Category: genetic variation

Genetic Variation and Environmental Interactions

Genetic variation and environment.

Of interest, re: genetics, culture, and race, I note this methodology paper:

Identifying interactions between genetics and the environment (GxE) remains challenging. We have developed EAGLE, a hierarchical Bayesian model for identifying GxE interactions based on associations between environmental variables and allele-specific expression. Combining whole-blood RNA-seq with extensive environmental annotations collected from 922 human individuals, we identified 35 GxE interactions, compared with only four using standard GxE interaction testing. EAGLE provides new opportunities for researchers to identify GxE interactions using functional genomic data.                    

Basic findings were that environmental risk factors (e.g., substance abuse, exercise, BMI) can interact with genetic variation and affect gene expression. But the effects were modest, these were not large influences compared to other possible (e.g., additive) effects, and may have been affected by confounding factors (a possible problem when probing interactions for which there can be many variables).  In addition, some of the observed effects may have been in part epigenetic, presumably modifications due to environmental factors, rather than interactions between those factors and gene sequence variation itself.

On the one hand, the effects, being modest, cannot plausibly be invoked by anti-genetic determinists to prop up environment as the primary factor affecting gene expression (and, hence, eventual phenotype).  On the other hand, effects were observed, and these cannot be dismissed.  Of interest would be effects and interactions due to environmental factors other than those cited above.

Can culture, through its many manifestations, shaping the environment, interact with genetic variation to affect gene expression and, thus, phenotypic outcomes?  Would different ethnic and racial groups, characterized by group-specific genetic variation, exhibit variable gene expression when immersed in the same cultural environment?  Conversely, would genetically similar individuals and groups exhibit altered gene expression when placed in radically different cultural environments?  

And this goes beyond the more fundamental observation that genes affect culture (through the different phenotypes of culture creators, maintainers, or destroyers) and, conversely, culture can actually affect genetic variation itself (rather than just interact with it) by exerting selective pressure favoring one genotype over another.  Gene-culture cross-talk, if you will. See this old TOQ paper I wrote some time ago for more on that topic. Also, epigenetic effects, mentioned above, are another way in which culture can affect gene expression, but not to the extent, or in the manner, than the anti-determinists fervently hope.  The basic foundation for all of this is genetic variation; there is no evading that inconvenient (for some people) truth.

In summary, all of this bolsters the importance of genetic variation and, hence, genetic interests.  It also shows how reckless the globalists are in their indiscriminate mixing of genes and cultures (in Western nations).

Failure of Fst/Gst

Population genetics.

Both “movement” fetishists as well as anti-racist liars like to misuse Fst/Gst in genetic distance discussions (*) to promote their respective agendas.  Unfortunately for them, Fst/Gst is not really a (direct) measure of genetic distance, and particularly fails even as an indirect proxy when comparing populations that exhibit different levels of heterozygosity (e.g., human ethnies) and/or when considering loci with more than two allele variants.  To have the ill-informed trying to parse differences of, say, Fst/Gst = 0.0060 vs. 0.0065 and trying to make relevant conclusions from that is laughable.  The following are a small sampling of links to cite the next time some idiot tries to play such games (emphasis added):

See here.

See also here:

Likewise, when diversity is equated with heterozygosity, standard similarity measures formed by taking the ratio of mean within-subpopulation diversity to total diversity necessarily approach unity when diversity is high, even if the subpopulations are completely dissimilar (no shared alleles). None of these measures can be interpreted as measures of differentiation or similarity. 

At Wikipedia:

Also, strictly speaking FST is not a genetic distance, as it does not satisfy the triangle inequality. As a consequence new tools for measuring genetic differentiation continue being developed.

And this article here:

One underutilized approach is the coupling of indirect metrics of gene flow (e.g. F-statistics, Dest_Chao) with more direct measures such as kinship or parentage analyses (e.g. Loiselle et al. 1995; Selkoe et al. 2006; Buston et al. 2009; Christie et al. 2010; Palsbøll et al. 2010). Broadly speaking, kinship analyses provide an index of the relative relatedness of all genotyped individuals in a data set, and parentage is a distinct case of kinship whereby the most likely parents of individual juveniles are identified (Vekemans & Hardy 2004; Jones & Arden 2003; reviewed in Blouin 2003; Jones et al. 2010). Kinship coefficients (also known as coefficients of coancestry) are widely interpreted as the probability of identity by descent of the genes, but they are more properly defined as ‘ratios of differences of probabilities of identity in state’ (Hardy & Vekemans 2002, p. 23) from homologous genes sampled randomly from each pair of individuals (Hardy & Vekemans 2002; Rousset 2002; Blouin 2003; Vekemans & Hardy 2004).

By comparison, F-statistics and Dest_Chao are often blind to the relatedness of individuals; different population samples with the same kinship structure can have very different levels of genetic differentiation among them and vice versa.

*True, Salter used Fst in On Genetic Interests, but only because there was no other data available for that purpose at that time.  And Salter makes clear in the book that the proper approach would be to use data from global assays of genetic kinship which did not (and still do not) exist for human ethnies.  It is interesting that population geneticists and ecologists will calculate genetic kinship for plant and non-human animal species, but are either too lazy or politically-motivated to do so for human population groups. However, anecdotal evidence from the genetic kinship data that companies such as 23andme and DeCode used to present to their customers suggest that human genetic kinship findings would not be to the liking of either the fetishists or the anti-racists. 

Behold the Parasite

Jews and net EGI.

Of course, Jews are neither wasps nor fungi, nor do they stand in the same relationship to us as do the parasitic wasps and fungi to their hosts just mentioned. Jews are either a closely related species to us, or are a subspecies of the same species. In either case, as repulsive as are parasites, and as loathe as we may be to admit it, Jews are genetically quite similar to us and are in fact extensively cross-bred with us. Doesn’t this effectively rule out their being biological parasites upon us? 

No, not at all. In fact, it makes it even more likely. In 1909, an Italian entomologist named Carlo Emery discovered what is now known as Emery’s Rule. The rule states that that social parasites (that is, parasites of social species — and Homo sapiens is certainly a social species) tend to be parasites of species or genera to which they are closely related. Matt Johnston of the University of Arizona states that, “One explanation for the apparently close relationship between social parasites and their hosts is that in order to get past the hosts’ defenses, the parasite needs to have evolved communication systems similar to the host. This may be more likely if the two share a close evolutionary history.”

This is why I talk about the importance of net genetic interests (not that anyone listens). If all you care about are gross genetic interests, then you would simply measure the genetic distances involved, calculate the child equivalents, and conclude that since Jews are genetically quite similar to, and cross-bred with, Europeans, then their presence in Western societies does not exert much of an EGI cost at all. However, Jews are a highly specialized, evolved parasitic ethny with interests that are incompatible with that of Europeans, and as such Jewish behavior exerts a significant fitness cost on Europeans, so that the net effect on European EGI is enormous. Therefore, net EGI takes into account all factors that affect the genetic interests of an ethny, and provides a final tally of the outcome. If Jews promote mass alien immigration, desegregation, miscegenation, and overall societal degeneration (that imposes severe costs on, among other things, family stability and reproductive success), then their presence is extremely destructive to host EGI regardless of what the relative genetic distances are between Jews and White Gentiles. Further, if Jews consider themselves a different group than are White Gentiles, and pursue a group evolutionary strategy of their own, they would not care that their behavior damages the interests of an ethny relatively genetically similar to their own. Of course, Identity is based upon more than just genetic distances, and issues of Identity, by influencing behavior, directly affect genetic interests.

More HBD Stupidity, 8/17/16

Breezy and Razib.

Steve Sailer gives us important empirical data here:
For example, in 1982, when I had just moved to Chicago, I was headed into the Century Mall on N. Clark St., when a black teen rushed out, followed by two twenty-something Hispanic security guards in close pursuit. I watched them head up Clark Street with the teen in sneakers pulling away from the guards in shiny black leather shoes.

Then we have Razib:

One peculiar thing population genetics teaches us that non-adaptive traits are more heritable.

Yeah, that’s great Razib. Question: if the traits are non-adaptive, how are they heritable (over evolutionary time) when genetic drift, regression to the mean, etc. resulting from the vagaries of sexual reproduction, random events, bottlenecks, etc. will constantly act. Why should extreme outliers be maintained over time?

This is due to the fact that selection tends to remove variation, selecting for fitter individuals.

Right. So, after so many eons of human evolution, and selection for fitter individuals, there must be little to no human variation left, eh? There goes the entire foundation of HBD! Of course, environments and selective pressures change over time, and variation is inherent in the process of sexual reproduction. It’s all very simple – simple that is unless you’re a Brown Cogelite trying to impress the rubes by how very erudite you are.

Look, fast running speed in Negroes was likely adaptive in their ancestral environment. The bell curve of Negro speed is right-shifted compared to that of other races, and that, we can assume, is a result of selection and adaption. A bell curve has, naturally, its outliers, and Bolt is at the extreme right end of the Negro bell curve for speed. So, no, specifically running as fast as Bolt is not necessarily adaptive, but the existence of speedy Negroes such as he is a natural outcome of the adaptive trait of fast Negro speed.
Let us not forget that Razib is the Brainiac who once confused “homologous chromosomes” with “sister chromatids” which I guess makes him the “go-to-HBD-guy” when it comes to biology/genetics.

Shoup on Difference and the Emergence of Reality

Important theoretical science.

I want to give Bowery credit for alerting me to this important Shoup paper.

Sometimes, with the emphasis in science and technics in drilling down into highly specialized details of any given sub-sub-sub (etc.)-discipline, the bigger picture is disregarded.  Getting back to first principles and more fundamental understandings will likely yield important insights and discoveries, as I fear that an increasingly Judaized and Asianized science (it’s all about dem dere papers and grants) is causing us to miss the forest for the trees.

That’s science and technics.  With respect to racial activism, all the pseudo-philosophical blather that Majority Rights has degenerated into over the past several years does the opposite: obscures the fundamental necessitates of racial activism with abstract nonsense that is more “tree” than “forest.”  Der Movement is lost, completely adrift.

Getting back to Shoup: he asserts that difference is the ultimate foundation of reality; at their most fundamental level, objects (or any other entity) are defined by difference.

We can note the relevance to the concept of genetic interests, which is based on distinctive genetic information.  Hence, the greater the (genetic) difference, the greater are the (genetic) interests.  The greater the genetic difference (distance) between two biological entities, the greater the interest each entity has in its genetic continuity as contrasted to the other entity. Just as time and space emerges from the differences between objects, genetic interests emerge from the differences that exist between the information encoded in the DNA of biological entities.

Race in the News, 8/6/16

Or should that read Der News?

“…the storm has only begun to gather,” indeed.
Der Movement’s favorite genetics company continues its long decline, emphasis added:

Some outdated or underused features have been discontinued in the new 23andMe experience.

These features include:
DNA Melody
Haplogroup Tree Mutation Mapper
Inheritance Calculator
ABO Blood Lab

Global Similarity

Profile SmartSearch
Family Inheritance Genome View
Reynold’s Risk Score Lab

Sure, I mean why would anyone care to know what groups they are more or less genetically similar to at the global level? After all, dat be rayciss and all.

White Worthlessness in the News, 6/10/16

Several items.

Of course those brown cows have contempt for Whites.  Wouldn’t you?  I mean, you invade someone else’s country and they not only allow you to stay, but they heap benefits on you (full tuition to a Ivy League school), give you advantages their own children do not have, and then they sit back, cuckily blushing like useless pansies, as you publicly insult them and rub their faces in it.

Whites are infinitely contemptible, infinitely useless, infinitely worthless.  As I have said before: a maggot eating its way through a festering lump of dog feces on a sweltering August sidewalk is infinitely superior from the standpoint of adaptive biological fitness than is the entire White race.

Yes indeed, the Germans who, along with the peoples of Britain, have contributed more to human progress over the last few centuries than any other ethny, require to mix with racially alien, stupid, and violent third world immigrants to avoid becoming “inbred.”  

Note the majestic hypocrisy on race I’ve written about before.  Putting aside that its these immigrants who are truly inbred (but this kraut would never say that), these anti-racists are the same scum who tell us: “more genetic variation between groups than between.”  Very good! Thus, not only do the German people constitute sufficient genetic variation among themselves to avoid any inbreeding, but, according to the anti-racist left, Germans and Arabs/Turks are more genetically similar than Germans are to each other – by this “logic” Germans can only avoid inbreeding by only mating with other Germans, no?  I mean, if the Left really believes that members of the same ethny are more different than they are to complete aliens, then only strict ethnic endogamy can ensure sufficient genetic variation. On the other hand, if the Left now says that Germans are really more similar to each other, then their genetic interests demand they oppose the alien influx so as to prevent genetic displacement (and with their large population, there is no threat of “inbreeding” in any case).