Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations

New York Times ^ | 12-20-02 | Nicholas Wade

[PatrickHenry]

Man was pushed to the edge of extinction, the population forced down to just a couple of thousand.

Only those few who possessed the then-rare gene for nostril hair survived.

[tallhappy]

This is what he said; he did not quote the study's conclusion which said the OPPOSITE, i.e. that genes follow geography and that race is indeed definable biologically.

The study did not look at genes. It did not say genes follow geography. You still don't understand the basics of either biology or this study you try to use for your own idiosyncratic ends.

I've looked at your comments and realize you have no idea scientifically what you are talking about, which is fine as most people wouldn't.

But I see there is an overriding component to your posts - you have an agenda.

You guys try to turn real science in to pseudoscience in order to propagandize your weird xenophobic anti-American garbage.

[Pharmboy]

Nope--you and your ilk in attempting to deny biological data are the distorters of truth. Right--there are no races; we're all the same; blank slates; it's all the environment. Lysenko lives on with your kind.

And where in my posts were there any hints of xenophobia or "anti-Americanism."

You sound like the one with the agenda, bub.

[RightWhale]

Makes one wonder how the 2000 survived.

[Pharmboy]

Here's You: The study did not look at genes. It did not say genes follow geography. You still don't understand the basics of either biology or this study you try to use for your own idiosyncratic ends.

Here's what the Times said of the study, quoting the study itself: The study, published today in Science, finds that "self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry." In other words, someone saying he is of European ancestry will have genetic similarities to other Europeans.

Yep--just like you said, the study did not say that genes follow geography. Fool--take a reading comprehension course at your local community college.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yeah, and the world is flat.

[FreedomCalls]

Also, neither group developed any abilities while isolated that showed it to be in any way more biologically 'advanced' than the other.

Resistance to smallpox?

[PatrickHenry]

Resistance to smallpox?

Ability to metabolize alcohol.

[tallhappy]

For one, don't look at the Times article, look at the actual article in Science.

Two, "genetic ancestry" does not mean genes. You do not understand what they looked at. The markers are not genes.

[Pharmboy]

While the markers may not be structural or regulatory genes, they are part of the genome (something you apparently don't understand). Just because we (in our ignorance) have not yet figured out what all these particular base sequences in the DNA molecule mean, doesn't mean they are not part of our genetics.

And, although I quoted from the article, I also quoted from the study itself--which you, of course, ignored ("self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry").

But never-you-mind: keep denying reality and recite the mantra: "blank slate, all environment, no genetic difference between groups or individuals that's meaningful, etc. etc."

[tallhappy]

You do not understand the difference between gene and part of the genome. NOt every thing part of the genome is a gene.

Now, you are quite ignorant and apparently indifferent to knowledge or accuracy.

You have problems. Nothing I am saying is controversial or something anyone should take umbrage at.

You could even learn something.

[tallhappy]

But never-you-mind: keep denying reality and recite the mantra: "blank slate, all environment, no genetic difference between groups or individuals that's meaningful, etc. etc."

I never said any of this. Nor did I ever imply any of it.

It does point out a bit where you are coming from and why you have problems discussing science dispassionately.

[FreedomCalls]

Resistance to smallpox?

Ability to metabolize alcohol.

Here's another one: ability to digest lactose.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Pharmboy]

Look, Bub, it was YOU who started the assumptions about what I knew or didn't know, what my agenda was or wasn't and it was once again YOU who showed his ignorance of biology and reading comprehension when it came to this report, the study itself and my answers to your questions and assertions (which you never answer back--all you do is make general statements and attack me).

And, it was YOU who began the nastiness on the thread. Read all of your posts...you're the one who is emotionally involved and wants to deny reality--not me. But, it's probably better to be tall and happy than tall and smart.

Buh-bye.

[blam]

"Makes one wonder how the 2000 survived."

I did some thinking on that. Where in the world would there be a sure supply of food for 2-5 years? The polar regions. When an animal fell over dead (for what-ever reason), he would be immediately frozen and preserved...a ready food supply, deep frozen. HUH?

[Junior]

Only those few who possessed the then-rare gene for nostril hair survived.

So I should tell my wife to quit complaining -- I have superior genes!

[RightWhale]

The polar regions

Mountains would work in that respect. Thinking of 5 or so bands of humans, separated by entire continents for a few 1000 years.

[Junior]

Humans, whether they like to admit it or not, are quite capable of eating just about anything available. Methinks the survivors weren't terribly selective about their next meal for those two to five years...

[PatrickHenry]

Where in the world would there be a sure supply of food for 2-5 years? The polar regions.

Don't overlook the obvious -- canibalism.