Category: Lewontin

Stupidity and Hypocrisy About Miscegenation

Anti-racist stupidity.

One can find anti-racists going on rightist blogs and leaving comments such as:
“With so many Whites having non-White kin, no one is going to care about your promotion of inbreeding. But don’t worry, we won’t invade your trailer park and force your daughter to marry Tyrone.”
Let’s consider the main points there:
Kin.  Even today, with rampant miscegenation, the vast majority of Whites do not have “non-White kin.”  Even among those who do, a significant fraction very likely do not like it.  What?  Will a racist suddenly become a liberal if, for example, his mudshark sister or daughter pops out a dindu?  That’s really stupid.  And, in any case, the idea of Whites having non-White kin is precisely the future racial preservationists oppose, so citing that possibility is hardly an argument against racial activism, is it?
Inbreeding.  First, it is not “inbreeding” when one talks about mating within a race that has hundreds of millions of members, or an ethnic group with at least millions of members (Chinese and Indians have more than a billion people apiece – is intra-ethnic breeding there an example of “inbreeding?”).
Second, the hypocrisy of the anti-racists comes to the fore here.  On the one hand, they love to quote Lewontin: “more genetic variation within the group than between.”  The more demented among them interpret that to mean: “Whites are more genetically distant from one another than they are to Blacks; a given White is more similar to a Black than to another White.”  That’s nonsense of course, but let them follow through on the “logic” there: if they REALLY believe that, then they MUST agree that inbreeding is best avoided by marrying WITHIN the race, to take advantage of all that great within-group genetic variation.  Indeed, my dear anti-racists, according to you, White-White mating is outbreeding, and White-Black mixing is dangerous inbreeding.
Of course, when it comes to mating, suddenly they dump Lewontin and declare that members of the same race are so genetically similar that mating within that race is “trailer park inbreeding.”  Then, when it comes to racial solidarity, suddenly another switch, back to Lewontin again, and “there is more genetic variation within groups.”
Sorry, anti-racists, you can’t have it both ways.  And by the way, your lack of consistency and logic makes you the best candidates for retarded “low IQ inbred trash” compared to anyone else.
Trailer Park.  Always the snarky leftist assumption that a concern for racial preservation is from low-rent “trailer park” “White trash.”  The reality is that that sort of trash are the prime candidates for being Black-loving mudsharks, much more so than upper-class educated people, regardless of what social preening those upper-class dweebs may exhibit in their lily White country clubs.

Sailer’s Ignorance

Racial reality.

This mantra — “White people are no more closely related to one another, genetically, than we are to black people” — is one of the most common urban legends of the 21st Century even though it’s obviously stupid. (It seems like I used to know where this myth originated, but I’ve forgotten.)

If you have any sense of how genetics are related to genealogy, then it’s clearly not true on average.

Not “on average,” Steverino – in every single case.  I’d like to see someone point out a genuine example of a person of indigenous European ancestry (“White”) who shares more genetic kinship with a sub-Saharan African than with another European.
Such a person DOES NOT EXIST.  This is not “on average,” Breezy, and if you and your HBD ilk cared as much about EGI as you do about “IQ” and “PISA scores,” then you would know that.
As far as where it came from – it is a stupid misinterpretation of the work of the Jew Lewontin, perpetuated by morons and liars such as the retardate Tim Wise.
For godssakes, the Witherspoon et al. paper from the Jorde lab – showing that with enough markers people are always more related to those from their same group –  was eight years ago.  DNA testing companies can tell folks who they are more related to. Why do we take this nonsense seriously?

Hey, Breezy:

As the authors used more and more markers to compare the three major racial groups (Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans), the less stringent clustering measurements rapidly fell to a 0% overlap, as expected from previous studies.  What about the more stringent measurement “w”, which looks at comparisons between individuals, and does not consider group data?  Once the authors reached 1,000 (or more) markers, the genetic overlap between these groups essentially reached zero. It is useful at this point to quote the authors about this fundamentally important finding: 

This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically more similar to members of their own group. 

With respect to the question of whether individual members of one group may be genetically more similar to members of another group, they write: 

However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘never’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

Anti-Lewontin Analysis

Any human group will always have “more genetic variation within” than between it and any other human group. So what?  It’s meaningless.

Lewontin’s infamous paper on the apportioning of human genetic variation is well known, while Edwards’ excellent debunking of certain misinterpretations of Lewontin’s work is unfortunately less well known.
I’d like to analyze “Lewontin’s fallacy” from a different angle, to demonstrate why it is meaningless even if taken at face value. First, some caveats.  I’m going to stress apportioning genetic variation within or between “groups” rather than specifically invoke race – race here is simply one type of possible group. I’m also not going to focus on particular numbers, but rather look at the big picture – the greater amount of genetic variation within as compared to between groups.
These caveats are for two reasons. First, to explain the concept as generally as possible. Second, because there are politically-motivated hacks who attempt to defend Lewontin’s meme by making fine distinctions between “race” and “population” and who claim that only 5-10% of the 15% is inter-racial variation, and the other 5-10% is due to variation between populations that compose races. Amazingly enough, these same clueless hypocrites critique Harpending, Sarich, and Miele for dividing the intra-group variation between groups vs. individuals, etc. – we are told this is an obvious error since the variation of each subgroup is simply part of that of the larger group and cannot be separated from it. At the same time, they try to reduce the amount of inter-racial variation by separating from it the inter-population variation (as per Lewontin), populations being a sub-group of races. You can’t have it both ways. See this.  What stupidity.
Back to my own analysis. As stated, let us generalize the concept. If genetic variation is divided up as per Lewontin, here I assert the following will always hold. Take any human population and divide it into any number of groups. The amount of genetic variation within any of these groups will always be greater than that between any of the groups.This is because most human variation (at the locus by locus level) is distributed in an unstructured manner between all people.  It is NOT specifically a feature of ethnic or racial population groups and certainly does not mean – as some have suggested – that members of the same population group are more genetically distant than are members of different groups!
As an example, take the population of the United States and divide it between right-handed and left-handed people, each of those two groups being multiracial. Let’s apportion the genetic variation of the total US population. There will be more variation within each group than between. If you were to compare a multiracial group of right-handers vs. a very homogeneous monoracial group of left-handers, there will still be more variation within each group than between, and the same holds true if the left-handers are multiracial and the right-handers are all of the same race.
Let’s apportion the total genetic variation in some other populations. If you take a single ethnic population, say, Germans, the same principle holds. You can divide them up any way you please – right vs. left-handed, blond vs. brunette, tall vs. short, fat vs. thin, male vs. female, whatever – and there will always be more genetic variation within each group than between groups. You can then mix these groups up and divide them into new groups completely at random and the same Lewontin “finding” will still hold.  Imagine the entire human race was composed of Nigerians. Let’s apportion the total genetic variation of that population between, say, Nigerians born on weekdays and Nigerians born on weekends.  What will you find?  You guessed it, more variation within each group than between. How about apportioning genetic variation in Russians – Russians who have ever had an ingrown toenail and those who have never had one. Surprise!  More genetic variation within than between.
The point is that you can take any human population – starting from the entire human race to some fraction thereof – and then create any subdivision of that population, regardless of how arbitrary, and you will always find more genetic variation within the group than between. This is simply a byproduct of the unstructured nature of such variation.  Folks with access to various population genetics data can – and should – confirm this empirically, as a fact that emerges from the inherent nature of genetic variation.
Lewontin’s “finding” is therefore not specific to race, although it of course does apply to race, since race is one (non-arbitrary!) way of dividing humanity. However, since there are political points to be made trying to delegitimize race, then Lewontin’s meme is applied to race, not to any other subdivision.  For example, there is no vested interests who want to use the apportionment of genetic variation to deconstruct the meaning of the group “Russians who have had an ingrown toenail.”  When it comes to race, however, the race-denying crazies do come out in force.
Thus, even above and beyond Edwards’ cogent criticism, Lewontin’s meme is meaningless because it is ubiquitous. It can tell us nothing about the validity of the race concept since it is not specific to race. It is simply a measure of the unstructured nature of most human genetic variation. Of the total amount of genetic variation that exists, the majority of it will always be found within any reasonably sized group of people, regardless of how that group is chosen.  In fact, as pointed out by Dr. Harpending in the appendix of On Genetic Interests, a significant portion of the total genetic variation exists within single individuals
On the other hand, the genetic variation that exists between ethnoracial groups is highly structured, and that fraction of the variation is specific for defined inter-group comparisons and, hence, highly relevant for human classification. Identifying the structured genetic data important for human classification among the more random bulk of human genetic variation is in a sense analogous to trying to identify an important but faint radio message among a large amount of background static. Regardless that the message is fainter, it is nevertheless more important.

More on Lewontin and Genetic Variation

With respect to Lewontin’s well known “there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups” we need to clarify whether the 85:15 split has any meaning other than the fact that the bulk of human genetic variation is randomly distributed.

Comparing Danes vs. Nigerians: 85% variation within each group and 15% between.  The same would be observed with Japanese vs. Iranians.

What if you considered a mixed group of Danes + Nigerians as a single population, and the same for Japanese + Iranians?  If you then apportioned genetic variation between D+N vs. J+I you would still get more variation within than between.

If you went in the opposite direction, and considered Japanese from Tokyo as one population and Japanese from Kyoto as another population, the same within/between distinction would hold.  If you compared one Japanese family to another, you would also see more genetic variation within the group (family) than between families.

As has been pointed out previously by others, a significant amount of genetic variation is found within single individuals; thus, if you were to compare one Japanese individual to another,~ half the genetic variation would be found within the single individual.

For any set of human groups, one would expect to find more genetic variation within the group than between groups. 

Hence, the “within group” component of genetic variation is found within any defined set of individuals, and is randomly distributed among individuals.  It cannot be used to assert that members of an ethny are more dissimilar than to other ethnies, nor can it be used as a legitimate argument against the reality of genetically distinct population groups.

And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that with respect to many phenotypically relevant traits under selective pressure, racial differences in allele frequency is so great that there is actually greater genetic variation between compared to within groups.