They are just being obtuse. Everyone knows when you talk about an Asian, you aren't talking about some Arabian, Israeli, Indian, Russians, or whatever. Just like when you say someone is American, they are from the United States of America. Yeah, there's Canada, Mexico, all the places in South America, etc. Someone from Brazil is Brazilian, someone from the USA is American.
in genotype clustering, at the highest level, it's caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid.
Js and most middle easterners at that abstraction level are mostly caucasoid, although the moors made it so there's a fair bit of negroid blood mixed into some arab countries.
debates after that largely focus on zoom levels of haplotype clusters. for example, some classifications break out australoids, while others don't. zooming in further, caucasoids are primarily some mish mash of aryans, ottomons, saxons, semites, hamites, and then some.
where it starts to get really fucked is that science largely considers wolves, coyotes, dogs, and dingos to either be different species or subspecies of each other... and the haplotype variance is greater between the 3 major human races than it is of these 4 types of animals.
The most modern genetic clustering research seems to break out australoids (Australian aborigines and Papua New Guineans) into their own group as well as whatever you call the group of native Americans/first nations/etc.
But interestingly, sub Saharan Africans are more distinct from all other human populations than all of the other populations are from each other.
yeah, sub saharan africans expose the coyote problem the most. if coyotes are a different species, sub saharan africans are certainly a different species. the genotyping is nuts... we're talking 70x greater distance in genes of sub saharan africans to other homo sapiens vs coyotes to wolves.
They are just being obtuse. Everyone knows when you talk about an Asian, you aren't talking about some Arabian, Israeli, Indian, Russians, or whatever. Just like when you say someone is American, they are from the United States of America. Yeah, there's Canada, Mexico, all the places in South America, etc. Someone from Brazil is Brazilian, someone from the USA is American.
in genotype clustering, at the highest level, it's caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid.
Js and most middle easterners at that abstraction level are mostly caucasoid, although the moors made it so there's a fair bit of negroid blood mixed into some arab countries.
debates after that largely focus on zoom levels of haplotype clusters. for example, some classifications break out australoids, while others don't. zooming in further, caucasoids are primarily some mish mash of aryans, ottomons, saxons, semites, hamites, and then some.
where it starts to get really fucked is that science largely considers wolves, coyotes, dogs, and dingos to either be different species or subspecies of each other... and the haplotype variance is greater between the 3 major human races than it is of these 4 types of animals.
The most modern genetic clustering research seems to break out australoids (Australian aborigines and Papua New Guineans) into their own group as well as whatever you call the group of native Americans/first nations/etc.
But interestingly, sub Saharan Africans are more distinct from all other human populations than all of the other populations are from each other.
yeah, sub saharan africans expose the coyote problem the most. if coyotes are a different species, sub saharan africans are certainly a different species. the genotyping is nuts... we're talking 70x greater distance in genes of sub saharan africans to other homo sapiens vs coyotes to wolves.
Out of curiosity, would you happen to know the genetic distance of Neanderthals and Denisovans? Why did they get the separate species treatment?