GAMOVA vs STRUCTURE? The following racial diagram is derived from the genetic data (no “self identified race” is used as input) via a technique called “GAMOVA” in a paper by Caroline M. Nievergelt, Ondrej Libiger and Nicholas J. Schork titled “Generalized Analysis of Molecular Variance”: However, in the abstract for “Generalized Analysis of Molecular Variance” we read:
So a question to the more technically literate readers: How do these techniques compare in their results and how might their differences affect the potential for Removing Lewontin’s Fallacy From Hamilton’s Rule, hence extending the theory of Ethnic Genetic Interests and providing a stronger foundation for Universal Nationalism? Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 22:04 | # You are referring to the MR article “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Populations” wherein the academic paper by the same name by David J Witherspoon, Stephen Wooding, Alan R Rogers, Elizabeth E Marchani, W Scott Watkins, Mark A Batzer and Lynn B Jorde is discussed. In that MR discussion you stated:
Could you present a definition of “structure” and how it differs from “clustering” if at all? It sounds to me like you’re, perhaps indirectly, criticizing the use of correlation structure measures to strengthen the theory of EGI. 3
Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:38 | # “It sounds to me like you’re, perhaps indirectly, criticizing the use of correlation structure measures to strengthen the theory of EGI.” That couldn’t be more mistaken. Clustering, essentially, is based upon comparing an individual’s gene frequencies to the “centroid” of a particular population; that is, if Europeans are characterized by a set of gene frequencies, and Africans by another, how close is the individual to either set. I would define structure as composing of those elements of genetic information above and beyond a one-by-one evaluation of gene frequencies and including as well genetic structures beyond that of the single allele. Easy examples of “structure” would include copy number variation, insertions, deletions, inversions, etc. But these are NOT the major determinants of structure, nor what we here usually refer to as structure. That would be the coinheritance of particular alleles (or, even, gene sequences) between individuals and groups. If one reads the “materials and methods” section of the Jorde paper, they are defining “w” as the average distance of each allele taken in turn - that is _not_ what we would consider structure. The basic component of structure would thus be defined as the coinheritance of gene sequences/alleles. Linkage disequilibrium is therefore one aspect of structure, and new LD patterns are established, not surprisingly, upon admixture. To put it even more simply and to use a crude analogy (very crude), it is not the allele frequencies for, say, eye color, skin color, hair color, nose shape, skull shape, etc. each taken in turn and averaged. Instead, structure concerns itself with the frequency that these various types of alleles happen to be co-inherited in the same individual or group, the frequency by which particular _combinations_ of the allele type show up in the specific set. As far as I can see, this is not being measured by Jorde’s “w” distance metric, nor the “c” clustering metrics. If I am mistaken, then I stand open for correction; perhaps Jorde et al., were not as clear in their paper, and I misinterpret their methodology. I would, however, require clear and unmistakable evidence that such a misinterpretation has taken place. 4
Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:47 | # Note: I mistakenly placed the next two posts on this topic in the amygdala thread. 5
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:50 | # The misplaced comments were: From Jorde: 1. Methodology: “Pairwise Genetic Distance 2. Problem with clustering: “Nonetheless, it is instructive to consider the analogy using panel C as a guide. “The genetic distance between This is _not_ how I would define “structure.” 6
Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:48 | # A review of “On Genetic Interests” by van den Berghe, who considers himself a “political anarchist”: http://lists.paleopsych.org/pipermail/paleopsych/2005-May/003227.html One can contrast van den Berghe’s essentially fair review to the ludicrous “hatchet job” by David B of gnxp. Of course, Dr. van den Berghe seems to be an independent entity, and not an extended phenotype of devious south asians. Also, read the last paragraph of van den Berghe’s review. Sound familiar? “Life has no interests”, “who cares”, “toffee and Mahler.” 7
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:14 | # My work on compression-as-intelligence has led me to the working belief that the best currently practical approach is to treat structure as algorithmic information. What this means is you take a set of data—any data at all—and create the minimum length computer program that outputs that data. Its easy to state this as the goal but it is, in fact, provably uncomputable to come up with said minimum length program—although it is asymptotically computable with exponential computing resources. There are other approaches involving generalization of relation arithmetic—hence quantum information systems—that may prove superior if or when quantum “computers” (a misnomer really) become a practical reality. 8
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:08 | # There is an enormous amount of work on compression of genetic data. Indeed, it may be the most active area of bioinformatics. The primary value of what you call “existing distance measurements” is that they offer guidance as to what sort of a priori (or Bayesian prior) structures may offer optimal compression. The test is whether they do, in fact, enable the production of shorter programs that output the known data. Post a comment:
Next entry: I promise you
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:27 | #
I don’t have the time to look this paper over as carefully as I would like, but note that ‘clustering’ can be viewed as a metric different from genetic similarity/differences.
Remember the Jorde paper from the Utah group discussed here recently. The “w” measure of genetic similarity was a more stringent measurement than clustering, and is more in line with information need for determination of genetic interests.