Category: genetic variation

Genetic Troughs

In all cases, emphasis added.

See this, abstract:

Geographic patterns in human genetic diversity carry footprints of population history and provide insights for genetic medicine and its application across human populations. Summarizing and visually representing these patterns of diversity has been a persistent goal for human geneticists, and has revealed that genetic differentiation is frequently correlated with geographic distance. However, most analytical methods to represent population structure do not incorporate geography directly, and it must be considered post hoc alongside a visual summary of the genetic structure. Here, we estimate “effective migration” surfaces to visualize how human genetic diversity is geographically structured. The results reveal local patterns of differentiation in detail and emphasize that while genetic similarity generally decays with geographic distance, the relationship is often subtly distorted. Overall, the visualizations provide a new perspective on genetics and geography in humans and insight to the geographic distribution of human genetic variation.

There are “troughs” – low points – in the migration rate, so that genetic variation is not purely clinal, but has more disjunctive differentiation at geographical, cultural, and civilizational boundaries.  Thus, from the paper:

Analyses on a finer geographic scale highlight subtler features (e.g., compare Europe in fig. 1 vs. fig. 2a), and reveal that differentiation exists on local and continental scales (supplementary table 2, Supplementary Material online). At these finer scales we continue to see troughs that align with landscape features, though increasingly we see troughs and corridors that coincide with contact zones of language groups and hypothesized areas of human migrations. For example, in Europe (fig. 2b) we observe troughs roughly in zones associated with language contact zones between Germanic and Northern Slavic speakers (W12) and between Northern Slavic speakers and the linguistically complex Caucasus region (W8). These, as well as most of the other features in Europe (troughs through the Alps, Adriatic, between Italy and Sardinia, in Northern Scandinavia), closely align with older results from classical markers (Barbujani and Sokal 1990). The Eastern Eurasian panel (fig. 2e) is largely consistent with the coarser-scale AEA panel.

Please note this figure from the paper, as well as Supplementary Figure 3A; pay particular attention to the brown areas, and the hatched lines where the brown is darkest.

Note the strong trough separating the Northern (European) and Southern (North African) Mediterranean; in addition, there is another, somewhat weaker, trough separating Turkey from the Balkans. This is all consistent with “The Mediterranean Myth” essay I wrote ~ 20 years ago, and which is reproduced below. It is also consistent with this. Another strong trough separates Russians from peoples to the southeast. Essentially, Europe seems reasonably well separated from Afro-Asia. There are troughs within Europe as well, which make sense given what we know about intra-European differences.  There is one separating Northern and Southern Europe, consistent with that being the first genetic axis in European PCA.  A weaker trough separates Germanics from Slavs – Western Europe from Eastern Europe – consistent with that being the second axis in European PCA. There is one trough in northern Scandinavia, possibly separating Lapps from Germanic Scandinavians. In addition to the major North/South Mediterranean trough mentioned above, there are additional troughs near the islands of Sardinia, Sicily, and Corsica, likely reflecting the geographical barrier of water; thus, as expected, there is some genetic differentiation compared to mainland Italy and France. One trough seems to overlap Cyprus, possibly reflecting not only the geographical barrier of being an island, but perhaps also Greek vs. Turkish ethnocultural distinctions (if the trough runs through the island; the figures are not clear enough). There is, interestingly, a trough running through France, perhaps separating the more “Nordic” types in the north from the more “Alpinid” and “Mediterranean” types in the south. A  trough seems to run between France and Germany as well.  Looking at these Northern European troughs with respect to the UK and Ireland, we can speculate that the British Isles have genetic commonality with the continental shores of the English Channel and the North Sea (e.g., Normans, Vikings, Saxons), but are differentiated from the rest of continental Europe; thus, the British Isle troughs are not directly around/near the islands themselves (as they are in the case of the Mediterranean islands) but extend to the nearby continental coastal regions.  Thus, it would seem that the British Isles and the northern strip of France are more similar to each other than either are to the rest of France or to, say, Central Europe (never mind Southern or Eastern Europe).

The PCA plots on the right of the figure summarizes the clusters formed from this genetic differentiation; these data are similar to what we’ve seen before. These data are consistent with both “gene mirror geography” and distinctiveness between and within continental population groups (races). This all demonstrates that genetic variation is clumpy as well as clinal, and is influenced not only by geographical barriers (mountain ranges, seas) but cultural ones as well (language, religion, civilizational history).  

This study is also consistent with my past criticisms of commercial and academic “admixture testing,” the worst of which yields bizarre results at odds with this study (which itself is consistent with most of the literature).  As I’ve frequently written, “admixture testing” is only as good as the reference samples (modern and/or ancient) used for comparison (and the modeling methods used).  You can model a given population as mixes of varieties of any set of reference populations, with some modeling seemingly being a “better fit” than others, but if none of these models use the appropriate reference populations, then none of them are accurate. It’s just comparing one “bad fit” to another “bad fit” and concluding that one is slightly “less bad” than the other.

The old essay follows:

The Mediterranean Myth

One of the most hoary myths of race is the postulated existence of a cohesive, trans-continental “Mediterranean race.” According to this fantasy, this race includes all brunette, non-Nordish, non-Alpinid “Caucasians”, from Portugal to Bangladesh, from the Alps downward through the Sahara. As we shall see, such a race does not exist and has never existed. We shall also briefly consider the motivations of those who, with complete indifference to reality, continue to promote this myth, for reasons which may have much to do with an animus toward a real sub-racial group – Sudeuropids (South Europeans: i.e., Italians, Iberians, Greeks, Balkan Slavs, Romanians, etc.). Let us examine the evidence.

1. Traditional Physical Anthropology (TPA)

TPA is often invoked to promote the Mediterranean Myth. Three problems with TPA in this regard are:

A) It is out-dated. Many TPA race texts are from the pre-WWII era. Genetic science did not exist then, and TPAs relied more on subjective evaluations of racial similarities and differences. TPA was/is also extensively influenced by the 19th century practice of superficial classification, without a strong empirical basis. We must recognize that what the “experts” of the past said on certain matters sometimes needs to be revised on the basis of current knowledge. We no longer believe that whales are fish, or that infectious diseases are caused by “ill vapors in the ether.” Likewise, our knowledge of race needs to be advanced.

B) TPA itself is somewhat contradictory, because the ethnic phenotypes do not match some of the racial classifications. While Carleton Coon is often cited by the promoters of the Mediterranean Myth, the photographs of Sudeuropids in “The Races of Europe” do not fit into this scheme. The photos are of European people, who do not bear any resemblance to Arabs, Hindus, or any other such “Mediterraneans.” One can look at the phenotypes of Sudeuropids and easily contrast them to that of non-European “Caucasian” groups. The reader of this essay should reflect on the phenotypes of some prominent Sudeuropid celebrities – politicians, entertainers, scientists, etc. – and ask themselves how many of these folks would ever be confused with “Gunga Din.” Racial phenotype does not support the Mediterranean Myth.

C) The Nord extremists who currently support the Mediterranean Myth, on the basis of TPA, seem rather choosy in what they believe and do not believe. For example, Baker (in “Race”) indicates that “Nordids” and “Mediterranids” are quite similar to each other racially, and both groups are far more similar to each other than either is to “Alpinids.” Meanwhile, the current promoters of the Mediterranean Myth ignore this and seem to suggest the opposite. Coon seems to be popular among modern promoters of the Mediterranean Myth. However, these folks seem to ignore the fact that Coon also saw a close relationship between “Nordics” and “Mediterraneans”, and indeed, in some of the text legends to his photographs, indicated a belief that “Nordics” are “partially depigmented” Mediterraneans; in other words, that Nordics are racially derived from Mediterraneans, these groups having a common racial origin. If TPA is to be wholeheartedly believed, then should not these views of Baker and Coon be promoted also?

In summary, TPA is a rather weak reed for the promoters of the Mediterranean Myth to lean on. The evidence below emphasizes that fact.

2. Genetic evidence

Many people are familiar with the work of Cavalli-Sforza, which does support the points of this essay. However, in our opinion, an even better scientific analysis was the work of Nei and Roychoudhury (Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 927-943, 1993), henceforth referred here to as “NR93.” In this work, 29 gene loci (121 gene alleles) from 26 different human populations were studied to ascertain the evolutionary relationships between these groups. This work is of high value precisely because of the large number of genes looked at. As the authors state:

Earlier we emphasized the importance of using a large number of loci in the study of human evolution. This is because (a) the interpopulational genetic variation is very small compared with intrapopulational variation and (b) the evolution of a single gene (or mtDNA) is subject to large stochastic errors (Nei and Livshits 1989; Livshits and Nei 1990). In this study, using gene frequency data for 29 genetic loci, we could reconstruct an evolutionary history of human populations that seems likely to be less controversial and more enduring than some current alternatives.

The findings of this study are of the highest importance. Different population groups were shown to differ genetically – proving the existence of biological race. Africans split off from the rest of humanity first, the next major split being that between Caucasians and a general Asian cluster, each of which demonstrated further splits. Of relevance here is that the European groups studied – English, Germans, Finns, and Italians – all clustered together in an European group, distinctly separate from non-European Caucasians such as Iranians and North Indians, as well as from Lapps. Thus, in contrast to the racial fantasies of the Mediterranean Myth, Sudeuropid Italians were in the European group, separate from non-European “Mediterraneans.” Within the European cluster, one can find sub-clusters, which may correlate with “sub-race”: NW Euros (Germans and English), NE Euros (Finns), and S Euros (Italians). The major point remains that all these groups are European, and no evidence exists here for a “Mediterranean race” including Italians, Iranians, and Indians. The evidence in fact directly contradicts the Mediterranean Myth.

Arthur Jensen in “The g Factor” subjected the NR93 data to sophisticated numerical analysis, producing a chart which demonstrated, in a quantitative sense, which populations clustered together. The number of each population indicates how close that population is to the norm of their respective racial cluster. Populations with similar numbers are highly genetically clustered together. This chart was adapted by Dr. Glayde Whitney and appeared in American Renaissance magazine. The general Caucasian group yielded interesting results. The numbers for this group were: Italians – 989, Finns – 988, Germans – 978, English – 948, North Indians – 704, Iranians – 635, and Lapps – 500. Note well that the various European populations cluster very tightly together, and all are very close to group norms. All European groups are genetically distinct from North Indians, Iranians, and Lapps – another crushing blow to the fantasies of the Mediterranean Myth. In fact, the close European cluster compares with that found for NE Asians; in the NE Asian cluster, Koreans had a value of 959; Japanese, 936. Thus, European populations, in general, are approximately as genetically similar as Koreans and Japanese. This indicates common origins and/or extensive inter-breeding in the past.

Of course, this is not to deny that there has been some gene flow across the Mediterranean. Certainly, there is some genetic evidence for a limited amount of gene flow and gene admixture between the “western Mediterranean” and the “eastern Mediterranean”, between Southern Europe and the Near East. There were a number of instances in history where such flows could have taken place. The questions here are: 1) was this substantial enough to cause the populations to be the same?, 2) is this unique in European history? The answer to #1 is clearly no. First, the NR93 data indicate that Sudeuropid populations are genetically in the overall European cluster. Second, the study by Hammer et al. (PNAS 97, 6769-6774, 2000) of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes demonstrates that Southern European populations fall within the general European cluster and are genetically distinct from Middle Eastern/Near Eastern populations, which form their own cluster. Within the European cluster, Sudeuropid populations tend to fall together, a further proof that Sudeuropids are a sub-race of the greater European race, and not part of some sort of brown-skinned trans-continental “Mediterranean race.” Also of interest is the Y-chromosome study of Bosch et al. (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68, 1019-1029, 2001) which states the following:

The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow……..The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in a.d. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool.

So, again, the answer to #1 is no; some gene flow took place, but the populations are clearly genetically and phenotypically, and thus racially, distinct.

The answer to #2 is that such admixture is not unique in European history. Even in Northern Europe there is some evidence of genetic admixture from non-European, and indeed in some cases, non-Caucasian, sources, including Negro as well as Saamish, Ugric, and other Asian-type genes. European ethnic history is complex, but this does not obviate the reality of distinct European racial types. Race is not dependent on absolute “racial purity.”

3. Racial History

The racial history of Sudeuropids is clearly distinct from other putative members of a so-called “Mediterranean race.” NR93 says the following of the European groups studied, including Italians:

Most European populations (e.g., Finns, Germans, English, and Italians) have exchanged genes during the past few thousand years, but they are included here as a group, for study of their evolutionary relationships with other populations.

Indeed. The origins of these closely related populations are explained by NR93 thus:

By contrast, the population that later became Caucasoid apparently moved northwest to occupy Europe; Cro-Magnon, who lived – 10,000-30,000 years ago in Europe, are apparently ancestors of the present Europeans (fig. 6).

This can be contrasted with the comments made by NR93 of other groups, based on the available evidence.

Regarding Iranians and North Indians, they state:

For example, Iranians and northern Indians probably have had gene admixture with East Asians, though they are now primarily Caucasians.

It is obvious that admixture with East Asians is not part of the racial history of Southern Europe.

NR93 give more information about the racial origins of the populations of the Indian sub-continent. Referring to migrations of Blacks from Africa into Asia, they state:

A second group migrated to the Indian Subcontinent and then to Southeast Asia, where they had gene admixture with the mongoloid group (fig. 6). The resultant population absorbed most of its gene pool from the mongoloid group but retained the genes for dark skin, frizzled hair, etc., from Africans, because of natural selection in tropical conditions. This population then moved to New Guinea and Australia – 40,000 years ago. The Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia were later invaded by Caucasoids and mongoloids, respectively, and further gene admixture occurred. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that in these areas there are isolated populations (e.g., Philippine Negritos, Andamanese, Dravidians) with African traits.

This racial history of admixture between Mongolid, Negroid, and Caucasoid populations in the region of India, taking place thousands of miles from Southern Europe, is clearly distinct from the racial history of Sudeuropids. There is no connection whatsoever.

As far as Middle-Easterners and North Africans go, NR93 state:

Therefore, we have excluded populations that are clearly products of recent gene admixture as documented by history (e.g., northern Africans and Middle Easterns)

These populations, clearly considered by NR93 as distinct from the European populations, have their own unique racial histories. For example, Arabs are Semites with a Middle-Eastern origin. In some places they are still relatively pure Semites, in other places, there has been significant admixture with Berber as well as Negro blood (for an example of the latter, remember the phenotype of Anwar Sadat). The issue of gene-flow between the Near East and Southern Europe has been dealt with above. Despite limited gene flow (which has occurred with varying populations throughout Europe), Sudeuropids and Near-Easterners remain phenotypically and genetically distinct populations – different races. The NR93 and Hammer studies reinforce this.

In summary, clearly then the different racial histories of the putative “Mediterranean” groups clearly demonstrate that they are of different race.


The Mediterranean Myth is false, an absurd farce. The reality is of a greater Caucasian race, which can be divided into European, Semitic, Irano-Afghan, Indio-Dravidian, and other such races, each of which can be further sub-divided into sub-races (e.g., in Europe: Nordeuropids, Alpineuropids, Sudeuropids, et al. ). Now, we have no doubt that even after the evidence in this essay is made known, there will be some who will continue to propagate the Mediterranean Myth. Why? Well, if we wish to be charitable, we can say that they, despite all the evidence, are too stubborn to accept the findings of modern science. Or, perhaps, they lack the education and/or mental capacity to understand the data. Less charitable suggestions may be that they hold an animus against Sudeuropids, or even that they wish to promote Sudeuropid genocide via admixture with racially alien groups. If that latter possibility is true, then the agenda there would be to de-legitimize Sudeuropid racial identity, and promote the idea that Sudeuropids are identical to racially alien “Mediterranean” types. The idea would be to deny the existence of the group (Sudeuropids) to be destroyed.

One hopes though that reasonable people will see the evidence and realize that the Mediterranean Myth is false. We can then move beyond absurdities that would claim that Joe DiMaggio was equivalent to a Bangladeshi, and start serious and mature discussions of racial issues, discussions based on truth, science, and mutual respect.

PopGen June 2019

Two papers.

The first:

In many species a fundamental feature of genetic diversity is that genetic similarity decays with geographic distance; however, this relationship is often complex, and may vary across space and time. Methods to uncover and visualize such relationships have widespread use for analyses in molecular ecology, conservation genetics, evolutionary genetics, and human genetics. While several frameworks exist, a promising approach is to infer maps of how migration rates vary across geographic space. Such maps could, in principle, be estimated across time to reveal the full complexity of population histories. Here, we take a step in this direction: we present a method to infer maps of population sizes and migration rates associated with different time periods from a matrix of genetic similarity between every pair of individuals. Specifically, genetic similarity is measured by counting the number of long segments of haplotype sharing (also known as identity-by-descent tracts). By varying the length of these segments we obtain parameter estimates associated with different time periods. Using simulations, we show that the method can reveal time-varying migration rates and population sizes, including changes that are not detectable when using a similar method that ignores haplotypic structure. We apply the method to a dataset of contemporary European individuals (POPRES), and provide an integrated analysis of recent population structure and growth over the last ∼3,000 years in Europe.

That’s interesting, I suppose, but what is really needed from population genetics is two things.  First, global assays of genetic kinship.  Second, application of genetic structure and genetic integration (e.g., Gillet and Gregorious) to human genetic data. These things are consistently not being done. Is it because they are viewed as uninteresting to the field, or is it because the findings would be politically unpalatable to the field?

Author summary
We introduce a novel statistical method to infer migration rates and population sizes across space in recent time periods. Our approach builds upon the previously developed EEMS method, which infers effective migration rates under a dense lattice. Similarly, we infer demographic parameters under a lattice and use a (Voronoi) prior to regularize parameters of the model. However, our method differs from EEMS in a few key respects. First, we use the coalescent model parameterized by migration rates and population sizes while EEMS uses a resistance model. As another key difference, our method uses haplotype data while EEMS uses the average genetic distance. A consequence of using haplotype data is that our method can separately estimate migration rates and population sizes, which in essence is done by using a recombination rate map to calibrate the decay of haplotypes over time. An additional useful feature of haplotype data is that, by varying the lengths analyzed, we can infer demography associated with different recent time periods. We call our method MAPS for estimating Migration And Population-size Surfaces. To illustrate MAPS on real data, we analyze a genome-wide SNP dataset on 2224 individuals of European ancestry.

I’m not going to judge the validity of this approach without more data; however, any cursory look at current population genetic studies illustrates how the “testing companies” are behind the cutting edge of methodology.

Largely speaking, the spatial variation in inferred dispersal rates and population densities is remarkably consistent across the different time scales (Fig 4). In the MAPS dispersal surfaces, several regions with consistently low estimated dispersal rates coincide with geographic features that would be expected to reduce gene flow, including the English Channel, Adriatic Sea and the Alps. 

In general, geographic barriers have historically impeded (but obviously not abrogated) gene flow.

In addition we see consistently high dispersal across the region between the UK and Norway, which may reflect the known genetic effects of the Viking expansion [22]. 

See more on this below.

These features are consistent with visual inspection of the raw lPSC sharing data (S4b Fig). The MAPS population density surfaces consistently show lowest density in Ireland, Switzerland, Iberia, and the southwest region of the Balkans. This is consistent with samples within each of these areas having among the highest PSC segment sharing (S4a Fig). The MAPS inferred country population sizes are also highly correlated with estimated current census population sizes from [36] and [37] (S5 Fig) which can be mainly attributed to the fact that lPSC segments are highly informative of current census population sizes (Fig 5).

And then:

We do note the lower estimated dispersal rates between Portugal and Spain compared to the rest of Europe in the analyses of longer PSC segments (5-10 and > 10cM), and the higher estimated dispersal rates through the Baltic Sea (> 10cM segments), possibly reflecting changing gene flow in these regions in recent history.

I’m not sure what to make of that Iberian data.  I’m not aware of any significant geographical barrier there, so is that an example of political barriers affecting gene flow?  The data of this paper call into question “testing companies” using generalized “Iberian” or “British/Irish” ancestral categories.

Our estimates of dispersal distances and population density from the POPRES data are among the first such estimates using a spatial model for Europe (though see [30]). The features observed in the dispersal and population density surfaces are in principle discernible by careful inspection of the numbers of shared PSC segments between pairs of countries (e.g. using average pairwise numbers of shared segments, S4b Fig, as in [20]). For example, high connectivity across the North Sea is reflected in the raw PSC calls: samples from the British Isles share a relatively high number of PSC segments with those from Sweden (S4b Fig). 

This is consistent with what is mentioned above, compatible with the historically known gene flow from Scandinavia to the British Isles, particularly England, during the Viking age.

Also the low estimated dispersal between Switzerland and Italy is consistent with Swiss samples sharing relatively few PSC segments with Italians given their close proximity (S4b Fig). 

The Alps being one of the geographical barriers mentioned above.  This of course is not compatible with Der Movement dogma of Northern Italians being “Celto-Germanic Nordics.”

However, identifying interesting patterns directly from the PSC segment sharing data is not straightforward, and one goal of MAPS (and EEMS) is to produce visualizations that point to patterns in the data that suggest deviations from simple isolation by distance.

The inferred population size surfaces for the POPRES data show a general increase in sizes through time, with small fluctuations across geography; In our results, the smallest inferred population sizes are in the Balkans and Eastern Europe more generally. This is in agreement with the signal seen previously [20]; however, taken at face value, our results suggest that high PSC sharing in these regions may be due more to consistently low population densities than to historical expansions (such as the Slavic or Hunnic expansions).

Relative population density may be a driver of genetic history, and one ignored by Der Movement in lieu of more colorful stories about expansions and admixture.

Second paper:

The roles of migration, admixture and acculturation in the European transition to farming have been debated for over 100 years. Genome-wide ancient DNA studies indicate predominantly Aegean ancestry for continental Neolithic farmers, but also variable admixture with local Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Neolithic cultures first appear in Britain circa 4000 BC, a millennium after they appeared in adjacent areas of continental Europe. The pattern and process of this delayed British Neolithic transition remain unclear. We assembled genome-wide data from 6 Mesolithic and 67 Neolithic individuals found in Britain, dating 8500-2500 BC. Our analyses reveal persistent genetic affinities between Mesolithic British and Western European hunter-gatherers. We find overwhelming support for agriculture being introduced to Britain by incoming continental farmers, with small, geographically structured levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry. Unlike other European Neolithic populations, we detect no resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry at any time during the Neolithic in Britain. Genetic affinities with Iberian Neolithic individuals indicate that British Neolithic people were mostly descended from Aegean farmers who followed the Mediterranean route of dispersal. We also infer considerable variation in pigmentation levels in Europe by circa 6000 BC.

Contra Duchesne, ancestry deriving from Neolithic farmers is not restricted to Southern Europe; it is just much more concentrated there.

Autism, Spengler, Lewontin, Der Movement, and Moobs

In der news.

First, about autism, emphasis added:

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) manifests as alterations in complex human behaviors including social communication and stereotypies. In addition to genetic risks, the gut microbiome differs between typically developing (TD) and ASD individuals, though it remains unclear whether the microbiome contributes to symptoms. We transplanted gut microbiota from human donors with ASD or TD controls into germ-free mice and reveal that colonization with ASD microbiota is sufficient to induce hallmark autistic behaviors. The brains of mice colonized with ASD microbiota display alternative splicing of ASD-relevant genes. Microbiome and metabolome profiles of mice harboring human microbiota predict that specific bacterial taxa and their metabolites modulate ASD behaviors. Indeed, treatment of an ASD mouse model with candidate microbial metabolites improves behavioral abnormalities and modulates neuronal excitability in the brain. We propose that the gut microbiota regulates behaviors in mice via production of neuroactive metabolites, suggesting that gut-brain connections contribute to the pathophysiology of ASD.

So, instead of giving mice MMR vaccinations to induce autism, the “gut microbiota” of autistic humans was sufficient to do the job, including alterations of “alternative splicing of ASD-relevant genes” in the mouse brains.

What could affect the “gut microbiota?”  There’s the initial colonization during gestation, birth, and early years of life. There is diet. And there is antibiotic use.  Conspicuously missing from that list are the “Big Pharma” vaccines injected by dastardly “Jew doctors.” But alas, the festering microbial environment of “Mama,” the lousy diets, and those tasty pink-colored antibiotic spoonfuls (given liberally, even for viral infections against which they are useless) are not “scary needles,” so it’s all A-OK!  After all, those scary injections are violating our bodily integrity and contaminating our precious bodily fluids, so we can’t have that!  Just take dem dere pills and spoonfuls, eat dat dere junk food, and it’ll all be fine!  Also, make sure to expose your child’s amygdala to bizarre NEC phenotypes as well.  What could go wrong?

Lewontin’s Fallacy and “genetic variation within vs. between” mentioned here.  Of course, several months ago, EGI Notes posted a comprehensive refutation of Lewontin, demonstrating, using genetic data and calculations, that ANY human group, no matter how randomly chosen, will always exhibit more genetic variation within than between.  Indeed, random groupings of Whites and Blacks mixed together will also demonstrate the same pattern – conclusively showing that the pattern is due to random distribution of genetic variation among all humans, with no relevance to racial classification whatsoever.  A comparison of human racial Fst to that of dog breeds was also discussed.

That post got ZERO attention from Der Movement; after all, the Quota Queens have circled the wagons and have established a cordon sanitaire around the Sallis Groupuscule, lest I threaten their tin cup panhandling and their by-birthright-affirmative-action-positions.

Comment about Spengler from Counter-Currents:

Posted June 5, 2019 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Spengler deserves, but does not receive, more criticism from rightist sources. As has been mentioned in other posts two other philosophers of history, Piritim Sorokin and Lawrence Brown have both ably demonstrated the inaccuracy and danger in using biological metaphors to describe the development of a culture.
Although Spengler was a teacher of mathematics his literary style is not precise or particularly clear, he writes more as a poet than as a scientist. A scientist with desire to explain history should use his training to identify the causes for a culture taking a particular development path, and not ascribe that path to a destiny that is chosen for it. Such a description is too mystical. In some ways Spengler’s outlook has parallels with his near contemporary Hans Driesch and his thoughts related to biological determinism as observed in embryos.
We need to distance ourselves from Spengler’s brand of determinism. History is open-ended, and it is imperative that we change roads at the next off-ramp, if one isn’t in sight then prepare for some off road driving.

Revilo Oliver, many years ago, critiqued Spengler; I have done so more recently.  Of course, my critique was ignored by Der Movement as well.  Surprise!

Spencer is right.  But he’s not calling out the appropriate people.  David French?  Pshaw!  As Derb would say.  Let’s see. I can think of two prominent racialist types who have, in recent months, publicly stated that we are winning and that our victory is inevitable.  One of these is someone Spencer despises (and vice versa). Then we had this:

Jared Taylor’s short answer to “why we are winning” was “because we’re right and our opponents are wrong.”

Ball in your court, Mr. Spencer.

Der Movement likes to talk about “soyboys,” but based on recent findings, we had better talk about “beer bros” instead.  Is this the reason why the Type I Nutzis are so inept?  Is it that all of the “Sieg Heil and pass the beer” crowd are drenched in estrogen?  Adjust those bra straps, fellas!

New Fst and Kinship Estimators

And a statement on Identity.

In all cases, emphasis added.

The abstract:

Kinship coefficients and FST, which measure genetic relatedness and the overall population structure, respectively, have important biomedical applications. However, existing estimators are only accurate under restrictive conditions that most natural population structures do not satisfy. We recently derived new kinship and FST estimators for arbitrary population structures [1, 2]. Our estimates on human datasets reveal a complex population structure driven by founder effects due to dispersal from Africa and admixture. Notably, our new approach estimates larger FST values of 26% for native worldwide human populations and 23% for admixed Hispanic individuals, whereas the existing approach estimates 9.8% and 2.6%, respectively. While previous work correctly measured FST between subpopulation pairs, our generalized FST measures genetic distances among all individuals and their most recent common ancestor (MRCA) population, revealing that genetic differentiation is greater than previously appreciated. This analysis demonstrates that estimating kinship and FST under more realistic assumptions is important for modern population genetic analysis.

I’m not a fan of Fst for genetic distance estimates for reasons discussed at this blog, and based on peer-reviewed literature, but it is used for that by many, so let’s see what this paper says.

From the main text:

However, the most commonly-used standard kinship estimator [9, 10, 13–19] is accurate only in the absence of population structure [2, 20]. Likewise, current FST estimators assume that individuals are partitioned into statistically-independent subpopulations [4, 5, 21–23], which does not hold for human and other complex population structures.

About Hispanics:

In particular, since differentiation increases from AFR to EUR to AMR (Fig. 3), the greatest kinship is between individuals with higher AMR ancestry, and the lowest kinship is between individuals with higher AFR ancestry (Fig. 4B and C).

So, it would seem that Hispanics like Mexicans and Peruvians have greater kinship among them than do the Caribbean-type Hispanics who stress Negro admixture to a greater extent.  Genetic differentiation (and kinship) seems highest among Amerindians and Pacific Islanders.

Fst between populations may be “substantially larger” than previously determined:

Remarkably, our estimated FST of 0.260 is substantially larger than estimates around 0.098 from existing approaches (Fig. 3) and previous measurements based on FST [30, 45] or related variance component models [31, 46, 47] — except for some AMOVA  ST estimates [48] (pairwise FST estimates [23, 49– 52] are not generally comparable to our estimate). Existing approaches underestimate FST because they assume zero kinship between subpopulations, clearly incorrect as seen in Fig. 1C, whereas our new approach models arbitrary kinship between individuals and leverages kinship to estimate FST.

Consistent with the “genes follow geography” paradigm, with genetic variation being both clinal and discontinuous.

We typically see that each ancestry cluster is concentrated in a certain geographical region, and this ancestry is also present to a lesser extent in neighboring regions and diminishes with geographical distance from its point of greatest concentration. This again argues for a complex population structure where relatedness at the population level falls on a continuum rather than taking on discrete values. The most notable geographic discontinuities in ancestry were observed for cluster 3, which is roughly West Eurasian ancestry.

And within West Eurasians?

Among West Eurasians, kinship is higher within Europe, reflecting another bottleneck.

So much for those that have denied any differences among West Eurasians.

It would be useful to use the new kinship estimator to get quantitative data for groups and transform those into child equivalents as well. That would be important for biopolitical considerations, an important component, but not the only component, of biopolitical identity. Identity – particularly from the general Yockeyian perspective I espouse – has multiple components.

Interestingly, he authors of this paper take a similar perspective; thus:

This partition into subpopulation is based on geography, history, language families, and our kinship estimates.

If “history” includes cultural/civilizational components, which are the major proximate interests, then this tracks well with my idea of Identity, composed both from the key ultimate interest (genetic kinship) and the major proximate interests. These different sets of interests synergize to form sharp discontinuities which are not present when only one interest is considered in isolation.

Now, I do not agree with the authors including the Ashkenazim in the European subpopulation, but that does not mean their approach is wrong – they are simply following the same simplistic mindset reflected by the testing companies that “they are found in Europe so they are European,” ignoring the history of the Ashkenazim as a Diaspora group akin to the Roma.

But, that’s a minor detail. The major approach of synergistic Identity is sound.