas from Siberia [34]. We note that there does not appear to be a suitable reference population for this category and efforts are required to fill this gap Pima Indian, Plains American Indian
Not reported Includes individuals for which no ancestry or country of recruitment information is available
Oceanian Includes individuals that either self-report or have been described by authors as Oceanian or one of the sub-populations from this region (e.g., Native Hawaiian) [35]. We note that there does not appear to be a suitable reference population for this category and efforts are required to fill this gap Solomon Islander, Micronesian
Other Includes individuals where an ancestry descriptor is known but insufficient information is available to allow assignment to one of the other categories Surinamese, Russian
Other admixed ancestry Includes individuals who either self-report or have been described by authors as admixed and do not fit the definition of the other admixed categories already defined (“African American or Afro-Caribbean” or “Hispanic or Latin American”)
South Asian Includes individuals who either self-report or have been described by authors as South Asian or one of the sub-populations from this region (e.g., Asian Indian). This category also includes individuals who genetically cluster with reference populations from this region, for example, 1000 Genomes and/or HapMap BEB, GIH, ITU, PJL, and STU populations Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan Sinhalese
South East Asian Includes individuals who either self-report or have been described by authors as South East Asian or one of the sub-populations from this region (e.g., Vietnamese). This category also includes individuals who genetically cluster with reference populations from this region, for example, 1000 Genomes KHV population. We note that East Asian and South East Asian populations are often conflated. However, recent studies indicate a unique genetic background for South East Asian populations Thai, Malay
Sub-Saharan African Includes individuals who either self-report or have been described by authors as Sub-Saharan African or one of the sub-populations from this region (e.g., Yoruban). This category also includes individuals who genetically cluster with reference populations from this region, for example, 1000 Genomes and/or HapMap ESN, LWK, GWD, MSL, MKK, and YRI populations Yoruban, Gambian

Ancestry categories are assigned to samples with distinct and well-defined patterns of genetic variation, in addition to individuals with inferred relatedness to these samples. A full list of GWAS Catalog sample descriptions assigned to each category can be found in Additional file 3: Table S2


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815218/table/Tab1/?report=objectonly

Wallowing in shame and failure are not effective ways of dealing with such problems, loser.

Reminder..: Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wallowing in shame and failure are not effective
> ways of dealing with such problems, loser.


Sucks when you fall for some pop science SJW bullshit because it conforms to what you'd like to believe huh?

Really, really sucks...


Population clustering based on copy number variations detected from next generation sequencing data

Junbo Duan, Ji-Gang Zhang, Mingxi Wan, Hong-Wen Deng, and Yu-Ping Wang

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at J Bioinform Comput Biol

Abstract

Copy number variations (CNVs) can be used as significant bio-markers and next generation sequencing (NGS) provides a high resolution detection of these CNVs. But how to extract features from CNVs and further apply them to genomic studies such as population clustering have become a big challenge. In this paper, we propose a novel method for population clustering based on CNVs from NGS. First, CNVs are extracted from each sample to form a feature matrix. Then, this feature matrix is decomposed into the source matrix and weight matrix with non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). The source matrix consists of common CNVs that are shared by all the samples from the same group, and the weight matrix indicates the corresponding level of CNVs from each sample. Therefore, using NMF of CNVs one can differentiate samples from different ethnic groups, i.e. population clustering. To validate the approach, we applied it to the analysis of both simulation data and two real data set from the 1000 Genomes Project. The results on simulation data demonstrate that the proposed method can recover the true common CNVs with high quality. The results on the first real data analysis show that the proposed method can cluster two family trio with different ancestries into two ethnic groups and the results on the second real data analysis show that the proposed method can be applied to the whole-genome with large sample size consisting of multiple groups. Both results demonstrate the potential of the proposed method for population clustering.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504183/

Dee Nial wrote:
——————————————-
> Sucks when you fall for some pop science SJW
> bullshit because it conforms to what you'd like to
> believe huh?

Genetically speaking, race does not exist in humans. It’s unanimous except among a few half-wit phony molecular biologists.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dee Nial wrote:
> ——————————————-
> > Sucks when you fall for some pop science SJW
> > bullshit because it conforms to what you'd like
> to
> > believe huh?
>
> Genetically speaking, race does not exist in
> humans. It’s unanimous except among a few
> half-wit phony molecular biologists.


^ ...laughs at you.



BMC Bioinformatics. 2012; 13: 336.
Published online 2012 Dec 27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-336
PMCID: PMC3598683
PMID: 23270563

Copy number variation signature to predict human ancestry

Melissa Pronold,1,2 Marzieh Vali,1 Roger Pique-Regi,3 and Shahab Asgharzadehcorresponding author1


Abstract

Background

Copy number variations (CNVs) are genomic structural variants that are found in healthy populations and have been observed to be associated with disease susceptibility. Existing methods for CNV detection are often performed on a sample-by-sample basis, which is not ideal for large datasets where common CNVs must be estimated by comparing the frequency of CNVs in the individual samples. Here we describe a simple and novel approach to locate genome-wide CNVs common to a specific population, using human ancestry as the phenotype.

Results

We utilized our previously published Genome Alteration Detection Analysis (GADA) algorithm to identify common ancestry CNVs (caCNVs) and built a caCNV model to predict population structure. We identified a 73 caCNV signature using a training set of 225 healthy individuals from European, Asian, and African ancestry. The signature was validated on an independent test set of 300 individuals with similar ancestral background. The error rate in predicting ancestry in this test set was 2% using the 73 caCNV signature. Among the caCNVs identified, several were previously confirmed experimentally to vary by ancestry. Our signature also contains a caCNV region with a single microRNA (MIR270), which represents the first reported variation of microRNA by ancestry.

Conclusions

We developed a new methodology to identify common CNVs and demonstrated its performance by building a caCNV signature to predict human ancestry with high accuracy. The utility of our approach could be extended to large case–control studies to identify CNV signatures for other phenotypes such as disease susceptibility and drug response.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3598683/

Clearly, it is a tribal war, not a race war. Join the tribe that doesn't care about skin tone but cares very much about decency.

^^^ The lists of sources and scientists agreeing that genetically speaking, race does not exist in humans grow only longer. Known outliers remain at one self-proclaimed but abysmally failed ‘molecular biologist.’ (lol)

Are niggers really stupid humans or somewhat smart gorillas? That is the question that must be answered.

 
Attachments:

We are all shades of black. There are no white people and there never have been.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ The lists of sources and scientists agreeing
> that genetically speaking, race does not exist in
> humans grow only longer. Known outliers remain at
> one self-proclaimed but abysmally failed
> ‘molecular biologist.’ (lol)



But it shits all over your HuffPo understanding of genetics.

There is no credible person anywhere who believes that genetically speaking, race exists in humans. None. Only those who have long ago had their sorry asses beaten to a bloody red pulp by this simple reality have any lingering interest in contending to the contrary.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no credible person anywhere who believes
> that genetically speaking, race exists in humans.
> None. Only those who have long ago had their
> sorry asses beaten to a bloody red pulp by this
> simple reality have any lingering interest in
> contending to the contrary.

Why do black people look like apes?

Do blacks find apes to be attractive sexually?

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no credible person anywhere who believes
> that genetically speaking, race exists in humans.
> None. Only those who have long ago had their
> sorry asses beaten to a bloody red pulp by this
> simple reality have any lingering interest in
> contending to the contrary.

Railing against the facts does not undo them. There IS of course nothing that could undo them. This is the reason why no credible person anywhere believes in the notion that genetically speaking, race exists in humans to begin with.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reminder... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is no credible person anywhere who
> believes
> > that genetically speaking, race exists in
> humans.
> > None. Only those who have long ago had their
> > sorry asses beaten to a bloody red pulp by this
> > simple reality have any lingering interest in
> > contending to the contrary.
>
> Railing against the facts does not undo them.
> There IS of course nothing that could undo them.
> This is the reason why no credible person anywhere
> believes in the notion that genetically speaking,
> race exists in humans to begin with.


But not. Including genetically.


JCO Precis Oncol. 2017;2017. doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00059. Epub 2017 Aug 21.

Impact of Genetic Ancestry on Outcomes in ECOG-ACRIN-E5103.

Schneider BP1, Shen F1, Jiang G1, O'Neill A2, Radovich M1, Li L1, Gardner L1, Lai D1, Foroud T1, Sparano JA3, Sledge GW Jr.4, Miller KD1.

PURPOSE:

Racial disparity in breast cancer outcomes exists between African American and Caucasian women in the United States. We have evaluated the impact of genetically determined ancestry on disparity in efficacy and therapy-induced toxicity for breast cancer patients in the context of a randomized, phase III adjuvant trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

This study compared outcomes between 386 patients of African ancestry (AA) and 2473 patients of European ancestry (EA) in a randomized, phase III breast cancer trial; ECOG-ACRIN-E5103. The primary efficacy endpoint, invasive disease free survival (DFS) and clinically significant toxicities were compared including: anthracycline-induced congestive heart failure (CHF), taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN), and bevacizumab-induced hypertension.

RESULTS:

Overall, AAs had significantly inferior DFS (p=0.002; HR=1.5) compared with EAs. This was significant in the estrogen receptor-positive subgroup (p=0.03); with a similar, non-significant trend for those who had triple negative breast cancer (TNBC; p=0.12). AAs also had significantly more grade 3-4 TIPN (OR=2.9; p=2.4 ×10-11) and grade 3-4 bevacizumab-induced hypertension (OR=1.6; p=0.02), with a trend for more CHF (OR=1.8; p=0.08). AAs had significantly more dose reductions for paclitaxel (p=6.6 ×10-6). In AAs, dose reductions in paclitaxel had a significant negative impact on DFS (p=0.03); whereas in EAs, dose reductions did not impact outcome (p=0.35).

CONCLUSION:

AAs had inferior DFS with more clinically important toxicities in ECOG-ACRIN-E5103. The altered risk to benefit ratio for adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy should lead to additional research with the focus centered on the impact of genetic ancestry on both efficacy and toxicity. Strategies to minimize dose reductions for paclitaxel, especially due to TIPN, are warranted for this population.

We are all one race, genetically speaking. It is still true that uneducated dummies live among us.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are all one race, genetically speaking. It is
> still true that uneducated dummies live among us.


^ Ariana Huffington Institute for Genomic Social Justice.

Meanwhile back at the science ranch...



Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Oct;1079:51-9.

Genetics of type 1 diabetes: similarities and differences between Asian and Caucasian populations.

Ikegami H1, Fujisawa T, Kawabata Y, Noso S, Ogihara T.

Abstract

Transracial studies are a powerful tool for genetic association studies of multifactorial diseases, such as type 1 diabetes. We therefore studied the association of candidate genes, HLA, INS, CTLA4, PTPN22, and SUMO4, with type 1 diabetes in Asian populations in comparison with Caucasian populations. Class II HLA was strongly associated with type 1 diabetes in both Asian and Caucasian populations, but alleles associated with type 1 diabetes are different among different ethnic groups due to difference in allele distribution in general populations. INS was associated with type 1 diabetes in both Japanese and Caucasian populations, but frequency of disease-associated haplotype was markedly higher in Japanese than in Caucasian populations. CTLA4 association was reported for both type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid diseases (AITD) in Caucasian populations, but the association with type 1 diabetes was concentrated in a subset of patients with AITD in Japanese. A variant (R620W) of PTPN22 was consistently associated with type 1 diabetes in Caucasian populations, but the variant was absent in Asian populations including Japanese. M55V variant of SUMO4 was significantly associated with type 1 diabetes in Asians, but genetic heterogeneity between Asian and Caucasian populations was suggested. These data indicate the importance of transracial studies with a large number of samples in each ethnic group in genetic dissection of type 1 diabetes.

PMID: 17130532 DOI: 10.1196/annals.1375.008

Look at him go! Chicken with his head cut off, but still doing the squawk, squawk, squawk. You’re all by yourself out in the cold over there. Smarter to come inside and enjoy the warmth with all the rest of us.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at him go! Chicken with his head cut off,
> but still doing the squawk, squawk, squawk.
> You’re all by yourself out in the cold over
> there. Smarter to come inside and enjoy the
> warmth with all the rest of us.


Distinguishing racial/ethnic/biogeographic ancestry and variances in the human genome is a huge focus of research and I have thousands of these from a single search that I can use to pummel your "Genetically speaking, race does not exist" nonsense for weeks right?


Bioinformatics. 2017 Aug 1; 33(15): 2402-2404.
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx165
PMCID: PMC5818140
EMSID: EMS75733
PMID: 28369222

EthSEQ: ethnicity annotation from whole exome sequencing data

Alessandro Romanel,1, Tuo Zhang,2,3 Olivier Elemento,2,4 and Francesca Demichelis1,4,


Abstract

Summary

Whole exome sequencing (WES) is widely utilized both in translational cancer genomics studies and in the setting of precision medicine. Stratification of individual's ethnicity is fundamental for the correct interpretation of personal genomic variation impact. We implemented EthSEQ to provide reliable and rapid ethnicity annotation from whole exome sequencing individual's data, validated it on 1000 Genome Project and TCGA data (2700 samples) demonstrating high precision, and finally assessed computational performances compared to other tools. EthSEQ can be integrated into any WES based processing pipeline and exploits multi-core capabilities.

1. Introduction

Interrogation of the entire coding genome for germline and somatic variations through Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) is rapidly becoming a preferred approach for the exploration of large cohorts (such as The Cancer Genome Atlas initiative) especially in the context of precision medicine programs (Beltran et al., 2015). In this setting, the estimation of individual's ethnical background is fundamental for the correct interpretation of variant association studies and of personal genomic variations importance (Petrovski and Goldstein, 2016; Price et al., 2006; Spratt et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016). To enable effective annotation of individual's ethnicity and improve downstream analysis and interpretation of germline and somatic variations, we developed EthSEQ, a tool that implements a rapid and reliable pipeline for ethnicity annotation from WES data. The tool can be used to annotate ethnicity of individuals with germline WES data available and can be integrated in any WES-based processing pipeline. EthSEQ also exploits multi-core technologies when available.

2. Approach

EthSEQ provides an automated pipeline, implemented as R package, to annotate the ethnicity of individuals from WES data inspecting differential SNPs genotype profiles while exploiting variants covered by the specific assay. As input the tool requires genotype data at SNPs positions for a set of individuals with known ethnicity (the reference model) and either a list of BAM files or genotype data of individuals with unknown ethnicity. EthSEQ then annotates the ethnicity of each individual using an automated procedure (Supplementary Fig. S1a) and returns detailed information about individual's inferred ethnicity, including aggregated visual reports.

The reference model builds on genotype data of individuals with known ethnicity; 1000 Genome Project individuals data is here used to construct platform-specific reference models relying on the most conserved ethnic groups EUR (Caucasian), AFR (African), EAS (East Asian) and SAS (South Asian) for multiple WES designs: Agilent HaloPlex, Agilent SureSelect and Roche Nimblegen (Supplementary Methods). More generally, given a set of genomic regions and genotype data of a set of individuals annotated for ethnicity, a procedure to automatically generate a reference model is also provided by EthSEQ. The target model is created either from the input list of individual's germline BAM files that are genotyped at all reference model's positions using the genotyping module of ASEQ (Romanel et al., 2015) (depth of coverage = 10X and read/base mapping qualities = 20 here required by default to guarantee confident genotype calls) or from genotypes provided as input to EthSEQ in VCF format.

Sadly, none of your purposeless rambling relates in any way at all to race, something that in genetic terms of course does not exist in humans to begin with.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sadly, none of your purposeless rambling relates
> in any way at all to race, something that in
> genetic terms of course does not exist in humans
> to begin with.


They all do. You're just too stupid to understand them.


Genetics. 2015 Aug; 200(4): 1285–1295.

Published online 2015 Jun 19. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.178616
PMCID: PMC4574246
PMID: 26092716

Characterizing Race/Ethnicity and Genetic Ancestry for 100,000 Subjects in the Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging (GERA) Cohort


Yambazi Banda,1 Mark N. Kvale,Thomas J. Hoffmann,Stephanie E. Hesselson,Dilrini Ranatunga,Hua Tang,Chiara Sabatti,Lisa A. Croen,Brad P. Dispensa,Mary Henderson,Carlos Iribarren,Eric Jorgenson,Lawrence H. Kushi,Dana Ludwig,Diane Olberg,Charles P. Quesenberry, Jr.,Sarah Rowell,Marianne Sadler,Lori C. Sakoda,Stanley Sciortino,Ling Shen,David Smethurst,Carol P. Somkin,Stephen K. Van Den Eeden,Lawrence Walter,Rachel A. Whitmer,Pui-Yan Kwok,Catherine Schaefer,1,2 and Neil Risch,1,2

Using genome-wide genotypes, we characterized the genetic structure of 103,006 participants in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California multi-ethnic Genetic Epidemiology Research on Adult Health and Aging Cohort and analyzed the relationship to self-reported race/ethnicity. Participants endorsed any of 23 race/ethnicity/nationality categories, which were collapsed into seven major race/ethnicity groups. By self-report the cohort is 80.8% white and 19.2% minority; 93.8% endorsed a single race/ethnicity group, while 6.2% endorsed two or more. Principal component (PC) and admixture analyses were generally consistent with prior studies. Approximately 17% of subjects had genetic ancestry from more than one continent, and 12% were genetically admixed, considering only nonadjacent geographical origins. Self-reported whites were spread on a continuum along the first two PCs, indicating extensive mixing among European nationalities. Self-identified East Asian nationalities correlated with genetic clustering, consistent with extensive endogamy. Individuals of mixed East Asian–European genetic ancestry were easily identified; we also observed a modest amount of European genetic ancestry in individuals self-identified as Filipinos. Self-reported African Americans and Latinos showed extensive European and African genetic ancestry, and Native American genetic ancestry for the latter. Among 3741 genetically identified parent–child pairs, 93% were concordant for self-reported race/ethnicity; among 2018 genetically identified full-sib pairs, 96% were concordant; the lower rate for parent–child pairs was largely due to intermarriage. The parent–child pairs revealed a trend toward increasing exogamy over time; the presence in the cohort of individuals endorsing multiple race/ethnicity categories creates interesting challenges and future opportunities for genetic epidemiologic studies.

Lol! You’re too dumb to understand that you’ve been made to look far beyond foolish here. No credible science person would agree with any of your babbled nonsense.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lol! You’re too dumb to understand that you’ve
> been made to look far beyond foolish here. No
> credible science person would agree with any of
> your babbled nonsense.


From what perspective and in what form from the many choices available that I want to use to make you look even more stupid.





Clustering of MEC Whites/European Americans (MEC_W), Japanese (MEC_J), African Americans (MEC_A) and Latinos (MEC_L) along with HapMap CEU, YRI, JPT and HGDP Native Americans (Maya/Pima) based on the top 4 PCs obtained from PCA of all subjects. (a)(c) Plot of the 1st and 2nd PCs (b)(d) Plot of the 3rd and 4th PCs.

Unless you learn the language and get degree you will not be able to compete here in the USA. When you and your children do that then you will be able to take a leadership role. Until then, Spanish will keep you as the working class.

Yada, yada, yada. Nothing to disagree with the all but universally held understanding that genetically speaking, there is no such thing as race in humans.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yada, yada, yada. Nothing to disagree with the
> all but universally held understanding that
> genetically speaking, there is no such thing as
> race in humans.

The wealth of information showing that race is routinely used to differentiate humans in genetic research, that race/ethnicity/biogeographical ancestry can be readily differentiated based solely on genetic markers which then correspond directly to commonly used categories for race, and that there are a wide variety of differences in biological function, disease, treatment response, and other areas for which race forms distinctions and is a significant determinant.

But, yeah, other than that...

LMAO!


J Asthma. 2017 Jan 2;54(1):1-8. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2016.1188941. Epub 2016 May 13.

Transferability of genome-wide associated loci for asthma in African Americans.
Faruque MU1, Chen G2, Doumatey AP2, Zhou J2, Huang H2, Shriner D2, Adeyemo AA2, Rotimi CN2, Dunston GM1.


Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Transferability of significantly associated loci or GWAS "hits" adds credibility to genotype-disease associations and provides evidence for generalizability across different ancestral populations. We sought evidence of association of known asthma-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in an African American population.

METHODS:

Subjects comprised 661 participants (261 asthma cases and 400 controls) from the Howard University Family Study. Forty-eight SNPs previously reported to be associated with asthma by GWAS were selected for testing. We adopted a combined strategy by first adopting an "exact" approach where we looked-up only the reported index SNP. For those index SNPs missing form our dataset, we used a "local" approach that examined all the regional SNPs in LD with the index SNP.

RESULTS:

Out of the 48 SNPs, our cohort had genotype data available for 27, which were examined for exact replication. Of these, two SNPs were found positively associated with asthma. These included: rs10508372 (OR = 1.567 [95%CI, 1.133-2.167], P = 0.0066) and rs2378383 (OR = 2.147 [95%CI, 1.149-4.013], P = 0.0166), located on chromosomal bands 10p14 and 9q21.31, respectively. Local replication of the remaining 21 loci showed association at two chromosomal loci (9p24.1-rs2381413 and 6p21.32-rs3132947; Bonferroni-corrected P values: 0.0033 and 0.0197, respectively). Of note, multiple SNPs in LD with rs2381413 located upstream of IL33 were significantly associated with asthma.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study has successfully transferred four reported asthma-associated loci in an independent African American population. Identification of several asthma-associated SNPs in the upstream of the IL33, a gene previously implicated in allergic inflammation of asthmatic airway, supports the generalizability of this finding.

Except for nothing. Which is all your silly babbling has come qdown to. That genetically speaking, there is no such thing as race in humans is not at all controversial. It is by far the accepted understanding in the intelligent world.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Except for nothing. Which is all your silly
> babbling has come qdown to. That genetically
> speaking, there is no such thing as race in humans
> is not at all controversial. It is by far the
> accepted understanding in the intelligent world.


Yes Sir. Please Sir. I'd like another Sir...



J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014 Jan;133(1):16-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.10.040.

Pharmacogenetics: implications of race and ethnicity on defining genetic profiles for personalized medicine.


Abstract

Pharmacogenetics is being used to develop personalized therapies specific to subjects from different ethnic or racial groups. To date, pharmacogenetic studies have been primarily performed in trial cohorts consisting of non-Hispanic white subjects of European descent. A "bottleneck" or collapse of genetic diversity associated with the first human colonization of Europe during the Upper Paleolithic period, followed by the recent mixing of African, European, and Native American ancestries, has resulted in different ethnic groups with varying degrees of genetic diversity. Differences in genetic ancestry might introduce genetic variation, which has the potential to alter the therapeutic efficacy of commonly used asthma therapies, such as B2-adrenergic receptor agonists (B-agonists). Pharmacogenetic studies of admixed ethnic groups have been limited to small candidate gene association studies, of which the best example is the gene coding for the receptor target of B-agonist therapy, the B2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2). Large consortium-based sequencing studies are using next-generation whole-genome sequencing to provide a diverse genome map of different admixed populations, which can be used for future pharmacogenetic studies. These studies will include candidate gene studies, genome-wide association studies, and whole-genome admixture-based approaches that account for ancestral genetic structure, complex haplotypes, gene-gene interactions, and rare variants to detect and replicate novel pharmacogenetic loci.

Why on earth are you so afraid of the commonly accepted notion that genetically speaking, there is no such thing as race among humans? How are you in any way threatened by such simple facts of science?

Reminder..: Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why on earth are you so afraid of the commonly
> accepted notion that genetically speaking, there
> is no such thing as race among humans? How are
> you in any way threatened by such simple facts of
> science?


Because you're too stupid to understand the links that I've posted and you misinterpret yours to imply that speciation = genetic variability and that there are NO aspects of what is commonly deemed race which are genetic when there very obviously are?

In fact you can differentiate based on variations within at even much finer levels than broader races and you can also trace back to determine when and how such variations happened and to what degrees.


Genetic variation among world populations: inferences from 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms.

Watkins WS1, Rogers AR, Ostler CT, Wooding S, Bamshad MJ, Brassington AM, Carroll ML, Nguyen SV, Walker JA, Prasad BV, Reddy PG, Das PK, Batzer MA, Jorde LB.


Abstract

We examine the distribution and structure of human genetic diversity for 710 individuals representing 31 populations from Africa, East Asia, Europe, and India using 100 Alu insertion polymorphisms from all 22 autosomes. Alu diversity is highest in Africans (0.349) and lowest in Europeans (0.297). Alu insertion frequency is lowest in Africans (0.463) and higher in Indians (0.544), E. Asians (0.557), and Europeans (0.559). Large genetic distances are observed among African populations and between African and non-African populations. The root of a neighbor-joining network is located closest to the African populations. These findings are consistent with an African origin of modern humans and with a bottleneck effect in the human populations that left Africa to colonize the rest of the world. Genetic distances among all pairs of populations show a significant product-moment correlation with geographic distances (r = 0.69, P < 0.00001). F(ST), the proportion of genetic diversity attributable to population subdivision is 0.141 for Africans/E. Asians/Europeans, 0.047 for E. Asians/Indians/Europeans, and 0.090 for all 31 populations. Resampling analyses show that approximately 50 Alu polymorphisms are sufficient to obtain accurate and reliable genetic distance estimates. These analyses also demonstrate that markers with higher F(ST) values have greater resolving power and produce more consistent genetic distance estimates.

PMID: 12805277 PMCID: PMC403734 DOI: 10.1101/gr.894603

Bottom Line:
You are all too stupid to see that you have been laboring your entire life to feed and care for everyone from low IQ countries. So, despite all of your success and high IQ - who rules?

Not a sermon, just a thought Wrote:1
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because you're too stupid to understand the links
> that I've posted and you misinterpret yours to
> imply that speciation = genetic variability and
> that there are NO aspects of what is commonly
> deemed race which are genetic when there very
> obviously are?

You're a very badly beaten phony desperately trying to save some sort of face through an ad nauseum posting of irrelevant nonsense. There is a general and broadly accepted consensus that genetically speaking, there is no such thing as race in humans. You are the equivalent here of a Birther or very poorly informed climate change denier.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a sermon, just a thought Wrote:1
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because you're too stupid to understand the
> links
> > that I've posted and you misinterpret yours to
> > imply that speciation = genetic variability and
> > that there are NO aspects of what is commonly
> > deemed race which are genetic when there very
> > obviously are?
>
> You're a very badly beaten phony desperately
> trying to save some sort of face through an ad
> nauseum posting of irrelevant nonsense. There is
> a general and broadly accepted consensus that
> genetically speaking, there is no such thing as
> race in humans. You are the equivalent here of a
> Birther or very poorly informed climate change
> denier.


What is this "polymorphic Alu" witchcraft which allows these sorcerers to deivine race from genetics when 'everyone' knows that's impossible!?!

This is HERESY!

HERESY I SAY!!

WE MUST BURN THEM!!!

lol



Biotechniques. 2010 Jun;48(6):449-54. doi: 10.2144/000113426.

Efficient population assignment and outlier detection in human populations using biallelic markers chosen by principal component-based rankings.
Raaum RL1, Wang AB, Al-Meeri AM, Mulligan CJ.

Abstract

Whole-genome studies of genetic variation are now performed routinely and have accelerated the identification of disease-associated allelic variants, positive selection, recombination, and structural variation. However, these studies are sensitive to the presence of outlier data from individuals of different ancestry than the rest of the sample. Currently, the most common method of excluding outlier individuals is to collect a population sample and exclude outliers after genome-wide data have been collected. Here we show that a small collection of 20-27 polymorphic Alu insertions, selected using a principal component-based method with genetic ancestry estimates, may be used to easily assign Africans, East Asians, and Europeans to their population of origin. In addition, we show that samples from a geographically and genetically intermediate population (in our study, samples from India) can be identified within the original sample of Africans, East Asians, and Europeans. Finally, we show that outlier individuals from neighboring geographic regions (in our study, Yemen and sub-Saharan Africa) can be identified. These results will be of value in preselection of samples for more in-depth analysis as well as customized identification of maximally informative polymorphic markers for regional studies.

PMID: 20569219 DOI: 10.2144/000113426

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You're a very badly beaten phony desperately
> trying to save some sort of face through an ad
> nauseum posting of irrelevant nonsense. There is
> a general and broadly accepted consensus that
> genetically speaking, there is no such thing as
> race in humans. You are the equivalent here of a
> Birther or very poorly informed climate change
> denier.


98% of posters on the Underground accept that you are a retarded faggot. The only two votes against this widely acknowledged consensus is Gerrymanderer2 and below.me (both retards and one a raging homo as well). You are the FFU equivalent of Miz at the height of his psychotic mania here. NEXT!

The 98% of the Underground thing is more made-up nonsense. What a coincidence.

Here meanwhile is something that is NOT made up: There is a general and broadly accepted consensus that genetically speaking, there is no such thing as race in humans.

Actually, the 98% might be an underestimation of the lack of regard you receive in these parts. Everyone recognizes you for the failing pants pisser you are no matter how many times you change your handle.

Reminder... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 98% of the Underground thing is more made-up
> nonsense. What a coincidence.
>
> Here meanwhile is something that is NOT made up:
> There is a general and broadly accepted consensus
> that genetically speaking, there is no such thing
> as race in humans.


You realize that the techniques which can be used to discern race from an individual's or population's genetics is the exact same type of BLACK MAGIC! which permits us to determine pathways of human population expansion from Africa around the world right?

But then everyone knows that's impossible. lol


J Hum Genet. 2009 Oct;54(10):603-11. doi: 10.1038/jhg.2009.86. Epub 2009 Sep 11.

Insights on human evolution: an analysis of Alu insertion polymorphisms.

Terreros MC1, Alfonso-Sánchez MA, Novick GE, Luis JR, Lacau H, Lowery RK, Regueiro M, Herrera RJ.

Abstract

We analyzed the genetic profile of 563 individuals from 12 geographically targeted human populations from Europe, Asia and Africa using 27 human-specific polymorphic Alu insertions. Phylogenetic analyses indicated a clear correspondence between genetic profiles and historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Sub-Saharan African populations (Benin, Cameroon, Kenya and Rwanda) formed a visibly differentiated cluster, indicating the role of the Sahara desert as a strong natural barrier to gene flow. Moreover, a higher than expected genetic affinity between populations from Europe, North Africa and Asia was detected, probably reflecting the homogenizing effects of bidirectional migratory processes between Eurasia and North Africa during the Plio-Pleistocene and Neolithic periods or the insensitivity of these markers in discriminating between these groups. The Ami aborigines of Formosa present a distinctive degree of genetic uniqueness from all the other groups, consistent with a pattern of isolation by distance, small population size and, accordingly, substantial genetic drift. We further tested all 27 Alu loci for their potential usefulness as ancestry informative markers (AIMs). On the basis of differences between weighted allelic frequencies (delta-values) and F(ST) values, we propose that 11 of the 27 Alu elements could be useful as part of the current AIM panels to assess phylogenetic relationships.