>>12743217>The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.So now many loci are enough to draw this conclusion? As I argued in comment above, several hundred loci. Let's use an analogy to make this more clear.
Genetic variations between men and women is well accepted. Let me restrict my focus to only a few genes, say, those that let you grow beards. Then if I take any two random men, there's going to be variation in beard length. If I take a random woman and a random man, then X% of the time, the selected man (unbearded) will be more similar to women (unbearded) than the selected man (bearded). That's basically what the paper argues here,
>in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the timeYeah, no shit. When you discard most of someone's genetic information, you'll find superficial similarities between any two groups.
Every single time I bring this up to the "there is no race!" crowd, the only responses I get are essentially
>Hmm interesting>I'll look into it>*crickets*Even your star studies are self defeating as they themselves prove racial groups exist via genetically different loci corresponding to distinct geographic locations.
