Lewontin's Fallacy In depth
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.698&rep=rep1&type=pdf
So Lewontin claim there was more variance within races at a given gene than between races. The fallacy was that genes co-vary with each other which creates distinct genetic patterns that roughly coincide with the old continental conceptions of race.
In the statistical example above, Edwards shows that with two groups, one with .3 chance of having a gene, one with .7 chance of having a gene, 84% of total variation is explained by within population variation.
Putting aside the covariance argument, the loci by loci comparison isn't really even persuasive to me. One population has a 70% chance to have red eyes, one has 30%. Yes there is a lot of overlap but red eyes would be associated with the 70% group. Doesn't really disprove the idea of racial groups imo.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.698&rep=rep1&type=pdf
So Lewontin claim there was more variance within races at a given gene than between races. The fallacy was that genes co-vary with each other which creates distinct genetic patterns that roughly coincide with the old continental conceptions of race.
In the statistical example above, Edwards shows that with two groups, one with .3 chance of having a gene, one with .7 chance of having a gene, 84% of total variation is explained by within population variation.
Putting aside the covariance argument, the loci by loci comparison isn't really even persuasive to me. One population has a 70% chance to have red eyes, one has 30%. Yes there is a lot of overlap but red eyes would be associated with the 70% group. Doesn't really disprove the idea of racial groups imo.
