Michael Eisen [called for a retraction] warning that it “features a scientifically invalid representation of genetic diversity and race that is going to feature in racist literature for decades.”

Not incorrect. Invalid, by which they mean it doesn't validate their beliefs.

The graph in the paper is actually amazing in showing that white Europeans, the orange group, have the most genetic variety by far and Asians, the red groups on the right, the least. This totally jibes with things like hair and eye color, faces, height, etc.

The gray in the lower right is colored Hispanic/Latino in the paper (American Indian wasn't a race option), and you can see how it has connections to white Europeans and east Asians, which makes sense from the land bridge going away they'd evolve separately from east Asians and conquistadors and such adding European connection. The long squiggle lower left probably from Africa never getting civilization, so lots of distinct tribes that get some mating from a few that go on journeys and join other tribes, but most generally staying put in one area.

For me the only surprise is that Indians/Pakis/etc (the upper red group) have very little genetic diversity. I would have expected more.

edit: the paper used a slightly different shade of cyan for Hispanic ethnicity and American, both gray areas are definitely Hispanic.

Michael Eisen [called for a retraction] warning that it “features a scientifically invalid representation of genetic diversity and race that is going to feature in racist literature for decades.”

Not incorrect. Invalid, by which they mean it doesn't validate their beliefs.

The graph in the paper is actually amazing in showing that white Europeans, the orange group, have the most genetic variety by far and Asians, the red groups on the right, the least. This totally jibes with things like hair and eye color, faces, height, etc.

The gray in the lower right is colored as "American" in the paper and is clearly Hispanic (American Indian wasn't a race option), and you can see how it has connections to white Europeans and east Asians, which makes sense from the land bridge going away they'd evolve separately from east Asians and conquistadors and such adding European connection. The long squiggle lower left probably from Africa never getting civilization, so lots of distinct tribes that get some mating from a few that go on journeys and join other tribes, but most generally staying put in one area.

For me the only surprise is that Indians/Pakis/etc (the upper red group) have very little genetic diversity. I would have expected more.

Michael Eisen [called for a retraction] warning that it “features a scientifically invalid representation of genetic diversity and race that is going to feature in racist literature for decades.”

Not incorrect. Invalid, by which they mean it doesn't validate their beliefs.

The graph in the paper is actually amazing in showing that white Europeans, the orange group, have the most genetic variety by far and Asians, the red groups on the right, the least. This totally jibes with things like hair and eye color, faces, height, etc.

The gray in the lower right is colored as "America" in the paper and is clearly Hispanic (American Indian wasn't a race option), and you can see how it has connections to white Europeans and east Asians, which makes sense from the land bridge going away they'd evolve separately from east Asians and conquistadors and such adding European connection. The long squiggle lower left probably from Africa never getting civilization, so lots of distinct tribes that get some mating from a few that go on journeys and join other tribes, but most generally staying put in one area.

For me the only surprise is that Indians/Pakis/etc (the upper red group) have very little genetic diversity. I would have expected more.

Michael Eisen [called for a retraction] warning that it “features a scientifically invalid representation of genetic diversity and race that is going to feature in racist literature for decades.”

Not incorrect. Invalid, by which they mean it doesn't validate their beliefs.

The graph in the paper is actually amazing in showing that white Europeans, the orange group, have the most genetic variety by far and Asians, the red groups on the right, the least. This totally jibes with things like hair and eye color, faces, height, etc.

The gray (only identified as American) in the lower right is clearly American + Hispanic and you can see how it has connections to white Europeans and east Asians (the higher up red group is south Asians), which makes sense from the land bridge going away they'd evolve separately from east Asians and conquistadors and such adding European connection. The long squiggle lower left probably from Africa never getting civilization, so lots of distinct tribes that get some mating from a few that go on journeys and join other tribes, but most generally staying put in one area.

For me the only surprise is that Indians/Pakis/etc (the upper red group) have very little genetic diversity. I would have expected more.