The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
NPR: "Is Science Racist?"
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From NPR:

Why You Should Think Twice About Those DNA-By-Mail Results

July 6, 2017 11:01 AM ET
BARBARA J. KING

Barbara J. King is an anthropology professor emerita at the College of William and Mary.

In a new book, University of North Carolina, Charlotte anthropologist Jonathan Marks says that racism in science is alive and well.

By the way, Professor Marks coined the term “human biodiversity” in the mid-1990s, a couple of years before I later came up with it independently. As soon as the term popped into my mind, I plugged it into the pre-Google search engine Alta Vista and discovered his Human Biodiversity book.

This stands in sharp contrast to creationist thinking, Marks says, which is, like racism, decidedly evident in our society but most certainly not welcome in science.

In Is Science Racist? Marks writes:

“If you espouse creationist ideas in science, you are branded as an ideologue, as a close-minded pseudo-scientist who is unable to adopt a modern perspective, and who consequently has no place in the community of scholars. But if you espouse racist ideas in science, that’s not quite so bad. People might look at you a little askance, but as a racist you can coexist in science alongside them, which you couldn’t do if you were a creationist. Science is racist when it permits scientists who advance racist ideas to exist and to thrive institutionally.”

I mean, it’s not just that they are thriving that’s annoying, it’s their whole being permitted to exist part, too.

This is a strong set of claims, and Marks uses numerous examples to support them. For example, a 2014 book by science writer Nicholas Wade used genes and race to explain …

The work of psychologist Philippe Rushton, who died in 2012, has been published and even celebrated in scientific circles, Marks explains. …

“Race,” Marks writes, “is not the discovery of difference; it is the imposition of difference.” Inequality comes about because of unequal conditions imposed upon different groups of people through economic and cultural forces.

With this background, we can now tackle a part of Is Science Racist? that deconstructs an activity that has become more and more popular over the past 10 years: sending away our DNA for some type of ancestry testing.

The problem, Marks writes in the book, is the “fabricated meaning” that corporate science superimposes over the raw numbers that emerge from this process. Last week, Marks elaborated on this point in an email to me:

… “Are they accurate? About as accurate as looking in the mirror.”

Here’s what Professor Marks sees in the mirror:

… “Sociologists find that customers make sense of the results, and ignore the nonsense. 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. A good scientific question would be: +/- how much? 15 percent? 10 percent? Is my 5 percent Korean ancestry the same as 0 percent Korean ancestry?

“Scientific answer: Yes. Corporate answer: Wouldn’t you like to know?

Apparently, Marks believes, presumably with good reason, whether from family records or looking in the mirror or both, that he is close to 100% Ashkenazi Jewish, while his DNA test said he is only 95% Ashkenazi Jewish.

So the DNA testing service accuracy glass in his case appears to have been 95% full of sense and 5% empty (a.k.a., 5% full of nonsense).

Is that good or bad? Well, a 95% full glass is bad work if you are a bartender in Ireland pouring a Guinness (the foam should protrude slightly above the brim), but for DNA ancestry tests, a commercial product that didn’t exist 20 years ago, it’s at least better than random luck.

… All this leads to a question Alva Noë asked here last year:

“Can it ever be more than fantasy to try to draw meaningful conclusions about an individual’s origins on the basis of the sort of DNA information that is available to us now?”

Marks’ answer is clearly negative. Again, from his email message:

“The tests often reify as ‘natural’ human populations that are actually natural/cultural, that is to say, human groups that are genetically different to some extent, but are actually bounded by history, language, politics, or religion, and are thus not ‘natural’ categories at all. These include particular African tribes, Ashkenazi Jews, or Vikings. The fact that one can detect ancestry in these identities does not mean that they are products of nature.”

Well, I’m not exactly sure in what sense he is using the word “nature,” but clearly Ashkenazi Jews (in his case, for instance) are products of reality rather than “fantasy.”

My guess is that the NPR writer, anthropologist King, is unintentionally dumbing down anthropologist Marks, who for all his faults is an intelligent man, for the NPR-trusting masses.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. OT: On CNN just now, a protester in Hamburg (an African migrant evidently) walked up to the cameraman chanting, “Africa is the future! Africa is the future!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    What did he mean by that?
    , @Erik Sieven
    I have seen Subsaharan Africans saying the same at the Cologne Central station around 2010.
    , @Stebbing Heuer
    'Africa is the future!' is, in Germany, one of those facts that only people sympathetic to them are allowed to notice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    //www.unz.com/isteve/npr-is-science-racist/#comment-1926870
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Ancestry DNA tests are difficult to take too seriously on that level of precision. You can identify commonality and affinity of various genome markings to establish probabilities of common ancestry, and haplogroups such as the Y-chromosome and mtDNA are even better, but they are only two haplogroups. If you are of white European phenotype but have one Japanese ancestor say a dozen generations back any genetic trace of that ancestor could very possibly be bred entirely out of you. What the findings tell you about your family history depends on what you are looking for, and the more of your ancestors you can get tested the more complete a picture you will have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    If your ancestor's genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he's not really your ancestor, is he?

    12 generations is a pretty long time. If you go far enough back, people stop caring. The extreme example is that we're all out of Africa, but nobody thinks, "I'm black!" when they hear that.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.
    , @Dutch Boy
    These results must be taken with a very large grain of salt, e.g.,my 23and me profile estimates that I have 25% Irish/British ancestry, with an estimated time slot of 1830-1890 for that ancestry to have entered my gene stream (much to the delight of my spouse, who actually is Irish/British). I actually have not a drop of either since the early 17th century, which is as far back as I can trace my ancestors (assuming my ancestresses were the virtuous women I am sure they were).
  3. Does Marks — or any other intellectual opposing scientific investigation of race differences — propose ignoring race differences in public policy? Because as long as public policy is predicated on there not being any differences, it ends up being costly in dollars as well as lives.

    I’d be okay with a grand bargain where we stopped funding research into human differences (ceding it to the Chinese) while we ditched Affirmative Action, the four/fifths rule and the rest and let the chips fall where they may.

    Read More
  4. The opponent to ‘racism’ in science, Dr. Marx, is 95% Jewish? Well, that really makes you think, doesn’t it……..

    Read More
  5. This, quite frankly, sounds like the kind of article a pro-Nazi or pro-Communist rag would have written in the 1930s.

    The Nazi rag would have been angry that science was proving Jews, Slavs, and Blacks to be human and to have some qualities similar to or exceeding the Nazis.

    The Commie rag would have been upset that science was proving that people’s abilities/failings/success were due to innate, natural differences with others, and not deliberate or subliminal class oppression.

    And in 2017 the P.C. rag (NPR) is upset because science is proven that human beings do have different racial/ethnic groups with different average abilities/talents/genomes.

    All three rags have/would have had the same implicit undertones: we must do something about this dangerous area of science that undermines the Party. Such dangerous ideas must be stamped out, and examples should be made!

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Nazis,commies and NPRers. One of these is insulted by being mentioned along with the other two verminous groups.
  6. anthropology professor

    And into the trash it goes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Sad but true. An entire profession has become comfortable with lying for the sake of preserving the egalitarian fiction.
  7. 23andMe would never ever label an Ashkenazi Jew as 5% Korean. The big DNA services disagree a lot on assigning specific types of NW European ancestry (British vs German) but an African American who sends in his spit will get identical European vs African results from any company. The broad racial groups are very easy to tell apart and this has been true for years now. Marks is full of it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis, Realist, Hail
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    DNA tests used to have a recurrent glitch where a Jewish person would sometimes appear to be part American Indian or Northeast Asian. Larry David was famously reported in 2009 to be 37% Native American, and I've heard of several other similar examples.

    I don't follow the subject closely, but my impression is that the DNA companies put in some effort to fix this problem. The price of genetic testing fell so sharply around 2010 that they can now just throw more resources at the question than in the past.
  8. @Halvorson
    23andMe would never ever label an Ashkenazi Jew as 5% Korean. The big DNA services disagree a lot on assigning specific types of NW European ancestry (British vs German) but an African American who sends in his spit will get identical European vs African results from any company. The broad racial groups are very easy to tell apart and this has been true for years now. Marks is full of it.

    DNA tests used to have a recurrent glitch where a Jewish person would sometimes appear to be part American Indian or Northeast Asian. Larry David was famously reported in 2009 to be 37% Native American, and I’ve heard of several other similar examples.

    I don’t follow the subject closely, but my impression is that the DNA companies put in some effort to fix this problem. The price of genetic testing fell so sharply around 2010 that they can now just throw more resources at the question than in the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Altai
    Each company will use a different method and different references. They keep their precise method a secret. Without knowing how they are generating their results it's hard to speculate on any deficiencies. Though one of the big ones does a per chromosome breakdown.

    Are they using a clustering method like Admixture? Then getting the fine grain results would require multiple runs with different reference data. Given they give percentage results of intra-continental origin that seems likely, but then I get the feeling they go through in more detail and use direct comparisons too.

    Again, without knowing exactly what they're doing it's impossible to guess why there might be
    issues.
    , @Autochthon
    This phenomenon is no glitch! Heed ye now the revelations if the angel Moroni via the Golden Plates in Reformed Egyptian!:

    One [great civilisation] came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.
     
    , @415 reasons
    I think this deficiency might have had to do with the pre-genome wide SNP chip technology that based the calls largely on the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. And they didn't even determine the haplogroup for these two bits of the genome with much precision. Anyways, there is a Y chromosome haplogroup that is somewhat close between the bulk of American Indians and some Ashkenazi Jews, so it is easy to imagine how the first iteration of this technology might whiff on this seemingly large difference. https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-016-0870-2
    , @anon
    Count me skeptical of the whole thing. I just had a DNA test done. 70% English (check), 16% Irish Scottish or Welsh (check). Then it got weird. It came back 0% southern Mediterranean (although my grandmother is Italian), o% North American Native, although I am an enrolled Chickasaw tribal member with 1/8 blood. It reported 2% African and 2% Middle Eastern and 5% Central Asian and 5% Central American. Something is amiss.
  9. Well, gee, if Jews and Vikings aren’t products of nature, they must be products of Creation. Right? Does this guy even listen to himself? Guess not.

    When only your side gets to speak, there is no limit to how stupid your claims can be.

    Read More
  10. @whorefinder
    This, quite frankly, sounds like the kind of article a pro-Nazi or pro-Communist rag would have written in the 1930s.

    The Nazi rag would have been angry that science was proving Jews, Slavs, and Blacks to be human and to have some qualities similar to or exceeding the Nazis.

    The Commie rag would have been upset that science was proving that people's abilities/failings/success were due to innate, natural differences with others, and not deliberate or subliminal class oppression.

    And in 2017 the P.C. rag (NPR) is upset because science is proven that human beings do have different racial/ethnic groups with different average abilities/talents/genomes.

    All three rags have/would have had the same implicit undertones: we must do something about this dangerous area of science that undermines the Party. Such dangerous ideas must be stamped out, and examples should be made!

    Nazis,commies and NPRers. One of these is insulted by being mentioned along with the other two verminous groups.

    Read More
  11. Help please. James Watson notices racial differences and is banned from the scientific community. Margaret Sanger and her off shoot Planned Parenthood are arguably eugenicists, as was that PBS/NPR hero Jacques Cousteau, and they are beloved saints. Am I wrong?

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    You keep noticing their contradictions. You're thinking dialectically and not rhetorically, which shows you are intelligent. They only think rhetorically, and have no concept of objective truth or reality.
  12. My favourite thing about Marks is his insistence that race doesn’t exist and that untrained statistical tools clustering human genomes so predictably is due to our bias, is that you only need to look at a picture of him to know he is Jewish.

    He railed against the likes of the HGDP as inhumane. The joke is that these types of population analyses are the next stage in drug development and in the short term will help to target doses without fully understanding the loci involved in the differing metabolising of drugs between populations. People will literally get better as a result of this kind of clustering and assignment.

    Future historians will truly have a hard time understanding how all these biologists thought that the laws of evolution and recombination didn’t apply to humans. Of course, they don’t. Marks knows he is talking bullshit and as such, along with Gould, Lewontin and Boas is a walking alt-right meme and generating exactly the thing he fears.

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Romanian
    I doubt any electronic records will survive on their decayed physical stratum by the time man will have re-evolved to the level of a society that finds value and allocates resources for the profession of historian of antiquity. Those hard drives will make decent armor plates, though!
  13. Not to worry, neither sociology or anthropology qualifies as real science, at least not the way they’re practiced in the west. Anthropology isn’t genetics, so I don’t know why the professor insists on pretending to be an expert.

    Read More
  14. Is science racist? Progressives are starting to realize that the answer is Yes, and it terrifies them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    They're going to have to accept the transition from "scientific" racism to scientific "racism."
    , @Paco Wové
    If the truth is racist, the truth will just have to go.
    , @Federalist
    Reality is racist.
    , @The King is a Fink
    Is the truth racist?
  15. @Steve Sailer
    DNA tests used to have a recurrent glitch where a Jewish person would sometimes appear to be part American Indian or Northeast Asian. Larry David was famously reported in 2009 to be 37% Native American, and I've heard of several other similar examples.

    I don't follow the subject closely, but my impression is that the DNA companies put in some effort to fix this problem. The price of genetic testing fell so sharply around 2010 that they can now just throw more resources at the question than in the past.

    Each company will use a different method and different references. They keep their precise method a secret. Without knowing how they are generating their results it’s hard to speculate on any deficiencies. Though one of the big ones does a per chromosome breakdown.

    Are they using a clustering method like Admixture? Then getting the fine grain results would require multiple runs with different reference data. Given they give percentage results of intra-continental origin that seems likely, but then I get the feeling they go through in more detail and use direct comparisons too.

    Again, without knowing exactly what they’re doing it’s impossible to guess why there might be
    issues.

    Read More
  16. And so, let’s keep blaming white overrepresentations on racism and Jewish overrepresentations on hey look over there a squirrel

    Read More
  17. @Nico
    Ancestry DNA tests are difficult to take too seriously on that level of precision. You can identify commonality and affinity of various genome markings to establish probabilities of common ancestry, and haplogroups such as the Y-chromosome and mtDNA are even better, but they are only two haplogroups. If you are of white European phenotype but have one Japanese ancestor say a dozen generations back any genetic trace of that ancestor could very possibly be bred entirely out of you. What the findings tell you about your family history depends on what you are looking for, and the more of your ancestors you can get tested the more complete a picture you will have.

    If your ancestor’s genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he’s not really your ancestor, is he?

    12 generations is a pretty long time. If you go far enough back, people stop caring. The extreme example is that we’re all out of Africa, but nobody thinks, “I’m black!” when they hear that.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    If your ancestor’s genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he’s not really your ancestor, is he?
     
    Uh, yes he/she is.

    For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed. However, it's highly doubtful that I carry even a single gene that is "from Muhammed". But, still I wouldn't be here if he hadn't done his cushion pushin'.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.
     
    My impression is that most people in fact do not understand that.

    The basic fact that you'll share 50% of your chromosomes with a parent or a child, but all the other family relationships are stochastic, i don't think most people really have much awareness of. Or more precisely only sort of a hand-waving awareness of--"I'm a lot like cousin Kristi, but not much like cousin Kathy"--but without any sort of real thought about it.

    It's actually possible--though unlikely--to share *no* chromosomes with one of your four grandparents. One shot in 2**21, which is about one in two million, which means on average two kids a year born in the US or around 65 worldwide. (Of course, you'll still have some DNA from that grandparent through recombination during meiosis.) But not uncommon at all to be heavily weighted (60/40, 70/30, etc.) to one grandparent (paternal or maternal) versus the other on that side.

    Of course, even when you don't share a particular chromosome with a relative, if your ancestors are mostly from the same "population group" then you quite likely still have a lot of the same genes on that chromosome anyway--from other ancestors. (And, of course, you'll have most genes in common with most people so you get ten fingers, ten toes, etc. etc.) But that these ancestral relationships are not nailed down in your genome but are highly stochastic--as they must be for selection to be working--i don't think that's something most folks have wrapped their brains around very tightly.
    , @quarky
    Yes and no. It's more precise to say that your ancestor is a genealogical ancestor, but not a DNA ancestor. It's useful to distinguish between your genetic tree and your genealogical tree, for which the genetic tree is a subset, consisting of only those ancestors from which you inherit at least one small piece of DNA. The two trees are identical to about six generations and then they begin to diverge as genealogical ancestors fall off of your genetic tree -- their DNA being randomly discarded during recombination/meiosis. After six generations your genealogical ancestor count will continue to double every generation, but your DNA ancestor count plateaus out in the mid-low 200s. Consequently, you inherit DNA from only about 2-5% of your 12th generation ancestors. So, if Pocahontas were your 12th generation grandmother, then you probably don't carry any of her DNA, but perhaps 6,000 of her 100,000 or so other 10-12th generation living descendants do.

    These numbers are not exact (can't find the source, so going on memory), but the general idea looks like this:

    generation | noga* | noDNAa*
    -------------------------------------
    1 | 2 | 2 | mom and dad
    2 | 4 | 4 | grandparents
    3 | 8 | 8 | great grandparents
    2...6 | 2^N | 2^N | 2-6th generation grandparent
    7 | 128 | 120-128 | a few ancestors begin to drop off
    8 | 256 | 130-160 | yes, a dramatic drop
    9 | 512 | 140-190
    10 | 1024 | 150-200
    11 | 2048 | 160-220
    12 | 4096 | 170-260
    N... | 2^N | < 300 | number of DNA ancestors stays below 300
    ------------------------------------
    noga: number of genealogical ancestors (ignoring pedigree collapse)
    noDNAa: number of DNA ancestors
    ---

    Regarding your out of Africa comment. As I think you're saying, having distant ancestors who lived there is a "So what?" kind of point. A counterpoint is, yes we're all out of Africa, but we're also all "out of Pangaea" and all "out of the ocean" from which our primordial, fish-like ancestors flopped. Further, we're not the only animals "out of Africa." So are Giraffes and Mandrills, yet we don't claim that erodes the distinction between us and them.

    By the way, the Out of Africa theory, as I understand it, is mostly distinct from the Multi Regional model in that it argues that the races of man separated ~60,000 years ago instead of the ~300,000 years of the Multi Regional model. While scientifically interesting, politically it seems like a distinction without a difference. Sixty thousand years means you're my brother, but 300 thousand means you're only fit to shine my shoes? Again, a "So what?" point.

    Finally, the science here is still evolving. Eventually, I wouldn't be surprised if the science shows that Eurasians have 10-50% ancestry from peoples who resided in Eurasia prior to the major Out of Africa pulse of ~60,000 years ago (like neanderthals), and we are currently underestimating this percentage at 3%, in part, because there were also migrations from Eurasia to Africa, making modern Africans more Eurasian than they were 60,000 years ago. So, in the end, we'll find that Africans are also "Out of Eurasia" and the Multi-Regional model will be shown to be as much as 50% correct. This concession will be resisted because anthropology professors have grown so attached to telling their blond pupils that while they thought they were Swedish & Dutch, their real ancestral homeland is the savannas of Uganda & the forests of the Congo.
  18. Assuming that races which evolved in different parts of the world in different climates are nonetheless exactly the same in intelligence and disposition seems like a creationist argument to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    ...And that's how come Siberian tigers are identical to Amazonian jaguars. Now let's all finish our juice-boxes; it's almost nap-time, professor McHebrew said so, and he's on The Radio, so we know it's true.
    , @Hubbub
    Hey, gang, open your eyes and look around. Pompous bullsh*t to argue the obvious. Black and white are two different colors and, guess what, if you mix them together, you don't yellow. Physical characteristics, behavior, speech, etc., all may be human, but they are different among the differing peoples. Mix black, white, and yellow, and red together, you get a different color - mix those characteristics together and you get a different breed - ask any dog lover. It ain't science, it observation and consideration.
  19. @Buffalo Joe
    Help please. James Watson notices racial differences and is banned from the scientific community. Margaret Sanger and her off shoot Planned Parenthood are arguably eugenicists, as was that PBS/NPR hero Jacques Cousteau, and they are beloved saints. Am I wrong?

    You keep noticing their contradictions. You’re thinking dialectically and not rhetorically, which shows you are intelligent. They only think rhetorically, and have no concept of objective truth or reality.

    Read More
  20. I recently got an update on my 23-and-me results. They still have me as 100% NW European, but what was new and surprising was their saying that my closest relative in their database — a “second cousin” — is a 45% African-American woman. Could that be some kind of error? Or is there an interesting story there? I should add that an African American woman who lives in Mississippi got in touch with me several years ago saying we share a certain distinctive haplotype. What do readers think?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    Your second cousin is the grandchild of your great-aunt or great-uncle. You share one set of great-grandparents with your second cousin, but you do not have the same grandparents.

    probably not an error. Second cousins typically share 3% of their DNA. If you share 2% it could be a second cousin once removed. At 23andme I share 2.75% with a second cousin once removed while my sister shares just 1% with this second cousin once removed. My sister matches 49% to me. If you are a second cousin once removed, one of your parents would be a second cousin to your match, thus you would share Great Great Grandparents (2 of your 16 GG grandparents)
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Even if related, stay away.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Luke, never had an African American woman from Mississippi contact me, but a Nigerian Prince used to send me emails, does that count?
    , @Hibernian
    Are you a Jefferson?
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    You have a relative from several generations back who impregnated one of hers. In the history of the South, there's nothing extrodinary about that.
  21. Hi Steve. A typo: “suing the word” I believe should read “using the word.” By all means delete this comment, etc.

    Read More
  22. @Steve Sailer
    DNA tests used to have a recurrent glitch where a Jewish person would sometimes appear to be part American Indian or Northeast Asian. Larry David was famously reported in 2009 to be 37% Native American, and I've heard of several other similar examples.

    I don't follow the subject closely, but my impression is that the DNA companies put in some effort to fix this problem. The price of genetic testing fell so sharply around 2010 that they can now just throw more resources at the question than in the past.

    This phenomenon is no glitch! Heed ye now the revelations if the angel Moroni via the Golden Plates in Reformed Egyptian!:

    One [great civilisation] came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

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

    It would seem that this is not the product of an intelligent person.

    Read More
  24. My mother is Mexican (second generation) and my father is typical American white mutt. So I was very interested to see how that ancestry would play out in my AncestryDNA test. The genetic research tells us that Mexicans, on average, are 60/40 Spanish/Amerind. So, all else being equal, I figured I’d be 20% Amerind, 30% Spanish, 50% mix of NW Euro ethnicities.

    Lo and behold, the test returned 16-19% Amerind, 25% Spanish, 55% spattering of NW Euro ethnicities (mostly “Irish,” which for Ancestry’s sample panel, means the Celtic fringe generally). Anyway, I was blown away by how accurately the generalizations of genetic research applied in my particular case.

    Thanks, DNA research!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    I say it in jest, but I can't resist:

    You still have to go back!

    PS Do those DNA testing kits expire? The liquid for DNA preservation, I mean. I bought one from 23andme and it has been sitting in my library for a few months. For some reason, I never took it. I can't explain it.

    , @Anon
    One thing about your comment struck me. You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind. However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers. Normally, the natives' genes will dominate the pool thousands of years later even if they're invaded. Yet you say Mexico has a 60% Spanish gene base. This is despite the fact that Mexico was a not a 'colony' country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US. Mexico was more useful for the exploitation of resources than for settlement. Yet 60% of the gene pool is now Spanish?

    To me this indicates Amerind genes are not competing very well, and they're being bred out of the gene pool. I wonder if part of the driver for this replacement consists of European Y-DNA replacing that of native males, and if places like Argentina also show the effect European genes becoming the dominant ancestry.
  25. @Flip
    Assuming that races which evolved in different parts of the world in different climates are nonetheless exactly the same in intelligence and disposition seems like a creationist argument to me.

    …And that’s how come Siberian tigers are identical to Amazonian jaguars. Now let’s all finish our juice-boxes; it’s almost nap-time, professor McHebrew said so, and he’s on The Radio, so we know it’s true.

    Read More
    • LOL: Buffalo Joe
    • Replies: @Logan
    Except of course that the great cats are different species now. While they can sometimes interbreed, their offspring is seldom fertile.

    Humans, OTOH, form a single species, with all groups entirely fertile with each other.
  26. @Luke Lea
    I recently got an update on my 23-and-me results. They still have me as 100% NW European, but what was new and surprising was their saying that my closest relative in their database -- a "second cousin" -- is a 45% African-American woman. Could that be some kind of error? Or is there an interesting story there? I should add that an African American woman who lives in Mississippi got in touch with me several years ago saying we share a certain distinctive haplotype. What do readers think?

    Your second cousin is the grandchild of your great-aunt or great-uncle. You share one set of great-grandparents with your second cousin, but you do not have the same grandparents.

    probably not an error. Second cousins typically share 3% of their DNA. If you share 2% it could be a second cousin once removed. At 23andme I share 2.75% with a second cousin once removed while my sister shares just 1% with this second cousin once removed. My sister matches 49% to me. If you are a second cousin once removed, one of your parents would be a second cousin to your match, thus you would share Great Great Grandparents (2 of your 16 GG grandparents)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    Thanks, Travis! Now I know where to look.
    , @AndrewR
    "If you are a second cousin once removed, one of your parents would be a second cousin to your match"

    Or a first cousin twice removed.
  27. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I listen to NPR during my commute to get my bile up. Steve’s comment

    My guess is that the NPR writer, anthropologist King, is unintentionally dumbing down anthropologist Marks, who for all his faults is an intelligent man, for the NPR-trusting masses.

    rings so true. They pretend to be the “thinking man’s/woman’s/zhe’s media,” (especially during pledge drive season) but they engage in the same communication school dumbing-down-to-4th-grade-reading-level that the rest of them do.

    I don’t know which is worse: the obvious bias, or the hypocrisy…

    Read More
  28. @Luke Lea
    I recently got an update on my 23-and-me results. They still have me as 100% NW European, but what was new and surprising was their saying that my closest relative in their database -- a "second cousin" -- is a 45% African-American woman. Could that be some kind of error? Or is there an interesting story there? I should add that an African American woman who lives in Mississippi got in touch with me several years ago saying we share a certain distinctive haplotype. What do readers think?

    Even if related, stay away.

    Read More
  29. @Travis
    Your second cousin is the grandchild of your great-aunt or great-uncle. You share one set of great-grandparents with your second cousin, but you do not have the same grandparents.

    probably not an error. Second cousins typically share 3% of their DNA. If you share 2% it could be a second cousin once removed. At 23andme I share 2.75% with a second cousin once removed while my sister shares just 1% with this second cousin once removed. My sister matches 49% to me. If you are a second cousin once removed, one of your parents would be a second cousin to your match, thus you would share Great Great Grandparents (2 of your 16 GG grandparents)

    Thanks, Travis! Now I know where to look.

    Read More
  30. To be accurate, you can point out that people are different as races, ethnic groups, castes, sexes, families and individuals. These differences can be quite dramatic and are genetic, and we use groupings like race and ethnicity to group together those who are more similar than different.

    To be popular, you say “we are all one” and that there is no need for different social classes or races because everyone is accepted and everyone is wonderful, so you, dear reader, should always be tolerated no matter how much you flake out, go perverse or otherwise externalize the costs of your behavior to society.

    Popularity is always wrong. The truth is hard, not cognitively, but emotionally.

    Read More
  31. @Travis
    Your second cousin is the grandchild of your great-aunt or great-uncle. You share one set of great-grandparents with your second cousin, but you do not have the same grandparents.

    probably not an error. Second cousins typically share 3% of their DNA. If you share 2% it could be a second cousin once removed. At 23andme I share 2.75% with a second cousin once removed while my sister shares just 1% with this second cousin once removed. My sister matches 49% to me. If you are a second cousin once removed, one of your parents would be a second cousin to your match, thus you would share Great Great Grandparents (2 of your 16 GG grandparents)

    “If you are a second cousin once removed, one of your parents would be a second cousin to your match”

    Or a first cousin twice removed.

    Read More
  32. @Altai
    My favourite thing about Marks is his insistence that race doesn't exist and that untrained statistical tools clustering human genomes so predictably is due to our bias, is that you only need to look at a picture of him to know he is Jewish.

    He railed against the likes of the HGDP as inhumane. The joke is that these types of population analyses are the next stage in drug development and in the short term will help to target doses without fully understanding the loci involved in the differing metabolising of drugs between populations. People will literally get better as a result of this kind of clustering and assignment.

    Future historians will truly have a hard time understanding how all these biologists thought that the laws of evolution and recombination didn't apply to humans. Of course, they don't. Marks knows he is talking bullshit and as such, along with Gould, Lewontin and Boas is a walking alt-right meme and generating exactly the thing he fears.

    I doubt any electronic records will survive on their decayed physical stratum by the time man will have re-evolved to the level of a society that finds value and allocates resources for the profession of historian of antiquity. Those hard drives will make decent armor plates, though!

    Read More
  33. @Seth Largo
    My mother is Mexican (second generation) and my father is typical American white mutt. So I was very interested to see how that ancestry would play out in my AncestryDNA test. The genetic research tells us that Mexicans, on average, are 60/40 Spanish/Amerind. So, all else being equal, I figured I'd be 20% Amerind, 30% Spanish, 50% mix of NW Euro ethnicities.

    Lo and behold, the test returned 16-19% Amerind, 25% Spanish, 55% spattering of NW Euro ethnicities (mostly "Irish," which for Ancestry's sample panel, means the Celtic fringe generally). Anyway, I was blown away by how accurately the generalizations of genetic research applied in my particular case.

    Thanks, DNA research!

    I say it in jest, but I can’t resist:

    You still have to go back!

    PS Do those DNA testing kits expire? The liquid for DNA preservation, I mean. I bought one from 23andme and it has been sitting in my library for a few months. For some reason, I never took it. I can’t explain it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old Jew
    Ai platit deja! (You already paid for it).
    Send it in anyway.
  34. @Flip
    Assuming that races which evolved in different parts of the world in different climates are nonetheless exactly the same in intelligence and disposition seems like a creationist argument to me.

    Hey, gang, open your eyes and look around. Pompous bullsh*t to argue the obvious. Black and white are two different colors and, guess what, if you mix them together, you don’t yellow. Physical characteristics, behavior, speech, etc., all may be human, but they are different among the differing peoples. Mix black, white, and yellow, and red together, you get a different color – mix those characteristics together and you get a different breed – ask any dog lover. It ain’t science, it observation and consideration.

    Read More
  35. @whorefinder
    You keep noticing their contradictions. You're thinking dialectically and not rhetorically, which shows you are intelligent. They only think rhetorically, and have no concept of objective truth or reality.

    whorefinder, Thank you.

    Read More
  36. @Luke Lea
    I recently got an update on my 23-and-me results. They still have me as 100% NW European, but what was new and surprising was their saying that my closest relative in their database -- a "second cousin" -- is a 45% African-American woman. Could that be some kind of error? Or is there an interesting story there? I should add that an African American woman who lives in Mississippi got in touch with me several years ago saying we share a certain distinctive haplotype. What do readers think?

    Luke, never had an African American woman from Mississippi contact me, but a Nigerian Prince used to send me emails, does that count?

    Read More
  37. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Seth Largo
    My mother is Mexican (second generation) and my father is typical American white mutt. So I was very interested to see how that ancestry would play out in my AncestryDNA test. The genetic research tells us that Mexicans, on average, are 60/40 Spanish/Amerind. So, all else being equal, I figured I'd be 20% Amerind, 30% Spanish, 50% mix of NW Euro ethnicities.

    Lo and behold, the test returned 16-19% Amerind, 25% Spanish, 55% spattering of NW Euro ethnicities (mostly "Irish," which for Ancestry's sample panel, means the Celtic fringe generally). Anyway, I was blown away by how accurately the generalizations of genetic research applied in my particular case.

    Thanks, DNA research!

    One thing about your comment struck me. You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind. However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers. Normally, the natives’ genes will dominate the pool thousands of years later even if they’re invaded. Yet you say Mexico has a 60% Spanish gene base. This is despite the fact that Mexico was a not a ‘colony’ country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US. Mexico was more useful for the exploitation of resources than for settlement. Yet 60% of the gene pool is now Spanish?

    To me this indicates Amerind genes are not competing very well, and they’re being bred out of the gene pool. I wonder if part of the driver for this replacement consists of European Y-DNA replacing that of native males, and if places like Argentina also show the effect European genes becoming the dominant ancestry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @3g4me
    @38 Anon: "You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind."

    This 60/40 split is a common error I've seen elsewhere online. I believe it is a result of the self-selection of those Mestizos submitting results to such genetic companies as 23 and Me. I'm pretty certain I read elsewhere of testing done in Mexico, broken down by region, and the results were quite different. Certainly the majority of Mestizo colonizers are not 60% European - hell, Eva Longoria is 75% Spanish, and as dark as she may be, her facial features are still dramatically different from the flat Indios that predominate in the American immivasion underclass.
    , @anon

    To me this indicates Amerind genes are not competing very well,
     
    ...smallpox, typhus, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, mumps, yellow fever and pertussis...


    One weak link and all your genes are toast (regardless of their collective merit).

    , @Hibernian
    There was colonziation of Northern Mexico by Spaniards escaping the Inquisition; the same rules were in effect in Mexico as in Spain but harder to enforce in the wilderness. Not quite sure about their socioeconomic class but they were not tyically the hacienda owner with a harem of Indian women. This could explain why Ms. Longoria, whom I believe is from a lower middle class background in Texas, is majority European Spaniard. The common perception of how Mexican society came to be also ignores their black population; much smaller (proportionally speaking) than Cuba, Brazil, etc., but there is one.
    , @Seth Largo
    However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers.

    Unless the newcomers bring new diseases . . .

    Mexico was a not a ‘colony’ country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US.

    Exactly. Many more single Spaniard men, who bred with the attractive native women. Poof, the beginnings of a robust mestizo population. It was precisely the immigration of large, intact European families that kept any sort of 'mestizo' population from developing in America.
    , @Logan
    European genes are indeed dominant in Argentina, but this is largely because Argentina perpetrated a true genocide of their Indians during the later 19th century, the period of our own Plains Indian wars.

    This means upwards of 85% of Argentines are today of pure Euro ancestry, with Italians being the largest single stock. A considerably higher percentage than the US.

    The numbers are somewhat open to question, as in recent decades political advantage of being mestizo has led to unlikely growth in the "mixed" population.

    Also, it is well-known few Spanish women came to Mexico. So I would assume the "Spanish genes" would be concentrated in the male side of the genome.

  38. @Steve Sailer
    DNA tests used to have a recurrent glitch where a Jewish person would sometimes appear to be part American Indian or Northeast Asian. Larry David was famously reported in 2009 to be 37% Native American, and I've heard of several other similar examples.

    I don't follow the subject closely, but my impression is that the DNA companies put in some effort to fix this problem. The price of genetic testing fell so sharply around 2010 that they can now just throw more resources at the question than in the past.

    I think this deficiency might have had to do with the pre-genome wide SNP chip technology that based the calls largely on the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. And they didn’t even determine the haplogroup for these two bits of the genome with much precision. Anyways, there is a Y chromosome haplogroup that is somewhat close between the bulk of American Indians and some Ashkenazi Jews, so it is easy to imagine how the first iteration of this technology might whiff on this seemingly large difference. https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-016-0870-2

    Read More
  39. All cult Marx nonsense, of course,but my favorite part is this:

    “Inequality comes about because of unequal conditions imposed upon different groups of people through economic and cultural forces.”

    Outside quotes, so the declarative statement of the author…

    Righhhhhht….

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Right. So how exactly does one group of people get to impose inequality on another again?
  40. @Romanian
    I say it in jest, but I can't resist:

    You still have to go back!

    PS Do those DNA testing kits expire? The liquid for DNA preservation, I mean. I bought one from 23andme and it has been sitting in my library for a few months. For some reason, I never took it. I can't explain it.

    Ai platit deja! (You already paid for it).
    Send it in anyway.

    Read More
  41. @Clark Westwood
    Is science racist? Progressives are starting to realize that the answer is Yes, and it terrifies them.

    They’re going to have to accept the transition from “scientific” racism to scientific “racism.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood

    They’re going to have to accept the transition from “scientific” racism to scientific “racism.”
     
    Well put, sir.
  42. @Anon
    One thing about your comment struck me. You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind. However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers. Normally, the natives' genes will dominate the pool thousands of years later even if they're invaded. Yet you say Mexico has a 60% Spanish gene base. This is despite the fact that Mexico was a not a 'colony' country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US. Mexico was more useful for the exploitation of resources than for settlement. Yet 60% of the gene pool is now Spanish?

    To me this indicates Amerind genes are not competing very well, and they're being bred out of the gene pool. I wonder if part of the driver for this replacement consists of European Y-DNA replacing that of native males, and if places like Argentina also show the effect European genes becoming the dominant ancestry.

    @38 Anon: “You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind.”

    This 60/40 split is a common error I’ve seen elsewhere online. I believe it is a result of the self-selection of those Mestizos submitting results to such genetic companies as 23 and Me. I’m pretty certain I read elsewhere of testing done in Mexico, broken down by region, and the results were quite different. Certainly the majority of Mestizo colonizers are not 60% European – hell, Eva Longoria is 75% Spanish, and as dark as she may be, her facial features are still dramatically different from the flat Indios that predominate in the American immivasion underclass.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seth Largo
    Same result from Tejanos as well as self-described "mestizos" in Mexico City. So, no, you're wrong. However, it's true that post-1980s Mexican immigrants probably do not represent the Mexican average.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/09/genomic-ancestry-of-mexicans.html
  43. @Chrisnonymous
    If your ancestor's genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he's not really your ancestor, is he?

    12 generations is a pretty long time. If you go far enough back, people stop caring. The extreme example is that we're all out of Africa, but nobody thinks, "I'm black!" when they hear that.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.

    If your ancestor’s genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he’s not really your ancestor, is he?

    Uh, yes he/she is.

    For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed. However, it’s highly doubtful that I carry even a single gene that is “from Muhammed”. But, still I wouldn’t be here if he hadn’t done his cushion pushin’.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.

    My impression is that most people in fact do not understand that.

    The basic fact that you’ll share 50% of your chromosomes with a parent or a child, but all the other family relationships are stochastic, i don’t think most people really have much awareness of. Or more precisely only sort of a hand-waving awareness of–”I’m a lot like cousin Kristi, but not much like cousin Kathy”–but without any sort of real thought about it.

    It’s actually possible–though unlikely–to share *no* chromosomes with one of your four grandparents. One shot in 2**21, which is about one in two million, which means on average two kids a year born in the US or around 65 worldwide. (Of course, you’ll still have some DNA from that grandparent through recombination during meiosis.) But not uncommon at all to be heavily weighted (60/40, 70/30, etc.) to one grandparent (paternal or maternal) versus the other on that side.

    Of course, even when you don’t share a particular chromosome with a relative, if your ancestors are mostly from the same “population group” then you quite likely still have a lot of the same genes on that chromosome anyway–from other ancestors. (And, of course, you’ll have most genes in common with most people so you get ten fingers, ten toes, etc. etc.) But that these ancestral relationships are not nailed down in your genome but are highly stochastic–as they must be for selection to be working–i don’t think that’s something most folks have wrapped their brains around very tightly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker

    i don’t think that’s something most folks have wrapped their brains around very tightly
     
    Not tightly at all, not when I get told, as still happens sometimes, that I am is just as likely to be related to some random guy in Lagos or Bejing as to any other (in my case) white British person.

    It's definitely on the decline though. They won't admit it but they've lost that particular skirmish in the popular mind.
    , @dr kill
    It's like sharing O2 molecules with Jesus. I feel more holy already.
    , @Mr. Anon

    For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed.
     
    How do you figure that? I don't believe that is the case at all.
    , @BB753
    "For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed"

    This idea seems far-fetched! By the time Mohammed was born, Europeans had long developed into different ethnic groups, only distantly related to Arabians via Neolithic Middle Eastern ancestry.
    , @Chrisnonymous

    But, still I wouldn’t be here if he hadn’t done his cushion pushin’.
     
    I think this is wrong, except in the sense of "this world is this world and not another." "Muhammed as ancestor" is a statistical artifact, and has nothing to say about the causation of your parentage and your genome that's more significant than any other historical accident.

    Uh, yes he/she is....
     
    The word "ancestor" comes from a time when people had different ideas about lineage than what we learn from Common Ancestor mathematical modeling. So the sentence "Muhammed is my ancestor" is pushing language to its breaking point. When somebody tells you, "my ancestors are from Africa," you expect him to be black, not to be referring to pre-historic migration.

    I think if you put a group of people together and informed them that a lilly-white person has a Japanese man on his family tree several generations back but no Japanese genes, and asked whether he is part-Japanese by descent, there would be a lot of disagreement. But ultimately, I think having no "blood" connection invalidates most people's ideas about ancestry.
  44. Oh where oh where would we dumb gentiles be without that penetrating insights of the likes of Professor Marks?

    Read More
  45. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Kekish
    All cult Marx nonsense, of course,but my favorite part is this:

    "Inequality comes about because of unequal conditions imposed upon different groups of people through economic and cultural forces."

    Outside quotes, so the declarative statement of the author...

    Righhhhhht....

    Right. So how exactly does one group of people get to impose inequality on another again?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dee
    How does one group impose inequality on another group???

    By preventing them from living near the glaciers during the last couple of Ice Ages!

    That's the most likely reason the NAM's living near the equator are never going to compete with the people that had the weather doing a superior job of eliminating the slow and weak....eugenics without any human input....other than just being in a rough locale.
  46. @Perennial millennial
    OT: On CNN just now, a protester in Hamburg (an African migrant evidently) walked up to the cameraman chanting, "Africa is the future! Africa is the future!"

    What did he mean by that?

    Read More
  47. What would anthropologists know about science? They are – by virtue of their own collective decision – no longer scientists. I guess science was too racist for them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Indeed, Professor Marks has written a book entitled: "Why I Am Not a Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge."
  48. @Mr. Anon
    What would anthropologists know about science? They are - by virtue of their own collective decision - no longer scientists. I guess science was too racist for them.

    Indeed, Professor Marks has written a book entitled: “Why I Am Not a Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Demontage2000
    @Steve
    Professor Marks stated:

    "The fact that one can detect ancestry in these identities [African tribes, Ashkenazi Jews, Vikings] does not mean that they are products of nature."
     
    To which Steve commented:

    "Well, I’m not exactly sure in what sense he is using the word 'nature,' but clearly Ashkenazi Jews (in his case, for instance) are products of reality rather than 'fantasy'."
     
    Your point is well taken, but doesn't the nature-culture dichotomy remain a sort of 'mother of all questions', despite promising theories in evolutionary psychology?

    The relationship between nature and culture remains a muddy enough area for academics to continue justifying the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) and Blank Slate assumption that culture is independently causal and autonomous in regard to nature. In some respects, classic modern thinkers like Rousseau, Hume, and Kant produced promising theories on the question, but that was before World War II and the great 20th-century agreement to assume the SSSM on moral (not scientific) grounds.

    Nature provides at least some innate instincts, and therefore some ends, like satisfying hunger, finding a mate, etc. But nature evidently does not directly provide the specific ends of specific cultures, e.g., mastering the English or Japanese languages. The English and Japanese languages involve historical contingencies, e.g., arbitrary phonemes, particular conventions for sign/word order/sequence, etc. Thus, there seems to be a connection between human imagination – what Hume called "the fancy" – and convention, and our sense of freedom/autonomy from nature.

    We do appear able to 'make up' rules, design games and systems, and pursue certain goals, none of which are direct consequences of our nature. But evolutionary psychology is advancing an increasingly sophisticated account of the mind that will (I believe) resolve how our cultural inventiveness works by extending and building upon patterns that are rooted natively in the evolved organism.
  49. @AnotherDad

    If your ancestor’s genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he’s not really your ancestor, is he?
     
    Uh, yes he/she is.

    For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed. However, it's highly doubtful that I carry even a single gene that is "from Muhammed". But, still I wouldn't be here if he hadn't done his cushion pushin'.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.
     
    My impression is that most people in fact do not understand that.

    The basic fact that you'll share 50% of your chromosomes with a parent or a child, but all the other family relationships are stochastic, i don't think most people really have much awareness of. Or more precisely only sort of a hand-waving awareness of--"I'm a lot like cousin Kristi, but not much like cousin Kathy"--but without any sort of real thought about it.

    It's actually possible--though unlikely--to share *no* chromosomes with one of your four grandparents. One shot in 2**21, which is about one in two million, which means on average two kids a year born in the US or around 65 worldwide. (Of course, you'll still have some DNA from that grandparent through recombination during meiosis.) But not uncommon at all to be heavily weighted (60/40, 70/30, etc.) to one grandparent (paternal or maternal) versus the other on that side.

    Of course, even when you don't share a particular chromosome with a relative, if your ancestors are mostly from the same "population group" then you quite likely still have a lot of the same genes on that chromosome anyway--from other ancestors. (And, of course, you'll have most genes in common with most people so you get ten fingers, ten toes, etc. etc.) But that these ancestral relationships are not nailed down in your genome but are highly stochastic--as they must be for selection to be working--i don't think that's something most folks have wrapped their brains around very tightly.

    i don’t think that’s something most folks have wrapped their brains around very tightly

    Not tightly at all, not when I get told, as still happens sometimes, that I am is just as likely to be related to some random guy in Lagos or Bejing as to any other (in my case) white British person.

    It’s definitely on the decline though. They won’t admit it but they’ve lost that particular skirmish in the popular mind.

    Read More
  50. @AnotherDad
    Oh where oh where would we dumb gentiles be without that penetrating insights of the likes of Professor Marks?

    Colonising the solar system?

    Read More
  51. @AnotherDad

    If your ancestor’s genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he’s not really your ancestor, is he?
     
    Uh, yes he/she is.

    For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed. However, it's highly doubtful that I carry even a single gene that is "from Muhammed". But, still I wouldn't be here if he hadn't done his cushion pushin'.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.
     
    My impression is that most people in fact do not understand that.

    The basic fact that you'll share 50% of your chromosomes with a parent or a child, but all the other family relationships are stochastic, i don't think most people really have much awareness of. Or more precisely only sort of a hand-waving awareness of--"I'm a lot like cousin Kristi, but not much like cousin Kathy"--but without any sort of real thought about it.

    It's actually possible--though unlikely--to share *no* chromosomes with one of your four grandparents. One shot in 2**21, which is about one in two million, which means on average two kids a year born in the US or around 65 worldwide. (Of course, you'll still have some DNA from that grandparent through recombination during meiosis.) But not uncommon at all to be heavily weighted (60/40, 70/30, etc.) to one grandparent (paternal or maternal) versus the other on that side.

    Of course, even when you don't share a particular chromosome with a relative, if your ancestors are mostly from the same "population group" then you quite likely still have a lot of the same genes on that chromosome anyway--from other ancestors. (And, of course, you'll have most genes in common with most people so you get ten fingers, ten toes, etc. etc.) But that these ancestral relationships are not nailed down in your genome but are highly stochastic--as they must be for selection to be working--i don't think that's something most folks have wrapped their brains around very tightly.

    It’s like sharing O2 molecules with Jesus. I feel more holy already.

    Read More
  52. @Autochthon
    This phenomenon is no glitch! Heed ye now the revelations if the angel Moroni via the Golden Plates in Reformed Egyptian!:

    One [great civilisation] came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.
     

    So Mormonism is real!

    Read More
  53. @Steve Sailer
    Indeed, Professor Marks has written a book entitled: "Why I Am Not a Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge."

    @Steve
    Professor Marks stated:

    “The fact that one can detect ancestry in these identities [African tribes, Ashkenazi Jews, Vikings] does not mean that they are products of nature.”

    To which Steve commented:

    “Well, I’m not exactly sure in what sense he is using the word ‘nature,’ but clearly Ashkenazi Jews (in his case, for instance) are products of reality rather than ‘fantasy’.”

    Your point is well taken, but doesn’t the nature-culture dichotomy remain a sort of ‘mother of all questions’, despite promising theories in evolutionary psychology?

    The relationship between nature and culture remains a muddy enough area for academics to continue justifying the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) and Blank Slate assumption that culture is independently causal and autonomous in regard to nature. In some respects, classic modern thinkers like Rousseau, Hume, and Kant produced promising theories on the question, but that was before World War II and the great 20th-century agreement to assume the SSSM on moral (not scientific) grounds.

    Nature provides at least some innate instincts, and therefore some ends, like satisfying hunger, finding a mate, etc. But nature evidently does not directly provide the specific ends of specific cultures, e.g., mastering the English or Japanese languages. The English and Japanese languages involve historical contingencies, e.g., arbitrary phonemes, particular conventions for sign/word order/sequence, etc. Thus, there seems to be a connection between human imagination – what Hume called “the fancy” – and convention, and our sense of freedom/autonomy from nature.

    We do appear able to ‘make up’ rules, design games and systems, and pursue certain goals, none of which are direct consequences of our nature. But evolutionary psychology is advancing an increasingly sophisticated account of the mind that will (I believe) resolve how our cultural inventiveness works by extending and building upon patterns that are rooted natively in the evolved organism.

    Read More
  54. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anon
    One thing about your comment struck me. You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind. However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers. Normally, the natives' genes will dominate the pool thousands of years later even if they're invaded. Yet you say Mexico has a 60% Spanish gene base. This is despite the fact that Mexico was a not a 'colony' country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US. Mexico was more useful for the exploitation of resources than for settlement. Yet 60% of the gene pool is now Spanish?

    To me this indicates Amerind genes are not competing very well, and they're being bred out of the gene pool. I wonder if part of the driver for this replacement consists of European Y-DNA replacing that of native males, and if places like Argentina also show the effect European genes becoming the dominant ancestry.

    To me this indicates Amerind genes are not competing very well,

    …smallpox, typhus, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, tuberculosis, mumps, yellow fever and pertussis…

    One weak link and all your genes are toast (regardless of their collective merit).

    Read More
  55. Maybe Mark’s should be identifying himself as Ashkimazi…

    I’ll get my coat.

    Read More
  56. @Perennial millennial
    OT: On CNN just now, a protester in Hamburg (an African migrant evidently) walked up to the cameraman chanting, "Africa is the future! Africa is the future!"

    I have seen Subsaharan Africans saying the same at the Cologne Central station around 2010.

    Read More
  57. @Harry Baldwin
    They're going to have to accept the transition from "scientific" racism to scientific "racism."

    They’re going to have to accept the transition from “scientific” racism to scientific “racism.”

    Well put, sir.

    Read More
  58. @Clark Westwood
    Is science racist? Progressives are starting to realize that the answer is Yes, and it terrifies them.

    If the truth is racist, the truth will just have to go.

    Read More
  59. @Clark Westwood
    Is science racist? Progressives are starting to realize that the answer is Yes, and it terrifies them.

    Reality is racist.

    Read More
  60. @Luke Lea
    I recently got an update on my 23-and-me results. They still have me as 100% NW European, but what was new and surprising was their saying that my closest relative in their database -- a "second cousin" -- is a 45% African-American woman. Could that be some kind of error? Or is there an interesting story there? I should add that an African American woman who lives in Mississippi got in touch with me several years ago saying we share a certain distinctive haplotype. What do readers think?

    Are you a Jefferson?

    Read More
  61. @Anon
    One thing about your comment struck me. You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind. However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers. Normally, the natives' genes will dominate the pool thousands of years later even if they're invaded. Yet you say Mexico has a 60% Spanish gene base. This is despite the fact that Mexico was a not a 'colony' country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US. Mexico was more useful for the exploitation of resources than for settlement. Yet 60% of the gene pool is now Spanish?

    To me this indicates Amerind genes are not competing very well, and they're being bred out of the gene pool. I wonder if part of the driver for this replacement consists of European Y-DNA replacing that of native males, and if places like Argentina also show the effect European genes becoming the dominant ancestry.

    There was colonziation of Northern Mexico by Spaniards escaping the Inquisition; the same rules were in effect in Mexico as in Spain but harder to enforce in the wilderness. Not quite sure about their socioeconomic class but they were not tyically the hacienda owner with a harem of Indian women. This could explain why Ms. Longoria, whom I believe is from a lower middle class background in Texas, is majority European Spaniard. The common perception of how Mexican society came to be also ignores their black population; much smaller (proportionally speaking) than Cuba, Brazil, etc., but there is one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Lived in northern NM for several years a few decades back. A number of our friends were descended from the old time Spanish inhabitants that predated the American conquest by several centuries. These people had moved in as families, not as lone male adventurers or soldiers.

    They always referred to themselves as Spanish, NOT Mexican, and generally despised the more recent Mexican immigrants. They were usually quite white-skinned and looked truly Spanish or Italian. They had no history of intermarrying with the natives, as was apparently so common in Mexico as such.
  62. @anon
    Right. So how exactly does one group of people get to impose inequality on another again?

    How does one group impose inequality on another group???

    By preventing them from living near the glaciers during the last couple of Ice Ages!

    That’s the most likely reason the NAM’s living near the equator are never going to compete with the people that had the weather doing a superior job of eliminating the slow and weak….eugenics without any human input….other than just being in a rough locale.

    Read More
  63. @3g4me
    @38 Anon: "You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind."

    This 60/40 split is a common error I've seen elsewhere online. I believe it is a result of the self-selection of those Mestizos submitting results to such genetic companies as 23 and Me. I'm pretty certain I read elsewhere of testing done in Mexico, broken down by region, and the results were quite different. Certainly the majority of Mestizo colonizers are not 60% European - hell, Eva Longoria is 75% Spanish, and as dark as she may be, her facial features are still dramatically different from the flat Indios that predominate in the American immivasion underclass.

    Same result from Tejanos as well as self-described “mestizos” in Mexico City. So, no, you’re wrong. However, it’s true that post-1980s Mexican immigrants probably do not represent the Mexican average.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/09/genomic-ancestry-of-mexicans.html

    Read More
  64. @Anon
    One thing about your comment struck me. You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind. However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers. Normally, the natives' genes will dominate the pool thousands of years later even if they're invaded. Yet you say Mexico has a 60% Spanish gene base. This is despite the fact that Mexico was a not a 'colony' country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US. Mexico was more useful for the exploitation of resources than for settlement. Yet 60% of the gene pool is now Spanish?

    To me this indicates Amerind genes are not competing very well, and they're being bred out of the gene pool. I wonder if part of the driver for this replacement consists of European Y-DNA replacing that of native males, and if places like Argentina also show the effect European genes becoming the dominant ancestry.

    However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers.

    Unless the newcomers bring new diseases . . .

    Mexico was a not a ‘colony’ country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US.

    Exactly. Many more single Spaniard men, who bred with the attractive native women. Poof, the beginnings of a robust mestizo population. It was precisely the immigration of large, intact European families that kept any sort of ‘mestizo’ population from developing in America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    another reason for the lack of mestizos in the British colonies - a lack of indigenous people...The native American population of the Eastern United States in 1600 was less than 500,000 people...while Mexico had 20 million indigenous people.
    , @Logan
    For whatever reason, the French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies all were much more open to interbreeding with the natives, or, perhaps more accurately, open to the idea of a recognized place in society for the offspring of such unions.

    It's generally considered that this was due to the presence of much greater numbers of British women, who objected to the competitition and insisted their offspring be excluded from society. This appears to have been duplicated in India, where up to about 1800 the soldiers and administrators associated freely with the natives and their women. Around this time much larger numbers of British women began showing up in India, and eventually a tipping point was reached where they were able to ostracize British men who associated openly with or married native women.
  65. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    DNA tests used to have a recurrent glitch where a Jewish person would sometimes appear to be part American Indian or Northeast Asian. Larry David was famously reported in 2009 to be 37% Native American, and I've heard of several other similar examples.

    I don't follow the subject closely, but my impression is that the DNA companies put in some effort to fix this problem. The price of genetic testing fell so sharply around 2010 that they can now just throw more resources at the question than in the past.

    Count me skeptical of the whole thing. I just had a DNA test done. 70% English (check), 16% Irish Scottish or Welsh (check). Then it got weird. It came back 0% southern Mediterranean (although my grandmother is Italian), o% North American Native, although I am an enrolled Chickasaw tribal member with 1/8 blood. It reported 2% African and 2% Middle Eastern and 5% Central Asian and 5% Central American. Something is amiss.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    As I understand it, the Chickasaw were/are a matrilineal tribe, with membership calculated down through the maternal line. If you're 1/8 blood, presumably this means one of your great-grandparents was considered pure-blood by the tribe.

    But this ancestor of yours might have been only partially Chickasaw genetically. For instance, I believe William Wetherford, the great leader of the Creeks in their fight against Jackson, was considered "a Creek" by his people, even though he was probably at most 1/8 native blood, his father being pure Scots, and his mother probably at least 3/4 white genetically.

    So if your ancestor was 1/8 Chickasaw genetically, that would reduce your actual Chickasaw ancestry to 1/64.
    , @Eagle Eye

    % North American Native, although I am an enrolled Chickasaw tribal member with 1/8 blood.
     
    Here is what the Supreme Court noted in 1942:

    At the time of the Civil War the Chickasaws and the Choctaws were slave-owning tribes holding their lands in common, their respective interests being one-fourth and three-fourths.
     
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/318/423

    Some of the slaves stayed with the tribes and were granted membership.
  66. @AnotherDad

    If your ancestor’s genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he’s not really your ancestor, is he?
     
    Uh, yes he/she is.

    For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed. However, it's highly doubtful that I carry even a single gene that is "from Muhammed". But, still I wouldn't be here if he hadn't done his cushion pushin'.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.
     
    My impression is that most people in fact do not understand that.

    The basic fact that you'll share 50% of your chromosomes with a parent or a child, but all the other family relationships are stochastic, i don't think most people really have much awareness of. Or more precisely only sort of a hand-waving awareness of--"I'm a lot like cousin Kristi, but not much like cousin Kathy"--but without any sort of real thought about it.

    It's actually possible--though unlikely--to share *no* chromosomes with one of your four grandparents. One shot in 2**21, which is about one in two million, which means on average two kids a year born in the US or around 65 worldwide. (Of course, you'll still have some DNA from that grandparent through recombination during meiosis.) But not uncommon at all to be heavily weighted (60/40, 70/30, etc.) to one grandparent (paternal or maternal) versus the other on that side.

    Of course, even when you don't share a particular chromosome with a relative, if your ancestors are mostly from the same "population group" then you quite likely still have a lot of the same genes on that chromosome anyway--from other ancestors. (And, of course, you'll have most genes in common with most people so you get ten fingers, ten toes, etc. etc.) But that these ancestral relationships are not nailed down in your genome but are highly stochastic--as they must be for selection to be working--i don't think that's something most folks have wrapped their brains around very tightly.

    For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed.

    How do you figure that? I don’t believe that is the case at all.

    Read More
  67. @Perennial millennial
    OT: On CNN just now, a protester in Hamburg (an African migrant evidently) walked up to the cameraman chanting, "Africa is the future! Africa is the future!"

    ‘Africa is the future!’ is, in Germany, one of those facts that only people sympathetic to them are allowed to notice.

    Read More
  68. @Clark Westwood
    Is science racist? Progressives are starting to realize that the answer is Yes, and it terrifies them.

    Is the truth racist?

    Read More
  69. @AnotherDad

    If your ancestor’s genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he’s not really your ancestor, is he?
     
    Uh, yes he/she is.

    For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed. However, it's highly doubtful that I carry even a single gene that is "from Muhammed". But, still I wouldn't be here if he hadn't done his cushion pushin'.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.
     
    My impression is that most people in fact do not understand that.

    The basic fact that you'll share 50% of your chromosomes with a parent or a child, but all the other family relationships are stochastic, i don't think most people really have much awareness of. Or more precisely only sort of a hand-waving awareness of--"I'm a lot like cousin Kristi, but not much like cousin Kathy"--but without any sort of real thought about it.

    It's actually possible--though unlikely--to share *no* chromosomes with one of your four grandparents. One shot in 2**21, which is about one in two million, which means on average two kids a year born in the US or around 65 worldwide. (Of course, you'll still have some DNA from that grandparent through recombination during meiosis.) But not uncommon at all to be heavily weighted (60/40, 70/30, etc.) to one grandparent (paternal or maternal) versus the other on that side.

    Of course, even when you don't share a particular chromosome with a relative, if your ancestors are mostly from the same "population group" then you quite likely still have a lot of the same genes on that chromosome anyway--from other ancestors. (And, of course, you'll have most genes in common with most people so you get ten fingers, ten toes, etc. etc.) But that these ancestral relationships are not nailed down in your genome but are highly stochastic--as they must be for selection to be working--i don't think that's something most folks have wrapped their brains around very tightly.

    “For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed”

    This idea seems far-fetched! By the time Mohammed was born, Europeans had long developed into different ethnic groups, only distantly related to Arabians via Neolithic Middle Eastern ancestry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Of course, "Arabians" are pure-blood horses while "Arabs" refers to the people belonging to the crazy, peaceful, fun-loving MENA ethnic group we all know and love.
  70. About all I know about this issue is the annoying TV ads.

    Some guy announces he’s found out he’s mostly Italian.

    Now I happen to know a fair amount about Italian history. Given its history, what exactly does “being Italian” even mean? Roman, Etruscan, Lombard, Saracen, Greek, French???

    Read More
    • Replies: @whoever
    It does seem that these companies are trolling the gullible. For example:

    "There are 562 recognized tribes in the U.S.A., plus at least 50 others in Canada, divided into First Nation, Inuit, and Metis. Viaguard Accu-metrics can determine if you belong to one of these groups. We can also determine if you belong to the 56 Native tribes from Mexico.... Our test can even be used to determine the specific tribe that you belong to."

    Uh-huh.
  71. @Hibernian
    There was colonziation of Northern Mexico by Spaniards escaping the Inquisition; the same rules were in effect in Mexico as in Spain but harder to enforce in the wilderness. Not quite sure about their socioeconomic class but they were not tyically the hacienda owner with a harem of Indian women. This could explain why Ms. Longoria, whom I believe is from a lower middle class background in Texas, is majority European Spaniard. The common perception of how Mexican society came to be also ignores their black population; much smaller (proportionally speaking) than Cuba, Brazil, etc., but there is one.

    Lived in northern NM for several years a few decades back. A number of our friends were descended from the old time Spanish inhabitants that predated the American conquest by several centuries. These people had moved in as families, not as lone male adventurers or soldiers.

    They always referred to themselves as Spanish, NOT Mexican, and generally despised the more recent Mexican immigrants. They were usually quite white-skinned and looked truly Spanish or Italian. They had no history of intermarrying with the natives, as was apparently so common in Mexico as such.

    Read More
  72. @Anon
    One thing about your comment struck me. You say Mexicans average about 60% Spanish and 40% native Amerind. However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers. Normally, the natives' genes will dominate the pool thousands of years later even if they're invaded. Yet you say Mexico has a 60% Spanish gene base. This is despite the fact that Mexico was a not a 'colony' country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US. Mexico was more useful for the exploitation of resources than for settlement. Yet 60% of the gene pool is now Spanish?

    To me this indicates Amerind genes are not competing very well, and they're being bred out of the gene pool. I wonder if part of the driver for this replacement consists of European Y-DNA replacing that of native males, and if places like Argentina also show the effect European genes becoming the dominant ancestry.

    European genes are indeed dominant in Argentina, but this is largely because Argentina perpetrated a true genocide of their Indians during the later 19th century, the period of our own Plains Indian wars.

    This means upwards of 85% of Argentines are today of pure Euro ancestry, with Italians being the largest single stock. A considerably higher percentage than the US.

    The numbers are somewhat open to question, as in recent decades political advantage of being mestizo has led to unlikely growth in the “mixed” population.

    Also, it is well-known few Spanish women came to Mexico. So I would assume the “Spanish genes” would be concentrated in the male side of the genome.

    Read More
  73. … Charlotte anthropologist Jonathan Marks says that racism in science is alive and well.

    Cult-Marksism in action.

    Did his immigrant ancestors spell their name with an X?

    Read More
  74. Here’s what Professor Marks sees in the mirror: …

    Not really. What Marks sees in the mirror is, of course, a flipped version of the image on his web page.

    (Unfortunately, comment function does not allow uploading of images. Use Windows Paint “rotate” function to flip the .jpg file.)

    Read More
  75. @Chrisnonymous
    If your ancestor's genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he's not really your ancestor, is he?

    12 generations is a pretty long time. If you go far enough back, people stop caring. The extreme example is that we're all out of Africa, but nobody thinks, "I'm black!" when they hear that.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.

    Yes and no. It’s more precise to say that your ancestor is a genealogical ancestor, but not a DNA ancestor. It’s useful to distinguish between your genetic tree and your genealogical tree, for which the genetic tree is a subset, consisting of only those ancestors from which you inherit at least one small piece of DNA. The two trees are identical to about six generations and then they begin to diverge as genealogical ancestors fall off of your genetic tree — their DNA being randomly discarded during recombination/meiosis. After six generations your genealogical ancestor count will continue to double every generation, but your DNA ancestor count plateaus out in the mid-low 200s. Consequently, you inherit DNA from only about 2-5% of your 12th generation ancestors. So, if Pocahontas were your 12th generation grandmother, then you probably don’t carry any of her DNA, but perhaps 6,000 of her 100,000 or so other 10-12th generation living descendants do.

    These numbers are not exact (can’t find the source, so going on memory), but the general idea looks like this:

    generation | noga* | noDNAa*
    ————————————-
    1 | 2 | 2 | mom and dad
    2 | 4 | 4 | grandparents
    3 | 8 | 8 | great grandparents
    2…6 | 2^N | 2^N | 2-6th generation grandparent
    7 | 128 | 120-128 | a few ancestors begin to drop off
    8 | 256 | 130-160 | yes, a dramatic drop
    9 | 512 | 140-190
    10 | 1024 | 150-200
    11 | 2048 | 160-220
    12 | 4096 | 170-260
    N… | 2^N | < 300 | number of DNA ancestors stays below 300
    ————————————
    noga: number of genealogical ancestors (ignoring pedigree collapse)
    noDNAa: number of DNA ancestors

    Regarding your out of Africa comment. As I think you're saying, having distant ancestors who lived there is a "So what?" kind of point. A counterpoint is, yes we're all out of Africa, but we're also all "out of Pangaea" and all "out of the ocean" from which our primordial, fish-like ancestors flopped. Further, we're not the only animals "out of Africa." So are Giraffes and Mandrills, yet we don't claim that erodes the distinction between us and them.

    By the way, the Out of Africa theory, as I understand it, is mostly distinct from the Multi Regional model in that it argues that the races of man separated ~60,000 years ago instead of the ~300,000 years of the Multi Regional model. While scientifically interesting, politically it seems like a distinction without a difference. Sixty thousand years means you're my brother, but 300 thousand means you're only fit to shine my shoes? Again, a "So what?" point.

    Finally, the science here is still evolving. Eventually, I wouldn't be surprised if the science shows that Eurasians have 10-50% ancestry from peoples who resided in Eurasia prior to the major Out of Africa pulse of ~60,000 years ago (like neanderthals), and we are currently underestimating this percentage at 3%, in part, because there were also migrations from Eurasia to Africa, making modern Africans more Eurasian than they were 60,000 years ago. So, in the end, we'll find that Africans are also "Out of Eurasia" and the Multi-Regional model will be shown to be as much as 50% correct. This concession will be resisted because anthropology professors have grown so attached to telling their blond pupils that while they thought they were Swedish & Dutch, their real ancestral homeland is the savannas of Uganda & the forests of the Congo.

    Read More
  76. @Roderick Spode

    anthropology professor
     
    And into the trash it goes.

    Sad but true. An entire profession has become comfortable with lying for the sake of preserving the egalitarian fiction.

    Read More
  77. @Seth Largo
    However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers.

    Unless the newcomers bring new diseases . . .

    Mexico was a not a ‘colony’ country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US.

    Exactly. Many more single Spaniard men, who bred with the attractive native women. Poof, the beginnings of a robust mestizo population. It was precisely the immigration of large, intact European families that kept any sort of 'mestizo' population from developing in America.

    another reason for the lack of mestizos in the British colonies – a lack of indigenous people…The native American population of the Eastern United States in 1600 was less than 500,000 people…while Mexico had 20 million indigenous people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Yes, this. More of "the reason" than "another reason", though.
  78. @Luke Lea
    I recently got an update on my 23-and-me results. They still have me as 100% NW European, but what was new and surprising was their saying that my closest relative in their database -- a "second cousin" -- is a 45% African-American woman. Could that be some kind of error? Or is there an interesting story there? I should add that an African American woman who lives in Mississippi got in touch with me several years ago saying we share a certain distinctive haplotype. What do readers think?

    You have a relative from several generations back who impregnated one of hers. In the history of the South, there’s nothing extrodinary about that.

    Read More
  79. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Travis
    another reason for the lack of mestizos in the British colonies - a lack of indigenous people...The native American population of the Eastern United States in 1600 was less than 500,000 people...while Mexico had 20 million indigenous people.

    Yes, this. More of “the reason” than “another reason”, though.

    Read More
  80. @Logan
    About all I know about this issue is the annoying TV ads.

    Some guy announces he's found out he's mostly Italian.

    Now I happen to know a fair amount about Italian history. Given its history, what exactly does "being Italian" even mean? Roman, Etruscan, Lombard, Saracen, Greek, French???

    It does seem that these companies are trolling the gullible. For example:

    “There are 562 recognized tribes in the U.S.A., plus at least 50 others in Canada, divided into First Nation, Inuit, and Metis. Viaguard Accu-metrics can determine if you belong to one of these groups. We can also determine if you belong to the 56 Native tribes from Mexico…. Our test can even be used to determine the specific tribe that you belong to.”

    Uh-huh.

    Read More
  81. @AnotherDad

    If your ancestor’s genes are entirely bred out of your genome, he’s not really your ancestor, is he?
     
    Uh, yes he/she is.

    For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed. However, it's highly doubtful that I carry even a single gene that is "from Muhammed". But, still I wouldn't be here if he hadn't done his cushion pushin'.

    I think even the masses understand that getting a 23andMe result is not the same as looking at a family tree.
     
    My impression is that most people in fact do not understand that.

    The basic fact that you'll share 50% of your chromosomes with a parent or a child, but all the other family relationships are stochastic, i don't think most people really have much awareness of. Or more precisely only sort of a hand-waving awareness of--"I'm a lot like cousin Kristi, but not much like cousin Kathy"--but without any sort of real thought about it.

    It's actually possible--though unlikely--to share *no* chromosomes with one of your four grandparents. One shot in 2**21, which is about one in two million, which means on average two kids a year born in the US or around 65 worldwide. (Of course, you'll still have some DNA from that grandparent through recombination during meiosis.) But not uncommon at all to be heavily weighted (60/40, 70/30, etc.) to one grandparent (paternal or maternal) versus the other on that side.

    Of course, even when you don't share a particular chromosome with a relative, if your ancestors are mostly from the same "population group" then you quite likely still have a lot of the same genes on that chromosome anyway--from other ancestors. (And, of course, you'll have most genes in common with most people so you get ten fingers, ten toes, etc. etc.) But that these ancestral relationships are not nailed down in your genome but are highly stochastic--as they must be for selection to be working--i don't think that's something most folks have wrapped their brains around very tightly.

    But, still I wouldn’t be here if he hadn’t done his cushion pushin’.

    I think this is wrong, except in the sense of “this world is this world and not another.” “Muhammed as ancestor” is a statistical artifact, and has nothing to say about the causation of your parentage and your genome that’s more significant than any other historical accident.

    Uh, yes he/she is….

    The word “ancestor” comes from a time when people had different ideas about lineage than what we learn from Common Ancestor mathematical modeling. So the sentence “Muhammed is my ancestor” is pushing language to its breaking point. When somebody tells you, “my ancestors are from Africa,” you expect him to be black, not to be referring to pre-historic migration.

    I think if you put a group of people together and informed them that a lilly-white person has a Japanese man on his family tree several generations back but no Japanese genes, and asked whether he is part-Japanese by descent, there would be a lot of disagreement. But ultimately, I think having no “blood” connection invalidates most people’s ideas about ancestry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nico

    The word “ancestor” comes from a time when people had different ideas about lineage than what we learn from Common Ancestor mathematical modeling.
     
    They may have been unaware that our ancestors included nonhuman primates and ultimately single-cell eukaryotes, but I hardly see why the one has to contradict the other.

    “Muhammed is my ancestor” is pushing language to its breaking point. When somebody tells you, “my ancestors are from Africa,” you expect him to be black, not to be referring to pre-historic migration.
     
    Wrong. I am a white American. The fact that my interlocutor almost certainly EXPECTS the statement, "my ancestors are from Africa" to imply something beyond what I mean when I say it, doesn't mean that my ancestors are not in fact from Africa. It DOES mean either that they are naïve ignorami, or that I am:

    1. socially inept,
    2. a mischievous little imp,
    3. of bad faith, or
    4. some combination of the above.

    The *significance* of my distant African ancestry is obviously very different from the *significance* of the more recent African ancestry of phenotypical black people. We didn't stop speaking of ancestry in near or different terms when blending theory gave way to Mendelian genetics. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
    , @Nico

    But ultimately, I think having no “blood” connection invalidates most people’s ideas about ancestry.
     
    To the extent that the popular imagination about "ancestry" is fueled by lingering notions of the blending theory of descent, the popular notions of ancestry are invalid to begin with and have been outdated for well over a century. At that point even speaking of "bloodlines" is nonsense: the notion that "blood carries life" breaks down at the meiotic level because blood, in the ultimate analysis, is not what transmits DNA. Hell, the most common and ubiquitously imagined blood cell - the erythrocyte - does not even contain DNA.
  82. @whoever
    It does seem that these companies are trolling the gullible. For example:

    "There are 562 recognized tribes in the U.S.A., plus at least 50 others in Canada, divided into First Nation, Inuit, and Metis. Viaguard Accu-metrics can determine if you belong to one of these groups. We can also determine if you belong to the 56 Native tribes from Mexico.... Our test can even be used to determine the specific tribe that you belong to."

    Uh-huh.

    Right. Such claims are obviously BS.

    Read More
  83. @Seth Largo
    However, genetic replacement tends not to be the rule when you have an influx of newcomers.

    Unless the newcomers bring new diseases . . .

    Mexico was a not a ‘colony’ country in the way the US was for Britain, in which large numbers of native British were encouraged to bring their families and settle in the US.

    Exactly. Many more single Spaniard men, who bred with the attractive native women. Poof, the beginnings of a robust mestizo population. It was precisely the immigration of large, intact European families that kept any sort of 'mestizo' population from developing in America.

    For whatever reason, the French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies all were much more open to interbreeding with the natives, or, perhaps more accurately, open to the idea of a recognized place in society for the offspring of such unions.

    It’s generally considered that this was due to the presence of much greater numbers of British women, who objected to the competitition and insisted their offspring be excluded from society. This appears to have been duplicated in India, where up to about 1800 the soldiers and administrators associated freely with the natives and their women. Around this time much larger numbers of British women began showing up in India, and eventually a tipping point was reached where they were able to ostracize British men who associated openly with or married native women.

    Read More
  84. @anon
    Count me skeptical of the whole thing. I just had a DNA test done. 70% English (check), 16% Irish Scottish or Welsh (check). Then it got weird. It came back 0% southern Mediterranean (although my grandmother is Italian), o% North American Native, although I am an enrolled Chickasaw tribal member with 1/8 blood. It reported 2% African and 2% Middle Eastern and 5% Central Asian and 5% Central American. Something is amiss.

    As I understand it, the Chickasaw were/are a matrilineal tribe, with membership calculated down through the maternal line. If you’re 1/8 blood, presumably this means one of your great-grandparents was considered pure-blood by the tribe.

    But this ancestor of yours might have been only partially Chickasaw genetically. For instance, I believe William Wetherford, the great leader of the Creeks in their fight against Jackson, was considered “a Creek” by his people, even though he was probably at most 1/8 native blood, his father being pure Scots, and his mother probably at least 3/4 white genetically.

    So if your ancestor was 1/8 Chickasaw genetically, that would reduce your actual Chickasaw ancestry to 1/64.

    Read More
  85. @Autochthon
    ...And that's how come Siberian tigers are identical to Amazonian jaguars. Now let's all finish our juice-boxes; it's almost nap-time, professor McHebrew said so, and he's on The Radio, so we know it's true.

    Except of course that the great cats are different species now. While they can sometimes interbreed, their offspring is seldom fertile.

    Humans, OTOH, form a single species, with all groups entirely fertile with each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    My point is one of evolutionary divergence in response to adaptive selection by differing environs; yours – if you've one ar all – is simply that the process in one case isn't as far along as 'tis in the other.

    Boots are nothing like socks, although both protect feet, because one provides more protection. Likewise divergent evolution is illustrative of nothing unless and until interfertility is lost; thus interfertile creatures which divergently evolve are nothing like the case of creatures which diverently evolve to the point they cannot breed.

    Evolution is not quantum chemistry: Linneaus' work was helpful; but it is artificial. Hell, I can insert genes from bacteria into tomatoes. Are these now no different from one another?
  86. @BB753
    "For example like most folks of European descent I almost certainly am descended from Muhammed"

    This idea seems far-fetched! By the time Mohammed was born, Europeans had long developed into different ethnic groups, only distantly related to Arabians via Neolithic Middle Eastern ancestry.

    Of course, “Arabians” are pure-blood horses while “Arabs” refers to the people belonging to the crazy, peaceful, fun-loving MENA ethnic group we all know and love.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Mohammad, of course, was the O.S.; the original Sheik of Araby. He was smoove wit da ladeez, from seven to seventy, hence his large genetic footprint (according to his prepubescent wives, that wasn't all that was large, know what I'm sayin'?!).
  87. @anon
    Count me skeptical of the whole thing. I just had a DNA test done. 70% English (check), 16% Irish Scottish or Welsh (check). Then it got weird. It came back 0% southern Mediterranean (although my grandmother is Italian), o% North American Native, although I am an enrolled Chickasaw tribal member with 1/8 blood. It reported 2% African and 2% Middle Eastern and 5% Central Asian and 5% Central American. Something is amiss.

    % North American Native, although I am an enrolled Chickasaw tribal member with 1/8 blood.

    Here is what the Supreme Court noted in 1942:

    At the time of the Civil War the Chickasaws and the Choctaws were slave-owning tribes holding their lands in common, their respective interests being one-fourth and three-fourths.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/318/423

    Some of the slaves stayed with the tribes and were granted membership.

    Read More
  88. @Nico
    Ancestry DNA tests are difficult to take too seriously on that level of precision. You can identify commonality and affinity of various genome markings to establish probabilities of common ancestry, and haplogroups such as the Y-chromosome and mtDNA are even better, but they are only two haplogroups. If you are of white European phenotype but have one Japanese ancestor say a dozen generations back any genetic trace of that ancestor could very possibly be bred entirely out of you. What the findings tell you about your family history depends on what you are looking for, and the more of your ancestors you can get tested the more complete a picture you will have.

    These results must be taken with a very large grain of salt, e.g.,my 23and me profile estimates that I have 25% Irish/British ancestry, with an estimated time slot of 1830-1890 for that ancestry to have entered my gene stream (much to the delight of my spouse, who actually is Irish/British). I actually have not a drop of either since the early 17th century, which is as far back as I can trace my ancestors (assuming my ancestresses were the virtuous women I am sure they were).

    Read More
  89. @Chrisnonymous

    But, still I wouldn’t be here if he hadn’t done his cushion pushin’.
     
    I think this is wrong, except in the sense of "this world is this world and not another." "Muhammed as ancestor" is a statistical artifact, and has nothing to say about the causation of your parentage and your genome that's more significant than any other historical accident.

    Uh, yes he/she is....
     
    The word "ancestor" comes from a time when people had different ideas about lineage than what we learn from Common Ancestor mathematical modeling. So the sentence "Muhammed is my ancestor" is pushing language to its breaking point. When somebody tells you, "my ancestors are from Africa," you expect him to be black, not to be referring to pre-historic migration.

    I think if you put a group of people together and informed them that a lilly-white person has a Japanese man on his family tree several generations back but no Japanese genes, and asked whether he is part-Japanese by descent, there would be a lot of disagreement. But ultimately, I think having no "blood" connection invalidates most people's ideas about ancestry.

    The word “ancestor” comes from a time when people had different ideas about lineage than what we learn from Common Ancestor mathematical modeling.

    They may have been unaware that our ancestors included nonhuman primates and ultimately single-cell eukaryotes, but I hardly see why the one has to contradict the other.

    “Muhammed is my ancestor” is pushing language to its breaking point. When somebody tells you, “my ancestors are from Africa,” you expect him to be black, not to be referring to pre-historic migration.

    Wrong. I am a white American. The fact that my interlocutor almost certainly EXPECTS the statement, “my ancestors are from Africa” to imply something beyond what I mean when I say it, doesn’t mean that my ancestors are not in fact from Africa. It DOES mean either that they are naïve ignorami, or that I am:

    1. socially inept,
    2. a mischievous little imp,
    3. of bad faith, or
    4. some combination of the above.

    The *significance* of my distant African ancestry is obviously very different from the *significance* of the more recent African ancestry of phenotypical black people. We didn’t stop speaking of ancestry in near or different terms when blending theory gave way to Mendelian genetics. I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    What will happen when there'll be enough evidence to back up the "Out-of-Asia" theory which seems more likely based on genetics than the "Out-of-Africa" gospel? And by evidence I mean bones, both in Africa and Asia.
  90. @Chrisnonymous

    But, still I wouldn’t be here if he hadn’t done his cushion pushin’.
     
    I think this is wrong, except in the sense of "this world is this world and not another." "Muhammed as ancestor" is a statistical artifact, and has nothing to say about the causation of your parentage and your genome that's more significant than any other historical accident.

    Uh, yes he/she is....
     
    The word "ancestor" comes from a time when people had different ideas about lineage than what we learn from Common Ancestor mathematical modeling. So the sentence "Muhammed is my ancestor" is pushing language to its breaking point. When somebody tells you, "my ancestors are from Africa," you expect him to be black, not to be referring to pre-historic migration.

    I think if you put a group of people together and informed them that a lilly-white person has a Japanese man on his family tree several generations back but no Japanese genes, and asked whether he is part-Japanese by descent, there would be a lot of disagreement. But ultimately, I think having no "blood" connection invalidates most people's ideas about ancestry.

    But ultimately, I think having no “blood” connection invalidates most people’s ideas about ancestry.

    To the extent that the popular imagination about “ancestry” is fueled by lingering notions of the blending theory of descent, the popular notions of ancestry are invalid to begin with and have been outdated for well over a century. At that point even speaking of “bloodlines” is nonsense: the notion that “blood carries life” breaks down at the meiotic level because blood, in the ultimate analysis, is not what transmits DNA. Hell, the most common and ubiquitously imagined blood cell – the erythrocyte – does not even contain DNA.

    Read More
  91. @Logan
    Except of course that the great cats are different species now. While they can sometimes interbreed, their offspring is seldom fertile.

    Humans, OTOH, form a single species, with all groups entirely fertile with each other.

    My point is one of evolutionary divergence in response to adaptive selection by differing environs; yours – if you’ve one ar all – is simply that the process in one case isn’t as far along as ’tis in the other.

    Boots are nothing like socks, although both protect feet, because one provides more protection. Likewise divergent evolution is illustrative of nothing unless and until interfertility is lost; thus interfertile creatures which divergently evolve are nothing like the case of creatures which diverently evolve to the point they cannot breed.

    Evolution is not quantum chemistry: Linneaus’ work was helpful; but it is artificial. Hell, I can insert genes from bacteria into tomatoes. Are these now no different from one another?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Perfectly willing to agree that human races are subspecies. Which is indeed what "race" used to mean in zoology and still does in botany.

    I also agree that taxonomy is a humanly invented science, a map which is often mistaken for the territory.
  92. @BB753
    Of course, "Arabians" are pure-blood horses while "Arabs" refers to the people belonging to the crazy, peaceful, fun-loving MENA ethnic group we all know and love.

    Mohammad, of course, was the O.S.; the original Sheik of Araby. He was smoove wit da ladeez, from seven to seventy, hence his large genetic footprint (according to his prepubescent wives, that wasn’t all that was large, know what I’m sayin’?!).

    Read More
  93. @Autochthon
    My point is one of evolutionary divergence in response to adaptive selection by differing environs; yours – if you've one ar all – is simply that the process in one case isn't as far along as 'tis in the other.

    Boots are nothing like socks, although both protect feet, because one provides more protection. Likewise divergent evolution is illustrative of nothing unless and until interfertility is lost; thus interfertile creatures which divergently evolve are nothing like the case of creatures which diverently evolve to the point they cannot breed.

    Evolution is not quantum chemistry: Linneaus' work was helpful; but it is artificial. Hell, I can insert genes from bacteria into tomatoes. Are these now no different from one another?

    Perfectly willing to agree that human races are subspecies. Which is indeed what “race” used to mean in zoology and still does in botany.

    I also agree that taxonomy is a humanly invented science, a map which is often mistaken for the territory.

    Read More
  94. @Nico

    The word “ancestor” comes from a time when people had different ideas about lineage than what we learn from Common Ancestor mathematical modeling.
     
    They may have been unaware that our ancestors included nonhuman primates and ultimately single-cell eukaryotes, but I hardly see why the one has to contradict the other.

    “Muhammed is my ancestor” is pushing language to its breaking point. When somebody tells you, “my ancestors are from Africa,” you expect him to be black, not to be referring to pre-historic migration.
     
    Wrong. I am a white American. The fact that my interlocutor almost certainly EXPECTS the statement, "my ancestors are from Africa" to imply something beyond what I mean when I say it, doesn't mean that my ancestors are not in fact from Africa. It DOES mean either that they are naïve ignorami, or that I am:

    1. socially inept,
    2. a mischievous little imp,
    3. of bad faith, or
    4. some combination of the above.

    The *significance* of my distant African ancestry is obviously very different from the *significance* of the more recent African ancestry of phenotypical black people. We didn't stop speaking of ancestry in near or different terms when blending theory gave way to Mendelian genetics. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

    What will happen when there’ll be enough evidence to back up the “Out-of-Asia” theory which seems more likely based on genetics than the “Out-of-Africa” gospel? And by evidence I mean bones, both in Africa and Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nico
    I'm guessing BLM won't stop screeching WE BUILT THIS!! before shooting it up and tearing it down.

    Beyond that, what happens? Your guess is as good as mine!
  95. @BB753
    What will happen when there'll be enough evidence to back up the "Out-of-Asia" theory which seems more likely based on genetics than the "Out-of-Africa" gospel? And by evidence I mean bones, both in Africa and Asia.

    I’m guessing BLM won’t stop screeching WE BUILT THIS!! before shooting it up and tearing it down.

    Beyond that, what happens? Your guess is as good as mine!

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @BB753
    The MSM will bury the story as long as they can get away with, unlike the publicity afforded to "mitochondrial Eve" and "Out-at-Africa". Text-books won't be amended in the medium term, quite possibly never.
  96. @Nico
    I'm guessing BLM won't stop screeching WE BUILT THIS!! before shooting it up and tearing it down.

    Beyond that, what happens? Your guess is as good as mine!

    The MSM will bury the story as long as they can get away with, unlike the publicity afforded to “mitochondrial Eve” and “Out-at-Africa”. Text-books won’t be amended in the medium term, quite possibly never.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject