>>12667841>(1) Where we draw lines and clustering thresholds between different populations is arbitrary, and changes over time.Where we draw the subspecies line in canines is also arbitrary, but we don't call it a social construct to delineate wolves from coyotes.
(2) While there are differences in the population means from different continents, the in-group variance is much more than between-group variance when it comes to genetic information.
I'm familiar with the study (or studies) you reference, and I really wish leftists would shut the fuck about that. All it does is actually prove them wrong. Consider, for example, this commonly cited study
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/>The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same populationWhoa, bro, that's super deep, bro. Unfortunately for the authors, and the idiots who peddle this work, they are blind to how the authors say "can". Let's dig into the text a bit.
>Let ? be the probability that a pair of individuals randomly chosen from different populations is genetically more similar than an independent pair chosen from any single population. . . . The expected value of equation M2 ranges from 0 to 0.5 (regardless of the number of populations). At equation M3 = 0, individuals are always more similar to members of their own population than to members of other populations; at equation M4 = 0.5, individuals are as likely to be more similar to members of other populations as to members of their own.Notice, however that omega and Loci are correlated, see pic related. What this means is that when you take a more complete picture of whatever genes may impact the brain, you arrive at the conclusion that an individual "x" taken from population X would be maximally dissimilar from an individual "y" taken from population Y.
