Re: [ZION] Article in "Science" on genetic diversity
In fact, their clusters are in different areas than what we would call "racial". That is, there are several from different parts of Africa, for instance, as well as a totally different group for Melanesians (who used to be considered blacks by LDS until DOM's time). Jim Cobabe wrote: > Stephen Beecroft wrote: > --- > What?! Is this suggesting the outrageous proposition that > commonly-defined racial characteristics are genetically based? > --- > > Spare your outrage, Stephen. > > The authors of the study _studiously_ refrain from using the term > "race". Instead they characterize unique population groups as > "clusters". One cannot help but notice, however, that the "clusters" > indicated on the map correspond rather remarkably with traditional > racial demographics, but that's beside the politically-correct point. > > One wonders if the authors might have been injured by such strenuous > bending-over-backwards exertions. :-> > > --- > Mij Ebaboc > > // > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Knowledge may give weight, but accomplishments give lustre, and many more people see than weigh. Lord Chesterfield Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
RE: [ZION] Article in "Science" on genetic diversity
Stephen Beecroft wrote: --- What?! Is this suggesting the outrageous proposition that commonly-defined racial characteristics are genetically based? --- Spare your outrage, Stephen. The authors of the study _studiously_ refrain from using the term "race". Instead they characterize unique population groups as "clusters". One cannot help but notice, however, that the "clusters" indicated on the map correspond rather remarkably with traditional racial demographics, but that's beside the politically-correct point. One wonders if the authors might have been injured by such strenuous bending-over-backwards exertions. :-> --- Mij Ebaboc // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Article in "Science" on genetic diversity
Stephen Beecroft wrote: > -Marc- > > Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 > > to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups > > constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior > > information about the origins of individuals, we identified > > six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major > > geographic regions, and subsclusters that often correspond to > > individual populations. > > What?! Is this suggesting the outrageous proposition that > commonly-defined racial characteristics are genetically based? > That's not what they're suggesting. They say that naturally those people who are descended from black Africans will have a certain set of features in common. We recognize that and refer to them as "blacks," which is meant to be a neutral, more respectful form, I guess. And those genes for the broadened nose, thick lips and fuzzy hair are naturally passed on from one generation to the next. What the article is saying is that the historical background of a population -- and he gives examples of bizarre places I'd never heard, like a group in NW Pakistan, who are of Indo-European descent (linguistically and ethnically). But all in all the genome does not indicate we have a biologically ueful definition of race. If there's more genetic diversity within, say, a south Asian population, than they share with other groups. I know it's not really fair just to post an abstract, because it means I'm giving you the hay with which to build a straw man. But it's my fault for handing you the straw (no joke or sarcasm meant). It may put Tom Murphy in an embarrassing situation, and as some of you know, FAIR recently put out an article which is linked to in this month's FAIR newsletter. We've been working hard at finding a conspiracy (yeah, yeah, I know. "It's Ironic" as Alannis Morisette might sing), and now that we have smoking guns from the bugs under the rocks (now there's a mixed metaphor!). The next step is to address the claims made in his article. Some of this has already done by Scott Woodward of BYU, who delivered a presentation on the DNA work BYU's doing). making things just a bit hotter in the "Morque" (www.exmormons.com). I believe Ben McGuire already has an article up on FAIR's website about DNA research. In my opinion, unless I'm missing something (genetics is something I know very little about other than what I've read in Scientific American, say), this pape (from Science) might put a big kaibosh on anyone thinking they can prove or disprove that modern day First Nations descended solely from the Book of Mormon, which is what Tom Murphy, who admittedly went inactive in 1993, claims in his review for "American Apocrypha" among other venues. > > > General agreement of genetic and predefined populations > > suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate > > assessments of epidemiological risks > > Wow. I guess it is. Who would have believed such a counterintuitive > idea? (Besides myself and most of the adult population of the western > world, I mean.) > > Stephen > What they're saying is that while it may not be true that there's a biological term for "race," we, as a culture and laypeople, tend to identify themselves with one race or another. What the full paper shows is that that strictly in terms of the DNA samples, you cannot "prove" that one person's black and the other's Asian, and see that reflected in their DNA. There's a lot of genetic diversity in Africa -- in fact, more than the rest of the world combined. But because there is a weak correlation indirectly through the genes that expressed the proces that led to a "racial" characteristic. But because we self-identify our race one way or another when seeing a doctor, we should know that various races have varying diseases and this will guide the doctor's diagnosis. For or example, if your black and you feel anemic and run-down, then the doctor needs to check for sickle cell anaemia, because the gene for that is found widely throughout Africa. While this mutation gives a significant portion of the population sickle-cell anaemia, whereas if a Caucasian came in, the doctor should simply do a red blood cell count (a simple test at a medical lab). Incidentally, this very racial anomaly, the tendency to get a disease that is not nearly as common amongst people from other areas from, also provides natural protection against malaria, which still rampant in most of Africa. So it can go from, say IF [RACE = BLACK THEN GOSUB [CHECK FOR MALARIA], But the converse doesn't hold -- IF [BLOOD TEST FOR SICKLE CELL AMAENIA] = YES. One can't go from the race alone, even if it's sometimes a useful indicator if the patient tells the doctor he originally came from West Africa several centuries ago. Another example is benign prostate infection, which is more common amongst black males than amongst white males, age-adjusted [at least in the US blacks will get his out of proportion to t
RE: [ZION] Article in "Science" on genetic diversity
-Marc- > Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 > to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups > constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior > information about the origins of individuals, we identified > six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major > geographic regions, and subsclusters that often correspond to > individual populations. What?! Is this suggesting the outrageous proposition that commonly-defined racial characteristics are genetically based? > General agreement of genetic and predefined populations > suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate > assessments of epidemiological risks Wow. I guess it is. Who would have believed such a counterintuitive idea? (Besides myself and most of the adult population of the western world, I mean.) Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Article in "Science" on genetic diversity
Coincidence that this appeared in today's issue of "Science," one of the two best-known and most prestigious general science journals in the anglophone world (Rosenberg, et. al. Science:298, 20/12/2002:2381). The article is called "Genetic Structure of Human Populations" by a multinational team from the US, Russia and France. I have the full article (as well as the editorial introduction) but here's the abstract: "We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal microstallite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subsclusters that often correspond to individual populations. General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic associations studies." I'm the first to admit I'm not a geneticist, and much of this article is over my head. It *seems* to be saying that because there is far more genetic variation within a given population than there is between populations, that the use of genetics for the study of human migratory patterns is only of very weak usefulness. That is, within a given area, you could often separate populations, but if you tried to compare populations from one area to populations in another area, there were rarely any correlations. I could see no correlation between East Asian and American populations, for instance. But in any case, the difference between a Colombian sample and a Mayan sample within the greater American population was greater than differences between the whole American population and the East Asian populations (which likewise showed great various between individual groups within the population as a whole). Any thoughts? -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Knowledge may give weight, but accomplishments give lustre, and many more people see than weigh. Lord Chesterfield Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
