Is race just a social construct?

[Ailchu]

I understand your point. It's in the category if you want to hit a dog with a stick you will find a stick.

Nevertheless on these kind of plots/pca's this is only limited the case. Take for example the Dutch. The Dutch overlap with other nations is so big you can't separate them, too intertwined within the NW. With the Finns this is possible.

But that boreal thing has a kind of 'occult' background.....no pca stuff

again, if you cancel out those overlapping populations, you could call them a seperate race from all the non-adjacent populations whereas before you couldn't? i mean i also get your point, but i have to ask do you think there is a european race? because you can discard that idea with the exact same argumentations. maybe even the idea of a westeurasian race.

 

[Riverman]

Similar hybridisations events as in humans also exist between various animal races or species. Like in the species of bears, even male or female biased admixture events can be observed:

The genetic methods used to confirm the family relationships and ancestry of the hybrid bears from northern Canada date back to the early 1990s, and are not powerful enough to reveal ancient history. However, the newer methods of genomics analyze thousands of sites in the genome, allowing the history of individual fragments of chromosomes to be traced back to particular populations (or species in the case of hybridization). Genomic studies of brown bears and polar bears have revealed that gene flow from polar bears into brown bears, but not the other way around, was widespread in time and space during the Pleistocene.^[7] Of particular note, the bears living on the islands of the Alexander Archipelago of southeast Alaska trace their maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA entirely to polar bears, but over 90% of their nuclear genome to brown bears. This appears to reflect a process in which a population of polar bears was left behind as the species retreated northwards at the end of the last ice age, with male brown bears subsequently introducing genes from the adjacent mainland, but female brown bears being generally unable or unwilling to swim across several kilometres of open ocean to reach the islands (thus the lack of exchange of mitochondrial DNA)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid

The bear had thick white fur like a polar bear, but it also had a wide head, brown legs and brown paws like a grizzly.

Wildlife DNA analysis shows the bear was a second-generation hybrid, officials with the N.W.T. Environment and Natural Resources Department said in a news release Friday.
The bear was the result of a female grizzly-polar hybrid mating with a male grizzly bear, according to the department.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/bear-shot-in-n-w-t-was-grizzly-polar-hybrid-1.870506

In such cases of hybridisation, selection and random events determine the outcome of the phenotype. Everybody knows, even from his or her own family, that some traits can appear and recombine in different ways in different family members. E.g. eye color or body height. Adaption is key and the main biological category, because for the survival in the arctic environment too its not important whether a bear is "genetically pure" or not, but whether the specimen got the adaptive traits necessary to survive in this environment. Therefore the purely genetic point of view can overlook major differences if being not fine grained or able to detect phenotypical differences. Even minor gene flow can cause significant phenotypical alterations and major gene flow can go almost unnoticed, depending on the environment it takes place and the inheritance pattern.

 

[Northener]

again, if you cancel out those overlapping populations, you could call them a seperate race from all the non-adjacent populations whereas before you couldn't? i mean i also get your point, but i have to ask do you think there is a european race? because you can discard that idea with the exact same argumentations. maybe even the idea of a westeurasian race.

Ok when I take this definition (wiki):

A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct within a given society.[1] The term was first used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations. By the 17th century, the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[2] While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.

And take the pea's from above I can't answer the question. So no I can't define them.

In the earlier days there were thought that "race" had something essential. I guess it hasn't. I guess in genetic sense people all over the world resemble each other for what is it? 99%???? (the overlap with chimps is in genetic sense 98%).

What I can see is a cline, definition is :

In biology, a cline (from the Greek κλίνειν klinein, meaning "to lean") is a measurable gradient in a single character (or biological trait) of a species across its geographical range.[1]

Along the PCA of Angela I would say the Finnish population could be a cline. Agree? The rest of the European populations seem to overlap so as a whole a cline? Just tentative thoughts....not sure. What are your thoughts?

 

[Riverman]

The problem with a crude genetic definition is that it misses the regional variation in finer scale genetic and especially phenotypical traits. Like it doesn't matter whether Siberians and Andamenese are not that far from each other in a crude PCA, they can still hardly be placed into "on racial category". The crude 3 part division is insufficient, because humans evolve fast and move quickly, and tens of thousands of years can make a lot of difference. The position of Onge/Jarava on the PCA is obviously not very telling if comparing them with other people which might, just by chance, land on the same position of the crude 3-pole or even multi-pole PCA - with G25 or more sophisticated methods, then yes, but that goes beyond the simple 3-pole model.

https://ibb.co/PMpVqHc

Similarly Tamils and Yukagir, the difference is visible, but the 3-pole division not sufficient.

 

[Jovialis]

IMO one of the main drivers of what could form the genetic clusters of what could be described as races come from the fact that modern humans are inter-species of various ancient hominids that mixed together at various rates, specific to their locations. If we are only 1% different from a chimp, perhaps even small changes introduced from radically different hominids could facilitate genetic distance to merit the classification of race.

 

[Jovialis]

@Riverman

From looking at West Eurasians closer up in the 3D PCA, I think of it more as clouds forming a 3D-whale's tail.

 

[Angela]

The problem with a crude genetic definition is that it misses the regional variation in finer scale genetic and especially phenotypical traits. Like it doesn't matter whether Siberians and Andamenese are not that far from each other in a crude PCA, they can still hardly be placed into "on racial category". The crude 3 part division is insufficient, because humans evolve fast and move quickly, and tens of thousands of years can make a lot of difference. The position of Onge/Jarava on the PCA is obviously not very telling if comparing them with other people which might, just by chance, land on the same position of the crude 3-pole or even multi-pole PCA - with G25 or more sophisticated methods, then yes, but that goes beyond the simple 3-pole model.

https://ibb.co/PMpVqHc

Similarly Tamils and Yukagir, the difference is visible, but the 3-pole division not sufficient.

Sorry, but I find this obsession with dividing people over small differences rather disturbing. Europeans as a "group" didn't exist until about 3000 B.C. In 5000 years the biggest signs of selection are for skin pigmentation and lactase persistence.

Who care???

 

[Riverman]

IMO one of the main drivers of what could form the genetic clusters of what could be described as races come from the fact that modern humans are inter-species of various ancient hominids that mixed together at various rates, specific to their locations. If we are only 1% different from a chimp, perhaps even small changes introduced from radically different hominids could facilitate genetic distance to merit the classification of race.

The 1 percent difference is misleading, because it always depends on how you measure it:

Another human?	100% - All humans have the same genes, but some of these genes contain sequence differences that make each person unique.
A chimpanzee?	98% - Chimpanzees are the closest living species to humans.
A mouse?	92% - All mammals are quite similar genetically.
A fruit fly?	44% - Studies of fruit flies have shown how shared genes govern the growth and structure of both insects and mammals.
Yeast?	26% - Yeasts are single-celled organisms, but they have many housekeeping genes that are the same as the genes in humans, such as those that enable energy to be derived from the breakdown of sugars.
A weed (thale cress)?	18% - Plants have many metabolic differences from humans. For example, they use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide gas to sugars. But they also have similarities in their housekeeping genes.

https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/sites/all/exhibits/exhibitdna/intro03.jsp

Really relevant are the active genes, those which create proteins and phenotypical differences. Neutral and basic genes are the same between species, genera and beyond, they don't matter, because mutations in those oftentimes result in severe defects or have no effect at all. In any case, regulatory genes and exons are key.

It is still of a great interest to identify genetic elements that distinguish humans from chimpanzees and encode features of human physiological and mental identities [3,4,5]. It?s a difficult task to quantitate the exact percentage of differences between human and chimpanzee genomes. In early works, divergence of human and chimpanzee genomes was estimated as roughly 1% [6]. This estimate was based on the comparison of protein-coding sequences and didn?t consider non-coding (major) part of DNA. However, the idea of ~ 99% similarity of genomes persisted for a long time, until 2005 when nearly complete initial sequencing results of both human [7] and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) [8] genomes became available. It was found that genome differences represented by single nucleotide alterations formed 1.23% of human DNA, whereas larger deletions and insertions constituted ~ 3% of our genome [8]. Moreover, even higher proportion was shaped by chromosomal inversions and translocations comprising several megabase-long chromosomal regions or even entire chromosomes, as for the chromosomal fusion that took place when the human chromosome 2 was formed [9]. Here we tried to review the major known structural and regulatory genetic alterations that had or might have a functional impact on the human and chimpanzee speciation (Table 1).

How do you quantify two extra chromosomes, for example? The structure of the genome is important too and for the speciation probably even way more important than the exact percentage SN alterations.

Human specific single nucleotide alterations constitute ~ 1.23% of our genome. This value was found by directly comparing human with chimpanzee genomes. It was very close to the previous theoretical estimate of 1.2% calculated using average divergence rate for autosomes, for the time of human and chimpanzee ancestor?s divergence [84]. In the human populations, ~ 86% of all human specific single nucleotide alterations is fixed and the rest 14% is polymorphic [8]. Remarkably, the lowest and the highest human-chimpanzee nucleotide sequence divergences, 1.0 and 1.9%, respectively, were detected in the chromosomes X and Y. Outstandingly, as much as 15% of all ancestral CG-dinucleotides underwent mutations either in the human or in the chimpanzee lineage.

Divergent trends:

Humans and chimpanzees have a comparable number of olfactory receptor genes, around 800, and 689 of them are orthologous in the two species [40]. However, in both species about half of them have lost their activities and became pseudogenes. Even though the final numbers of active genes are equal in human and chimpanzee, their repertoire is strikingly different ? as much as 25% of the active olfactory receptor genes are species-specific. This has led to an assumption that the most recent common ancestor had more active olfactory receptor genes than modern humans and chimpanzees

We are just at the beginning of truly understanding and quantifying differences:

Notably, comparison with the chimpanzee genome revealed that over 95% of the NRNRs longer than 200 bp were present also in the chimpanzee genome assembly, thus indicating that they were ancestral [127]. Thus, the lack of information on genome populational diversity could impact the total extent of human and chimpanzee interspecies divergence by misinterpretation of polymorphic sequences. However, it doesn?t abrogate most of the hypotheses and facts mentioned in this review. Still, these findings inevitably lead to the idea of the need, firstly, to create, and secondly, to compare human and chimpanzee pan-genomes.

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-020-06962-8

 

[Riverman]

Sorry, but I find this obsession with dividing people over small differences rather disturbing. Europeans as a "group" didn't exist until about 3000 B.C. In 5000 years the biggest signs of selection are for skin pigmentation and lactase persistence.

Who care???

I didn't write about Europeans. Fact is the 3-pole division of humanity is insufficient, it was insufficient for the anthropologists and it is not sufficient for the geneticist also to grasp the full scale of the species variation. The simple 3-pole division is a major thing which needs to be considered, but its not an end to all and everything in this respect, that's all I'm saying.
European differences and evolutionary trends are a topic of its own, in my opinion below the "race level" and therefore not relevant to this topic. This PCA being focused on the position of Surui, Yukagir, Onge and Jarava, to show how phenotypically very different people which diverged from each other for tens of thousands of years can still be rather close on such a 3-pole PCA.

 

[Riverman]

@Riverman

From looking at West Eurasians closer up in the 3D PCA, I think of it more as clouds forming a 3D-whale's tail.

Yes, additional poles and clines emerge from a more detailed view on the variation.

 

[Northener]

The problem with a crude genetic definition is that it misses the regional variation in finer scale genetic and especially phenotypical traits. Like it doesn't matter whether Siberians and Andamenese are not that far from each other in a crude PCA, they can still hardly be placed into "on racial category". The crude 3 part division is insufficient, because humans evolve fast and move quickly, and tens of thousands of years can make a lot of difference. The position of Onge/Jarava on the PCA is obviously not very telling if comparing them with other people which might, just by chance, land on the same position of the crude 3-pole or even multi-pole PCA - with G25 or more sophisticated methods, then yes, but that goes beyond the simple 3-pole model.

https://ibb.co/PMpVqHc

Similarly Tamils and Yukagir, the difference is visible, but the 3-pole division not sufficient.

Yes and genotype is not phenotype.

 

[Sylvanas]

Race is a human-invented classification system. Genetic diversity is so small and insignificant.
Genes can tell us a lot about history, migrations, health issues...but race as we know is just a social construction.

 

[Northener]

Completely agree, and that may be why these "white" supremacists have turned to the "boreal" definition. It won't help, because no one in Europe is solely descended from "boreal" people. The largest single chunk of ancestry in most modern Europeans comes from the ANF descended groups. It may be unpalatable for certain people, but it's a fact.

It couldn't be otherwise; no one can outbreed farmers.

IMO are N(W) Europeans, in the Celto-Germanic range, basically Single Grave Culture derived Bell Beakers. With a Bronze Age (Tumulus/Urnfield) topping (R1b U106 is imo NW Tumulus/ Urnfield derlved). They certainly outbreeded the farmers, which were on the North German plain Funnelbeakers up tot 2/3 Ertebølle HG derived (in stead of GAC like in Poland or TRB Gokhem which was more than 70% EEF).

More NE wards Finns and Finnish/Swedish border is a bigger amount Nganasan like Jovialis shows. And from North to South more southwards = more EEF.

 

[Northener]

The problem with a crude genetic definition is that it misses the regional variation in finer scale genetic and especially phenotypical traits. Like it doesn't matter whether Siberians and Andamenese are not that far from each other in a crude PCA, they can still hardly be placed into "on racial category". The crude 3 part division is insufficient, because humans evolve fast and move quickly, and tens of thousands of years can make a lot of difference. The position of Onge/Jarava on the PCA is obviously not very telling if comparing them with other people which might, just by chance, land on the same position of the crude 3-pole or even multi-pole PCA - with G25 or more sophisticated methods, then yes, but that goes beyond the simple 3-pole model.

https://ibb.co/PMpVqHc

Similarly Tamils and Yukagir, the difference is visible, but the 3-pole division not sufficient.

But when you do introduce them, so besides genotype also phenotype and regions this will most probably not give a sharp picture, doesn't it? Seems fuzzy to me.... or?

 

[Riverman]

But when you do introduce them, so besides genotype also phenotype and regions this will most probably not give a sharp picture, doesn't it? Seems fuzzy to me.... or?

You have to consider first that the PCA can have different dimensions. This is just the 3-pole concentrated PCA, if you do another, for Eurasians, the difference becomes very apparent and is still absolutely significant. Also, from the phenotypical perspective, there is very little overlap or recent admixture between the e.g. Andamenese and Yukagir. That's different for Europe, where there is more of a smooth cline, significant overlap and recent admixture of significance. This means the difference between e.g. Yukagir : Andamenese is of a very different magnitude than e.g. between Mongols and Chinese or Swedes and Serbs, even than Finns vs. Saudi, everything considered. Even on this PCA you see how far removed Tamils are from Jarava, but with an Eurasian PCA, the difference would become even more obvious.
My main point is that the position of Tamils e.g. Tamils and Yukagir_Forest on the 3-pole PCA being rather "coincidential" and without real relevance, at least not more relevence than other dimensions and phenotypical differences. A literally one-dimensional interpretation of human genetic and phenotypical variation is, imho, insufficient. Everybody should take different aspects into consideration.
Actually even in Africa the 3-pole PCA is insufficient, because of the large impact of Neandertal-Denisovan vs. Basal African and possible archaic African admixture, plus OOA drift. Therefore a lot of the internal variation gets hidden by the dominating dimensions of a classical 3-pole PCA for Africans, especially SSA, also.

 

[Northener]

You have to consider first that the PCA can have different dimensions. This is just the 3-pole concentrated PCA, if you do another, for Eurasians, the difference becomes very apparent and is still absolutely significant. Also, from the phenotypical perspective, there is very little overlap or recent admixture between the e.g. Andamenese and Yukagir. That's different for Europe, where there is more of a smooth cline, significant overlap and recent admixture of significance. This means the difference between e.g. Yukagir : Andamenese is of a very different magnitude than e.g. between Mongols and Chinese or Swedes and Serbs, even than Finns vs. Saudi, everything considered. Even on this PCA you see how far removed Tamils are from Jarava, but with an Eurasian PCA, the difference would become even more obvious.
My main point is that the position of Tamils e.g. Tamils and Yukagir_Forest on the 3-pole PCA being rather "coincidential" and without real relevance, at least not more relevence than other dimensions and phenotypical differences. A literally one-dimensional interpretation of human genetic and phenotypical variation is, imho, insufficient. Everybody should take different aspects into consideration.
Actually even in Africa the 3-pole PCA is insufficient, because of the large impact of Neandertal-Denisovan vs. Basal African and possible archaic African admixture, plus OOA drift. Therefore a lot of the internal variation gets hidden by the dominating dimensions of a classical 3-pole PCA for Africans, especially SSA, also.

I can follow the reasoning, nevertheless my concern was if this delivers intra Europe a clear picture....

 

[Riverman]

I can follow the reasoning, nevertheless my concern was if this delivers intra Europe a clear picture....

Even in Europe different dimensions can be worked out, but generally speaking, there are dominant dimensions in Europe of course, which are the classics, like Neolithic vs. HG ancestry or Western European vs. Uralic, Yamnaya/CHG/ANE ...

 

[Angela]

IMO are N(W) Europeans, in the Celto-Germanic range, basically Single Grave Culture derived Bell Beakers. With a Bronze Age (Tumulus/Urnfield) topping (R1b U106 is imo NW Tumulus/ Urnfield derlved). They certainly outbreeded the farmers, which were on the North German plain Funnelbeakers up tot 2/3 Ertebølle HG derived (in stead of GAC like in Poland or TRB Gokhem which was more than 70% EEF).

More NE wards Finns and Finnish/Swedish border is a bigger amount Nganasan like Jovialis shows. And from North to South more southwards = more EEF.

My point was that farmers/herders outbreed hunter-gatherers.

Also, whether you like it or not Bell Beaker, Urnfield, etc. etc. have a significant amount of EEF ancestry. Farming didn't succeed in the north in the early periods because the farming package was not yet adapted to the climate and terrain.

Scratch a Northern European and despite the WOKE rhetoric you find the same hunter-gatherer/steppe fetish.

 

[Riverman]

To speak of farmers vs foragers in the Late Neolithic is like speaking about "Indo-European haplogroups" in the Late Bronze Age.
Its kind of anachronistic by then, because "all were turned" already.
Most of the "outbreeding" and replacement events did happen primarily on the male side of things. Sometimes even quite exclusively so.

 

[Northener]

My point was that farmers/herders outbreed hunter-gatherers.

Also, whether you like it or not Bell Beaker, Urnfield, etc. etc. have a significant amount of EEF ancestry. Farming didn't succeed in the north in the early periods because the farming package was not yet adapted to the climate and terrain.

Scratch a Northern European and despite the WOKE rhetoric you find the same old sense of superiority.

I don't know were you see superiority, I don't give a .... if it were EEF, HG or Steppe.

I'm interested how 'the real picture was' (especially in my 'own' region) that's my priority.

No Marx, no woke, no Trumpism, no superiority....nohing of it all and don't put words in my mouth in this respect, thanks.

By the way you would experience an offense when I said 'Scratch a South European or Italian or....and... ' that is like the Jiddisch say a gotspe!