Yes. I’m aware. I’m also aware of how narrow a single PCA delineation (even a three dimensional one) might necessarily be. HOWEVER, it is a representative subset of the totality of genetic distance between chosen groups.
I agree
Definitions definitionally are not subjective.
There doesn’t seem to be a consensus definition for species. One common definition is a group in which members are capable to produce fertile offspring, in which case niggers would be included in homo sapien as well as neanderthals and denisovans and maybe even heidelbergensis or more primitive erectus like “african ghost population”. But thats probably a shitty rubric. And its not used consistently by the biological establishment.
Absolute genetic distance is probably not a good rubric by itself because some species (reproductive populations) are genetically highly diverse.
Turns out, whoops, all Europeans are species-level distinct from Asians, Africans, abbos, and Indios. What a single image shows is irrelevant to the factuality of this. In fact, each of the five species of humanity has roughly the same genetic distance from the others.
By what metric? If I compare the Saami or the Chuvash (caucasians) to the Khanty or the Uighurs (asians), will there be “species level distinction” (whatever that is)? Will the Fst be affected? Of course it will. Youll get the same kind of problem by sampling Ethiopians as a proxy for all SS blacks. By only measuring britons you are maximizing your sampling error.
Then you’re Nordic or Russian. Thereby proving that you’re not the same species as niggers either, while being the same species as Britons. What the fuck is your point. You’re not refuting anything in the screeenshot.
No. By only sampling my family I (artificially) minimize genetic diversity of europeans which (artificially) inflates the distance between Europeans and other groups. Ive explained this 7 different ways. I can’t believe you still don’t comprehend.
You obviously understand that there are several genetic clusters on the PCA, and you know that as we add dimensions to PCA , additional clusters will appear. But I don’t hear a quantifiable definition anywhere. OP was trying to prove quantifiably that niggers are a separate species with Fst. But Fst can be manipulated to show all kinds of values because its not absolute genetic distance. You keep pointing to the picture and saying “Cmon already, dont you get a species feeling?” Thats not quantitative. You haven’t refuted my core argument. Do you really not understand it? I don’t know.
OP (and you) want to play the quantification game (him with Fst, you with PCA). Fine. Im telling you where you are falling down, quantitatively. Don’t kill the messenger.
PostWallHelena 0 points 5 hours ago
I agree
There doesn’t seem to be a consensus definition for species. One common definition is a group in which members are capable to produce fertile offspring, in which case niggers would be included in homo sapien as well as neanderthals and denisovans and maybe even heidelbergensis or more primitive erectus like “african ghost population”. But thats probably a shitty rubric. And its not used consistently by the biological establishment.
Absolute genetic distance is probably not a good rubric by itself because some species (reproductive populations) are genetically highly diverse.
By what metric? If I compare the Saami or the Chuvash (caucasians) to the Khanty or the Uighurs (asians), will there be “species level distinction” (whatever that is)? Will the Fst be affected? Of course it will. Youll get the same kind of problem by sampling Ethiopians as a proxy for all SS blacks. By only measuring britons you are maximizing your sampling error.
No. By only sampling my family I (artificially) minimize genetic diversity of europeans which (artificially) inflates the distance between Europeans and other groups. Ive explained this 7 different ways. I can’t believe you still don’t comprehend.
You obviously understand that there are several genetic clusters on the PCA, and you know that as we add dimensions to PCA , additional clusters will appear. But I don’t hear a quantifiable definition anywhere. OP was trying to prove quantifiably that niggers are a separate species with Fst. But Fst can be manipulated to show all kinds of values because its not absolute genetic distance. You keep pointing to the picture and saying “Cmon already, dont you get a species feeling?” Thats not quantitative. You haven’t refuted my core argument. Do you really not understand it? I don’t know.
OP (and you) want to play the quantification game (him with Fst, you with PCA). Fine. Im telling you where you are falling down, quantitatively. Don’t kill the messenger.