Best molecular biology books according to redditors
We found 107 Reddit comments discussing the best molecular biology books. We ranked the 48 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 107 Reddit comments discussing the best molecular biology books. We ranked the 48 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
When I did my undergrad the most up to date textbook about human evolution was Reconstructing Human Origins: A Modern Synthesis, with the latest edition published in 2012. I thought it was quite informative, though maybe lacking some detail in some aspects (especially morphology, which may actually not be that relevant to you).
I found that two new books were published in the last two years -
Processes in Human Evolution: The Journey From Early Hominins To Neanderthals And Modern Humans. The author is Franceso Ayala, a name which I never encountered while doing my undergrad. A quick google search revealed that he's an evolutionary geneticist and a philosopher, so I wonder if the focus of the book is more on palaeogenetics than behaviour or morphology. Has anyone read it?
The other book is The Science of Human Evolution. Based on the chapters it looks like it's focused on providing the reader with an up to date information on current topics in evolutionary anthropology. Sounds pretty interesting. Has anyone had to chance to read it?
Textbooks are far more ridiculous.
They wanted 160$ used for http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0716768879
I got it for 15 bucks with prime.
Well this thread title drew me like a hunk of iron to the world's biggest magnet.
The short answer to the title question is "no, except maybe in some very trivial sense." The longer answer is, well, complicated. Before I ramble a little bit, let me say that we should distinguish between the rhetorical and (for lack of a better word) "metaphysical" interpretations of this question. In many cases, the language used to describe some theory, problem, proposal, or whatever is indeed unnecessarily complicated in a way that makes it difficult to communicate (some parts of the humanities and social sciences are particularly bad offenders here). That is indeed a problem, and we should strive to communicate our ideas in the simplest language that's appropriate for the audience we're talking to. I take your friend's thesis to be a bit more substantive than that, though: he's claiming something like "all big messy systems are really just lots of small simple systems, and we can learn everything we need to know about the world by looking at the small simple systems." That's the viewpoint that I think is mistaken.
I think it's really important to distinguish between complicated and complex, both in the context of this discussion and in general. Lots of things are complicated in the sense of being big, having lots of moving parts, difficult to understand, or exhibiting nuanced behavior. A box of air at thermodynamic equilibrium is complicated: it has lots of parts, and they're all moving around with respect to one another. Not all complicated systems are also complex systems, though, and understanding what "complex" means turns out to be really tricky.
Here are some comparisons that seem intuitively true: a dog’s brain is more complex than an ant’s brain, and a human’s brain is more complex still. The Earth’s ecosystem is complex, and rapidly became significantly more complex during and after the Cambrian explosion 550 million years ago. The Internet as it exists today is more complex than ARPANET—the Internet’s progenitor—was when it was first constructed. A Mozart violin concerto is more complex than a folk tune like “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star.” The shape of Ireland’s coastline is more complex than the shape described by the equation x2 + y2 = 1. The economy of the United States in 2016 is more complex than the economy of pre-Industrial Europe. All these cases are relatively uncontroversial. What quantity is actually being tracked here, though? Is it the same quantity in all these cases? That is, is the sense in which a human brain is more complex than an ant brain the same sense in which a Mozart concerto is more complex than a folk tune?
These questions are extremely non-trivial to answer, and a very large number of whole books have been written on the subject already; so far, there's no universally accepted consensus of what makes complex systems special, or how to measure complexity in the natural world. There is, however, a growing consensus that P.W. Anderson was correct when he wrote in 1972 that "more is different": in many cases, systems consisting of a large number of relatively simple components interacting in relatively simple ways can display surprising, novel behavior. That's characteristic of complex systems: they behave in ways that we wouldn't expect them to (or even be able to deduce) based on an examination of their constituent parts in isolation from one another.
Complex systems often show interesting patterns of behavior that cut across scales of analysis, with their dynamics at one scale constraining the dynamics at other scales (and vice-versa). This sort of "multiscale variety" has been used to develop a mathematical theory of strong emergence, demonstrating how it can be the case that more is different. I've called this quality "dynamical complexity," and defined it as a measure of the "pattern richness" of a particular physical system: one system is more dynamically complex than another if (and only if) it occupies a point in configuration space that is at the intersection of regions of interest to more special sciences. For instance, a system for which the patterns of economics, psychology, biology, chemistry, and physics are predictively useful is more dynamically complex than one for which only the patterns of chemistry and physics are predictively useful.
The notion of dynamical complexity is supposed to correspond with (and give a physical interpretation for) the formalism of effective complexity, which is an information-theoretic concept developed by Murray Gell-Mann at the Santa Fe Institute. Effective complexity is grounded in the notion of algorithmic information content, and tracks the "amount of randomness" in a string, and how any non-randomness--information--was produced. A key feature of dynamical complexity is that the total "information content" of a physical system--the total number of interesting patterns in its behavior--may be perspectival, and thus depend on how we choose to individuate systems from their environment, and how we demarcate collections of microstates of the system into "relevantly similar" macrostates. Those choices are pragmatic, value-driven, and lack clear and uncontroversial "best answers" in many cases, contributing to the challenge of studying complex systems.
As an example, consider the task of predicting the future of the global climate. What are the criteria by which we divide the possible futures of the global climate into macrostates such that those macrostates are relevant for the kinds of decisions we need to make? That is, how might we individuate the global climate system so that we can notice the patterns that might help us predict the outcome of various climate policies? The answer to this question depends in part upon what we consider valuable; if we want to maximize long-term economic growth for human society, for instance, our set of macrostates will likely look very different than it would if we wanted to simply ensure that the average global temperature remained below a particular value. Both of those in turn may differ significantly from a set of macrostates informed by a desire to maximize available agricultural land. These different ways of carving possible future states up into distinctive macrostates do not involve changes to the underlying equations of motion describing how the system moves through its state space, nor does the microstructure of the system provide an obvious and uncontroversial answer to the question of which individuation we should choose. There is no clearly "best way" to go about answering this question.
Compare that project to modeling the box of gas I mentioned earlier and you can start to see why modeling complex systems is so difficult, and why complex systems are fundamentally different. In the case of the gas, there are a relatively small number of ways to individuate the system such that the state space we end up with is dynamically interesting (e.g. Newtonian air molecules, thermodynamic states, quantum mechanical fluctuations). In the case of the global climate, there are a tremendous number of potentially interesting individuations, each associated with its own collection of models. The difference between the two systems is not merely one of degree; they are difference in kind, and must be approached with that in mind.
In some cases, this may involve rather large changes in the way we think about the practice of science. As /u/Bonitatis notes below, many of the big unsolved problems in science are those which appear to "transcend" traditional disciplines; they involve drawing conclusions from our knowledge of economics, physics, psychology, political science, biology, and so on. This is because many of the big unsolved problems we're concerned with now involve the study of systems which are highly dynamically complex: things like the global economy, the climate, the brain, and so on. The view that we should (or even can) approach them as mere aggregates of simple systems is, I think, naive and deeply mistaken; moreover, it's likely to actually stymie scientific progress, since insisting on "tractability" or analytically closed models will often lead us to neglect important features of the natural world for the sake of defending those intuitive values.
If you find that interesting I highly recommend reading the book Sync by Brian Strogatz. Nature is full of this stuff, from sleep cycles to quantum effects to the behaviour of fireflies.
This is from my favourite book... The machinery of life, by David Goodsell.
Amazon - The Machinery of Life
The pics are actually to scale, and in some cases... every, single atom is represented... this is actually amazing when you consider that Atoms are too small to be imaged, they need to be crystallized and have x-rays bounced off them in order to calculate their positioning. 3D representative images are then drawn in CAD software.
Based on your post, I think you need more knowledge of biology and chemistry before you can really approach pharmacology. Gotta walk before you can run, if you will. But you're taking organic this year and hopefully biochem and a biology class next year so that will come with time.
If you're really excited about PK though, check out this youtube primer on the subject (~30min total). I also suggest checking out Derek Lowe's blog (/u/dblowe) In the Pipeline. There are over a decade of posts and especially since it's become associated with Science Translational Medicine, he does a great job introducing topics for those not directly in the field. He's made 73 posts tagged PK, and it may also give you insight about what your future career will be like and controversies in medicinal chemistry.
My undergrad med chem professor sadly passed away shortly before the course began, so I bought Richard Silverman's "The Organic Chemistry of Drug Design and Drug Action." Amazon has the 2nd edition (the one I have) for $13 and you may enjoy flipping through it when you take organic. However, it's a pretty advanced book (probably for folks who have already taken a med chem class) so you can also consider the legend EJ Corey's short book "Molecules and Medicine" or Patrick (the standard med chem textbook) if you want to see medicinal applications of organic while you take the course.
For general concepts in genetics, I recommend Introduction to Genetic Analysis. It's what a lot of undergraduate biology students are using now. Plus, the 10th edition is cheap because the 11th edition just came out. If you're more interested in a molecular understanding of the mechanisms at work, I recommend Molecular Biology: Structure and Dynamics of Genomes and Proteomes.
Here is your chance: http://www.amazon.com/The-Machinery-Life-David-Goodsell/dp/0387849246
I'm currently reading a book on this topic Life on the Edge that postulates quantum biology is the "magic factor" and we cannot currently make life as we do not grasp the understanding of how the quantum world can produce larger physical changes in the biological realm.
The idea of a simpler brain is a complex statement of itself. What do you define as small? What is simple or complex? If you had a neuron that fired when it was day time as it could detect light, is that a brain - or is that a machine?
Flys are often used in computational neuroscience as it is well understood and mapped, but it is still complex. Sadly I do not have a direct answer for you.
>methodically state the case for why creation is most likely and/or why evolution is unlikely.
You will find lots and lots of the latter. Very little of the former.
>I'd also be happy to read GOOD anti-creation books as well, provided they meet the above criterion of not being mocking.
Those would just be science books based on the academic literature, wouldn't they?
Here is my reading list form the past few months. These would be pro-evolution (a.k.a science). Creationism is mentioned in a few of them, but almost in passing because Creationism is simply not a factor in legitimate scientific research, so it gets pretty much no consideration.
Knock yourself out. ;)
Neurobiology: A Functional Approach was written by my professor at UCI its strengths are better phrased by the quote
> For an introductory textbook it is important to keep things simple, avoid unnecessary jargon, and explain thoroughly the significance of the material, and Professor Striedter does all of these things exceptionally well. The text not only presents the facts, but also explains in detail the original experiments that discovered these facts, thus encouraging students to understand the science rather than just memorize information. - Kwoon Wong, University of Michigan
> I did and still do believe that an ordered universe that allows science to predict anything at all is evidence of a creator, even if it isn't the one I believe in. I've heard others claim that the universe is chaotic, but I don't agree.
The modern view, backed by evidence, is that order and chaos are not dichotomous as was traditionally believed, but rather they both emerge from each other.
Here are some good links with decent, well produced approaches to teaching this concept while providing concrete examples:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xv1j0n
https://www.amazon.com/Sync-Order-Emerges-Universe-Nature/dp/0786887214
I'll also note that neither of the above even approach the question of whether 'a creator' exists, as it is outside of the scope of the presentation and, I think, irrelevant to the overall point. None of this demonstrates definitively that there is no creator. What it does demonstrate, I believe, is that if you are truly seeking fruitful paths to find evidence or arguments for the existence of a creator, order and chaos is not where you should be looking.
That area of the map has been explored, by hundreds of people undoubtedly more clever and observant than you or me, and we've found no gods there. Or, to use another metaphor, I don't think there's any more meat on that bone.
You're correct. This is pointless. That you'd refuse to even accept the reality of race and the facets of racial issues in this nation speaks volumes.
Nonetheless I may as well obliterate you by providing more scientific evidence of race existing.
https://archive.is/D9RFT
https://archive.is/dSwjD
https://archive.is/Hbjdb
https://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
https://archive.is/zX5p9
https://archive.is/yoVMj
https://archive.is/x7I7I
I can't convince a person to accept truth when they willingly deny it.
As far as abiogenesis is concerned, I really enjoyed books such as The Emergence Of Everything, Beginnings Of Cellular Life, Origins Of Life, Genesis, What Is Life?, and Microcosms.
I'm an avid reader of all things abiogenesis, if you hadn't noticed. Considering it and finding ways to simulate it on a computer is one of my hobbies.
Also, Abiogenesis is really part of a larger study of emergence, chaos and order, and how simple things come together to perform complex dances. So on that note, I have a few more books worth reading:
Sync: How Order Emerges From Chaos In the Universe, Nature, and Daily Life, Emergence: From Chaos to Order, and Creation: Life and How to Make it
Seven Life Lessons of Chaos
Though it positions itself somewhat as a self-help book, it's really not -- it touches on many interesting things about nature and humanity. It's short (and maybe enlightening too).
I also enjoyed Sync ... though I'm not sure if some of the findings here have been updated (it's a bit old now).
You might also look at some EO Wilson books.
Yes, this is the perfect choice.
An alternative would be Peter Hoffman's Life's Ratchet: How Molecular Machines Extract Order from Chaos https://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Ratchet-Molecular-Machines-Extract/dp/0465022537
https://www.amazon.com/Neurobiology-Functional-Approach-Georg-Striedter/dp/0195396154/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536360539&sr=8-1&keywords=neurobiology
Read this.
For anybody who (like me) would like to see more of this... Many of these illustrations are part of a book, The Machinery of Life, by Goodsell. The price seems unbelievable -- I'll be ordering one myself ASAP.
> A really great basic textbook to Genetics that I used for my undergrad was Intro to Genetic Analysis by Alberts et al I think. Has a cute trio of doggos on the front cover!
That's by Griffiths et. al. It's a great book - I used the previous edition during my studies and still keep it on my shelf.
Strogatz is my favorite author for complex syst. and non-linear dynamics: http://www.amazon.com/Sync-Order-Emerges-Universe-Nature/dp/0786887214
Watch his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_strogatz_on_sync.html
I suggest "Operators and Promoters: The Story of Molecular Biology and Its Creators " by Hutch Echols. (http://www.amazon.com/Operators-Promoters-Molecular-Biology-Creators/dp/0520213319)
Usually I don't enjoy reading my textbooks, but this one is a great read. The book is an overview of the experiments behind all of the great discoveries in molecular biology and microbiology. I've learned more from this book than all of my intro to bio courses. Check it out.
If you haven't read Eighth Day of Creation yet, do it.
Statistical Physics of Biomolecules has a chapter on water which includes the hydrophobic effect and is my go-to reference for these kinds of things. I'm sure there are papers out there that cover the topic well, but don't know of any off the top of my head.
If you have an organic chemistry and biochemistry understanding, I'd highly recommend Molecules and Medicine. It's a really interesting read about different drug molecules, the history of their discovery, their mechanism of action, and a bit about the diseases they treat. We used it for my Biology & Chemistry of Medicine course, but I ended up reading the whole book because of how interesting it was!
Here is the mobile version of your link
Dr. Richard K. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution I bought this initially because I wanted to read the chapter about digestive problems, of which I had a lot. Subsequently, I realized that I had diabetes, according to his definition which, sensibly, is much different than that of the American Diabetes Association.
Ignatius Brady. What is Fat For? Re-thinking Obesity Science. Alright, this is not a "pro-keto" book, so I guess it can't be on the list. But I heard about if from Michael Eades's review on his blog. The author Brady, like Eades before he retired, has a medical practice specializing in weight loss. Patients don't visit him until they've failed to lose weight repeatedly on their own. He keeps up with the science but he also knows that, no matter what the science says, if patients can't comply with a regimen, it's not very good. He has read Good Calories, Bad Calories and takes it seriously. He agrees that keto outperforms low fat but he ultimately rejects it because he has found that it creates too many noncompliance problems (I think Jason Fung might have a similar conclusion, please correct me if I am wrong). This book turned me on to the Protein Leverage Hypothesis, which blew my mind because of its scope and explanatory power.
You draw this conclusion from the fact that I recognize that hybrids exist? Or the fact that I still recognize the existence of different races? And I have an interpreted the Jewish holy books to mean anything. I know what they say and I do not believe or follow any of it. Here's a book for you to read.
https://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861
Awesome! I've read a bit if Williams, but haven't been able to read the whole thing yet (I can't wait!).
If you're looking for a graduate level TEXTBOOK, a fantastic one is "Evolution" by Nick Barton: http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Nicholas-H-Barton/dp/0879696842
It was recommended to be by an evolutionary biology professor at my university as the best there currently is. However, this is far from popular science, so be prepared.
If you're interested in a more popular science-y book that's not completely for the layman, The Selfish Gene is a must. It's a classic in the field and covers a huge range of fascinating material. The Extended Phenotype is its sequel, and is also quite good.
If you're interested in multi-level selection or "group selection", check out work by Samir Okasha and David Sloan Wilson.
My observation and perception is that this natural harmony is fundamentally what causes intelligence and consciousness. It is fractal, and it is spontaneous. In simple terms, our brains are giant musical instruments, like thousands or even millions of orchestras in our head, and our thoughts are songs that play along with stimulus from our environment. There are many songs playing in our brains at any given time. The most coherent songs get other orchestras to play along, until one is the most coherent in our mind and becomes the main song for a bit.
The fractal nature of this on the larger scale can be seen in social interactions where there is a public consciousness -- the collective intelligence. The collective intelligence that we see in society might exactly mirror how our individual intelligence works. The fractal nature on a smaller scale can be seen when for instance we notice a sound, such as a wind chime, and it stimulates a larger thought. This happened to me a few years ago when my neighbor's wind "flute" played a certain note according to which way and how intense the wind was blowing. There I was, unloading groceries from the car when it occurred to me that that's exactly how our brains work, albeit on a far more complex scale. We are more or less blowing around in the winds of existence, receiving stimuli from many sources at once, and our brains spontaneously oscillate in response, just like my neighbor's wind flute.
There is an interesting book on this subject called "Sync: How Order Emerges from Chaos in the Universe, Nature, and Daily Life". These natural harmonics are how order spontaneously appears in the universe, and it therefore appears to me that our brains and our intelligence are the opposite of disorder.
I had once watched an interview with a lady who was describing a DMT trip. She felt that our brains are "spiritual antennas". That may not be far from the truth when you think about it, since, as I am proposing, our brains naturally oscillate in harmony with stimuli from our environment. What happens when we are asleep, or under the influence of substances such as DMT, is somewhat more of a mystery than being sober and awake. Is some part of our brain sensitive to unseen quantum harmonics perhaps?
If you go to Myanmar or Thailand, you can see them flash in sync. There's a great book that's not really about the phenomenon as much as it's about spontaneous generation of order from chaos. The author was on a fascinating episode of Radiolab that talks about the firefly thing though.
Here's a good book on biology from an engineering perspective:
http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Devices-Physical-Animals-Plants/dp/0691024189/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1313104301&sr=8-1
>My question is simple, if atheists don't have all the answers to how life started how can you say a believer like myself is wrong?
Whether or not we have the answers is irrelevant to whether or not your position is wrong.
Whether or not your position wrong depends only on what the position is and its justification for it. We think your justification is faulty. And we believe that it is unlikely that through a faulty chain of logic you happened to stumble upon the one correct solution.
>but I know how big I relative to this huge/infinite universe
How big are you relative to it? Isn't it implied that god made the universe for humans? Wouldn't that make humans a pretty big part of it?
>I can just look at an orange and appreciate God and religion. I'm very serious- the proof for me that God exists is all around me
Can you explain what an orange has to do with proof of god existence?
What do you see when you look at starving crippled girls who raped daily because people think having sex with virgins will cure/prevent AIDS?
>I want to know why.
Because an orange has little do with God's existance. Nothing about an orange has to do with god. We fully understand how oranges came into existence. It is actually, really, really fascinating.
>What does an anteist feel when they see the stars and moon, what do you feel when you look the anomy of the human body , or when you see a catapliier turning into a butterfly.
That the universe is incredible, but it was by no means made for us.
>All this was random, completely and utterly random?
Says who? What do you mean by random? The flow of things has been defined by the laws of physics, any "randomness" coming at a quantum level where it still isn't exactly "random".
>How is that possible?
Who knows.
>why is this earth and everything in it any different?
Because we have evidence the earth (and everything else) wasn't designed. As for the cause of the universe/existence, we don't know, but we have little reason to suspect it has a designer.
Edit:
After reading some of your posts it seems you have a very simple/child like understanding of evolution. I don't mean this as an insult, but I would point out that if you don't understand it, then you can't place accurate judgement on it. The same way you would say I was foolish for critiquing the koran, despite never having studied it, it is foolish to critique evolution unless you first understand what it claims.
This is a very good book:
>http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Nicholas-H-Barton/dp/0879696842
You might also find this relevant:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk
There's a couple books I think you would like, seeing as I always see you talking about the evolution of information and biochemistry.
The first one is Arrival of the Fittest by Andreas Wagner. This guy is a researcher who studied things like proteins and gene mutations and uploaded all kinds of information about it into these sophisticated computer programs to create maps of how genes, proteins, metabolisms, and other things like this are related to each other and how their evolution actually occurs and produces useful novelty. This book blew my mind like nothing I've ever read on the subject. It's really fascinating and has some really unexpected stuff.
Then the other one is The Vital Question by biochemist Nick Lane. This dude is a really novel thinker and really goes far in depth into the possible original biochemistry, how it achieved an energetic level high enough to produce complex life, and more.
Both books can get kind of complex. They went over my head many many times, especially the Nick Lane book because he goes deep into the nitty gritty particulars of the biochemistry. But even so, you can get through them without too much difficulty, and both authors have a real gift for describing this stuff. Ultimately both completely blew open my understanding of the subject and made it all so much more interesting.
Edit: also, you can read some of Nick Lane's stuff for free here, especially under the publications tab. Also, he did a really cool study showing that the genome complexity seen in Eukaryotes could not have evolved without the energetic input of mitochondria, and this is one of the main themes of his book. That study is here, and has some really interesting implications for astrobiology, which he talks about in the book too.
The Eighth Day of Creation, by Horace Freeland Judson
http://www.amazon.com/Eighth-Day-Creation-Revolution-Anniversary/dp/0879694785
Race-a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans. The commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics--Oxford Medical
Race (human categorization)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Race is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics or social relations, or the relations between them.[1][2][3][4][5] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense,[6] starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[7][8]
Minorities crying were instrumental in turning the scientific consensus against the validity of race in the 1960s
"Increasingly women and younger persons
entered the discipline. In the 1960s,
during their graduate training, they were
exposed to and some participated in the
social movements concerned with civil
rights, gender equality, and opposition to
the war in Viet Nam37. Defenders of the
race concept may prefer to portray the rejection
of race as being a politically correct
response. Instead, it is proposed that
their social experiences of discrimination
and awareness of the use of racism to excuse
the slaughter of millions in the Holocaust
and in the massacres of World War
II stimulated their sensitivity to the new
natural science data and concepts and enabled
them to reject the concept of race."
"One was based on clinal variations
noted above. In the second the differences
between human societies were
conceived as cultural ethnic groups in
which one or more populations were identified
on the basis of »behavior, customs,
or genealogy (descent)«26. This is a cultural
distinction that avoids explaining differences
between groups on the basis of
race or genetic determinism, although regrettably,
some use ethnicity to refer to
biological races as in The Bell Curve38."
http://collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr/_doc/Coll.Antropol.28%282004%292_907-921.pdf#page=6
This is most likely the reason the IQ level for retarded was lowered, as the standard deviation meant the overwhelming majority of the black population was considered mentally retarded
As you can see, it has nothing to do with science as it way it was overturned as a definition, but feels
Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races
http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf
Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html"
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever
http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Races are human subspecies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”
http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia
http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
Racial classification has genetic significance
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
So feel free to 'enjoy' all that actual science i just dropped on your ass, feel free to let me know when your PH.D in biology is done. No amount of social justice fuckery is going to overcome reality
If anybody stumbles onto this discussion later, I found this book to have a fairly good treatment of basic variance component and heredity-related information.
Stop second-guessing your choice of major. Keep your eyes on what you actually want, and remember that the steps along the way will all build there eventually. Check in on your plans when you're picking classes each semester, to make sure you're still on course and still want that ultimate goal. The REU and some lab time will all help.
Try reading some science-related books, not actual science but stuff about scientists themselves or stories about specific scientific discoveries. Like The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Double Helix, Eighth Day of Creation, The Disappearing Spoon, and Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman. Your school should have copies of most of them, and they aren't textbook-heavy (though not quite as light as fiction novels).
Don't forget to stay at least a little rounded. Someone on just about every recruitment weekend for grad school will ask about your hobbies. I'm pretty sure they're required to do so :) Or you'll discover you and your interviewer both do ceramics and can chat about that, leaving a stronger impression than if you were yet another person talking about science. It's good to be done with the requirements, but make sure you keep up something outside your major, even if it's just ultimate frisbee.
So I heard that Introduction of Quantitative Genetics is good for this type pf information. I have Neal's Introduction to Population Biology and they reference that as a good source of Effective Population Size models. I feel you could probably do this stuff outside of R, like in excel or whatever if you are mathy but in order to find out what R package to use for something like this, you will have to look up the current literature (scholar.google.com) and look at their methods to see which packages they used. Check your mailbox for help.
found it
For a really interesting description of the underlying principles at work here I'd highly recommend checking out Sync: How Order Emerges From Chaos In the Universe, Nature, and Daily Life by Steven Strogatz.
There are some really good suggestions here, but a couple of books that were good entry points for me haven't been mentioned yet:
Sync by Steven Strogatz.
How The Universe Got Its Spots by Janna Levin.
Both of these books are rather specific interest type books, but they're both written so well that they are easy entry points into more reading later.
Edit: Ooh ooh I forgot about Plagues and Peoples. A great read that really makes you rethink global history, along the lines of (and drastically predating) another great book about cultural history Guns, Germs and Steel. Both of these books are kind of a mix of history, sociology and science, so it might not be what you're looking for though.
> Racism is a totally irrational position entirely unsupported by facts. Biologists, anthropologists, and sociologists all agree that race is more or less a cultural construct
Absolute lie of colossal proportions. Racial self-identification can even be predicted with 99% accuracy in a country as mixed as the US with access to the genetic analysis of the subject in question. Different racial group have as much in common with each other as totally different breeds of dog or bird. The fact that racial categories that have been settled upon are "socially constructed" is irrelevant; most concepts in science are also and, like race, they are still accurately predictive of human behaviour
Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source:http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf
Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source:http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source:http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source:http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html
Race can be determined via brain scans. Source:http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source:http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source:http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source:http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/
With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source:http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source:http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source:http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source:http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source:http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source:http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source:http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Races are human subspecies. Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full
For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source:https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
Racial classification has genetic significance. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351
An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html
> some minor exceptions which tend to disappear after a couple generations of intermarriage.
This is laughably irrelevant and shows that you do not have any third level education in anything remotely scientific. Just because interbreeding is possible, doesn't mean that the breeds themselves don't exist. I've had to beat down a number of clueless retards like you on this topic before, but this takes the cake as by far the stupidest take I've ever heard
You lose
>End of the day both both sides of the argument have evidence.
No they don't. One side has one crappy study from 1972. Here's a list of sources supporting the other side:
Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source: http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf
Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html
Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/
With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full
For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351
An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html
>So you believe which research makes you happy, and I’ll believe the research that makes me happy.
Your "research" gets minorities killed.
Statistical physics of biomolecules of Zuckeman is a good book. Also Ken Dill's Molecular Driving Forces is more thermodynamics. Both books are quite good.
You can also look at how we've evolved physiologically, with regards to our bodies and how they're adapted for persistence hunting techniques. We have several other adaptations that aid running, big buttock muscles that only really engage fully when running, the pinch in the hip only seen in later Homo sp to help balance when running, and tendons like the Achilles are adapted for running, evolution of the nuchal ligament etc. We have little body hair, and far more sweat glands than any other primate to prevent hyperthermia. Our bodies have pigmentation (we were totally black during our evolution, even up until 10k years ago - first Britons were black) that is universal, which would protect us in heat of the day from skin cancers, etc. We "exchanged" our ability to climb trees, for the ability to run long distance, something no other primate can do. People like to say “we cant hunt, go and hunt a rabbit and see” – Not all animals hunt in the same fashion. https://youtu.be/826HMLoiE_o Running prey down over long distance - humans are the best long distance runners on the planet. No animal can match us. Some might say, isn't our ability to run for running away from predators? No. We do not have fast acceleration like a gazelle, we couldn't outrun an ensuing predator at all – they’re fast over short distances.
Our shoulder also evolved for throwing, throwing that would've been used for throwing weapons/spears. Not for throwing paper airplanes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y__4xX8xp8&t=62s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_bYlY6AHew&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zb2wsgYNwk&t=5s
We can generate far greater throwing speeds than any other primate. As can be read here: https://scholar.harvard.edu/ntroach/evolution-throwing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3785139/
Even our teeth. There are other primates with huge canines, but there is a significant (lots of differences, not just this one) difference between us and other primates, behaviour. We do not display our teeth for defensive, or mating purposes. Male gorilla's will often show their canines as a show of dominance, thus it is evolutionary advantageous for them to have bigger canines - not only for a show of dominance, but also to win over impressionable females. Similar to how stags with largest antlers are the most attractive to females. Our canines existence is purely for the tearing or ripping through tough fibrous material like meat. Why are they so small? Our canines have gradually been getting smaller, along with our teeth in general (and jaw) from the early Australopiths. Basically down to tool use, extra processing outside of the mouth meant that it wasn't necessary to have big powerful jaws or huge flat molars like in earlier species, or massive canines. If you look at our teeth in more detail - our teeth became smaller and our enamel became thinner which allows for microscopic breakages creating sharp edges, both which aid shearing of meat. Even our molars are very adept at slicing through meat, which you wouldn't think at first. There is plenty of shearing action in our jaw motion. This is demonstrated by this video: https://youtu.be/hdBQG8lKszk
To say meat consumption was sparse or only in small amounts, is wrong and misleading, the above points and more clearly point towards a significant increase in meat intake and it was vital to get us to the point we are at today. Haven't got the time to sit here and explain it in even more detail, but I can recommend these books as a starting point if you're at all genuinely interested in the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Processes-Human-Evolution-hominins-Neanderthals/dp/0198739915/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356167&sr=8-5&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Human+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51ihhNFeyIL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Story-Human-Body-Evolution-Disease/dp/030774180X/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356167&sr=8-6&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Human+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=41oZy7BlFpL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Bite-Story-Teeth-Origins/dp/0691160538/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356353&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Teeth+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51m-p9AT1CL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Mammal-Teeth-Origin-Evolution-Diversity/dp/0801896681/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356386&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Teeth+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51hDV7cQ%2B6L&ref=plSrch
For further reading, check out Life's Ratchet by Peter Hoffmann. Excellent book.
Lol.
"Look at all the sources of information that I haven't read or even bothered to cite any of their relevance!"
Naming the title of a book or journal doesn't indicate that its contents support your argument. I'll actually give you things you can read, AND tell you what they're about and how they relate to my point.
Enjoy. Dunce.
Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source: http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf
Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html
Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/
With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Races are human subspecies. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full
For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351
An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html
There's a pretty decent non-technical book about this that will go into some more detail if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Lifes-Ratchet-Molecular-Machines-Extract/dp/0465022537/
Need this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Genetics-Robert-Brooker-Professor-Dr/dp/1259616029/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521082426&sr=8-1&keywords=genetics+analysis+and+principles+6th+edition
Will pay 5 usd
I'm in genetics and this is by far one of the best books covering the subject.
"The eight day of creation" is a historical background of molecular biology which is pretty good.
Otherwise it is textbook time, but that gets very dry very quickly. I suspect you would get similar mileage from browsing wikipedia with a genetics theme in mind.
This is a good beginning book on networks/complexity that people here might enjoy: Weak Links: The Universal Key to the Stability of Networks and Complex Systems by Peter Csermely
Good read, great bibliography, broad scope. A pdf of this book can be found at the usual places (pm me if it isn't clear what that means).
This might even be a good first book for a reading group if there aren't enough people who want to tackle a more academic text. Each section would provide many opportunities for bringing in papers referenced in the bib for deeper discussion while still letting those of us less familiar with the concepts follow along and understand the main ideas.
race is deeper than skin:
Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html
Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/
With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Races are human subspecies. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full
For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351
An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html
More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. Source: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/
Diversity increases psychotic experiences. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full
Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full
A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full
Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. Source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full
Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks. Source: https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/38/3/441/2239811
Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6
Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. Source: http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf#page=2
Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. Source: https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf
Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. Source: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors
In America, more diverse cities have more segregation. Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/
Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0
States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. Source: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf
Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence. Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409
Diversity reduces charity and volunteering. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover. Source: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/23/3/239.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc
Ethnic diversity reduces social trust. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5677
Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract
Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8627
Diversity correlates with low GDP. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079
Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full
On race:
Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races. Source: http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf
Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html
Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/
With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Races are human subspecies. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full
For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351
An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html
100% (324/324) of Chinese researchers believe race is biologically real. Source: http://collegium.hrvatsko-antropolosko-drustvo.hr/_doc/Coll.Antropol.28%282004%292_907-921.pdf
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazonE.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
I have family of my own in medicine and forensics and they will confide that race is a reality, though the Zeitgeist of our age wishes much that it wasn't so.
Perhaps this admittedly-spammy trove of evidence will convince you...
BOATLOAD OF LINKS CONCERNING VERACITY OF RACE CONCEPT ALERT 🔔:
Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
Oral bacteria can be used to determine race. Source: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html
Race can be determined via brain scans. Source: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5
96-97% of Whites have no African ancestry. Source: http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html
97% of Whites have no Black ancestry whatsoever. Source: http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-Black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/
There was minimal gene flow between archaic Europeans and Asians. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning. Source: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf
A substantial amount of the human genome has been subjected to natural selection since the races diverged. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1317879/
With 160 short gene sequences, race can be determined with 100% accuracy for Whites, Asians, and Africans. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
Principal continent of origin (race) can be determined with 87% accuracy even for highly mixed populations. Source: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2960574-6
“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Empirical structure within human genetic variation … resembles continentally based racial classifications”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles.” Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
“Numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis.” Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/
Genetic analysis of race corresponds with self-identification more than 99% of the time. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Races are human subspecies. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19695787
The “social constructionist account of race lacks biological reality”. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract
Race can be determined from fingerprints. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22869/full
For 99.86% of individuals, genetic analysis of race matches self-identification. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
Predefined ethnic/racial labels are “highly informative” about genetic identity. Source: https://web.stanford.edu/group/rosenberglab/papers/popstruct.pdf
Over 2000 genes have been subject to recent (post out-of-Africa) evolution. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html
The concept of race existed in ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, China, India, and Arabia. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Race-The-Reality-Human-Differences/dp/0813340861
Racial classification has genetic significance. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
Racial identity is real and is hidden in correlations between different traits. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.10315/abstract
With enough data points, an individual will never be closer related to someone of another race than someone of their own race. Source: http://www.genetics.org/content/176/1/351
An individual’s geographic origin can be determined from their genes “with remarkable accuracy”. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6470/abs/368455a0.html
You are moving the goalposts, you didn't ask for peer reviewed sources. Scholarly articles aren't as readily available as simply links that I can post on Reddit. And the last time I checked, the NYT was hardly an alt-right publication.
.
But if you insist, here are quite a few for you, although only the abstracts are generally available:
The Biological Reification of Race
http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/2/323.abstract
Race: The Reality of Human Differences
https://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861
How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20983/full
Race Reconciled? How Biological Anthropologists view human variation
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20995/full
Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21006/full
Biohistorical approaches to “race” in the United States: Biological distances among African Americans, European Americans, and their ancestors
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20961/full
Now - most of the anthro articles don't endorse the "folk" or popular view of race and so they might seem like a debunking of race, but in fact, they recognize there are measurable variations, they just think there is more variation than what people popularly observe. And the usefulness in forensic DNA in indentifying victims or suspects has been invaluable. See the landmark Dr. Frudakis case.
EDIT - wow, so I include a ton of peer reviewed articles and already I am downvoted in the first 30 seconds, not even enough time for anyone to have skimmed those links. Classy.