I'm not a fan of the people who think I am evil for finding this interesting.
No doubt. To say the least!
I misplaced this image. Thanks for reposting. I'll need to dig into the referenced sources.
Niggers are wool-headed beasts of the field.
Pube heads.
Can someone explain the graph on the right in OPs image.
It's called Principle Component Analysis, or PCA.
for a decent primer with good visuals.
In short:
To sum up, principal component analysis (PCA) is a way to bring out strong patterns from large and complex datasets. The essence of the data is captured in a few principal components, which themselves convey the most variation in the dataset. PCA reduces the number of dimensions without selecting or discarding them. Instead, it constructs principal components that focus on variation and account for the varied influences of dimensions.
In this case, it is mapping the variation between genomes of various populations of hominid.
So what’s y and x axis showing in simple terms as x becomes more negative and y becomes more negative then...
The X axis is Principle Component 1, and the Y axis is Principle Component 2.
The blog post I linked above describes what those terms mean in fairly simple terms. Both components represent genetic distance, in a 938-dimensional matrix, built from full genome analysis of 938 individuals, and reduced to two axes which are perpendicular to each other in that 938D space, and also maximize correlation between the visual distance in the graph and actual differences in the datasets.
I realize that's a bit of a mouthful, but I don't think it can be simplified any further.
Edit: I'll try anyway... Each point is a full genome (from a single person). The further two points are from each other, the more differences between the genomes. That goes for both X and Y. Both axes are composites of many different genes. The genes are selected such that there is as little overlap as possible between X and Y. This explanation is not quite as accurate as the above, but hopefully easier to understand.
Here's a of the full source article.
The graph is actually not from the article itself, but from the supplementary data. Here's a full of that. It's Figure S3 B.
Percentile admixtures of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and possibly unidentified early offshoot hominids is where the upper races get much of their differences and various pre-historic migrations from the Mediterranean basin after the opening of the strait of Gibraltar and various ice ages and hot cycles resulting in desertification in north africa and the near east. It's likely that early non environmental migrations out of the cradle of humanity brought about Neanderthals, Denisovans and proto-negroids, and environmental collapse based migrations caused more pure hominids to flee the cradle in larger numbers and genetically and geographically consume those subspecies.
I'm curious then who might the most purely "human" being those whose lineage intermixed the least with other subspecies and mixed humans might be, I suspect pacific islanders might be the most genetically "pure" humans in that sense, the white man's beauty and color seems to spring from high Neanderthal admixtures, the distinctive features of east Asians might be a vestige of Denisovans, niggers look the way they do because of proto negroid migrations south into africa and being cut off by the expanding desert, that and probably some actual non hominid admixture, notice how their distribution is disconnected from ours but shows movement away from us the lack of a continuum is proof that niggers were cut off from the rest of humanity for an unthinkably long span of time but the linen moving to and away from where that continuum ought to be is proof of a very distant common ancestor and at least one if not many admixtures in this genetically isolated place, my personal guess is a long "history" of aggressive rape behaviors and killing outsiders.
I would love to see more research comparing aboriginal Australians and pacific islanders and skeletal comparisons between these people and the supposed pre east Asian settlement natives of japan and American aboriginal populations. I think if you could chart the drip of Neanderthal admixture it would broadly prove out of africa to be a biased over simplification and instead place a Mediterranean focus on early human development and migration.
Any idea where the Khoisan land? They're a very distinct subspecies much like the abbos.
Not sure how close they are to the Bantu, but they'll be separate from us regardless.
None of the African tribes have any Neanderthal admixture (while we all do; last common ancestor ~250,000+ years), and all of them have admixture from ancient hominids like Homo Erectus (while none of us have any... we used to think they were an extinct branch until recently; last common ancestor 1,500,000+ years). That's why they are so far removed from us in PCA graphs (which is what you see in the OP).
Interesting question, but I have no idea.
What subspecies do you propose? Should East Asians and North Americans be the same subspecies? Should Europeans and Middle Easteners?
I live in a rural town on the East Coast, was working out in the gym.
Saw a white gym slut walk up to a burly firefighter and say, "yo, what up?".
Can I get a direct link to the article that researched/looked into this so I can properly check it out.
Sorry. I can't remember where I got the .jpg from.
![Genetic Distance Between Races. [1047x625 - 51KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/RCOhVp.png){kind=link}
(post is archived)