"I don’t blame Hillary Clinton for drawing the wrong conclusion from the 99.9% estimate, but I’m less forgiving toward those who have silently gone along with this fallacy while knowing better."
Since Clinton was way over her head on this subject, she should have abstained from comment. But she has never been constrained from speaking about subjects she is ignorant of.
Peter, thanks for the in-depth explanation of the DNA differences in human populations. I was aware of the basics of human population differences, but not to the extent of your piece. It is important to disseminate this information far and wide.
Thank you for the correct view of genetic differences. When viewed through the new evolutionary synthesis and systems biology, things look different-as well as for the lack of understanding of downstream effects of CRIPR genetic selection - not to mention the importance of epigenetics. Crude ‘selfish gene’ genetic understanding grossly simplifies how genetics works.
The authors' definition of Fst is quite different from the current one. In particular, their "generalized Fst measures the genetic drift of individuals from the MRCA population" (MRCA = most recent common ancestor).
I agree that humans are unusually diverse, given the short length of time since their common ancestor. But is it legitimate to include that factor in the calculation of Fst? Why not say: "Fst ignores the rate of genetic differentiation over time. So we've constructed a new measure that controls for the length of time since the common ancestor."
The authors also make no mention of natural selection, only genetic drift.
An easier concept for people to understand is genetic compatibility in bone marrow transplants. If a White person needs bone marrow, they will likely find a compatible match in another White person. All the talk of genetic similarity among human races go straight out the window in this discussion.
And for even more uncomfortable discussions. If people of mixed ancestry like the children of White/Asian couples (Mark Zuckerberg/Priscilla Chan), need bone marrow transplant, they are kind of screwed. They can only find a compatible donor amongst other people Wasian descent. This is why bone marrow donors are often have to come from family members.
The NY times once published a heretical article about needing "black blood". Yes, blood is not the same for the different races. This is a very rare instance of the NYT writing that there are very consequential genetic differences among races. This is the article.
Thanks so much for this. I just tried counting letters in the annual report of the Cairngorms National Park and the same volume of text in The Dubliners, the book by that cheery old James Joyce. Very largely the same. I know this is a rather poor analogy but the letter counts are very similar. One of these was by a Nobel Prize winning author. The other is not.
Of course I'm just an amateur, but I like to think in terms of lego blocks. All kinds of shapes can be constructed with a single set of lego blocks. Similarly, as a single set of genes can lead to all kinds of different shapes depending on how they are expressed.
The original source goes back to half-a-century ago:
King, M-C. & Wilson, A.C. (1975). Evolution at two levels in humans and chimpanzees: Their macromolecules are so alike that regulatory mutations may account for their biological differences. Science, 188, 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090005
Peter, you might believe your piece uncovers some overlooked truths about human genetic differences, but it selectively exaggerates nuances and downplays the overwhelming evidence of our shared genetic similarity to push the pseudo scientific race realism
Here's why your main claims are pseudo scientific nonsense based on mainstream genetics.
1. You claim the 99.9% similarity figure misleads because it focuses on single nucleotides and ignores structural variants
You're correct that the classic ~99.9% figure primarily addressed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and structural variants (insertions, deletions, copy-number variants) involve more differing bases. However, even accounting for them, any two human genomes remain ~99.5–99.9% identical. The 1000 Genomes Project (2015) showed that while structural variants affect ~20 million bases per genome, >99.9% of variant sites are SNPs or short indels, and overall similarity stays extremely high. Mainstream sources like the National Human Genome Research Institute and recent reviews continue using "~99.9% identical"
2. You use the human-chimp analogy to suggest small human differences could yield major population gaps
The analogy draws from King & Wilson (1975), noting regulatory changes amplify effects despite ~98–99% nucleotide similarity. But it doesnt apply here: human-chimp divergence accumulated over millions of years (~4–5% total divergence including indels), while human populations separated only tens of thousands of years ago, with continued gene flow. Your population differences are modest and largely adaptive (e.g., pigmentation, lactose tolerance), not producing the vast anatomical or behavioral divides seen between species.
3. You cite Hawks et al. (2007) for recent acceleration, implying much of the genome changed population-specifically
Acceleration is real, Hawks and colleagues documented more adaptive changes in the last ~40,000 years due to population growth and new environments. But the "7%" refers to regions showing selection signals (e.g., extended haplotypes), not that 7% of nucleotides diverged population-specifically. Many selected alleles are shared or convergent across groups, and the overall effect is modest. Hawks et al. attribute this primarily to demography, not deep population divides.
4. You argue high within-population variation (~85–90%) doesn't negate significant between-group differences, invoking "Lewontin's fallacy"
Lewontin's 1972 apportionment,~85% variation within populations, ~10–15% between major groups, has been repeatedly confirmed. Edwards (2003) noted correlations enable clustering into ancestral groups, but this doesn't support discrete biological races. Human variation is predominantly clinal (gradual geographic gradients), not sharply bounded. Consensus bodies, like the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (2019 statement), affirm that human "races" lack taxonomic validity, no discrete, homogeneous-within/heterogeneous-between lineages exist.
Peter, you're genetically ~99.9% identical to every other human on Earth, with small, mostly continuous population differences from recent adaptations—not profound biological races.
"If consciousness were a gift, it would enhance so-called survival. But it doesn’t."
It does enhance survival. Look, our mind cannot process the entire universe, so it has to be selective in what it takes in. That, in itself, tells you that its purpose is survival, and not philosophy or discovery of the meaning of life.
We have a survival advantage over other animals because we can create models of reality in our brains. By altering the parameters of those models, we can determine which course of action is best.
So "thoughts" are not byproducts of the survival mechanism. They are an aspect of the survival mechanism. We deviate from the goal of survival when we tinker with models of reality to resolve philosophical questions, e.g., the meaning of life. But our ability to create mental models began as an evolutionary adaptation.
Still making the separation it seems. Alteration hallucinations doesn’t mean you’re surviving. Just means you think you’re surviving until you get abruptly interrupted
"I don’t blame Hillary Clinton for drawing the wrong conclusion from the 99.9% estimate, but I’m less forgiving toward those who have silently gone along with this fallacy while knowing better."
Since Clinton was way over her head on this subject, she should have abstained from comment. But she has never been constrained from speaking about subjects she is ignorant of.
Peter, thanks for the in-depth explanation of the DNA differences in human populations. I was aware of the basics of human population differences, but not to the extent of your piece. It is important to disseminate this information far and wide.
It would also be good to make it readable for a non-specialist public.
I'm always open to suggestions.
Thank you for the correct view of genetic differences. When viewed through the new evolutionary synthesis and systems biology, things look different-as well as for the lack of understanding of downstream effects of CRIPR genetic selection - not to mention the importance of epigenetics. Crude ‘selfish gene’ genetic understanding grossly simplifies how genetics works.
I think this paper would be of interest.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/653279v1.full.pdf
The authors' definition of Fst is quite different from the current one. In particular, their "generalized Fst measures the genetic drift of individuals from the MRCA population" (MRCA = most recent common ancestor).
I agree that humans are unusually diverse, given the short length of time since their common ancestor. But is it legitimate to include that factor in the calculation of Fst? Why not say: "Fst ignores the rate of genetic differentiation over time. So we've constructed a new measure that controls for the length of time since the common ancestor."
The authors also make no mention of natural selection, only genetic drift.
An easier concept for people to understand is genetic compatibility in bone marrow transplants. If a White person needs bone marrow, they will likely find a compatible match in another White person. All the talk of genetic similarity among human races go straight out the window in this discussion.
And for even more uncomfortable discussions. If people of mixed ancestry like the children of White/Asian couples (Mark Zuckerberg/Priscilla Chan), need bone marrow transplant, they are kind of screwed. They can only find a compatible donor amongst other people Wasian descent. This is why bone marrow donors are often have to come from family members.
The NY times once published a heretical article about needing "black blood". Yes, blood is not the same for the different races. This is a very rare instance of the NYT writing that there are very consequential genetic differences among races. This is the article.
https://archive.ph/DE4cL
Thanks so much for this. I just tried counting letters in the annual report of the Cairngorms National Park and the same volume of text in The Dubliners, the book by that cheery old James Joyce. Very largely the same. I know this is a rather poor analogy but the letter counts are very similar. One of these was by a Nobel Prize winning author. The other is not.
Of course I'm just an amateur, but I like to think in terms of lego blocks. All kinds of shapes can be constructed with a single set of lego blocks. Similarly, as a single set of genes can lead to all kinds of different shapes depending on how they are expressed.
Relatedly, have you heard anything about this new book The Arrogant Ape: The Myth of Human Exceptionalism and Why It Matters by Christine Webb? It is getting a lot of buzz right now: https://www.amazon.com/Arrogant-Ape-Human-Exceptionalism-Matters/dp/0593543130/
DNA - that's just the hardware. The software and inputs that run on similar human bodies leads to very different outputs.
This looks like an original source for the claim.
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/fact-sheets/human-genomic-variation.
The original source goes back to half-a-century ago:
King, M-C. & Wilson, A.C. (1975). Evolution at two levels in humans and chimpanzees: Their macromolecules are so alike that regulatory mutations may account for their biological differences. Science, 188, 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090005
Peter, you might believe your piece uncovers some overlooked truths about human genetic differences, but it selectively exaggerates nuances and downplays the overwhelming evidence of our shared genetic similarity to push the pseudo scientific race realism
Here's why your main claims are pseudo scientific nonsense based on mainstream genetics.
1. You claim the 99.9% similarity figure misleads because it focuses on single nucleotides and ignores structural variants
You're correct that the classic ~99.9% figure primarily addressed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and structural variants (insertions, deletions, copy-number variants) involve more differing bases. However, even accounting for them, any two human genomes remain ~99.5–99.9% identical. The 1000 Genomes Project (2015) showed that while structural variants affect ~20 million bases per genome, >99.9% of variant sites are SNPs or short indels, and overall similarity stays extremely high. Mainstream sources like the National Human Genome Research Institute and recent reviews continue using "~99.9% identical"
2. You use the human-chimp analogy to suggest small human differences could yield major population gaps
The analogy draws from King & Wilson (1975), noting regulatory changes amplify effects despite ~98–99% nucleotide similarity. But it doesnt apply here: human-chimp divergence accumulated over millions of years (~4–5% total divergence including indels), while human populations separated only tens of thousands of years ago, with continued gene flow. Your population differences are modest and largely adaptive (e.g., pigmentation, lactose tolerance), not producing the vast anatomical or behavioral divides seen between species.
3. You cite Hawks et al. (2007) for recent acceleration, implying much of the genome changed population-specifically
Acceleration is real, Hawks and colleagues documented more adaptive changes in the last ~40,000 years due to population growth and new environments. But the "7%" refers to regions showing selection signals (e.g., extended haplotypes), not that 7% of nucleotides diverged population-specifically. Many selected alleles are shared or convergent across groups, and the overall effect is modest. Hawks et al. attribute this primarily to demography, not deep population divides.
4. You argue high within-population variation (~85–90%) doesn't negate significant between-group differences, invoking "Lewontin's fallacy"
Lewontin's 1972 apportionment,~85% variation within populations, ~10–15% between major groups, has been repeatedly confirmed. Edwards (2003) noted correlations enable clustering into ancestral groups, but this doesn't support discrete biological races. Human variation is predominantly clinal (gradual geographic gradients), not sharply bounded. Consensus bodies, like the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (2019 statement), affirm that human "races" lack taxonomic validity, no discrete, homogeneous-within/heterogeneous-between lineages exist.
Peter, you're genetically ~99.9% identical to every other human on Earth, with small, mostly continuous population differences from recent adaptations—not profound biological races.
monkey
Nobody dares to read this! Are you one of them?
https://thegonersclub.substack.com/p/consciousness-is-a-trick-of-meat
I read it. I wasn't impressed.
"If consciousness were a gift, it would enhance so-called survival. But it doesn’t."
It does enhance survival. Look, our mind cannot process the entire universe, so it has to be selective in what it takes in. That, in itself, tells you that its purpose is survival, and not philosophy or discovery of the meaning of life.
Not it doesn't. You're totally confused. Thoughts are byproducts of survival mechanisms. Thoughts are NOT the survival mechanism itself.
https://thegonersclub.substack.com/p/no-observer-no-author-no-exception
We have a survival advantage over other animals because we can create models of reality in our brains. By altering the parameters of those models, we can determine which course of action is best.
So "thoughts" are not byproducts of the survival mechanism. They are an aspect of the survival mechanism. We deviate from the goal of survival when we tinker with models of reality to resolve philosophical questions, e.g., the meaning of life. But our ability to create mental models began as an evolutionary adaptation.
BS. Life functions better without this constant interloping interference.
Every species that lacks it is more stable, more direct, more aligned with reality.
Humans survive DESPITE consciousness, not because of it.
Civilization is just the prosthetic required to keep the malfunction running.
Yes, we could survive without consciousness. Better? I can't say. "Better" is a value judgment.
One thing is sure. Our lives would be nasty, brutish, and short.
If mental modeling were a clean survival advantage, it wouldn’t routinely incapacitate the species that relies on it.
https://thegonersclub.substack.com/p/demons-souls-self-models-and-hope
Still making the separation it seems. Alteration hallucinations doesn’t mean you’re surviving. Just means you think you’re surviving until you get abruptly interrupted