> Pesky question won't go away Wrote:
> > But now at least you've conceded that there IS a
> Certainly. Just not any even nearly large enough
> to support the silly and long rejected notion of
> there being a genetic basis for race among human
> beings. Race is an entirely imagined
> > ...and now you're just attempting to argue
> > the level of difference. Let's go with the
> > commonly cited "only a 0.1%" difference between
> > two humans as typically stated by those
> > your same argument. That work for you?
> In 2015, the 1000 Genomes Project (which sequenced
> one thousand individuals from 26 human
> populations) found that "a typical [individual]
> genome differs from the reference human genome at
> 4.1 million to 5.0 million sites … affecting 20
> million bases of sequence". The latter figure
> corresponds to 0.6% of total number of base pairs.
> Nearly all (>99.9%) of these sites are small
> differences, either single nucleotide
> polymorphisms or brief insertions or deletions
> (indels) in the genetic sequence...
> Put another way, you are as full of shit today as
> on all previous occasions when you had your ass
> kicked black and blue over what is in fact a total
> non-issue. Ii is settled science that in genetic
> terms, there is no such thing as race among human
> beings. The whole idea is a throwback to a badly
> crafted social construct begun in the days of the
> white man's burden and manifest destiny. No
> serious person today sees any credibility at all
> in this flub-a-dub rubbish.
> > So, in that regard, very obviously there is
> > difference as can be seen clearly below. Fur
> > color for the squirrels is a single MC1R gene
> > coding for melanin production with 4 basic
> > possibilities (black, half black, gray, and
> > suppressed as white) with some other odd
> > and partial expression within (black streaks on
> > white squirrel). For skin color in humans the
> > basics are very similar (as pigmentation is
> > other species) but it's a more complex
> > process with many more possibilities and thus
> > potential variance across individuals.
> Squirrels are plainly not human beings and you
> have just as plainly run out of gas here. Pull
> over to the side of the road and wait for
Uh dummy, I was using the typical (deceptive) "only differs by .1%" granting the benefit of doubt for the moment. And once again you don't understand what you're posting. What you cited says that on the same basis it's an even larger difference of .6% vs .1%. At .6% of the total number of base pairs in the human genome (~6.4 billion), it would be ~38.4 million differences.
But that's an inappropriate way of looking at it to begin with in the way you're attempting. Makes sense as a general gauge of overall aggregate genome variance for some broad-scale purposes, but those "small differences" ARE the differences in the case of given individuals (and common differences among groups of individuals with the same traits). And, as I noted, it's not as simple as a straight calculation like that since there isn't a one-to-one correlation between base pairs and some result. There are all kinds of other combinations and interactions which greatly increases the potential differences.
No, squirrels obviously aren't humans. Again you don't understand enough to get the point. Which was that the mechanism for color morphs in squirrels is much more simple than that for "color morphs"/races in humans. Your claim that we're much more similar compared to other such sub-species-level differences in other species is false. The differences actually are much greater in this particular case (and many others).
So to summarize, you now concede that the differences among human races are in fact genetic, that there are millions of differences within the human genome (at minimum), and your claim that humans are more similar vs other "races" of critters is bunk.
But, again, any time that you want to explain this otherwise, feel free: