[HN Gopher] Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceler...
___________________________________________________________________
Landmark ancient-genome study shows surprise acceleration of human
evolution
Related: _Ancient DNA reveals pervasive directional selection
across West Eurasia [pdf]_ -
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47791282 (64 comments)
https://x.com/doctorveera/status/2044679999450664967
(https://xcancel.com/doctorveera/status/2044679999450664967)
Author : unsuspecting
Score : 106 points
Date : 2026-04-17 22:30 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| Not that surprising when you consider, as the paper does, the
| explosion of very meaningful traits such as the ability to digest
| lactose and various anti-malaria adaptations e.g. Sickle Cell and
| the Duffy-null mutation.
|
| It's just controversial for obvious reasons. The notion that
| human groups may have meaningfully evolved in different ways over
| the past 10,000 years, and may still be evolving, is an unpopular
| one on both ends of the political spectrum.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The reason no one wants to talk is that these discussions are
| _always_ co-opted by racists wanting to affirm their beliefs,
| regardless of the underlying science. Reich in particular is
| borderline deliberate about attracting those sorts with his lab
| 's research, because of how badly he chooses to handle the
| topic and terminology of race.
| nostromo wrote:
| Science is about truth not social outcomes.
|
| People keep wondering why trust in scientific findings is in
| free fall. A big part of it is because many scientists have
| become comfortable lying when they feel it's for a noble
| cause.
| orsorna wrote:
| I really don't care if the people around me have
| physiological differences from me. It would be wonderful to
| explore that and such differences. But as OP pointed out
| the discussion gets co-opted by people who would kill
| others over physiological differences. How is such a
| viewpoint conducive to a peaceful society where millions of
| people with physiological differences exist?
|
| For good reason, the wider community isn't able to have a
| productive conversation about it. I wouldn't even call that
| a noble reason, but a necessary one, unless you would be
| okay with inviting people that want you dead into
| discussion on scientific consensus.
| like_any_other wrote:
| > people who would kill others over physiological
| differences
|
| Most of them just want to enforce borders. And then the
| dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who
| would see their ethnic group wiped out, as they are told
| that they don't even exist except as a meaningless social
| construct, and their desire for ethnic self-preservation
| is therefore illegitimate - there is nothing to preserve!
|
| The same rhetoric targeting Palestinians:
| https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/perpetuating-the-myth-of-
| a-p...
| orsorna wrote:
| >And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted
| by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out
|
| Are you referring to certain people? People sympathetic
| to Palestinians? I mean yeah obviously it's wrong to
| preach equity for me but not for thee, but I'm not really
| going to get into a pissing match about Israel/Palestine,
| sorry, because that's deflection from my point.
|
| So there are two choices here:
|
| 1) Allow scientific discussion on physiological
| differences or avoid it. Particulary, physiological
| differences that don't necessarily effect health outcomes
| but also performance metrics.
|
| 2) Do not allow such discussion, and declare an axiom:
| normalize physiological differences across homo sapiens.
|
| You're right to call the latter dogma, although not in
| the pejorative sense.
|
| You brought this infamous conflict up to propose that
| because option two can be used by bad actors, then we
| should not normalize option two, and freely discuss
| physiological differences between people.
|
| If you are of a group that has physiological differences
| scientifically proven to be inferior, you are immediately
| in an outgroup. You will experience discrimination.
| Because few (and I'm being generous, perhaps no one
| truly) can talk about physiological differences without
| building and holding prejudice. Pragmatically that is
| just not the case. It's why endless ethnic conflicts
| exist.
|
| I simply cannot formulate an argument for why this should
| ever be allowed. It sounds like a horror show if you're
| on the receiving end. A horror show minorities of many
| types live through every day.
|
| To lay "ground rules" so that we do not scrutinize our
| fellow brothers and sisters on unalienable traits is an
| ethical imperative to prevent us tearing each other
| apart. This then leaves only one line, the line where
| people are more than happy to discriminate based on these
| unalienable traits, and I think it's perfectly acceptable
| to ostracize them since they encourage ripping each
| other's throats out, willingly or as a useful peon.
| like_any_other wrote:
| Nobody talks about "performance metrics" when
| distinguishing between Sumatran and Siberian tigers. What
| happens instead is humans try to preserve their
| populations and distinctions. "It's all the same" is
| corrosive to preservation.
| orsorna wrote:
| Superiority is absolutely a distinguishing feature when
| preserving their populations and distinctions. It's why
| racial genocides even occur.
| coderenegade wrote:
| The problem is that if you don't stick to truth and make
| an attempt at objectivity, others will step in to fill
| the void. This is how you sow division and undermine
| trust in science.
| orsorna wrote:
| I'm having a very hard time understanding a society where
| research is openly conducted on innate physiological
| differences between people, and bad actors don't use this
| official research to practice open discrimination. The
| lesser of the two evils is to draw a line and tell people
| to just accept these differences.
| teamonkey wrote:
| Scientists are not lying. Reich is notable in his field and
| no-one is disputing his genetic research.
|
| What scientists are wary of is how any discussion in the
| field gets jumped on and twisted into ammunition to
| reinforce racist beliefs, whether the science actually
| supports this or not.
| Nesco wrote:
| "What scientists are wary of is how any discussion in the
| field gets jumped on and twisted into ammunition to
| reinforce racist beliefs"
|
| Yet nothing ruined the reputation of the scientific
| establishment more in recent time than their tendency to
| change their behaviours and adapt their beliefs for
| political motives
| teamonkey wrote:
| There are always those trying to discredit scientists who
| do not reinforce their personal beliefs.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| >Reich in particular is borderline deliberate about
| attracting those sorts with his lab's research, because of
| how badly he chooses to handle the topic and terminology of
| race.
|
| Sorry, do you have any examples? His views that I've read [0,
| 1] are scientifically rigorous and terminologically precise,
| deftly navigating the politics that some consider extremely
| controversial. To wit, one of my favorite passages from [1],
| which deals specifically with terminology:
| But "ancestry" is not a euphemism, nor is it synonymous with
| "race." Instead, the term is born of an urgent need to come
| up with a precise language to discuss genetic differences
| among people at a time when scientific developments have
| finally provided the tools to detect them. It is now
| undeniable that there are nontrivial average genetic
| differences across populations in multiple traits, and the
| race vocabulary is too ill-defined and too loaded with
| historical baggage to be helpful. If we continue to use it we
| will not be able to escape the current debate, which is mired
| in an argument between two indefensible positions. On the one
| side there are beliefs about the nature of the differences
| that are grounded in bigotry and have little basis in
| reality. On the other side there is the idea that any
| biological differences among populations are so modest that
| as a matter of social policy they can be ignored and papered
| over. It is time to move on from this paralyzing false
| dichotomy and to figure out what the genome is actually
| telling us.
|
| This particular passage is on p. 253 of [1], but everything
| in Chapter 11 ("The Genomics of Race and Identity," pp.
| 247-273) is well worth the read.
|
| [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetic
| s-r...
|
| [1]
| https://sackett.net/reich_who_we_are_and_how_we_got_here.pdf
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| It's unfortunate that the URL happens to be buzzfeed, but
| there was an open letter to Reich by other academics about
| his terminology in the book you're quoting [0]. The short
| of it is that social categorizations we believe in like
| race intersect with genetics in a very complicated way.
| Reich is a world-class expert in genetics. He simply
| commits the same error as many other other experts in
| discounting the complexity of subjects he's adjacent to,
| but not directly an expert in.
|
| I get that this is a high standard to hold him to (and I
| sure as heck don't meet it myself), but he should do better
| given his visibility in public discourse.
|
| [0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-
| genetics...
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > race intersect with genetics in a very complicated way
|
| Please explain the complications. Use scientific terms
| only.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The biggest complication is that the current notion of
| human race is largely based on skin color (with a few
| adjacent physical traits), which has very little to do
| with population genetics. In particular, black skin color
| is a dominant genetic trait, meaning that you can easily
| have individuals and even entire subpopulations that are
| black skinned, but have much more genetic similarity to
| traditionally white skinned populations (being
| descendents of a few black skinned individuals who
| married into a larger white skinned population) - while
| they would still be categorized as "black" in terms of
| race. Conversely, genetically isolated black skinned
| populations are also often lumped together as "the black
| race".
|
| Another major complexity is that some races are defined
| more by genealogic ancestry than by genetic ancestry or
| easily identifiable physical characteristics. For
| example, people are normally considered Jewish if they
| have a Jewish mother. This leads to many genetically
| disparate subpopulations being lumped together as a
| Jewish race.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| The crux of that letter is the "need to recognize that
| meaningful patterns of genetic and biological variation
| exist in our species that are not racial." This is true.
| However, this does not mean that there aren't also
| meaningful patterns of genetic and biological variation
| that _do_ stratify according to ancestry (not race!). The
| letter tries to handwave this away, claiming that "[f]or
| several decades billions of dollars have been spent
| trying to find such differences. The result has been a
| preponderance of negative findings despite intrepid
| efforts to collect DNA data on millions of individuals in
| the hope of finding even the tiniest signals of
| difference." This is simply not true, as studies like the
| subject of this discussion demonstrate.
|
| The letter also states that "[t]he public should not cede
| the power to define race to scientists who themselves are
| not trained to understand the social contexts that shape
| the formation of this fraught category." Also true! This
| is exactly why Reich explicitly avoids discussing "races"
| but rather populations and ancestries, which are
| rigorously defined strictly in terms of genetics. With
| respect to population structures and ancestry, Reich is
| indeed an expert.
|
| I'll add that very few of the signatories of that letter
| have any experience, let alone expertise in genetics.
| Here are the first few: Jonathan Kahn,
| James E. Kelley Professor of Law, Mitchell Hamline School
| of Law Alondra Nelson, Professor of Sociology
| and Gender Studies, Columbia University; President,
| Social Science Research Council Joseph L.
| Graves Jr., Associate Dean for Research & Professor of
| Biological Sciences, Fellow of the American Association
| for the Advancement of Science, Section G: Biological
| Sciences, Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering,
| North Carolina A&T State University, UNC Greensboro
| Sarah Abel, Postdoc, Department of Anthropology,
| University of Iceland Ruha Benjamin, Associate
| Professor, Department of African American Studies,
| Princeton University Sarah Blacker,
| Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for
| the History of Science, Berlin Catherine
| Bliss, Associate Professor, Social and Behavioral
| Sciences, UC San Francisco
|
| Out of the 67 signatories, I counted approximately 5 who
| might have sufficient genetics expertise to offer a
| meaningful scientific counterpoint to Reich's work (this
| is being charitable, as I included titles like "Professor
| of Biological Sciences," which is no guarantee.) The rest
| were in fields like anthropology, sociology, law, and
| history.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| This is simply not true.
|
| Yes, because it's not an argument the letter is making.
| Everyone can name a meaningful genetic patterns of
| genetic variation that follow ancestry like lactase
| persistence. The argument is in the second paragraph:
| But his skillfulness with ancient and contemporary DNA
| should not be confused with a mastery of the cultural,
| political, and biological meanings of human groups.
|
| It's not an argument that Reich gets the science wrong,
| so other geneticists being on the list is neither here
| nor there. When he says things like:
| But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no
| longer possible to ignore average genetic differences
| among "races."
|
| in NYT opinion pieces, it's that he's not understanding
| how terminology interacts with public discourse. The next
| paragraph goes on to use the unclear term "west african",
| not exactly a great example of careful language either.
|
| The list is mainly people in fields that deal with these
| things, as you'd expect.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| >Yes, because it's not an argument the letter is making.
|
| It literally is though. The full quote from the Buzzfeed
| piece is: Reich's claim that we need to
| prepare for genetic evidence of racial differences in
| behavior or health ignores the trajectory of modern
| genetics. For several decades billions of dollars have
| been spent trying to find such differences. The result
| has been a preponderance of negative findings despite
| intrepid efforts to collect DNA data on millions of
| individuals in the hope of finding even the tiniest
| signals of difference.
|
| >The argument is in the second paragraph:
| But his skillfulness with ancient and contemporary DNA
| should not be confused with a mastery of the cultural,
| political, and biological meanings of human groups.
|
| Reich never purports to make cultural or political
| arguments, just biological ones.
|
| >When he says things like: But as a geneticist I also
| know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore
| average genetic differences among "races."
|
| Note that he put "races" in quotes. The point he was
| making here is that sometimes genetic ancestries can
| intersect quite well with traditional notions of "race"
| [0]. But often times they do not, especially in the case
| of admixed populations [1].
|
| [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-32325-w/fi
| gures/1
|
| [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12859-019-
| 2680-1/...
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Note that he put "races" in quotes.
|
| I know, but we both see how a random member of the public
| could easily read it. My argument, after all, is that the
| way he communicates is sloppier than it should be for the
| subject matter and prone to public misunderstandings.
| vintermann wrote:
| > "need to recognize that meaningful patterns of genetic
| and biological variation exist in our species that are
| not racial." This is true.
|
| There's an implicit assertion in that statement, that
| we're currently _not_ recognizing that meaningful
| patterns and variation exists. But that 's nonsense. We
| are all perfectly aware that some groups digest lactose
| better, some are less vulnerable to skin cancer, some
| drop like flies to common tropical diseases, some
| completely dominate long distance running competition
| etc.
|
| So there's got to be some particular differences he's
| referring to that he thinks are papered over. He should
| spell out which.
| GorbachevyChase wrote:
| Fortunately, there are many wise laymen such as yourself
| in the internet to correct him.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > but he should do better given his visibility in public
| discourse.
|
| Why? He presented real verified science. Anyone who is
| offended or does not like it ... well, too bad... the
| world does not care. Facts are facts. He does not owe you
| or anyone else comfort. He presents cold hard truth, and
| sometimes truth hurts. Tough.
| timmg wrote:
| Not the person you were replying to, but: did you read
| that letter?
|
| It is horribly argued. It's mostly poor analogies and
| non-sequiturs. It's no wonder Buzzfeed was the only place
| they could get to publish it.
| jltsiren wrote:
| I haven't read much from Reich, so I don't know his
| position. But I've understood that the current best
| practice in human genetics is to explicitly justify the
| population descriptors chosen for each study, rather than
| using any fixed set of descriptors given from the outside.
|
| There are two main types of genetic descriptors: those
| based on genetic similarity and those based on ancestry
| groups. Genetic similarity is quantitative, and individual
| samples often have multiple labels attached to them.
| Ancestry groups are discrete categories based on
| quantitative measures. If it's appropriate to use
| descriptors based on genetic ancestry groups in a study,
| it's usually also appropriate to drop samples that don't
| fit neatly in any single group.
|
| Sometimes it's more appropriate to use descriptors based on
| environmental factors, such as ethnicity or geography.
| Environmental descriptors tend to be correlated with
| genetic descriptors, but they are not the same.
| naasking wrote:
| > The reason no one wants to talk is that these discussions
| are always co-opted by racists wanting to affirm their
| beliefs
|
| So? People need to stop undermining science and openly
| sharing information because some people have bad ideas.
| phainopepla2 wrote:
| Is it unpopular on the right? Genuine question. I have only
| seen people associated with the left deny or downplay this.
| burnto wrote:
| Evolution itself has some skeptics among the religious right.
| jetrink wrote:
| The religious right, specifically. They would say that all
| people are descended quite recently from Noah and his family.
| FunHearing3443 wrote:
| Not all of us. Many are evolutionary or old earth
| creationists that generally don't have an issue with many
| aspects of evolution.
| mohamedkoubaa wrote:
| "To supercharge the search, Reich, Ali Akbari, a computational
| geneticist at Harvard Medical School, and their colleagues
| amassed the largest-ever collection of genomic data from ancient
| humans -- from a total of 15,836 individuals from western Eurasia
| -- including more than 10,000 newly sequenced genomes."
|
| Without commenting on the content of this sentence or article, I
| will say that it is refreshing to see sentences like this in the
| wild after being regularly and constantly subjected to LLM slop.
| sho_hn wrote:
| And yet you managed to center AI in the discussion.
| nefarious_ends wrote:
| Seriously what's the point of this comment
| like_any_other wrote:
| Is there any species, other than humans, that is found all across
| the globe (i.e. geographically separated), and has not
| differentiated into subspecies? Wolves, elephants, tigers, bears,
| and foxes have all been categorized into multiple subspecies
| each, distinct but able to interbreed.
| meroes wrote:
| Dogs?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Aren't dogs technically one species?
| hooo wrote:
| This distinction seems more arbitrary over time. Growing up
| I was taught different species couldn't interbreed. But
| what about Neanderthal and Sapiens?
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Funny tangent: this comic has strong feelings about such
| distinctions, using "dog" as the canonical example:
|
| https://youtu.be/dNLLXZgN4Mc?si=SUhHZ2uzMZ7jgejI
| like_any_other wrote:
| I don't think you could have chosen a worse example. Dogs are
| themselves a subspecies, _and_ are split into many different
| breeds, of wildly different character and physiology:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#Taxonomy
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Breeds and species are different things. Parent post is
| making a (very good) point that dogs can pretty much all
| breed with one another.
| erichocean wrote:
| Humans have, obviously. Just interbreeding with ancient species
| was enough to do it, even without separate evolution.
| greazy wrote:
| The definition of what constitutes a species is a human
| construct.
|
| Two bird populations living in the same locale but divided by a
| mountain range therefore not naturally breeding with each other
| would classify as a different species, even if they could breed
| with each other.
|
| So your question is hard to answer.
| nelox wrote:
| I've often dreamt of breeding with that mythical bird far,
| far away.
| greazy wrote:
| If you do cross the barrier, you could successfully mate
| with that mythical bird!
| John7878781 wrote:
| > Two bird populations living in the same locale but divided
| by a mountain range therefore not naturally breeding with
| each other would classify as a different species, even if
| they could breed with each other.
|
| Really? I thought the requirements for species classification
| were: (1) must be able to reproduce and (2) offspring must be
| fertile.
|
| Is it less objective than that?
| Archelaos wrote:
| Polar bears can have furtile offspring with grizzly/brown
| bears. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93p
| olar_bear_hyb...
| rolph wrote:
| the reproductive incompatability, is based on
| physiological range.
|
| in general, there are multi organizational levels of
| reproductive incompatability.
|
| in this case, the geographic distance, orogenic blockade,
| and ecological confounds of arctic conditions preclude
| easy mingling of U.arctos x U. maritimus.
| whycombinetor wrote:
| Interfertility is not an equivalence relation, does not
| form equivalence classes
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
| rcxdude wrote:
| There are a lot of subtleties. Ring species are a
| particularly fun one: you can have a population that live
| around some natural obstacle (like a large body of water)
| where individuals can breed successfully with individuals
| near to them but not with ones further way (like directly
| across the barrier), in a continuum of variation.
| lemonberry wrote:
| "Ring species are a particularly fun one"
|
| This is really interesting, thank you. I've never heard
| of "ring species" before.
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| Sometimes it's hard to objectively tell whether two animals
| don't appear to reproduce because they are unable
| genetically, or technically able still but behaviorally
| unwilling in normal natural circumstances, or we don't know
| but we just haven't observed it for that particular combo,
| etc
| bluebarbet wrote:
| Thought experiment. Three populations, A, B, and C, divided
| geographically along a line. Individuals from group A can
| breed successfully with those from B but not with those
| from C. Individuals from group C can breed successfully
| with those from B but not A.
|
| How many species are there? This is why the term "species"
| can never be entirely objective. I remember the eureka
| moment I had when I finally understood this (admittedly
| somewhat simple) point.
| naasking wrote:
| It can even be more subtle, it's entirely possible that
| _some_ rare members of A can C breed, and _some_ members
| of C and B would not be able to breed. The "fertility"
| relation can only be decided between two individuals, not
| groups. Group-level fertility is a statistical average of
| individual fertility.
|
| That said, I don't think that means that "species" is
| entirely subjective or meaningless.
| lukan wrote:
| Is that based on a real example or hypothetical?
| usrnm wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
| afpx wrote:
| Even within one species, not every individual can
| successfully breed with every other.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| my understanding of what classifies something as being a part
| of the same species is the fact that they can make children
| that are viable to have children themselves
|
| horses and donkeys can breed to make mules, but the mules
| usually cant reproduce, this is the same with tigons and
| ligers but sometimes the females are viable
|
| so if they can produce children that can produce children,
| they're the same species. where this line is blurred, so is
| the species line. geographical barriers have nothing to do
| with it.
| Vaphell wrote:
| > my understanding of what classifies something as being a
| part of the same species is the fact that they can make
| children that are viable to have children themselves
|
| things are a bit more complicated than that, because having
| fertile offspring is not a transitive property. Ring
| species: population A can mate with B, B with C, C with D,
| and D with E, but A and E cannot mate, even though they are
| part of the same continuous chain.
|
| Ensatina eschscholtzii salamanders in California exhibit
| this non-transitive behavior. Populations at the ends of
| the coastal ranges can interbreed with their neighboring
| populations, but where they meet in the south, the "ends"
| of the ring do not interbreed.
| rolph wrote:
| if you consider that geographic barrier is an environment
| of immediate lethality, or infecundity, that is
| physiological incompatability, and would be a speciation.
|
| if you consider that geographic barrier, simply precludes,
| interaction between individuals, then you will have founder
| effect, thus one population will be genetically decended
| from a sample of the larger population.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
| matt-attack wrote:
| Seems to me, that we divide other animals based on some of
| the most minor of phenotypic expressions. The slight
| coloration of a bird's crest, shape of some lizard's nose.
|
| Yet with Homo sapiens we seem to be allergic to the idea that
| our drastic swings in physical attributes could possibly
| qualify as a different species (we obviously call them
| "races"). But they plainly diverged from each other due to
| geographic and reproductive isolation and adaptation to
| environments. Which is precisely what causes species to
| diverge into new ones.
|
| Are we supposed to pretend that Africans DONT have black skin
| due an adaptation to their environment?
|
| Do other animals get divided into races? I know dogs have
| "breeds" and we don't consider those species. But I don't
| hear about "races" in other animals.
| pegasus wrote:
| > Seems to me, that we divide other animals based on some
| of the most minor of phenotypic expressions
|
| It might seem like that to you, but you'd be wrong.
| Taxonomy prioritizes genetic distance and reproductive
| isolation over superficial visual traits that humans happen
| to find striking. While phenotypic variations like skin
| color or facial structure are highly visible, they
| represent a microscopic fraction of the overall genome and
| do not indicate the deep divergence required to define a
| new species.
|
| And from a genetic standpoint, Homo sapiens is remarkably
| homogeneous. Two humans from opposite sides of the planet
| are generally more genetically similar to each other than
| two chimpanzees from the same patch of forest. Traits like
| skin color (an adaptation for UV protection) or nose shape
| (an adaptation for humidity/temperature) are rapid
| evolutionary adjustments. They change quickly on an
| evolutionary timescale without requiring a fundamental
| split in the species' lineage.
|
| In contrast to other animals, because humans never stopped
| breeding with one another, we never had the chance to
| "drift" far enough apart to become different species.
| Geographic distance in humans has historically acted as a
| filter, not a wall.
|
| So there's your answer. Because of this unique genetic
| homogeneity (and not because of some imagined woke
| censorship), speaking of human subspecies would be
| scientifically mistaken.
| pegasus wrote:
| > The definition of what constitutes a species is a human
| construct
|
| That makes it sound like the boundaries between species are
| arbitrary, but they are not. Sure, there are corner cases
| where things become debatable, but those are the rare
| exceptions, not the rule.
|
| > Two bird populations living in the same locale but divided
| by a mountain range therefore not naturally breeding with
| each other would classify as a different species, even if
| they could breed with each other.
|
| This is only the case if the separation has been there long
| enough for the two groups to develop distinct genetic markers
| or physical traits (like the beak shape or plumage mentioned
| in the original comment). The deeper reason they are
| classified as different species it that they are de-facto on
| different _evolutionary trajectories_. Which doesn 't happen
| for human populations because historically, whatever obstacle
| divide us, we find a way to get around it.
| rolph wrote:
| "The definition of what constitutes a species is a human
| construct."
|
| speciation is reproductive incompatability.
|
| geographic isolation is more like founder effect than
| speciation.
| renewiltord wrote:
| They have to be. The snail darter is genetically identical to
| another animal and is a separate species. Most likely different
| humans are as well.
| yabutlivnWoods wrote:
| > ...distinct but able to interbreed
|
| I mean people won't like the idea but that's not my point; what
| you describe variety in superficial traits while maintaining
| common traits
|
| Applied to humans; skin color, eyes, dwarfism,
| hypertrichosis... can still interbreed
|
| When it comes to categorization and taxonomy in leaky
| abstractions like languages the boundaries get a bit hand wavy
| and usually land on whatever fits the prevailing social
| desirability bias of the day
| like_any_other wrote:
| > you describe variety in superficial traits
|
| The same selection pressures that produced the variety of
| "superficial" traits also act on "non-superficial" traits -
| nature does not recognize this distinction.
| yabutlivnWoods wrote:
| You cherry picked one idea from my post. I was not
| addressing nature but human social tropes.
|
| What is a subspecies and species is random gibberish of the
| living humans
| api wrote:
| Not many. Part of why we are like this is extreme mobility.
| Even before modern times we were always good at getting around
| and seem to have a desire to roam. Or at least enough of us do
| to mix up those gene pools.
| like_any_other wrote:
| If that were true before modern times, distinctions in
| appearance never could have developed.
|
| Edit as reply because "pOsTiNg tOo FaSt":
|
| > Before modern times there was enough mixing to keep
| speciation from occurring but not enough to fully homogenize.
|
| I see. Is there some quantitative genetic similarity measure,
| by which it was determined that it was worth categorizing
| foxes and wolves and bears into distinct
| subspecies/breeds/whatever taxonomical categories, but not
| humans? I assume that's what your "speciation did not occur
| [enough to merit taxonomical distinction]" is based on.
|
| I.e. by what measure are a Pygmy and a Norwegian more similar
| than a Sumatran and a Siberian tiger [1]?
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47812581
| api wrote:
| It's not binary. Before modern times there was enough
| mixing to keep speciation from occurring but not enough to
| fully homogenize.
|
| If our modern world continues for thousands of years
| eventually our differences will start to dissolve.
| showerst wrote:
| How about Taraxacum officinale, the common dandelion?
|
| It's not quite all across the globe but pretty close, and is so
| adapted that it is not considered invasive any more in most
| places.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Or, it's equally invasive everywhere.
| cwmoore wrote:
| Lol everywhere there are manicured lawns?
| SloppyDrive wrote:
| We dont categorize humans that way; not because humans are
| different but because of cultural norms.
|
| The generous idea is that "subspecies" does not provide an
| anthropologist a useful lens to look at humanity, therefore we
| do not classify.
|
| The alternative is that "subspecies" is too close to "race" for
| scientists, publishers, and funding bodies to touch, so its
| deliberately ignored.
| verisimi wrote:
| I agree - cultural educating trumps scientific definitions.
| vjjsejj wrote:
| It's not like those scientific definitions are particularly
| consistent or stable, though. In a large part it's still a
| matter of convention when it comes to non human species as
| well
| vintermann wrote:
| Science, or you, can make up whatever definitions they
| wish. The question is not if a definition is "true", but
| what it's useful for.
|
| Sure, you - or scientific authorities, whoever they might
| be - can declare that there are multiple modern human
| species. The question is, what are you intending to use
| that definition for?
|
| That applies to other branches of the tree of life, too.
| There's not some objective genetic distance measure which
| says what's a species and what is not. It can vary widely
| on different parts of the tree. But it's driven by
| pragmatism - sensible biologists will not waste time
| arguing whether some mushrooms should be one species or
| two, if they otherwise agree on the facts.
|
| If you can't say plainly and clearly what the purpose of
| your delineation is, and it's in your own part of the tree,
| of course people are going to have their suspicions.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I think cultural norms enforced over generations can lead to
| altered genetic variability.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Do humans not fit the standards for being broken into multiple
| subspecies? I assumed that they would but "the science
| community" is too scared of the implications when idiots learn
| about it.
|
| I look at a sumatran tiger and a Siberian tiger and I see a lot
| less variance than I see when I look at a pygmy, a Norwegian,
| an sentinel islander, and a han Chinese person
| krapp wrote:
| >Do humans not fit the standards for being broken into
| multiple subspecies?
|
| No. Multiple human subspecies did once exist (examples being
| Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Erectus, and Homo
| Floresiensis) but only our species, Homo Sapiens, remains
| (with traces of Neanderthal DNA so there was some
| interbreeding.) However race is a cultural and social
| construct. Different human races are not different human
| subspecies. A Pygmy, a Norwegian, a Sentinel Islander, and a
| Han Chinese person are all the same species. The superficial
| variations in average height, skin color, etc. do not vary
| enough to constitute species differentiation - humans share
| 99.9% of their DNA, and the vast majority of genetic
| variation exists _within_ populations (in other words, within
| "races") and not between them.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| But the DNA of the sumatran tiger and a Siberian tiger is
| also over 99% identical?
| beloch wrote:
| The DNA of humans and chimps is 98.8% identical.
|
| The percent difference between genomes of species is one
| of those tricky measures that doesn't really give good
| intuition. I find it much more useful to think in terms
| of the time since two species shared a common ancestor.
|
| e.g. For humans and chimps, that's several million years.
| For Sumatran and Siberian tigers, it's around a hundred
| thousand years.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| What's the most recent common ancestor between an North
| Sentinel islander and a Norwegian? Mitochondrial Eve is
| 150kya
| vjjsejj wrote:
| Probably less than 40k? Since it took a while for modern
| humans to leave Africa.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| I don't think the out-of-africa hypothesis is defensible
| in light of recent archeological findings, and,
| incidentally, DNA complexity analysis.
| iknowimarat wrote:
| Out of africa remains defensible but more and more people
| will come to the conclusion that the chinese hyporhesis
| of the multiregional origin is somewhat true so we will
| get a hybrid i guess
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The problem is that "Out of Africa" is an uninformative
| name. The outflow from Africa was well underway 100k
| years ago or even 200k years ago, and there was no
| inherent break between that ongoing outflow and what
| happened 40k years ago when (inasmuch as we can
| reconstruct today) behaviorally modern rather than
| 'archaic' humans began to migrate out, which we now call
| "Out of Africa". So it's hard to even tell apart the
| "recent Out of Africa" and the "multiregional" hypotheses
| in a way that might help settle a debate.
| vjjsejj wrote:
| > it's around a hundred thousand years.
|
| So not that far away since modern humans began splitting
| up into separate subgroups outside of Africa? Of course
| there have been quite a bit of intermixing since then
| (more so in Eurasia than the more isolated parts of the
| world before the modern times, though)
| scotty79 wrote:
| What percentage of DNA do all mammals share? And what all
| mammals except platypus?
| red75prime wrote:
| > the vast majority of genetic variation exists within
| populations
|
| This particular argument (I am not talking about anything
| else) always looked to me as "inkblot defense" (Cephalopods
| muddy water to defend themselves).
|
| Genome is discrete. A single nucleotide polymorphism can
| have far-reaching consequences. So it's a bit like arguing
| that this collection of pentagons is not statistically
| different from this collection of hexagons because radius
| variation within collections is greater than between
| collections.
|
| One day I've got into trouble by pointing to another
| genetic adaptation (EPAS1 SNPs) rather than the poster
| child of genetic differences: an SNP in the 6th codon of
| the b-globin gene. But that's another story.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Species is a fuzzy concept, much like class of radius
| variation.
| vjjsejj wrote:
| Well humans and chimpanzees share almost 99% of their DNA
| despite being quite distant relative so that number is
| somewhat deceptive. Not disagreeing with the overall point
| of course
| scotty79 wrote:
| In the age of AI we probably could do better in dvivding
| humans by pattern of variation rather than amount of
| variation.
|
| But who cares about such divisions if we all can
| interbreed?
| naasking wrote:
| > However race is a cultural and social construct. [...]
| The superficial variations in average height, skin color,
| etc. do not vary enough to constitute species
| differentiation
|
| Species is also a social construct. Calling race a social
| construct isn't the persuasive argument people seem to
| assume.
|
| > the vast majority of genetic variation exists within
| populations (in other words, within "races") and not
| between them.
|
| This is is a fallacious argument, because there is no such
| thing as the "average Norwegian" and the "average Pygmy",
| and so you cannot even construct a meaningful sentence like
| "the average Norwegian and the average Pygmy are more alike
| than any individual Norwegian is to any other Norwegian".
| People need to stop using this silly argument.
| krapp wrote:
| It's the established scientific consensus. Obviously it
| isn't convincing to racists, but no argument would be
| given that racists don't approach the subject in good
| faith to begin with.
|
| I think you're being too pedantic, though, because the
| statement "the average Norwegian and the average Pygmy
| are more alike than any individual Norwegian is to any
| other Norwegian" is perfectly sensible within the context
| of this thread and relative to the supposition that
| genetic variability between human populations is a valid
| basis to justify a biological definition of race and
| further classifying human races as subspecies. That
| species is also a social construct is true, and you seem
| to think that it disproves the premise, but it really
| doesn't because species is a social construct in the
| sense that all scientific classification is a social
| construct. But when people say that race is a social
| construct, they mean it was created to justify white
| supremacy, slavery and colonialism, and that (unlike
| species) it serves no useful scientific purpose. You're
| intentionally omitting necessary context to create a
| false equivalence between race and species.
|
| Here are some actual scientifically credentialed papers
| and statements supporting the thesis that race has no
| biological basis. I doubt anyone will bother reading them
| but here they are just for the record. Further reading is
| easy to find.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604262/
|
| https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/
|
| https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-
| human-s...
|
| https://www.sapiens.org/biology/is-race-real/
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > But when people say that race is a social construct,
| they mean it was created to justify white supremacy,
| slavery and colonialism
|
| Yes, the modern context of what we call race today is
| inherently linked to notions like _limpieza de sangre_
| and _casta_ in post-conquest Latin America - the true
| prototypical example of structural racism, where for
| several centuries and over several generations a "white"
| appearance was conflated with a socially elite status and
| a "racialized" appearance with poverty and
| marginalization. The Moors in Medieval, Renaissance and
| early modern Europe were of African origin, and sometimes
| even had what we would now call a Sub-Saharan appearance,
| but they were not considered "Black" in racial terms
| because that was not a notion that existed in that
| specific milieu.
| naasking wrote:
| > It's the established scientific consensus.
|
| So was the fact that ulcers weren't caused by bacteria.
| "Established scientific consensus" is another argument
| people need to stop using.
|
| > You're intentionally omitting necessary context to
| create a false equivalence between race and species
|
| No, I'm not equating race and species, I'm refuting the
| argument that race being a social construct makes it
| meaningless or scientifically useless by pointing out
| that species is also a social construct while being
| meaningful and scientifically useful. Therefore the
| argument that it's a social construct is a red herring.
|
| > But when people say that race is a social construct,
| they mean it was created to justify white supremacy,
| slavery and colonialism, and that (unlike species) it
| serves no useful scientific purpose.
|
| So you agree that calling it a social construct is
| completely besides the point, and people are not saying
| what they mean and merely polluting discussions with
| pointless red herrings.
|
| Now whether race serves a useful purpose is highly
| debatable. There are plenty of statistical associations
| with race that are used to this day, eg. race as a risk
| factor in sickle cell anemia. If your argument is that we
| usually have _better_ classifications than race in many
| circumstances, then sure, but note that this _still_
| doesn 't prove the intended point that race
| classifications are _useless_ , which is a claim that
| they never have any use.
|
| Edit: > the statement "the average Norwegian and the
| average Pygmy are more alike than any individual
| Norwegian is to any other Norwegian" is perfectly
| sensible
|
| Just want to be clear that this is still a fundamental
| category error. These are completely unlike measures and
| equating them properly yields different conclusions, eg.
| using pairwise genetic distance measures. See the paper,
| "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" for where
| this misunderstanding originated.
| samsartor wrote:
| My understanding is that humans have very limited genetic
| diversity compared to most other animals, because of the
| population bottlenecks we've been through. And further, that
| diversity is mostly between individuals, not between groups.
| The distinction is easy to see in cats vs dogs: they both have
| similar overall genetic diversity but two Chihuahuas have
| virtually all the same genes (the small angry ones) while two
| tabby cats are more distinct. The two cats have different
| combinations of big/small nice/mean smart/dumb, but the genes
| average out to the same "typical" kind of cat in both cases.
|
| Because humans get around so much, and because we think
| interesting-looking people are hot, the diversity is spread
| pretty broadly across the whole population. The average
| european person and the average east asian person are a little
| bit different genetically, but way less different than any two
| real europeans or two east-asians are to one another.
|
| In short, the distributions of individuals overlap so much that
| the trendlines are pretty close to useless. And historically
| speaking, the people who tried to make a hard distinction out
| of those trendlines had awful motives.
| ralfd wrote:
| > The average european person and the average east asian
| person are a little bit different genetically, but way less
| different than any two real europeans or two east-asians are
| to one another.
|
| This is always touted as an "racism-is-not-only-immoral-it-
| is-scientifically-wrong" argument, but it is a fallacy.
|
| Example: The average height (a trait with very high
| heritability) of Dutch men is 6'0 feet (183 cm) and the
| average height of Philippine men is 5'4 (163 cm). This means
| the height difference between these two groups is 20 cm. And
| it is obvious that the difference inside one group MUST be
| larger, for example there are 6'4 Dutch basketballers but
| also certainly Dutch 5'2 horse riding jockeys.
|
| And depending on context both of these insights are useful.
| For example if you manage a basketball team it is much more
| effective to consider people as individuals, simplified you
| should hire very tall people (regardless if they are Dutch or
| Philippines) who can throw precisely a ball into a basket.
| But the diversity between population groups points to real
| information too! If you sell shoes to both countries you
| shouldn't provide the same one-size-fits-all and assume to
| catch the same percentage of the market.
|
| Plus the overlap in one metric is expanding into separable
| clusters the more dimensions are used:
|
| https://i.sstatic.net/r6cWd.jpg
|
| Take a Dutch and Philippine who have the exact same height:
| Their own respective brothers (heck, even twins) will not be
| the same perfect match, instead being a bit taller or
| smaller. But the more variables you consider (weight, muscle
| composition, leg length, head radius, hand size, form of
| earlobe .. etc) you will find that holistically seen two
| brothers truly are much more similar to each other than to a
| stranger.
| daveguy wrote:
| None of what you said refutes _the fact_ that genetic
| diversity is just as different within two people of the
| same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities.
|
| You listed a handful of traits from a handful of genes. And
| from that you make an argument about relative distributions
| of entire genomes of entire populations. Do you realize the
| fact that brothers are genetically similar compared to a
| stranger in no way implies the similarity or difference of
| entire populations?
|
| Even the traits you mention are just a handful of
| _physical_ traits. There are about 20,000 protein encoding
| genes and 180,000 non-encoding. Protein encoding genes code
| for the structures in our body. The other 180,000 genes
| code for all kind of dynamics -- the rna that turns genes
| to proteins, how proteins are expressed in different cells
| to make them different cells, how relative expression
| levels change in response to external stimulus, etc. So,
| the set of genes to consider is clearly all 200,000 genes
| and not just the 20,000 protein encoding genes much less
| the handful of protein encoding genes responsible for
| something like eye color.
|
| Unfortunately for racists but fortunately for the vast
| majority, the world is a great big melting pot with all the
| different ethnicities producing all kinds of variety. So
| much that the blend complexity long ago surpassed any tiny
| set of visible trait uniformity.
|
| I honestly don't know how so many people fall for these
| simplistic illogical racist arguments. But it makes me
| happy to know that racists are about 200,000 years to late
| to shove the entire human race into tiny little boxes based
| on physical traits.
| pfdietz wrote:
| > None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic
| diversity is just as different within two people of the
| same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities.
|
| Note, however, that this does not imply there are not
| significant genetic differences between different
| ethnicities. Differences that are selected for will be
| cloaked in a sea of non-significant differences.
| daveguy wrote:
| Definitely. I'm not saying there aren't average
| differences. We literally see different physical traits.
| But physical traits are a minute fraction of all the
| complexity that is the human genome. And all of those
| physical traits are always mixing fluidly between _and_
| within groups.
|
| My point is, there are clearly wide swaths of genetic
| traits that we have in common with any other ethnicity
| compared to what may be the average of a broad
| distribution. Humans are inherently mosaic.
|
| Personally I believe it's why our species is so
| resilient. But that's a stronger statement, so just a
| belief.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Yes, and there are also wide swaths of genetic traits
| that we have in common with other species. But it would
| be senseless to propose we're the same as chimpanzees.
| The point is it doesn't take much in the way of genetic
| differences, as a fraction of the total genome, to make a
| very large difference in phenotype.
| daveguy wrote:
| Well, if the phenotype or trait due to any random gene
| was the differentiation between race, species, or
| anything else besides that specific trait, you might have
| a point in support of OP. But unfortunately for racist
| ducks there are so many differences, _and similarities_ ,
| that have nothing to do with hair color or height. Any
| given swath is it's own mosaic of combinations, no matter
| what we label it.
| masfuerte wrote:
| A few hundred years ago Europeans were very much shorter
| too. The Chinese have increased in height within just the
| last couple of generations. In both cases this isn't
| because their genes changed, it's because their diets
| changed. Diet also explains the difference between the
| Netherlands and the Philippines.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| The height thing is a bad example. Generally in genetics
| you like to focus on things without so many confounding
| factors. That's why the article focuses on attributes
| like baldness, MS, and lactose intolerance.
| cineticdaffodil wrote:
| I ve read this in a breathless ("help my ideology is under
| attack by reality") voice and it took a page away fro
| interesting discussions.
|
| My pet theory is that the species inherited a loop
| deformation by default from our ancestors, defacto splitting
| the species planetwide into three subspecieses. One adapted
| to peace, one adapted to strife, one adapted to all out
| carnage. The obvious benefits of various adaptions of what we
| perceive as mental sickness, but what are actual adaptions to
| the loop communicating themselves. In this small moment where
| one (peacetime) insanity is uprooted to replace with a
| (wartime) insanity, might we be free in the anti gravity of
| the situation to discuss complex answers before the yikes of
| you silence us for the rest of the cycle? Thanks for the gag
| in all these years, that helped and did nothing.
| pfdietz wrote:
| However, with a population of 8 billion and a genome of 3.1
| billion base pairs, the entire space of single nucleotide
| mutations is produced in just a few generations. So any such
| useful single nucleotide mutation is going to become
| available regardless of past bottlenecks.
| pegasus wrote:
| Good points. On the bottleneck hypothesis, a new study came
| out in 2024 arguing that the 900kya population loss was, if
| not a statistical artifact, more likely a genetic sweep or
| genome takeover via adaptive advantage. Whatever might be the
| truth in this case, it is true that human evolution,
| especially on the cultural plane, has gone through a bunch of
| major leaps which have had the effect of one small population
| eventually dominating the global genetic pool. Basically, a
| winner-takes-all dynamic. One example would be the Proto
| Indo-Europeans who have replaced male lineages throughout
| Europe and beyond. There are other such examples as well,
| like Neanderthal extinction.
| rolph wrote:
| you want to be a little careful.
|
| genetic bottleneck does not imply population loss.
|
| it is about unavailability of large gene pool.
|
| this can be population loss, but can also, be a loss of
| compatability between individuals, due to genomic
| modification, such as but not limited to chromosomal
| fusion.
|
| https://www.johnhawks.net/p/when-did-human-
| chromosome-2-fuse
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocation
| abc123abc123 wrote:
| So have humans. There are white, red, black, brown, yellow
| people, and they live in their own happy places on the planet,
| except for the fact that we now move them around by plane, boat
| and goat.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| I think subspecies is: "doesn't generally interbreed" and
| "generally lives apart"
| throwup238 wrote:
| Many researchers now refer to neanderthals as _Homo sapiens
| neanderthalensis_ , a subspecies of modern humans.
|
| It doesn't get talked about much because it's a sideshow
| without an easy resolution, but the question of modern and
| archaic human speciation is far from a settled problem and many
| of the species formerly considered to be separate are now often
| lumped in as subspecies.
| summa_tech wrote:
| First, I like your username. Second, I think it may be a
| problem of ebb and flow of scientific discourse (shifts in
| how we apply the definition of species) more than reflecting
| underlying reality, which - as you said - has no easy
| resolution.
| throwup238 wrote:
| It's not the ebb and flow so much as avoiding pointless
| academic bikeshedding. A bunch of very competitive explorer
| archaeologists named the separate species based on
| morphological skeletal differences decades before we even
| knew about DNA and now as the evidence accumulates, the
| question has gone from hard facts to a debate what is a
| species vs subspecies. Nobody really cares about the latter
| because it makes no functional difference to the research,
| so they let the problem lie until new interesting evidence
| presents itself. We know the species could interbreed,
| which is what matters to us now, not whether their taxa is
| three words or two (which is what this boils down to, some
| people write one way, some people the other and both know
| what each other is saying)
| usrnm wrote:
| > now refer to neanderthals as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
|
| What do you mean "now", they definitely were called that 30
| years ago, when I first learned about them
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| Every time I read about ancient DNA work, it's about Reich's
| research. Can anyone expert in the field shed light on that? He
| certainly seems to have a successful research group. And he's a
| good communicator, I got a lot out of his 2018 book. Who else
| should I be reading or reading about?
| rolph wrote:
| chromosomal fusion as the explanation for the "loss" of a
| chromosome pair, in humans.
|
| https://www.johnhawks.net/p/when-did-human-chromosome-2-fuse
|
| also , independent confirmation of observations, are gold for
| research, however needless repetition of effort is not.
|
| thus when someone is prolific,or uncannily mad about a topic it
| tends to be dominated by that persons submissions, and often
| any other contributors are on that lead researchers team.
| vivzkestrel wrote:
| funny how racists on twitter havent learnt that skin color is a
| function of natural selection, how do we get this message to them
| in a non offensive yet informational enough way to change their
| perceptions of colored people
| Rekindle8090 wrote:
| Are the twitter racists in the room with you now?
| Mikhail_K wrote:
| From the article:
|
| _We finally observed signals of selection for combinations of
| alleles that today are associated with three correlated
| behavioural traits: scores on intelligence tests (increasing
| 0.74+-0.12), household income (increasing 1.12+-0.12) and years
| of schooling (increasing 0.63+-0.13). These signals are all
| highly polygenic, and we have to drop 449-1,056 loci for the
| signals to become non-significant(Extended Data Fig.10). The
| signals are largely driven by selection before approximately
| 2,000 years , after which tends towards zero._
|
| That's the part that the speech police is afraid of.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > That's the part that the speech police is afraid of.
|
| Why? This article just focuses on changes in West Eurasia
| (probably because that's what they had data for), but the bulk
| of changes that resulted in behavioral modernity surely
| occurred in Africa - where the genetic variability for them to
| occur was and still is far greater than elsewhere - and
| plausibly similar changes occurred in other regions such as
| Central Eurasia, Southeast Eurasia etc. West Eurasia was a
| backwater.
| ralfd wrote:
| > and plausibly similar changes occurred in other regions
|
| Sure. But did ALL regions change? And did they change to the
| same destination? When the environments differed so much? It
| is easy to see how answers (or the questions themselves)
| could be politically contentious.
| Mikhail_K wrote:
| > the bulk of changes that resulted in behavioral modernity
|
| > surely occurred in Africa
|
| "Surely" without examining the actual evidence is almost
| surely wrong.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-18 23:01 UTC)