“Miscegnation” is a term I hoped never to hear again. Used to roll easily from the lips of politicians in my native Texas. Close parallel to “mongrelization of the races”, which implies sullying the racial purity of the White Race by “race mixing”.
It is a vile term. Blake, to give you the benefit of the doubt I must assume you do not realize this. Would you be so kind as to repudiate this term and perhaps to offer some explanation as to how it happens to sully our Board?
“Miscegnation”. Shit like this makes the Baby Jesus puke his little guts out!
Collunsbury, you’ve been walking reeeealy close to the line for some time now. It is not neccessary to call someone stupid to dispute their argument. Either post with a modicum of restraint, or stay in the Pit.
“Before miscegenation”? When exactly was this time?
That’s the trouble with the concept of race…“miscegenation” has occured every time two human populations have come in contact. It occurs now, and it will occur in the future.
Since there haven’t been any restricted breeding groups since the Neandertals (and maybe not even then), the whole concept of pure races and miscegenation collapses.
This marker gene is interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to to with the genetic basis of race. All it means is that many Native Americans share a common ancestor. Given that we imagine that the Americas were probably settled by a relatively small number of founders, this isn’t exactly a surprising development.
Tank You for that outburst Collounsbury. It was useless, but I now know how you react when someone presents information that disagrees with your popularly presented belief that there are no genes unique to anything more than small populations.
It would appear you never even red my post. For example: “We would need to know if group P, N etc. have mutation Z,” was answered in the article. “the mutation occurred in no other group in the world” Group P, N etc. do not have the mutation. Only Native Americans carry this particular gene. It is not found anywhere else in the world.
Given your constant criticism of people who, for example, suggest that maybe black men have a gene that allows some percentage eof them to be better runners than white men I was hoping you might be able to confirm whether this was in fact true. If 50% of Native Americans share a gene of unknown effect then 50% of West Africans could also carry a gene of unknown effect. And that gene could well enhance running ability.
Up to this point I have assumed that you were in fact telling the truth when you said that there are no genes unique to large racial groups. However given your reaction to this piece of published information I am less inclined to believe this is so. You have not refuted the statement that the majority of native American males carry a gene not found in any other people on the planet. I can only assume it is therefore true. I can also only assume that there is a good hance that 50% of wet Africans carry an undiscovered gene not found anywhere else on the planet.
As for your question What ‘distinct’ goddamned “range” do Native Americans have?”, that article suggests anything east and south of the Bering straight. Distinctly bordered by the oceans that define the continent of North America. While I might have been willing to believe your assertion that Inuit form a distinct population, lacking this gene, before your outburst I m less inclined to do so now. The published article suggests that Inuit do have this gene, since they too migrated across the Bering Straight. Do you have anything to refute this? The same goes for your assertion that NW Native Americans do not carry this gene. That is in direct contradiction to what has been published.
You then descend into personal abuse with “As for ‘most genetically unique’ this is just plain stupidity speaking. Where does this little gem derive from?” To answer your question, it comes form the clear statement in that article that most native Americans carry this gene, and that no other group on the planet does. That makes most Native Americans genetically unique. That is not stupidity speaking. It is the author o that article being paraphrased.
While I appreciate you may have access to the latest scientific journals, we mortals do not. I know nothing about the Atlantic or its charter. I stumbled across the article and found it interesting. I was hoping that someone on these boards could help me interpret the scientific merit of what is published. I was hoping these boards might be able o assists in elimination some ignorance on my part. Instead I have been abused and defamed for asking a genuine question.
I have seen nothing to suggest that that article is not 100% correct. That there is a gene found in the majority of Native Americans not found in any other race.
To those who object to my usage of the term miscegenation, tough. I care little if I has negative historical connotations or if it was used by Adolf Hitler. That’s just PC rubbish. I use the term as defined by my dictionary: The interbreeding of different races or of persons of different racial backgrounds. No suggestion that such interbreeding is good, bad indifferent or nobodies damn business. Just that it occurs. If we accept that races can exists then miscegenation is the most precise term to use for this process. If some people find it offensive that’s unfortunate. It’s an English word that describes a process and nothing more. There is no judgment or denigration of any person or group involved and so it can’t be offensive. I can only assume that those who find the word ‘miscegenation’ offensive in fact find the thought of such a process offensive. And that offends me.
For a board dedicated to fighting ignorance this is a pretty poor showing. In response to a genuine question asked to further knowledge the responses are abuse and a PC attempt at censoring a certain word because that implies that races exist now or existed once. For those who tried to answer genuinely, thank you. Nothing was provided that I didn’t know already. But thank all the same.
I don’t post much on these boards as it is. I have nothing much to add. But this type of reaction hardly encourages me to post any more frequently. I know this is no great loss, but perhaps some of you should consider the effect this sort of reaction to genuine questions has on other lurkers. I know there a lot of them, and many of them may even be able to fight some of your own ignorance.
Ummm. Col did not claim that Inuits did not carry the gene or that other peoples of the Pacific Northwest did not carry the gene. He noted that those groups are distinct populations with an implication that they arrived in separate migrations from each other and from other groups. This means that the population of the Americas has sufficient diversity to preclude being lumped into a single “race.” Once on the American continents, interbreeding (which humans do prolifically), would tend to indicate that all groups would, eventually, share the gene. The lack of the gene on any other continent simply indicates that there was no “back-migration.” Unfortunately (or fortunately) the presence of the gene does not identify a race. It identifies a pattern of descent and patterns of migration.
The article is not actually new information, by the way (beyond the fact that it is over a year old). The presence of a cytosine/thymine replacement in the Y chromosome unique to the Americas has been recognized for years. The discovery of some of the genetic sequencing that led to that variant is also not really new.
As noted in the article, the person who is most interested in tracking down these genetic maps is Dr Cavalli-Sforza–the very same scientist who made a point of destroying the notion of biological races. His point in following up on genetic traces is to discover things like migration patterns. In other words, despite some of the language used in the article, we are not stepping back to a point where science will attempt to identify races based on genetics. What Cavalli-Sforza and others wish to do is simply identify where humanity has wandered and when did they pause in one place or another.
Note that the genetic change that substitutes thymine for cytosine has no effect on the individual. While such a change provides a clear pattern of human distribution and migration, it does not confer extraordinary abilities on its owners. In regards to the West African Sprinter brouhahas, we do not even have the “smoking gun” of an actual different gene. (And I am not going into that quagmire of a discussion. I am only pointing out that the Atlantic article provides neither a reason to believe that such “undiscovered” genes might exist nor does it address the fact that individual genes do not, in and of themselves, confer special abilities.)
However, if we recognize that races do not exist, the word becomes one that merely supports unscientific prejudice. I do not fault you for the use of the word, but the defense of its use is a bit unsettling.
You are a real piece of work, Collounsbury. The anonymity of the Internet must save you a fortune in dental bills.
If there is a genetic marker, a linguistic affinity, or even a physical characteristic that can be used to trace migrations, interactions or possible isolations of populations that are otherwise lost in prehistory, use them. If those indicators imply isolated early Neolithic populations, those populations are races in a zoologic taxonomy sense.
Tamerlane, in what area are you involved that requires 100% accuracy? That would seem a recipe for paralysis.
Blake, you will see that Coll and his posse launch ad hominem attacks when pressed. They really hate the “r” word.
The basic point is very simple. “Race” implies a firm line with distinct differences. Such is not the case with humanity, even if one particular mutation is found in only one particular population group. To use that oft-used “dog breed” analogy, we are all more like a continuum of interbreeding mongrel mutts … and all the better for the mix and the gradations in variety, for the similarities between groups and for the differences within groups.
Talk about population groups and how different groups have migrated, intermixed, and to what degree they have not intermixed. You can then reasonably discuss markers that tend to travel with other markers and with what potential implications. Some fascinating work that gets done tracking human migration patterns and which gender travelled in which cultures when. None of which mandates a concept of “race” … or breed. The intermixing is much more fine-grained and interwoven than that.
“Race” designations are arbitrary and social, ignoring the true complexity. A simple example: in America most people who identify themselves as “Black” are of mixed descent. Some who are so identified may have more ancestors who would have called themselves “White” than those who would have self-identified as “Black” … what is the meaningful use of the “Black” designation for these people? Is it useful to call this American “Black” the same “race” as the native African Pygmy, or the Bantu, or … you get the point. Better than “race” is to talk about the markers and their significance, in whomever has it. For example, for years it has been observed that so-called “Black Americans” are more likely to reject kidney transplants than “Whites” … turns out that such increased rejection risk correlates with a particular genetic marker … whether that marker is in a “White” or a “Black”, the “Black” population group just has that marker more often. Screen for the marker and you can ramp up immunosuppression on the basis of that marker … not “race”.
You mean those populations were races. That surely wouldn’t apply to modern non-isolated populations today. Again, isolated, quantifiable populations I buy. Race in the commonly perceived sense ( black, white, asian, amerindian, etc. ) as distinct biological categories I do not.
Unfortunately the term race when applied to humans has never been used in the same sense as race when applied to all other species. Agaain, given the virtual impossibility of separating out this historical bias from the popular conception of the word, there is no reason to use it.
Use population - It’s more accurate anyway. Is the intergrade between the salamander Ensatina eschultzii xanthoptica and E. e. oregonensis a separate race? You can distinguish them on sight most of the time ( at least I can ). Is the labeling of E. e. xanthoptica* and E. e. oregonensis as different subspecies based on the fact that one has an eye that is half-shaded with gold coloration and the other doesn’t, tell you much of interest about the species? Not a lot. It says there has been some restriction of gene flow, but that’s not surprising for an animal that is small and doesn’t move around much. Why isn’t the intergrade elevated to the level of subspecies? It is just as geographically and morphologically distinct ( not very ). The reason? The intergrade only occurs in a narrow range and therefore isn’t considered worthy of giving a distinct name. That’s all. The subspecies/race label is just a handy population identifier and it has virtually NO technical application.
With humans with their circum-global distribution and near panmictic mating habits ( more so every year ), you simply don’t see ( with a very few isolated exceptions ) the kind of geographic and gene-flow isolation you see with the any of the animals that have been subdivided into races or subspecies. Or to put it yet another way - If there ever was such a thing as a distinct Amerindians “race” ( in terms of an isolated population with a unique gentic makeup in some sense - And considering the rapid expansion and constant migrations of Amerindians in the New World, I sincerely doubt this was ever the case, even a single founder population would have had links to the Asian group they split off from ), there sure isn’t now.
It is, you’re absolutely right :). Unfortunately that’s how the term race has been cast in regards to humans. The classical racialists developed charts of the different levels of evolutionary sophistication ( with caucasoids on top ) and these charts were considered more or less absolute guides that you could use to categorize any human being into neat little boxes.
But below species level there are no neat categories ( even species aren’t so neat ). That’s the whole point. Saying there is a biological Amerindian “race” automatically implies in the public mind that there is some objective biological criteria that one can consistently use to separate Amerindians from all others. But there isn’t. If the term wasn’t so tainted in public perception, I suppose it might have some utility. But that’s not the case.
You know, I’m going to call you on that - That’s just crap. Collounsbury was out of line, as he occasionally is. There is also one or two knee-jerk “PC” types around that like to argue on this issue with no substance to back them up.
But by and large most of the people arguing “the other side” tend to be reasonably polite in my estimation. How many ad hominem attacks have you seen Edwino or tomndeb launch lately, hmmm?
All this mutated Y marker shows is that there were common ancestors. Since the Y chromosome is male only (yes, i realize you all know this, humor me…:)) it gets past down mutations and all from daddy to sonny boy (minus some limited crossing over and spontaneous mutations). If you want to start saying certain genetic traits specify “race”, why don’t you go for obvious choices like blond hair? There is no clear definition, due to limited human isolation and our habit of having sex with each other.
In the Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) work i do now, we use three populations to generate data: european, chinese, and african (which part of africa i do not recall offhand). We may refer to them as Asian, Black, and Caucasian, but that is just to get ABC written out because of aesthetics. It is pretty much understood that we cannot define races, we are just using different pools to try to find variations in SNPs. Even with these three populations, unique markers located in just one race at 100% and 0% in the others are rare (i’d guess i’ve found 20 total out of around 15,000 markers i’ve done myself, they are then flagged for another project done by someone else)
mipsman: Actually, I’ll make one small retraction. I can think of one potential technical use for subspecies. One could, conceivably, look at a group of fairly well-defined races that seem to cluster in one area and by also examining local geology make some conclusion as to biogeographic patterns in the region and possibly even incipient vicariant speciation events. However this is much more usually done with related species groups, as species tend to be at least a little more rigorously defined than subspecies.
Further, it wouldn’t have any application to humans ( either as a species or for examining a biogeographic zone ), because the barriers that inhibit most other species - hill lines, mountain ranges, desert stretches, water barriers of various sorts, etc. - Simply don’t stop humans, who persistently push through or adapt to virtually all of them eventually.
tars tarkas: Nah, we made slightly different points and I’m not sure mine was the better one :).
I remain apalled that the word “miscegnation” is used in polite company.
A pox on that word! Like the swastika, a thousand years cannot rehabilitate it.
Now, as to AmerIndian gene pools: how is our theorizing affected by the “germ bomb” theories propounded by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel, and others? Wouldn’t it be likely that the common genetic markers amongst the surviving AmerIndian population are those that are most associated with resistance to “white” diseases? And wouldn’t the spread of those genes most likely occur by breeding?
The early history of AmerIndian and “white” relations includes quite a lot of intermarriage, the Cherokees being a prominent example. And the Cherokee mingled with the Choctaw the Creek etc. etc. All the way out the Blackfeet and Sioux? Who knows?
What i’m getting at is that the surviving AmerIndians likely had genetic markers than made them comparatively more resistant to “white” diseases, which largely wiped out the population that lacked them. Thus, both populations would have such markers, and there would be know way of knowing if they evolved seperately to be identical, or if they were the result of natural human breeding.
I had never heard the word “miscegnation” before this thread. Looking it up in the dictionary gives:
Given that the person using it didn’t seem to be attaching any negative thing to it, I think you are overreacting. It sounds like a useful word - can you think of a better one?
As for the swastika - it’s still used by some eastern religions as a sacred symbol as it always was. Sure - in the west, we may never be able to accept it again. But why should others have to give it up just because someone tried to taint it?
That’s sort of the problem with the word miscengenation in the United States - It has long been used as a catch-phrase by American racists opposed to interracial relationships. Consequently it has taken on a kind of an ugly hue.
The stereotypic use of the word can be seen ( used to humorous effect in a deliberate parody of the stereotypic southern racist ) in the Coen brothers film O’ Brother, Where Art Thou?, when the evil candidate for Governor of Mississippi, who also happens to be a KKK leader, yells “miscengenators!” at George Clooney’s multiracial “band” ( in part because they were white guys covered with soot or something when he first saw them in a previous scene ).
Technically, I guess it’s a reasonable term. But I won’t use it - It gives me creeps.
“>>>>Col did not claim that Inuits did not carry the gene or that other peoples of the Pacific Northwest did not carry the gene. He noted that those groups are distinct populations with an implication that they arrived in separate migrations from each other and from other groups.”
In that case the comment is irrelevant. No one mentioned any knds of populations within the race, or whther they existsed or not. According to that article there is a race of Native Americans. They can be defined geographically by distinct boundaries, even if there are distinct sub-populations within that race. They can be defined genetically with better than 50% accuracy.
“>>>This means that the population of the Americas has sufficient diversity to preclude being lumped into a single “race.” “
That’s self referential isn’t it? You claim there is no genetic basis to race. Someone presents a genetic basis for an Native American race, and you say that the group is to big and diverse to be a race. Someone presents evidence of a Fijian race and you say the group is too small and uniform to be a race. If someone presented evidence of a marker carried by 50% of sub-saharan Africans then you could use exactly the same argument to deny a genetic bass of a negroid race, saying “that the population of Africa has sufficient diversity to preclude being lumped into a single “race.”.
It seems to me that this is saying that there can’t be a biological basis to race because we keep redefining race in such a way that it precludes biological basis.
“>>>While such a change provides a clear pattern of human distribution and migration, it does not confer extraordinary abilities on its owners. “
I’d be surprised if it did. My point wa simpy that such a gene could exist.
“>>>In regards to the West African Sprinter brouhahas, we do not even have the “smoking gun” of an actual different gene.”
True, and I don’t think they’ll find one. But the fact remains that we have a plausible mechanism, known to exist in some form in other populations. From observing past discussions of this topic I had been led to believe that there are no racially exclusive genes except for those found in isolated groups of no more than a few thousand individuals. This clearly isn’t true. A mechanism obviously exists whereby over half the inhabitants of a continent carry a gene found on no other continent. If it can happened in North America it can conceivably have happened in Africa. While I realise that’s highly unlikely because of a lack of isolation, it remains possible.
“>>nor does it address the fact that individual genes do not, in and of themselves, confer special abilities.
That’s not true is it? Isn’t sickle cell an individual gene? And doesn’t it confer a special ability? And isn’t there a mother and child somewhere with an individual gene that confers a total resistance to AIDS? Isn’t that a special ability?
“>>>“Race” implies a firm line with distinct differences.”
Does it? I never thought that. I don’t think even the KKK thinks that. They believe it should be a firm line, but they are all too terrified the line has been blurred and is going to be further blurred. I don’t think anyone has ever believed that race is a firm line with distinct differences.
Actually it says nothing of the kind. To the contrary, the author states: The word “race”, for example, can’t begin to capture the commonalities and differences of our shared history…It makes no sense to talk about “races” when we are all complex mixtures of many different peoples.
25% - Only males carry the gene, remember.
As it happens, I don’t believe I made any such request. I simply said I was uncomfortable with using that word myself. Purely my own cultural upbringing - If it doesn’t bother you, feel free.
What “race”? There is no American “race.”
There is a geographic area (the Americas) where one single gene mutation has entered and not exited. Therefore, that single genetic variant can be found throughout the two continental masses, but nowhere else. So, on those continental masses we can find (as Collounsbury was pointing out), numerous populations of people with rather disparate physiognomies. In order to get an “American race” we would have to claim that the only indicator of that race was the cytosine/thymine switch on the Y chromosome–and since 75% of the population of the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas did not share that trait, the whole notion of an “American race” evaporates.
Actually, the reverse. Beginning with Linnaeus, biologists set out descriptions and definitions of race. Over the years, those definitions have been associated with either the “Three Races” or the “Five Races” (with a few people holding out for “Sixty Races”). So, we now have a word in the language that conveys a specific idea to the overwhelming number of speakers of English. As we examine all the Three or Five or Sixty alleged “races,” we discover that there is far too much overlap among them to justify the categories of the Three or the Five or the Sixty. So biologists choose to use a word that does not carry the misunderstandings of the earlier word: populations.
If someone were to describe the characteristics of the pre-WWI Fijians as a biological population based on specific markers, no one would blink an eye (provided the data was accurate). To describe them as a “race,” however, would not make sense to the overwhelming number of speakers of English, because the word would not convey the meaning of the biological evidence. Similarly with sub-Saharan Africa. Large numbers of people (mis)understand that that location is the home of the Negro “race.” Yet any comparison of the Khoi-San, the “typical Negro,” and the pygmies demonstrates that they do not have sufficiently similar traits to be lumped into a single “race” by anyone who has actually encountered them. They were originally lumped, simply because Europeans and North Americans were idly speculating about the “divisions” of humanity, not on any actual evidence.
What does the word “race” tell anyone? In the Americas, as you have seemed to describe it, it indicates that roughly half the men and none of the women happen to carry a single gene. Now, how does that knowledge, lumped under the banner of “race” actually aid in understanding the physical reality of the peoples in the Americas?
Race has a meaning in the English language.
The meaning assigned to the word race has been demonstrated to not match the biological reality of the various human populations.
The abandonment of the word race in biological discussions is an effort to avoid creating misunderstandings due to people assigning an older, erroneous belief regarding the meaning of the word to new information.
The word population does describe the lumping that biologists do based on evidence. The word race conjures up an erroneous belief. Why use a word that will be misunderstood?
Insofar as no such evidence was presented, this is hardly the case. Nor is it a particularly popular in any of the ordinary English senses of the word, belief – it is a conclusion supported by data, but a conclusion which is very evidently not at all popular. By the way, get the terminology right, alleles, not genes.
Appearances perhaps to someone whose reading comprehension leads much to be desired.
Thus question was a pointed inquiry as to the underlying data, not an overlooking of your less-than-interesting comments.
The article, a piece in that bastion of scientific inquiry, that beacon of peer-reviewed genetics literature… oh wait, I’m sorry that’s PNAS or GENOME. No, I’m sorry that second hand popularization in a popular magazine is not proof. It’s a bloody bowdlerization.
Now, what we need is a first hand cite. I didn’t see one. See, I am not inclined to follow some semi-literate journalist’s characterizations on a complex issue such as this. Primary literature. Primary literature is what counts in this sort of inquiry, not goddamned articles in the goddamned “Atlantic Monthly.”
Being of an excessively generous nature I actually did track down the citation which appears to be Peter A. Underhill, Li Jin, Rachel Zemans, Peter J. Oefner, and L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza “Genetics: A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history” PNAS Vol. 93, Issue 1, 196-200, 1996
The abstract does give us further information:
An early piece of work, circa 1995. Here we have some further information, that their initial data places its occurrence as being differentiated within New World Populations and that they did test across North and South America, with the somewhat attenuated data indicating declining incidence as one heads north.
I may add that I tracked this down through this reference:
Now the item which led me to the proper cite (the footnotes are links in the original) was the closing discussion in:
Andrés Ruiz-Linares, Daniel Ortíz-Barrientos, Mauricio Figueroa, Natalia Mesa, Juan G. Múnera, Gabriel Bedoya, Iván D. Vélez, Luis F. García, Anna Pérez-Lezaun, Jaume Bertranpetit, Marcus W. Feldman, and David B. Goldstein, “Genetics: Microsatellites provide evidence for Y chromosome diversity among the founders of the New World” PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 11, 6312-6317, 1999
See my dear ever so literate friend. Research. It’s called doing some goddamned legwork, not running off to some goddamned little popular magazine to get some half-digested regurgitation of half-understood blather.
The text of note:
Citations 9 and 11 are the relevant ones, with 9 being to the article upon which the comments in popular journalistic article. Emphasis added.
Now of particular interest is their more extended discussion (perhaps mipsman may, although this is an exercise in such sheer unbounded optimism, actually read this and come to understand the critiques advanced in re the use of race, above all as by our uninformed OP):
Very well and good, there is the context, as well as the reference to the hypothesis of distinct migration.
Now the Underhill reference is what we are ‘discussing’ – are rather I am discussing and the OP was baselessly speculating on.
Bingo, no longer do we have Native Americans only but consistent with a founding population from a restricted Asian origin. Of interest, the original paper showed high % on their restricted sampling in South America with % declining as the population selected (only 4) location moved north, to around 50%.
So, it is always helpful children and others challenged by the concept of data, to actually go beyond the popular recounting and look into the data. I am wasting far too much time on this OP and our dear mipsman le tout croyant, but they can perhaps bother themselves to look up the cites 11 and 12 for further information on the DYS 199 T allele occurance in Siberia and see what kind of sampling we saw there.
Facts and data. Facts and data. Learn them and their relationship and stop wasting my damned time.
What was in fact true? You want me to go off and do a primary literature search to indulge you? Send me a goddamned check, I should be compensated for you wasting my time.
However, it would be rather more encouraging if you could get the basic terminology right. Allele. Not gene. We all gots the same complement of genes. Learn the vocabulary. It’s the first step to having a glimmer of understanding.
However, on factual bases the speculation has problems. As the linked article notes, North American native variation is quite low (founder effect, restricted initial population with low diversity), Africa on the other hand is the site, according to all work done to date, of the greatest diversity
Now, let me share with you, just perhaps for the novelty value and some unfounded optimism this may have some effect, the following recent work:
Ning Yua, Feng-Chi Chena,b, Satoshi Otaa, Lynn B. Jordec, Pekka Pamilod, Laszlo Patthye, Michele Ramsayf, Trefor Jenkinse, Song-Kun Shyueg, and Wen-Hsiung Lia “Larger Genetic Differences Within Africans Than Between Africans and Eurasians” Genetics, Vol. 161, 269-274, May 2002,
You may note this comment:
I won’t bore you with the details. Or waste my time retyping things that will be blithely ignored.
By the way, others may find this interesting:
Russell Thomson, Jonathan K. Pritchard, Peidong Shen, Peter J. Oefner, and Marcus W. Feldman, “Recent common ancestry of human Y chromosomes: Evidence from DNA sequence data” PNAS Vol. 97, Issue 13, 7360-7365, 2000
As well, this article may interest some of you, although we may have cited it before:
M. F. Hammer, A. J. Redd, E. T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, H. Jarjanazi, T. Karafet, S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Oppenheim, M. A. Jobling, T. Jenkins, H. Ostrer, and B. Bonné-Tamir “Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes” PNAS Vol. 97, Issue 12, 6769-6774, 2000. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769
Ran across it by accident.
In a similar line, and addressing the idea of organizing ‘races’ a la the classical ones I point you towards
Chiara Romualdi, David Balding, Ivane S. Nasidze, Gregory Risch, Myles Robichaux, Stephen T. Sherry, Mark Stoneking, Mark A. Batzer, and Guido Barbujani “Patterns of Human Diversity, within and among Continents, Inferred from Biallelic DNA Polymorphisms” Genome Vol. 12, Issue 4, 602-612, April 2002
The study is a recent overview of how to organize human diversity. Let me quote:
[quote]
[emphasis added] Previous studies have reported that about 85% of human diversity at Short Tandem Repeat (STR) and Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) autosomal loci is due to differences between individuals of the same population, whereas differences among continental groups account for only 10% of the overall genetic variance. These findings conflict with popular notions of distinct and relatively homogeneous human races, and may also call into question the apparent usefulness of ethnic classification in, for example, medical diagnostics. Here, we present new data on 21 Alu insertions in 32 populations. We analyze these data along with three other large, globally dispersed data sets consisting of apparently neutral biallelic nuclear markers, as well as with a -globin data set possibly subject to selection. We confirm the previous results for the autosomal data, and find a higher diversity among continents for Y-chromosome loci. We also extend the analyses to address two questions: (1) whether differences between continental groups, although small, are nevertheless large enough to confidently assign individuals to their continent on the basis of their genotypes; (2) whether the observed genotypes naturally cluster into continental or population groups when the sample source location is ignored. Using a range of statistical methods, we show that classification errors are at best around 30% for autosomal biallelic polymorphisms and 27% for the Y chromosome. Two data sets suggest the existence of three and four major groups of genotypes worldwide, respectively, and the two groupings are inconsistent. These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.
[quote]
Yes, it’s all ‘PC’ nonsense. Or what did mipsman like to accuse me of, communism?
Now this part I confess irritates me:
Alleles. Get it right. Alleles. Look it up.
Secundo, this piece of ‘published information’ is a 2nd hand rehashing of an article, where upon examining the actual science, it is clear that (a) you didn’t understand what was in the article (b) the article itself only poorly characterized the actual original science and did not capture follow-up –e.g. the mutation occurs ex-New World in Siberia (c) is hardly ‘unique’ to a ‘large racial group.’
Further, I have discussed this sort of data before – evidently the original science which I quoted and in part explained. Indeed I pointed out a similar set of research in regards to a non-coding marker found in Africa, and then noted the follow-up critiques as to the weakness of the article. No sweeping under the carpet, it’s right there.
Here’s a suggestion. Stop fucking assuming. Assuming gets people into trouble, above all assuming from ignorance.
I have now wasted my precious and expensive time refuting the (both really) statement, do we get a prize? Is there some hope that some glimmer of understanding will emerge here?
No, not really. In any case, let me point out that my original post was not intended as a ‘refutation’ insofar as that would require citations –although perhaps you should be pleased, you so irritated me with these ignorant baseless arguments that I had to go to the database—but rather was raising the obvious questions as to the underlying data (data, facts, data – try to keep that in mind) as well as the extent and coverage of the research.
As we see, the questions turned out to be well placed as indeed there is spatial differentiation within New World pops and indeed the mutation occurs outside the New World.
