Category: population genetics

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).

Durocher in Der News, 7/10/17

Der Movement marches on.

An analysis of race, nation, and culture in the writings of Herodotus could in theory be an interesting exercise, albeit one not directly relevant to actualizing our goals in our present (and future) reality.  Durocher’s Part I didn’t set off any alarm bells, but I knew it would just be a matter of time. Here we have Part II.  Let’s look at this self-contradictory paragraph, with the offending sections highlighted:

I would argue that Herodotus’ observations are eminently compatible with a scientific and evolutionary perspective on race/genetics and ethnicity. Race is, especially in geographically contiguous land masses, typically a clinal phenomenon, with gradual change in genetic characteristics (i.e. allele frequencies) as one moves, for instance, from northern Europe to central Africa. While intermarriage tends to spread genes, gene flow is slowed by geographical and ethno-cultural boundaries, leading to significant racial-genetic clumping and differentiation.

First, “northern Europe to central Africa” is not a “geographically contiguous land mass” – being interrupted by that thing usually called “the Mediterranean Sea.”  Further, while Africa itself is “contiguous” the Sahara Desert can impede gene flow.  So, “northern Europe to central Africa” is hardly the best choice for any discussion of clinal changes in gene frequencies.  Then he shifts gears and talks about factors causing “clumping and differentiation” including “geographical…boundaries” – which would actually be something to cite Europe-Africa about, rather than for clinal differences.  So: clinal or clumpy?

Which is it?  Answer: genetic differentiation tends to be more clinal within continental populations and more “clumpy” between such populations, although in some cases there could be some “somewhat clinal” clumpy differences within continental population groups and “somewhat clumpy” clinal differences at the edges separating some such groups.

Consider this from Durocher:

The birth of a nation, ethnogenesis, occurs when linguistic, cultural, and possibly genetic drift leads a particular population to acquire an ethnic identity distinct from its neighbors. Cultural chauvinism and ethnic sentiment work together in this, magnifying one another: cultural traits such as language and customs become more and more similar within the in-group, while differences with out-groups become more and more marked. Thus, a point on the genetic cline is hardened into a more-or-less discrete ethno-cultural node and genetic cluster: a nation. The degree of nationhood is defined precisely by the population’s level of genetic and cultural commonality.

Where did we ever read that before?  Oh, here:

Thus, over time, genetic boundaries can become ever-more-aligned to political and cultural boundaries, particularly when those boundaries are fairly impermeable, distinguishing quite distinct national, political and socio-cultural entities. 

Panmixia is NOT required for a better alignment of European genetic interests with actualization of a High Culture.  Given a strict “in/out” barrier, over time, given natural processes of low-level gene flow within both “in” and “out” coupled with drift and selection increasing distances between “in” and “out,” the relative genetic distinctiveness between “in” and “out” will increase, and any potential areas of genetic overlap between “in” and “out” will no longer exist. 

We have gene-culture evolution becoming gene-High Culture evolution as well as gene-political system evolution. 

Hence, the association between genes and political boundaries goes in both directions.

How about this from Durocher:

One does not need a population with an absolutely “pure” lineage for ethnocentrism to be evolutionarily adaptive. On the contrary, one needs only sufficient genetic and cultural similarity for the members of the community to form a common identity and become a solidary in-group, and there must be greater average genetic similarity among individual in-group members than there is between individual in-group members and the members of out-groups they come into conflict with.

That sounds familiar as well:

However, regardless of how modern gene pools came to be, people are not genetically identical – there are differences in genetic kinship and hence in genetic interests, and it is there that we need to focus our attention. 

Premise 1 is false. Race does not depend on “purity.” Race can be defined different ways, but is essentially a genetically distinct subpopulation that is characterized by a suite of heritable (i.e., genetic) phenotypic traits distinguished from other such groups. There’s nothing in any reasonable definition of race that includes the idea that a race has to be a hermetically sealed group, absolutely isolated from all other groups from the beginning of time. Thus, racial preservation deals with races and their gene pools as they actually exist today, “warts” and all. The possible existence of past admixture does not in any way suggest that future admixture is inevitable, necessary, or desirable. The ethnic and genetic interests of any group are forward-looking, based on the present and looking toward the future. How the group came into existence – including via admixture – does not change the interests that group has in its continuity and preservation today. 

Of course, the concept of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) represents an argument against future admixture, particularly against admixture across wide racial lines; i.e., across a large genetic differentiation. EGI is forward-looking. Genetic interests are considered in the present, to influence decisions that affect the future. Admixture in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time. We cannot go back in time and alter decisions made by past peoples that created the ethnies and individuals that exist today. 

Today’s peoples are what they are, with genomes that are what they are. We cannot change that. We can only change what future generations will be like, what their genomes, and consequent phenotypes, will be. Genetic interests always look forward. So, again, any individual or ethny today, with whatever ancestral mix, has genetic interests, regardless of how their genomes came to be.

I could cite more, but sifting through my old writings to find either:

1) Ideas generated later regurgitated by the “movement” or

2) Any of the endless series of predictions I’ve made that have come true

Is a tiresome exercise.  Not as tiresome – predictably tiresome – as Der Movement, Inc. is though.

DNA Testing and Jewish Sophistry

DNA tests.

For example, I’ve come out 95 percent Ashkenazi Jewish (not a geographical population, but a gene pool with its own minor genetic idiosyncrasies due to history) and 5 percent Korean.

There are two major points to derive from this, both that I have discussed before (and labeled as “sophistry” by a Mexican lunatic).

First, as I’ve said before, these commercial tests irresponsibly assert imply a level of accuracy that they really don’t have, specifically for minor “admixture.”  And Der Movement, full of Nutzis and nitwits who do not understand the fine points of DNA testing, are equally irresponsible in believing that, for example, a Finn who tests as “100% European” is meaningfully different from another Finn who is “99% European and 1% Asian” (the former being a pureblood and the latter a mongrel – even if the two are brothers).

It was not clear exactly what tests Marks took (assuming he is truthful about his experience), but we can assume that he is not “5% Korean.”  That 5% could reflect some degree of deep Asian ancestry in the Ashkenazi genepool OR it could just be statistical noise (dependent on the test) OR it could be (as it often happens) dependent on the parental populations chosen to designate “pure” groups – an artifact of genetic distance of populations, or subgroups of populations, from those groups chosen to genetically calibrate group identity.

It is very possible to explain the 5% Korean results without going to the mendacious extreme of asserting that DNA testing is objectively meaningless in its totality. So, Marks is outrageously irresponsible but others are irresponsible as well.

Thus, by irresponsibly over-interpreting low % results (one cannot take too seriously 5% or less results for many of these tests, unless there are VERY solid reasons for assuming otherwise), both the companies and Der Movement leave an opening to filth like Marks to delegitimize the very idea of DNA testing, which itself is scientifically valid if responsibly interpreted (majority ancestry or high levels of “admixture” – albeit not in exact percentages – typically are more or less valid).

Second, the fantasy of absolute purity helps, ironically enough, to delegitimize the reality of race, thus:

Premise 1: The reality of race and the legitimacy of racial preservation depends upon absolute racial purity.

Premise 2: Absolute racial purity does not exist (as scientific studies tell us).

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no such thing as race, and racial preservation is illegitimate and irrelevant.

The fact that one can detect ancestry in these identities does not mean that they are products of nature.

Absolute insanity – proof positive that Jews are an evil, deceptive people.  I wondered how the System would “spin” the FACT that commercial DNA testing – with all its flaws – absolutely demonstrates the reality of race and can determine, with almost absolute certainty, a person’s major ancestry. Answer: DENY OBJECTIVE REALITY.  Just use REAL sophistry, deny reality that is right in front of people’s eyes, and spin a fantasy that hard reality is meaningless.  Difference between Right and Left: the Right adjusts ideology to hard reality; the Left attempts to adjust – nay, distort – reality to hard ideology.  Who do you trust – a fast-talking Jews who attempts to tell you that a Jew testing as a Jew is not “a product of nature” or Ted Sallis who tries to give a reasonable and balanced view of DNA testing?

Indeed, the word “trust” and “Jew” in the same sentence should make all your alarm bells go off.  And, really, in the end, consider – Marks is an Ashkenazi Jew and he tested as “95% Ashkenazi Jewish” – which would seem to me to be a solid result – and yet dismisses the biological validity and meaning of the results.  Focusing on the highly questionable minor “admixture” results to the exclusion of the rock-solid majority identity results is typical of the type of mendacious hand-waving characteristic of a certain ethny.  And the idea that one can just “look in the mirror” is destructive and absurd as discussed here.

Hmmm…a Jew who promotes destructive and absurd memes – who would have ever guessed?

They Wuz Dumb


Leave it up to the retarded “movement” to take a (initial, preliminary*) refutation of Arthur Kemp and twist it into “Arthur Kemp was right.”

From the paper (emphasis added):

…reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient…Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference population…

Yeah…so Kemp was saying that Ancient Egyptians were akin to Near Easterners and with 6-15% Negro African ancestors?  That’s the “Nordic desert empire?”  

You do know that my criticisms of Der Movement and its blind adherence to fossilized dogma is correct, don’t you?  Even when presented with data right to their face that begins the refutation of their dogma, they’ll actually believe their dogma is supported.  Blind religious faith.  

Hail Kek!  We wuz morons!

*Given that Der Movement uses three autosomal samples to declare “Kemp was right” one is justified in using the same small sample size to say “no, he wasn’t.”  Obviously, more data are needed, but getting reasonably good nuclear data from these ancient samples is problematic (as the paper showed).

Rotten Orange and “Movement” News

The usual stupidity.

Trump the cuck, who has been “cucking on the Orient Express.”  Jared and Ivanka have their political affiliations revealed – certainly befitting the “royal family” of a “God Emperor,” no?

Meet Jeremy Christian.  The “movememt” will of course try to distance itself from Christian, despite the fact that he’s a fairly representative snapshot of the Nutzi faction that lurks on, and often participates in, “movement” blog comments threads.

But, but. But…I thought Ancient Egypt was, a la Arthur Kemp, a “Nordic desert empire?”  It’s the New Kingdom, after all, that was the peak of Ancient Egypt’s political and military power – their empire period.

Of course, given that only the nuclear DNA is of any use for racial affiliation, this is only three individuals. But still, it’s interesting that the available data so far refute both Afrocentrist and Nordicist interpretations of Ancient Egypt.

Sallis Agrees With the Alt Right on Something

Some good sense.

I essentially agree with and endorse this article, with some caveats, and it should be read together with this piece I wrote several years ago.

The article is reasonably sound, although one caveat is that if one approaches these tests with a sense of realism with respect to their limitations – limitations spelled out in my Counter-Currents piece – then getting tested may not be a bad idea.  Having the raw data could be useful if you can find someone who can do a genetic kinship analysis with it. But taking the details of the data literally – thinking that there’s a real difference between 100% A, 0% B vs. 99.3% A, 0.7% B, for example – is ludicrous. I would take even the 90% confidence readings with a large grain of salt, and the 50% confidence readings are so absurd that the salt grain needs to be the size of the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

The other caveat to the article is that the comments section is mixed; some comments are useful, some are asinine, so caveat emptor.

There are two basic questions here.

1. Is 23andMe a good test?

2. Assuming an ancestry test is good, is it worthwhile?

To which I answer: 1) No and 2) Maybe, depending on context.

In an absolute sense, 23andMe is superior to DNAPrint’s tests from ~15 years ago; in a relative sense – comparing each test to the “state of  the art” available at the time – it really isn’t better at all.  With the level of understanding and methodology we have today, coupled with a prudent interpretation of the data, one could do much better.

What if a test was sound?  Well, sure, it can be interesting, but I’ll repeat something I’ve been hammering home here over the past few years – the only biopolitically relevant genetic metric is genetic kinship (at all levels of genetic integration).  If one can measure that, then it is useful. All else can be interesting, but not directly important from an EGI standpoint.

And if people are going to hysterically obsess over sub-fractional admixture percentages then this is missing the forest for the trees.

A Brief Definition of Race

Just off the top of my head, more or less.

Race: A branch of humanity that is, in general, more genetically similar to each other (more genetic kinship) than with other groups, and that have, in general, a greater number of most common recent ancestors with each other than with other groups. Races also, in general, tend to share a constellation of phenotypic characteristics than, in toto, distinguish them from other groups. Layered upon these biological characteristics (biological race) are the historical and cultural components that contribute to racial identity and which influence, and are influenced by, the aforementioned biological characteristics.