How has "the humans are all one race" narrative held up now that we have discovered different levels of archaic human DNA in different modern population groups?

submitted by JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist from self.debatealtright

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]AltBaseGuy 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The idea that human races don't exist has never held up to serious scrutiny. Ed Dutton just posted a good article at Unz about this. The fact that different human populations differ in archaic human ancestry is just treated as a curiosity by the leftist academic and media establishment. You don't have to be consistent when you're the one controlling the narrative

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

We are only going to keep finding more of this too as time goes on.

[–]sylla94 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

do you think it matters? there is already overwhelming evidence of human biodiversity and yet it is buried and suppressed under all the of the brainwashing and programming. I don't think more genetic evidence is ever going to change peoples minds; they are going to require a lot of first hand experience in regards to the glorious nature of diversity before that ever happens

hearts first, minds later

[–]GConly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

there is already overwhelming evidence of human biodiversity and yet it is buried and suppressed

It's worse than that.

Pressure has been put on anthropology departments for decades to tow the line on 'no such thing as race'. I've seen facts distorted for decades on TV and in print by academics.

Such as:

Constantly cutting down the length of time since the out of Africa event. It was around 125k ago. Even though aborigines entered Australia 50k ago, I'm still seeing a 40k date from some people.

Pretending brain size has nothing to to with intelligence in modern humans then squirming like bitches when discussing human intelligence in evolution (that got me into trouble).

Pretending Cheddar Man had black skin, by using a piece of software everyone knows depends on modern skin whitening genes to tell shades apart. This software predicts some SE Asian and native Americans have the darkest skin on the planet. We know it doesn't work, it shouldn't have been used. Better software shows he has an intermediate skin tone (like a native American or Arab) plus genes for red hair blue eyes etc. He would have looked like a white guy with a heavy tan. Think of an Italian in summer.

Massive denial of the genetic component to human behaviour and intelligence. ISYN, I have seen multiple attempts at claiming 'heritable' doesn't mean genetic, even when papers are discussing specific genes and how they affect behaviour. For example the 2 repeat allele of the MAOA gene and it's effect on violent offending, or the MCPH1 gene and intelligence. Both know to vary by frequency with ancestry.

There was something called 'the long March' back in the seventies where Marxist students were encouraged to embed into politics, media and academia to control the narrative. This is the result.

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Pretending brain size has nothing to to with intelligence in modern humans then squirming like bitches when discussing human intelligence in evolution (that got me into trouble).

Recent thread I came across on that with sex differences.

https://twitter.com/RokoMijicUK/status/1337710640908148737

More zoomed in differences by region

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6041980/figure/bhy109F1/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6041980/table/bhy109TB1/?report=objectonly

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/12/9/998/383221

assive denial of the genetic component to human behaviour and intelligence. ISYN, I have seen multiple attempts at claiming 'heritable' doesn't mean genetic, even when papers are discussing specific genes and how they affect behaviour. For example the 2 repeat allele of the MAOA gene and it's effect on violent offending, or the MCPH1 gene and intelligence. Both know to vary by frequency with ancestry.

The funny thing with the nature vs. nurture argument is that part of the nurture argument is nature because peoples behavior which is biologically influenced determines, at least in part, how they choose to raise children or how they choose to alter their environment. We see our very nature impressed upon everything we come in contact with.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just a comment on the sex difference in brain size.

It's called 'the encephalisation quotient', aka EQ.

It absolutely vanishes once you take into account body size and fat mass. I could probably dig out my calculations from a few years ago for it, but a simplified version is:

The bigger the person, the bigger the brain is. That's the source of most of the sex difference in size.

The EQ calculation runs into problems once you look at people carrying different amounts of body fat. You can gain fifty pounds and have the same IQ, but your EQ falls dramatically. Someone seriously obese has the same EQ as a chimp. With animals it was shown that the EQ calculation works better when it's adjusted for fat. So fat doesn't take up brain space, it needs no neurons to control it. It's like including clothing in the EQ calculation.

Adjust the human EQ calculation to account for the extra female body fat and male height and the difference is nil.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting, nice find. Never heard that term before. Thank you.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As genome sequencing becomes more common and performed in conjunction with other techniques (fMRI, sMRI, longitudinal studies, etc.), there will be more information available than ever before. It will dwarf previous works. Once you have a large enough sample size, the analysis of more and more groups is possible. As the instruments become more finer in their measurements, they more pronounced the differences in measurement will become.

hearts first, minds later

No reason to not encourage both.

[–]sylla94 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I do think you need both but one seems to very often follow the other in most people.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

The amount of archaic human DNA is too small. Like 2% for whites. If someone has a credible source stating blacks have a significant mystery archaic human DNA I'd love to see it.

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You're wrongly assuming that all genetic variations have an equal effect, and that quantity matters more than quality. Having a higher prevalence of a maladaptive genetic variation in a population will never get you the benefits of the variant that has a positive effect. Thousands of studies into looking into associations with genetic variations disagree with you. They're not perfect but they do exist.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Okay, so if we're looking at African-American blacks they have less or about the same archaic human DNA in them as whites, being they originated from the Mandenka of West Africa:

Extensive simulation results reject the null model of no admixture and allow us to infer that contemporary African populations contain a small proportion of genetic material (≈2%)

The evidence for archaic admixture is extremely strong in the Biaka and the San (P < 10−4) but not in the Mandenka (P > 0.05).

However, there is roughly the 2% archaic human in other African populations such as the San people. But African-Americans are the important ones we're looking at. So the only real difference if we're going to get a quantitative measure in the genome is the 2% Neanderthal whites hold.

https://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123

Neanderthals didn't have higher quality genes than humans for intelligence. They did not have the social intelligence, or verbal intelligence to form large groups like humans. This is one of the reasons they were out-competed and went extinct. From what I've seen, the relevant genes we've kept and selected for from Neanderthals in that 2% is mainly for the immune system.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Okay.

This book is an interesting but speculative look at a theory about Neanderthal predation driving human evolution. Well-sourced and very interesting.

https://www.amazon.ca/Them-Us-Neanderthal-predation-created-ebook/dp/B006QE9X8E/

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So... Neanderthals had a relative brain size (EQ) slightly below modern human average, but it was still within the range of modern humans. So, not as big as a modern European, similar to African.

The other statements you've made about their intelligence AFAIK, and I spent several years looking at human brain evolution, have no solid supporting evidence. It's based on a cast of the brain case, and that's not reliable data.

Modern humans didn't manage to displace Neanderthals for about 80k years. We started the make inroads into their territory about 40k ago. This was probably enabled by a slightly wider diet, and quite possibly hunting dogs. Yes, we may have had dogs helping us as long as 30k ago. Anything that allows a group to maintain greater population density than its neighbours will end up displacing the neighbors, because it gives a combat advantage.

A lot of modern gene variants for intelligence have been under very recent selective pressure. So greater intelligence might not have been the big difference. Their genetics and biology suggest they spoke like we do. I've got a paper around somewhere that shows genes associated with educational ability have been under strong selective pressure since the paleolithic.

There's also plenty of evidence they got involved in art and adornment.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The other statements you've made about their intelligence AFAIK, and I spent several years looking at human brain evolution, have no solid supporting evidence. It's based on a cast of the brain case, and that's not reliable data.

Support for my claim about their social intelligence:

Generally small and widely-dispersed fossil sites suggest that Neanderthals lived in less numerous and socially more isolated groups than contemporary Homo sapiens.

Their inferior social intelligence is based on this. Essentially homo sapiens formed much larger groups, which is another reason they were disadvantaged compared to us. Being able to form larger groups is typically an indicator of superior social and perhaps verbal cognitive abilities.

There is an assumption that cognitive abilities must be able to interpret the complex information of group living (including information resulting from social relationships).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction#Species_specific_disadvantages

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600607/

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/primate-sociality-and-social-systems-58068905/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_sociality#Emergence_of_group_living

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

About the larger social groups.

As I said, modern humans exploited a wider range of foods and had probably had hunting dogs to assist, it allowed them to live in tribes with larger numbers. Even without an advantage in social ability they'd still have overrun the Neanderthals because of population density.

Your link

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600607/

Doesn't go into the fact modern humans ate somewhat more plant matter. It's also took immediately the amh about 15k years to fully displace Neanderthals after their first entry to Europe. That's a war of attrition with a slight advantage, not a new super evolved group wiping out the old via a massive advantage.

Your other links about them living in smaller groups are also relevant to the fact they were effectively top predators with a limited diet, and that always means small population size in a group. The local food source just won't support more people. They had livers bigger than ours to allow them to survive eating more protein. They ate about 80% flesh. Amh ate about 70%, and they also had arrow technology and spear throwers. With just those advantages you'd see the old group displaced.

It's not an indication of better group social skills leading to an extinction, although that would be a follow on effect of living in a larger group.

When you see modern humans overrun other groups it's almost always because they've got some advance in food source leading to greater population density (numerical advantage) or they've gained some new tech that gives them a major military advantage. How the Neolithic people displaced the Mesolithic is a prime example. From Turkey to the UK only took 4k years.

Don't put in beginners Wikipedia links for me. I've got a degree in bio anth and I was pretty focused on brain development, which necessitated some study into Neanderthals.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not an indication of better group social skills leading to an extinction, although that would be a follow on effect of living in a larger group.

The other statements you've made about their intelligence AFAIK, and I spent several years looking at human brain evolution, have no solid supporting evidence.

Okay, were humans living in larger groups long enough to achieve this follow on effect, before Neanderthals went extinct? If so, it's safe to say we had superior social skills during the time we co-existed. I had read that it would've been easy for human tribes to take out Neanderthals simply through numbers.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hammer et Al found a pseudo gene on on the pygmy X chromosome that's from an African only archaic ghost population.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Extensive simulation results reject the null model of no admixture and allow us to infer that contemporary African populations contain a small proportion of genetic material (≈2%)

Alright, so looks to be the same amount of archaic human DNA in San and Biaka people as whites. However, not in West Africans Mandenka where the vast majority of US slaves come from. They seem to have more Homo Sapien DNA than Whites and Asians and very little to no archaic human DNA.

The evidence for archaic admixture is extremely strong in the Biaka and the San (P < 10−4) but not in the Mandenka (P > 0.05).

https://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Colour me impressed.

You are literally the first person I've encountered on the internet who chased up a paper like that.

But yes, archaic ancestry has been found in West Africans.

Recovering signals of ghost archaic introgression in African populations

We provide complementary lines of evidence for archaic introgression into four West African populations. Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans

we built genome-wide maps of archaic ancestry in the Yoruba and the Mende populations. Analyses of these maps reveal segments of archaic ancestry at high frequency in these populations

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]SoylentCapitalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Up to 21% of the dna of west africans

    This says otherwise:

    The evidence for archaic admixture is extremely strong in the Biaka and the San (P < 10−4) but not in the Mandenka (P > 0.05).

    https://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123

    Seems like a credible study. I did a google search for your claim and these studies came up:

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaax5097

    https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/805237120/ghost-dna-in-west-africans-complicates-story-of-human-origins

    The first one only states it's between 2% to 19% archaic human DNA in West Africans. Where are you getting 21% from though? It makes more sense that it might be around the lower end of 2% as it wouldn't contradict the first study.

    [–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Why did this ever have any weight? How is that black woman. Who played precious equal to Princess Grace Kelly or Gillian Anderson?