>>9423257>>9423260>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787 Single author study, makes a lot of claims in his abstract but I'm not paying $35 to see if he substantiates them
>http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050254Wrong link? Their study is on the diploid genome of a single individual, showing that duplicate chromosomes are not exactly identical
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/Literal first line is that 85-90% of genetic variation occurs within subgroups, but yes, geographic origin can be determined with good accuracy as long as one considers enough loci. However, the populations chosen were from deep within their respective continents, and it shouldn't be assumed that those represent some set of archetypes into which populations between then can be assigned with confidence rather than individual points on a long, branching spectrum of ethnic groups.
Furthermore, let us cut to the chase - to extrapolate from this is to construct the usual motte and bailey argument. Unable to defend the motte argument - "Niggers are inferior" - /pol/ must fall back to its bailey - "There are genetic differences between humans". Yes, there obviously are, and obviously the longer two populations have been separated the greater the difference, but what exactly those differences have in no way been meaningfully qualified and the idea that intelligence, humanity's singular advantage against the natural world, would be decreased or selected against in the particular circumstances that your least favourite ethnic group developed in is the beginning of the special pleading and 'just-so' stories accompanying all such race-IQ debates. It also immediately discounts the nuance that genetic differences in population form a smooth if slightly granular transition across geographic regions, rather than just being individual monoliths.
