romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
In the early 20th century, many anthropologists accepted and taught the belief that biologically distinct races were isomorphic with distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups, while popularly applying that belief to the field of eugenics, in conjunction with a practice that is now called scientific racism. After the Nazi eugenics program, racial essentialism lost widespread popularity. Race anthropologists were pressured to acknowledge findings coming from studies of culture and population genetics, and to revise their conclusions about the sources of phenotypic variation. A significant number of modern anthropologists and biologists in the West came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation.

Q1: Who taught and accepted the belief that biologically distinct races were isomorphic?
A1: many anthropologists
Q2: What practice was combined with the field of eugenics regarding the distinctness of social groups?
A2: scientific racism
Q3: What effect did the Nazi eugenics program have on racial essentialism?
A3: lost widespread popularity
Q4: What conclusions were race anthropologists pressured to revise?
A4: sources of phenotypic variation
Q5: What did a lot of modern anthropologists in the West come to view racial designation as?
A5: invalid
Population geneticists have debated whether the concept of population can provide a basis for a new conception of race. In order to do this, a working definition of population must be found. Surprisingly, there is no generally accepted concept of population that biologists use. Although the concept of population is central to ecology, evolutionary biology and conservation biology, most definitions of population rely on qualitative descriptions such as "a group of organisms of the same species occupying a particular space at a particular time" Waples and Gaggiotti identify two broad types of definitions for populations; those that fall into an ecological paradigm, and those that fall into an evolutionary paradigm. Examples of such definitions are:

Q1: What type of geneticists have debates about what can provide a basis for a new conception of race?
A1: Population
Q2: What class of researchers surprisingly have no generally accepted concept of population?
A2: biologists
Q3: What do most definitions of population rely on?
A3: qualitative descriptions
Q4: What do Waples and Gaggiotti identify two broad types of?
A4: definitions for populations
Q5: What are both ecological and evolutionary definition modifiers of?
A5: paradigm
Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

Q1: What are traditionally geographically isolated?
A1: subspecies
Q2: What is "subspecies" used to indicate an objective degree of?
A2: microevolutionary divergence
Q3: What is an objection to the idea of subspecies because it doesn't specify this?
A3: degree of differentiation
Q4: What would a population have to somewhat be to be considered a subspecies?
A4: biologically different
Q5: What did Templeton argue is necessary to impose a threshold on for a population to be a subspecies?
A5: level of difference
This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the seventy-five percent rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The seventy-five percent rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with ninety or ninety-five percent rule.

Q1: What must organisms have a measurable level of to be seen as a subspecies?
A1: difference
Q2: Who proposed subspecies be defined by the seventy-five percent rule?
A2: Dean Amadon
Q3: What year did Dean Amadon make his proposal?
A3: 1949
Q4: The 75% rule states how much of a population must lie outside the range of other populations for a defining set of characters?
A4: 99%
Q5: Many scholars argue what should be replaced with a ninety or ninety-five percent rule?
A5: The seventy-five percent rule
In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the usual criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other. However, it is customary to use the term race rather than subspecies for the major subdivisions of the human species as well as for minor ones.

Q1: When did Sewall Wright make his suggestion about human populations?
A1: 1978
Q2: How should populations long inhabiting separate parts of the world be considered?
A2: different subspecies
Q3: What is required to allocate individuals in subspecies populations correctly?
A3: inspection
Q4: What did Wright feel it wouldn't take an anthropologist to easily distinguish between of in groups?
A4: individual
Q5: What term is it customary to use instead of subspecies?
A5: race
Cladistics is another method of classification. A clade is a taxonomic group of organisms consisting of a single common ancestor and all the descendants of that ancestor. Every creature produced by sexual reproduction has two immediate lineages, one maternal and one paternal. Whereas Carl Linnaeus established a taxonomy of living organisms based on anatomical similarities and differences, cladistics seeks to establish a taxonomy—the phylogenetic tree—based on genetic similarities and differences and tracing the process of acquisition of multiple characteristics by single organisms. Some researchers have tried to clarify the idea of race by equating it to the biological idea of the clade. Often mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human migration paths. These single-locus sources of DNA do not recombine and are inherited from a single parent. Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents, and tracing either mitochondrial DNA or non-recombinant Y-chromosome DNA explains how people in one place may be largely derived from people in some remote location.

Q1: What is cladistics a method of?
A1: classification
Q2: What is a clade a taxonomic group of?
A2: organisms
Q3: How many common ancestors does a clade have?
A3: single
Q4: What is another term for a phylogenetic tree?
A4: taxonomy
Q5: Which chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human migration paths?
A5: Y
Often taxonomists prefer to use phylogenetic analysis to determine whether a population can be considered a subspecies. Phylogenetic analysis relies on the concept of derived characteristics that are not shared between groups, usually applying to populations that are allopatric (geographically separated) and therefore discretely bounded. This would make a subspecies, evolutionarily speaking, a clade – a group with a common evolutionary ancestor population. The smooth gradation of human genetic variation in general tends to rule out any idea that human population groups can be considered monophyletic (cleanly divided), as there appears to always have been considerable gene flow between human populations. Rachel Caspari (2003) have argued that clades are by definition monophyletic groups (a taxon that includes all descendants of a given ancestor) and since no groups currently regarded as races are monophyletic, none of those groups can be clades.

Q1: What analysis method are taxonomists fond of using in considering a population?
A1: phylogenetic
Q2: How are allopatric populations separated?
A2: geographically
Q3: What is a group with a common evolutionary ancestor population called?
A3: a clade
Q4: What is a tongue twister of a word that merely means "cleanly divided"?
A4: monophyletic
Q5: Who argued in 2003 that all clades are by definition monophyletic groups?
A5: Rachel Caspari
For the anthropologists Lieberman and Jackson (1995), however, there are more profound methodological and conceptual problems with using cladistics to support concepts of race. They claim that "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples". For example, the large and highly diverse macroethnic groups of East Indians, North Africans, and Europeans are presumptively grouped as Caucasians prior to the analysis of their DNA variation. This is claimed to limit and skew interpretations, obscure other lineage relationships, deemphasize the impact of more immediate clinal environmental factors on genomic diversity, and can cloud our understanding of the true patterns of affinity. They argue that however significant the empirical research, these studies use the term race in conceptually imprecise and careless ways. They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began by assuming the validity of race. "For empirical reasons we prefer to place emphasis on clinal variation, which recognizes the existence of adaptive human hereditary variation and simultaneously stresses that such variation is not found in packages that can be labeled races."

Q1: What did Lieberman and Jackon find profound problems using cladistics to support concepts of?
A1: race
Q2: What would the diverse group of East Indians, North Africans and Europeans be grouped as prior to DNA analysis?
A2: Caucasians
Q3: Cladistics can limit and skew what?
A3: interpretations
Q4: What is variation found in that can be labeled as races?
A4: packages
Q5: Lieberman and Jackson suggest authors of some studies use the term race in what ways?
A5: conceptually imprecise and careless
One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was the anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, slow migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines. In part this is due to isolation by distance. This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion, that since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines".

Q1: What did C. Loring Brace observe about about variations?
A1: distributed along geographic gradations or clines
Q2: Why are variations distributed along clines?
A2: isolation by distance
Q3: What is a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races?
A3: they ignore a host of other similarities and differences
Q4: What is Frank Livingstone's profession?
A4: anthropologist
Q5: What is the conclusion from the evidence that clines cross racial boundaries?
A5: there are no races, only clines
In a response to Livingstone, Theodore Dobzhansky argued that when talking about race one must be attentive to how the term is being used: "I agree with Dr. Livingstone that if races have to be 'discrete units,' then there are no races, and if 'race' is used as an 'explanation' of the human variability, rather than vice versa, then the explanation is invalid." He further argued that one could use the term race if one distinguished between "race differences" and "the race concept." The former refers to any distinction in gene frequencies between populations; the latter is "a matter of judgment." He further observed that even when there is clinal variation, "Race differences are objectively ascertainable biological phenomena… but it does not follow that racially distinct populations must be given racial (or subspecific) labels." In short, Livingstone and Dobzhansky agree that there are genetic differences among human beings; they also agree that the use of the race concept to classify people, and how the race concept is used, is a matter of social convention. They differ on whether the race concept remains a meaningful and useful social convention.

Q1: What must one be attentive to when talking about race?
A1: how the term is being used
Q2: On what point did Dobzhansky agree with Dr. Livingstone?
A2: if races have to be 'discrete units,' then there are no races
Q3: What is merely "a matter of judgement"?
A3: "the race concept."
Q4: While race difference possible to easily see, they need not be given what?
A4: labels
Q5: Livingston and Dobzhansky disagree on whether the race concept is what?
A5: a meaningful and useful social convention
In 1964, the biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly—for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa. As the anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observed, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous".

Q1: What did two biologists point out in 1964?
A1: cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly
Q2: What gene distribution decreases as you move away from the equator in either direction?
A2: melanin
Q3: What do the frequencies for the haplotype for beta-5 hemogoblin do from specific points in Africa?
A3: radiate
Q4: To what profession do both Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson belong?
A4: anthropologists
Q5: What patterns of heterogeneity falsify any descriptions of population?
A5: Discordant
Patterns such as those seen in human physical and genetic variation as described above, have led to the consequence that the number and geographic location of any described races is highly dependent on the importance attributed to, and quantity of, the traits considered. Scientists discovered a skin-lighting mutation that partially accounts for the appearance of Light skin in humans (people who migrated out of Africa northward into what is now Europe) which they estimate occurred 20,000 to 50,000 years ago. The East Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. On the other hand, the greater the number of traits (or alleles) considered, the more subdivisions of humanity are detected, since traits and gene frequencies do not always correspond to the same geographical location. Or as Ossorio & Duster (2005) put it:

Q1: What is the consequence of the number and geographic location ascribed to a race highly dependent on?
A1: the importance attributed to, and quantity of, the traits considered.
Q2: What partially accounts for the appearance of light skin in humans?
A2: mutation
Q3: What mutation did scientists discover?
A3: skin-lighting
Q4: What do East Asians have to thank for their relatively light skin?
A4: different mutations
Q5: Traits and gene frequencies do not always correspond to what type of location?
A5: geographical
Coop et al. (2009) found "a selected allele that strongly differentiates the French from both the Yoruba and Han could be strongly clinal across Europe, or at high frequency in Europe and absent elsewhere, or follow any other distribution according to the geographic nature of the selective pressure. However, we see that the global geographic distributions of these putatively selected alleles are largely determined simply by their frequencies in Yoruba, French and Han (Figure 3). The global distributions fall into three major geographic patterns that we interpret as non-African sweeps, west Eurasian sweeps and East Asian sweeps, respectively."

Q1: What thing that strongly differentiates the French from some other populations be clinal across Europe?
A1: a selected allele
Q2: When did Coop and others find out something about a selected allele?
A2: 2009
Q3: How many major geographic patterns do the global distributions fall into?
A3: three
Q4: What are sweeps?
A4: major geographic patterns
Q5: Something that is found at high frequency in Europe could be what elsewhere?
A5: absent
Another way to look at differences between populations is to measure genetic differences rather than physical differences between groups. The mid-20th-century anthropologist William C. Boyd defined race as: "A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant 'constellation'". Leonard Lieberman and Rodney Kirk have pointed out that "the paramount weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing." Moreover, the anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless. The Human Genome Project states "People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."

Q1: What can one use to look at differences between groups instead of physical differences?
A1: genetic differences
Q2: Who was William C. Boyd?
A2: mid-20th-century anthropologist
Q3: Boyd felt race was based on a specific differentiation of the frequency of what in a population?
A3: genes
Q4: How numerous would the number of races be if one gene can distinguish races?
A4: number of human couples reproducing
Q5: What may people who have lived in the same area for generations have in common?
A5: alleles
The population geneticist Sewall Wright developed one way of measuring genetic differences between populations known as the Fixation index, which is often abbreviated to FST. This statistic is often used in taxonomy to compare differences between any two given populations by measuring the genetic differences among and between populations for individual genes, or for many genes simultaneously. It is often stated that the fixation index for humans is about 0.15. This translates to an estimated 85% of the variation measured in the overall human population is found within individuals of the same population, and about 15% of the variation occurs between populations. These estimates imply that any two individuals from different populations are almost as likely to be more similar to each other than either is to a member of their own group. Richard Lewontin, who affirmed these ratios, thus concluded neither "race" nor "subspecies" were appropriate or useful ways to describe human populations. However, others have noticed that group variation was relatively similar to the variation observed in other mammalian species.

Q1: What did Sewall Wright develop one way of measuring?
A1: genetic differences between populations
Q2: What was Wright's method known as?
A2: the Fixation index
Q3: What is the often stated FST for humans?
A3: 0.15
Q4: Richard Lewontin, upon looking at the FST ratios, concluded race wasn't an appropriate or useful way to describe what?
A4: human populations
Q5: Human group variation is similar to variation observed in what other species?
A5: mammalian
Wright himself believed that values >0.25 represent very great genetic variation and that an FST of 0.15–0.25 represented great variation. However, about 5% of human variation occurs between populations within continents, therefore FST values between continental groups of humans (or races) of as low as 0.1 (or possibly lower) have been found in some studies, suggesting more moderate levels of genetic variation. Graves (1996) has countered that FST should not be used as a marker of subspecies status, as the statistic is used to measure the degree of differentiation between populations, although see also Wright (1978).

Q1: FST values greater than .25 represent very great what?
A1: genetic variation
Q2: About how much human variation occurs between continental populations?
A2: 5%
Q3: FST values as low as what amount have been found in some studies?
A3: 0.1
Q4: What is the name of the person who thinks FST shouldn't be used as a marker of subspecies status?
A4: Graves
Q5: FST is used to measure the degree of differentiation between what?
A5: populations
Jeffrey Long and Rick Kittles give a long critique of the application of FST to human populations in their 2003 paper "Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races". They find that the figure of 85% is misleading because it implies that all human populations contain on average 85% of all genetic diversity. They claim that this does not correctly reflect human population history, because it treats all human groups as independent. A more realistic portrayal of the way human groups are related is to understand that some human groups are parental to other groups and that these groups represent paraphyletic groups to their descent groups. For example, under the recent African origin theory the human population in Africa is paraphyletic to all other human groups because it represents the ancestral group from which all non-African populations derive, but more than that, non-African groups only derive from a small non-representative sample of this African population. This means that all non-African groups are more closely related to each other and to some African groups (probably east Africans) than they are to others, and further that the migration out of Africa represented a genetic bottleneck, with much of the diversity that existed in Africa not being carried out of Africa by the emigrating groups. This view produces a version of human population movements that do not result in all human populations being independent; but rather, produces a series of dilutions of diversity the further from Africa any population lives, each founding event representing a genetic subset of its parental population. Long and Kittles find that rather than 85% of human genetic diversity existing in all human populations, about 100% of human diversity exists in a single African population, whereas only about 70% of human genetic diversity exists in a population derived from New Guinea. Long and Kittles argued that this still produces a global human population that is genetically homogeneous compared to other mammalian populations.

Q1: What two researchers gave a long critique regarding the application of FST to human populations in 2003?
A1: Jeffrey Long and Rick Kittles
Q2: What do Long and Kittles think of the implication that human populations contain on average 85% of all genetic diversity?
A2: misleading
Q3: Non-African groups of human population may only drive from what type of sample of the African population?
A3: non-representative
Q4: What type of bottleneck did the migration out of Africa represent?
A4: genetic
Q5: How much human genetic diversity exists in a single African population?
A5: 100%