Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Human genetic variation by Agahnim Human genetic variation by Agahnim
This is a bit different from the sort of thing I usually submit here, but I’m rather pleased with it, and I don’t have much else to submit at the moment, so I guess I might as well.

This is a diagram I created for Wikipedia’s article on race and genetics. It can currently be found in the models of genetic variation section, although there’s no telling for how long—one thing I’ve learned from editing Wikipedia is that content often gets deleted with no apparent explanation or reason, even if it involves cutting off an existing paragraph in mid-sentence. (That isn’t an exaggeration—I’ve actually seen this.)

This image can be considered a visual representation of my argument against the claim that there’s no biological basis for the concept of race, which is a popular belief among sociologists. It’s based on a study of the genetic distance between 42 human populations around the world, which was published in 1994 by the Italian geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. (When someone has a name like that, you probably don’t need to look at DNA to know what country they’re from.) Since I haven’t read Cavalli-Sforza’s original paper, this image is based mostly on Arthur Jensen’s analysis of Cavalli-Sforza’s results in The g Factor.

Richard Lewontin is like genetics’ version of Alan Feduccia.

Edited on Oct. 28th: I recently found a copy of Luigi’s study available online, so I’ve edited the image to make it reflect the original study a little more accurately.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconarcheoraptor38:
archeoraptor38 Featured By Owner Nov 7, 2015
where do arabians fit?
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2015
Probably very close to Iranians, which are part of the yellow group.
Reply
:iconderroflcopter:
Derroflcopter Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2014
Interesting. :iconclapplz:

I guess as "Central European" (German/Polish/Czech), I'd be in the "Danish" category?
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2014
Yeah, I think so.

You might be interested to know that there's a slightly more up-to-date chart on the second page of this paper.  This study didn't include quite as many groups as Cavalli-Sforza's study did, but it shows the evolutionary relationships between the groups a little more clearly, and Polish people are one of the groups included in it.
Reply
:iconewilloughby:
EWilloughby Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2011  Professional General Artist
I refer to this chart so often in discussions with people that I might as well have it in my faves for easy access.
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2011
If you’re looking for a demonstration that there’s a biological basis for the concept of race, I think an even better source is this. This is a study from 2004 that found a 99.86 correlation between people’s self-identified race and their geographic ancestry (as measured using genetic tests). It seems to be regarded as something of a classic study at this point, since I see it cited fairly often in sources discussing how race can serve as a proxy for that.
Reply
:iconewilloughby:
EWilloughby Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2011  Professional General Artist
I think you're probably well aware that I already know that study (I think I might even have it on my computer) but I respect that you're linking to it for the benefits of other people who may stumble across this discussion. The reason I find the chart valuable specifically is in order to have a very quick and up-to-date visual reference of the most likely nestings of relatedness among human ethnic groups. It's very easy for laymen who aren't familiar with the relevant fields to understand, without expecting them to sift through a wordy soup of statistics and references.
Reply
:iconmistasilentkiller:
MistaSilentKiller Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2011  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
what about Arab ???
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2011
The study that this chart is based on didn’t include every ethnic group that exists. The chart includes Iranians, though, and Arabs are probably pretty close to that.
Reply
:iconcharanty:
Charanty Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2010
I can't find north europeans or you didn't put them in there?
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2010
The study that this chart was based on included Danish people. If there’s a difference between Danish people and other northern European people, it’s probably pretty small.
Reply
:iconcharanty:
Charanty Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2010
Hmmm...I think you are right.
Reply
:iconspiralhorn:
SpiralHorn Featured By Owner Sep 30, 2010
This is cool, good for you for sticking up for the fact that there are biological differences between human populations. Too many people seem to be afraid to, sadly.

I do have a few issues with how this is divided up, but since your basing this off of the work of someone else and not your own, I'm not going to get into it.

Cheers.
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Oct 2, 2010
You should see what it’s like at Wikipedia. One of the people who finds this idea offensive has been trying to remove this chart (and the more recent version of it, which is here) for almost a year. They never provide much of a reason, but they’re very persistent about it.
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner May 10, 2010  Professional General Artist
I wonder where tasmanian aboriginals fit into all this.
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner May 12, 2010
Probably in the "Oceanian" group. Genetically, I think they're pretty close to Australian aboriginals.
Reply
:iconpristichampsus:
Pristichampsus Featured By Owner May 12, 2010  Professional General Artist
Hmmmm
Reply
:iconfalcolf:
Falcolf Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2009  Professional General Artist
Wow, that's really complicated! I dunno if you know though, but I just wanted to point out that in modern day 'north american indian' (as well as the others mentioned there) are politically incorrect terms. ;) One of my best friends is native and she finds being called an indian pretty insulting. The only people who are actually Indian are from India. :)
Reply
:iconkeesey:
keesey Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2010
I've seen roadside stands where Native Americans refer to themselves as "Indians" -- maybe they didn't get the memo.
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2009
Well, in that case I guess Luigi Cavalli-Sforza was being politically incorrect in his original study. “American Indian” is the term he uses for this group of people; I’ve just copied it.
Reply
:iconfalcolf:
Falcolf Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2009  Professional General Artist
AH that makes sense :) how old was the study? That might attribute to it. :aww:
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Dec 17, 2009
As I said in the submission description, the study is from 1994. I’m pretty sure the term “American Indian” was considered politically incorrect then also.
Reply
:iconlamnay:
lamnay Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2009
Interesting but where do the Han fit into this, unless they count as South Chinese.
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2009
I’m guessing that’s probably the main group of people that “South Chinese” includes. It’s hard to know for sure, though, since I haven’t read Cavalli-Sforza’s original paper about this. (My chart is based on Arthur Jensen’s analysis of the study, which doesn’t talk about the genetic positions of ethnic groups that aren’t listed here.)
Reply
:icongiant-blue-anteater:
Giant-Blue-Anteater Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2009  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Very good, although I think you need to include Turkics in general, not just north Turkics.
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2009
I agree that would be nice, but in order for this chart to be an accurate representation of Cavalli-Sforza’s results, I need to only have it include populations that were covered by the original study.
Reply
:iconorzhovslodier:
OrzhovSlodier Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2009
Does Northwest American Indian refer to the Aluet and Inuit and such?
Reply
:iconagahnim:
Agahnim Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2009
Possibly Aleut, but I think Inuit would more likely be included in the “Eskimo” population.
Reply
:iconorzhovslodier:
OrzhovSlodier Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2009
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Reply
:iconcyraptor:
CyRaptor Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2009
If you tilt your head to the left it looks like a city lol
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconagahnim: More from Agahnim


Featured in Collections

References and Research by PaleoAustin




Details

Submitted on
July 3, 2009
Image Size
46.7 KB
Resolution
925×1375
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
5,114
Favourites
42 (who?)
Comments
30
Downloads
344

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.