Skip to comments.Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
Posted on 12/21/2002 3:54:34 AM PST by Pharmboy
Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concluded that people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.
The study, based on scans of the whole human genome, is the most thorough to look for patterns corresponding to major geographical regions. These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race, the researchers said in interviews.
The researchers did not analyze genes but rather short segments of DNA known as markers, similar to those used in DNA fingerprinting tests, that have no apparent function in the body.
"What this study says is that if you look at enough markers you can identify the geographic region a person comes from," said Dr. Kenneth Kidd of Yale University, an author of the report.
The issue of race and ethnicity has forced itself to biomedical researchers' attention because human populations have different patterns of disease, and advances in decoding DNA have made it possible to try and correlate disease with genetics.
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.
Using self-reported ancestry "is less expensive and less intrusive" said Dr. Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, the senior author of the study. Rather than analyzing a person's DNA, a doctor could simply ask his race or continent of origin and gain useful information about their genetic make-up.
Several scientific journal editors have said references to race should be avoided. But a leading population geneticist, Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University, argued recently that race was a valid area of medical research because it reflects the genetic differences that arose on each continent after the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.
"Neil's article was theoretical and this is the data that backs up what he said," Dr. Feldman said.
The new result is based on blood samples gathered from around the world as part of the Human Genome Diversity Project, though on a much less ambitious scale than originally intended. Dr. Feldman and his colleagues analyzed the DNA of more than 1,000 people at some 400 markers. Because the sites have no particular function, they are free to change or mutate without harming the individual, and can become quite different over the generations.
The Science authors concluded that 95 percent of the genetic variations in the human genome is found in people all over the world, as might be expected for a small ancestral population that dispersed perhaps as recently as 50,000 years ago.
But as the first human populations started reproducing independently from one another, each started to develop its own pattern of genetic differences. The five major continental groups now differ to a small degree, the Science article says, as judged by the markers. The DNA in the genes is subject to different pressures, like those of natural selection.
Similar divisions of the world's population have been implied by earlier studies based on the Y chromosome, carried by males, and on mitochondrial DNA, bequeathed through the female line. But both elements constitute a tiny fraction of the human genome and it was not clear how well they might represent the behavior of the rest of the genome.
Despite the large shared pool of genetic variation, the small number of differences allows the separate genetic history of each major group to be traced. Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like "population structure" and "self-reported population ancestry."
But Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race. He said precautions should be taken to make sure the new data coming out of genetic studies were not abused.
"We need to get a team of ethicists and anthropologists and some physicians together to address what the consequences of the next phase of genetic analysis is going to be," he said.
Some diseases are much commoner among some ethnic groups than others. Sickle cell anemia is common among Africans, while hemochromatosis, an iron metabolism disorder, occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. It can therefore be useful for a doctor to consider a patient's race in diagnosing disease. Researchers seeking the genetic variants that cause such diseases must take race into account because a mixed population may confound their studies.
The new medical interest in race and genetics has left many sociologists and anthropologists beating a different drum in their assertions that race is a cultural idea, not a biological one. The American Sociological Association, for instance, said in a recent statement that "race is a social construct" and warned of the "danger of contributing to the popular conception of race as biological."
Dr. Alan Goodman, a physical anthropologist at Hampshire College and an adviser to the association, said, "there is no biological basis for race." The clusters shown in the Science article were driven by geography, not race, he said.
But Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University and chairman of the committee that wrote the sociologists' statement on race, said it was meant to talk about the sociological implications of classifying people by race and was not intended to discuss the genetics.
"Sociologists don't have the competence to go there," he said.
We're dealing with an order of magnitude. Toba was a 'super-volcano' and Krakatoa wasn't. The faunal loss due to Toba is well documented.
In humans, that is partly due to lack of sufficent amounts of sunlight, vitamin D.
That is a poor excuse. To make a proper diagnosis one has to look for evidence, not for statistics - as I said. While some traits may be found more in some groups than others, hardly any are unique to any one group so one must test if one suspects a genetic reason for a problem.
As far as your stuff about environment affecting skin color,so what?
It means that species have the ability to adapt to the environment without mutation. A total disproof of the theory of evolution which proposes that it is mutations which create adaptability. It is ludicrous to say that all species randomly mutate their coloring in the same way.
And the loss is documented where? What species died from it?
In humans, that is partly due to lack of sufficent amounts of sunlight, vitamin D.
There you go, adaptation without mutation.
I don't care enough about convincing you to do the work required. The data is available if you care to search for it.
".... This sounds impressive until you compare it to a Super Volcano. Seventy-four thousand years ago, the eruption of Toba in Sumatra threw a total of about 670 cubic miles (2800 km3) of erupted material (about 480 cubic miles [2000 km3] of which was ash) into the air. This amount of ash in the upper atmosphere would have severely altered the temperature and weather patterns of the planet. Common estimates put it in the range of 18° to 36° F (10° to 20°C) drops in middle to high latitudes. With so much sunlight being blocked out, it is believed that a large percentage, around 75 percent, of plant life in the Northern Hemisphere was killed off and all of the animals that relied on them would have perished as well. To make matters worse, this effect continued unabated for four or five years. Some believe that this event pushed mankind to the brink of extinction, perhaps reducing the number of species to mere thousands. What of Toba today? Well, when Toba erupted it created a massive crater, called a caldera, 62 miles (100 km) long and 19 miles (30 km) wide that filled with water to form a lake. The middle of the lake floor later uplifted and formed the island of Samosir. Uplifts are not uncommon in large calderas and are attributed to the pressure of unerupted magma still trying to reach the surface...."
The last eruption of a super volcano was in Toba, Sumatra, 75,000 years ago. It had 10,000 times the explosive force of Mount St. Helens and changed life on Earth forever. Thousands of cubic kilometres of ash was thrown into the atmosphere - so much that it blocked out light from the sun all over the world. 2,500 miles away 35 centimetres of ash coated the ground. Global temperatures plummeted by 21 degrees. The rain would have been so poisoned by the gasses that it would have turned black and strongly acidic. Man was pushed to the edge of extinction, the population forced down to just a couple of thousand. Three quarters of all plants in the northern hemisphere were killed.
Only those few who possessed the then-rare gene for nostril hair survived.
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.
And where in my posts were there any hints of xenophobia or "anti-Americanism."
You sound like the one with the agenda, bub.
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.
Resistance to smallpox?
Ability to metabolize alcohol.
Two, "genetic ancestry" does not mean genes. You do not understand what they looked at. The markers are not genes.
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."
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.
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.
Ability to metabolize alcohol.
Here's another one: ability to digest lactose.
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.
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?
So I should tell my wife to quit complaining -- I have superior genes!
Mountains would work in that respect. Thinking of 5 or so bands of humans, separated by entire continents for a few 1000 years.
Don't overlook the obvious -- canibalism.
Geez, it took them all that time and money studying DNA to figure out what most people have known by observation for some time. Amazing.
That statement could lead to some interesting arguemants
You understand it. My son (visiting from LA) said cannabilism...probably some of that too.
I hope you keep plenty of food in the house while that kid's around. He could be dangerous. We probably all have the tendency in our genes.
I don't care enough about convincing you to do the work required.
In other words you were bluffing. You made the claim, you are that is supposed to back it up. As usual when evolutionists are asked to back up what they say they get insulted, insult the questioner and make excuses. The whole nonsense on the next few posts has nothing to do with whether the fauna died. This is therefore just more evolutionist nonsense, totally made up with no substance in fact.
Says who? TalkOrigins? You do not even give the source. This is totally made up stuff. BTW - how many plants were there in the Northern Hemisphere? Who counted them? Also the radius of the fall of what was spewed by the volcano was only some 1000 miles around. Hardly far enough to do that kind of damage. And of course that was not lava that was thrown off 1000 miles, so it might have polluted quite a bit, but would not have been an ecological disaster that far out.
As I pointed out in post #145, the study is garbage. We do not know that the DNA that they selected is truly useless. We do know that each time evolutionists have said that something is useless and proves evolution real science has shown it to be false. Also with some 3 billion DNA base pairs in humans, the selection of sites was bound to be very subjective. That the sites in question are totally meaningless also makes this study a true waste of money. All it does is for a while try to promote the lie that racist evolutionism is true.
Also it should be noted that while evolutionists all claim that evolution is not racist and that it did not inspire Hitler and other mass murderers, it seems that all evolutionists are on the side of this racist research.
Sounds like there might actually be another race lurking in the family tree someplace. My family is mixed Scots/Cherokee/Choctaw and we have all sorts of color combinations, including my redheaded (yes, redheaded) olive skinned cousin. When you mix the races (in this case, European and NA) and stir for a couple hundred years, your kids are like a box of chocolates...you never know what you're gonna get.
They seem to be defining "race" in a more distinctive way than I've generally seen it defined (basically, an ethnic group).
BTW aren't we supposed to "celebrate ethnicity" while we're deploring distinctions between "races?" [sigh] "'tis a puzzlement."